Everyone owns a whore house.
The Russians own a whore house.
The Chinese own a whore house.
When Brady said he wanted to save the beautiful young girl
he met at boys-town on the border
that puked on his dick
after she did too much coke
I told him through his tears at breakfast
on the other side of the border
I said, Brady, what is your name?
It's Brady.
Your grandfather owned a whore house
why would you want to?
Can't you see all the misery and pain it creates?
I said Brady, you own a whorehouse.
He stared at me dope eyed
slobbering over his plate like a sick beagle.
I whispered to the two young girls
that I loved them
just as we left.
All I did was sit at my table in front of the bar
and like clockwork
two whores
women to me
would sit on the barstools behind me
at the bar
and spread their precious legs
behind my head
I would whiff
and sip my Cuervo
throughout the night
while Brady had his fun.
I made sure he got the best in the house.
Seven shots later
I swaddled back into the cab
and my trusty driver
for breakfast on the other side of the border.
Everyone owns a whorehouse.
Those two young girls in boys-town own a whorehouse.
The cab driver owns a whorehouse.
The cleaning ladies own a whorehouse.
My Masseuse owns a whorehouse
and a damn fine one at that.
Everybody that doesn't know they own a whorehouse
wants to own a whorehouse.
Because it's all everyone ever wants.
Love
or the image of love in the flesh.
In the desolation of buying and selling love
it's a miserable life
Brady
you would want none of it.
Girls get pregnant and hearts get broken
dozens of torn and dirty sheets
tears were spilled on.
The pain of a new wrinkle
or the dull numbness of love
or no love.
you own a whorehouse, too.
As big as the Chinese or the Russians or the French
or female genital mutilation.
I see Natalie Wood on the dance floor
and I can't walk away.
-------------------------------------------------------
January 27, 2018
Thursday, March 08, 2018
Monday, April 04, 2016
Friday, February 11, 2011
THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION
THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION
An Essay:
A Universal Solution For Economics And Taxation Policy
We live in a world of consistently fluctuating variables. Yet our success is dependent on constancy and stability. Our lives are quickly disrupted when any single one, of the many constants we depend on, are threatened. All facets of our economic system, such as tax rates, bank rates, and profit margins, require us to incessantly recalibrate our budgets and our lives. Public forums are always cluttered with debate on what is ‘fair’ and what is not. We find it difficult to agree on where boundaries lie. How much of a tax is too much? How much of a tax is not enough? How do we achieve a fair balance and simplify a complex economic system so the entire system is equally beneficial to all, and in turn assures the success of all? Many economists and naysayers would conclude this is never possible. Without a dictatorial government, or a socialist system of redistribution, they would deem it impossible. I disagree. I believe within a Democratic system, a fair system of economics is not only attainable; it is the most effective economic system to sustain and grow a true democracy.
I now present the Seven Percent Solution. The 7% solution is a guideline for economic policy to balance the fair and mutually beneficial trade among government, business, and individuals in our society. This is not a mandate, nor is it a call for mandatory legislation. It is a guideline. A template to provide a center point of economic activity, easily understood by all, and just as easily implemented by all. The focal point of debate, and the question we struggle with the most is, where does the fine line set? Where does ‘not enough’ become ‘too much’? I conclude, through study and research, seven percent is the balance point. It is not only the beginning of a solution; it is also the continuation of a solution, ad infinitum. Why is seven percent so significant? And what makes it the perfect balancing point in economic theory? In order to explain the significance of the numerical value, we must define the parameters. And in order to define the parameters, we must begin by defining the subject matter. To begin, we will study three facets of our economic system that are critical to all: taxation, banking, and business profits.
Taxation, banking, and business profits are each very unique facets of our economic system. Yet at the same time they are very similar, and all three facets have a direct correlation with each other. Not only do they have a direct correlation with each other, but each is dependent on the other for its success or failure. A failure of the banking system will create a failure within the business community, which in turn creates a failure in the taxation system. This is most evident today in our current economic situation. A failure of the taxing system will create a failure in the business community, which in turn creates failures within the banking system. And any failure of a business will create a failure of the bank for additional revenue. And the failure of the business will create a failure to provide additional tax revenue for government. It is a symbiotic relationship. This is a relationship which in the recent past, has been both ignored and overlooked by all parties involved, and in turn has created failures for all three. The relationship is no different than the relationships we find in nature within a food chain. If one system breaks down, the entire system fails.
Such has been the recent economic downturn that has reverberated throughout the world. The balance has been tipped and therefore the scales have brought down the entire system. The failure of banks and government housing programs, along with the failures of greed, unscrupulous accounting, and the exceptionally risk laden investment practices of Wall Street and other financial markets, have created a failure of business and a decrease in tax revenues required to provide public services for individuals. Within the great failures of these three facets of our economy is one more group, whose relationship is also completely and directly symbiotic with the other three. The fourth group, are those that do not make decisions in government, do not own their own business, are not bankers, nor are they usually directly invested in financial markets. The fourth group is better known as the ‘consuming public’. In many ways they are just as powerful as the other three groups. They are the workforce of business, government, and banking. They are the investors in business, government, and banking. And they are the catalyst for the success or failures of business, banking, and government. All four groups are beneficial to each other, and also dependent on each other. Without the success of one group, the other three do not succeed. As in any relationship among partners, complete trust, honesty, and fairness are critical. Without trust, honesty, and fairness, all are doomed to fail miserably in time. And here is where we find ourselves now. Consumers do not trust banks, or government, or business. They have been lied to and swindled by all three. Public trust has been broken, and no one seems to know how to repair it.
For this economic and inter-relational quagmire, I present the Seven Percent Solution. Again, why seven percent? It is because seven percent is fair to all parties involved. Seven percent provides growth. It provides consistent growth without gouging each other. If we were all treated fairly with a Seven Percent Solution, we would all grow and succeed and benefit mutually. Please allow me to expound. In order to do so, I will focus on each group individually and explain the current situation, the required changes, and how it will benefit all.
It is best to begin with the banking system, which is currently where much of our problem has developed. Banks control two very important facets of our lives, the interest rate at which we borrow money, and the interest rate we earn on our savings. First, we will analyze the interest rate at which we borrow money. Interest on loans will vary extensively. Yet it is the same money, although it may be used for many different things. We pay interest on our home loans, our auto loans, our business loans, and our consumer loans. The balloon loans are the reason many have lost their homes. A low ‘teaser’ loan which eventually led to an inflated loan rate based on rising Federal loan rates. Consumer loans were also hijacked with low teaser loans that eventually ballooned into extensive loan rates when banks invested themselves into a failing corner. Businesses have also struggled because growth capital ground to a halt as banks refused to loan money and the rates they had provided businesses on their credit was increased. Yet the same banks continue to borrow money from the Federal Treasury at discount rates, most often below 4%. This inconsistency in loan rates has created panic and failure. There was a time when anything over ten percent was considered ‘loan sharking’. That is no longer the case. Banks consistently strap consumers and business with rates well above 10% while borrowing from our own government with our own Federal dollars at 2-3%. So what is considered a ‘fair’ loan rate? On a home loan 7% is fair. On an auto loan 7% is fair. On a business loan 7% is fair. On a consumer credit card loan 7% is fair. This is the Seven Percent Solution.
There was a time when returns on Savings Accounts paid 6-7%. Lately the average return on a Savings Account is 1 ½ to 3%. Maybe slightly higher on longer term CD’s. Yet the average stock market gain annually has been 10% for decades. So what is a fair gain on money you have invested in a bank to help you later in life when you need it? I say it is 7%. If you are required to pay 7% interest on money you borrow, wouldn’t it be only fair to receive 7% interest on money you loan? Yes, it would. This is fair, honest and a pillar of trust. And it provides you with consistency you can budget on, grow, save and succeed. But that is not what our monstrous banking system has morphed into. Instead they have transformed from a Service Trust where we hold our money and transfer our funds, to a greedy megalomaniacal system that leeches every cent from us any chance it gets. They bombard us daily with fees and gimmicks to cover their slight of hand with our earnings. All this is achieved with the blessings of our State and Federal governments. Yes, banks should be compensated for handling our financial transactions. But the money we invest with them is for them to invest with others. It is for them to invest in markets where their returns will achieve 10% or more so they can profit and pay for their expenses of handling our money. And if the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are providing them with money at 3-5% interest, then it is not unfair for us to receive 7% interest on money we provide them to make their investments. The trust has been broken. Banks are not satisfied with profiting enough to pay their employees, grow their businesses, and pay their expenses. They want to get fatter, and the management at the top wants to have more and more--- at our expense.
You don’t have to show a year end profit to grow a successful business! Read that last sentence again, because it may come as a surprise to many. But it is a fact. That is not to say you don’t have to make a profit on the goods and services you sell. In order to survive, you certainly do. But as long as you make enough profit to pay your employees, and your expenses, and you use whatever else is left to re-invest in your own company, you don’t have to show a year end profit after expenses to have a growing and successful business. The ‘game’ of quarterly, or year end profit after expenses, is strictly a Wall Street game. It’s a game that is costing us all very dearly. Let me explain. There are two types of profit. One type of profit is necessary. The other type of profit is manufactured to achieve prominence in the trading pits of Wall Street. Making a profit to pay all your bills and reinvest in your company is essential. You must make a profit on your goods and services to survive. But the quarterly and year end profits companies report to Wall Street are ambiguous at best. If your company forecasts an earnings profit and you achieve it, your stock price goes up. The stockholders are happy and the companies that pay dividends also keep their stockholders even happier. But because these companies report a profit to Wall Street, does not necessarily mean they are running at a profit. They could be holding huge debt which they are not paying down on, just to report a greater profit to the stockholders. Most companies run on debt. Few companies run with all debts paid up to date. The small few that do, are the companies that are actually making a profit after expenses are paid.
This is the dark dirty secret no one will tell you. Instead, the real picture is hidden in financial geek speak of P/E, equity, asset, and other ratios that need to be deciphered before anything is easily understood. So what is a fair return on investment on a company in the markets? A fair return is 7%. If all the accounting is above board and the debt is being reduced, or remains consistent from reinvestments in the company, then a fair annual growth is 7%. That’s not to say companies shouldn’t grow at a higher rate, or sometimes fall below the 7% rate of annual growth. But 7% annual growth is progress. 7% should be the median where positive annual growth is judged. The formulas for judging company growth on Wall Street are skewed. Without a level playing field to judge true progress, all financial reports are ambiguous and more often than not, deceptive. This creates wide swings in stock prices that are not true to the actual health of the companies involved. And it creates deceptions that create failures and fraud exemplified by such names as Enron, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, AIG, and many others that have failed or have been prosecuted for deceptive trade practices. The pressure to report consistent quarterly gains to satisfy investors and stockholders leads to deception and fraud. A business that makes a fair profit on goods and services, pays all of their employees and expenses, reduces their debt, uses a portion of those profits to reinvest in their company, and can still report a consistent annual profit of 7% at the end of the year . . . is a company that is strong and will continue to succeed.
And so what is a fair profit margin on sales of goods and services? A fair profit margin is 7%. Can all companies survive on a 7% profit margin on good and services? No, they can not. Some companies have a much higher overhead and require a higher profit margin. But if the overall ratio of overhead to profit is 7%, the Seven Percent Solution provides a guideline for success. Now we all know that some businesses sell their products at much higher margins than 7%. Some companies can get away with selling their products at hundreds of percentage points of margin, even after covering overhead costs. But generally, this means that a company has an exclusivity on a product or service and minimal or no competition. In some cases, such as intellectual patents, this may be acceptable. But if the high profit margin is due to market manipulation, monopolization, government favoritism, protectionism or cronyism, then the exorbitant profit margins are inflated and we all suffer. Other companies take the opposite approach. They prefer to sell in quantity at margins below 3%. This can also have an adverse effect on the economics of the industry concerned. It creates an artificial market, decimates competition, and eventually the company fails, because it cannot survive or pay operating expenses on such minimal margins. These high and low extremes in profit margins are what have created such an imbalanced distribution of wealth in our society. The low margins have resulted in bankruptcies and higher costs passed down to consumers, a stifling of competition where large corporations easily out compete smaller family based businesses, and an exporting of jobs to struggling economies that can afford to pay minimal wages. The exorbitant margins through cronyism, monopolies, protectionism, government subsidies, government favoritism, and market manipulation have created a wealthy class based on artificial or manipulated economics.
And finally, we arrive at the third group in our economic analysis, government and government taxation policy. The best examples of government subscribing to the Seven Percent Solution are State Governments. The average State Sales Tax is 7%. In States where State Sales Taxes (or adding in additional State Income Taxes) exceed 7%, we find the States struggling to survive. In California, New York, and other States where Sales and State Income taxes combined exceed the 7% rate, we find businesses struggling to survive or leaving the States for more fertile ground. Or we find consumers so over-taxed, their economies are failing in every responsibility of government; Social Services, Infrastructure and Development. On the Federal level, the taxing system has become a quagmire and a nightmare. The complexity for a solution astounds economists and politicians alike. Yet here again, a Seven Percent Solution is not only viable, but it is the most sustainable answer to a system wrought with loopholes and legal verbiage that is incomprehensible to everyone except the most astute. The first and most important requirement for a taxing system to be fair for everyone, is for everyone to pay into the taxing system. In this way, tax equity becomes everyone’s concern, not just those that pay into the system.
The current debate continues deciding on whether a Federal Tax system should be based on Income or based on a VAT tax (Value Added Tax). VAT taxes are based on the sale or purchase of products or services (much like a sales tax). The problem with VAT taxing is the complexity of accounting for VAT taxes. And the susceptibility for fraud is even more prevalent than in our current 'Income' taxing system. VAT taxing is another opportunity for the very wealthy who can afford to shelter a portion of their incomes in places where the reach of VAT does not touch it. They never spend it. They simply hoard it and it never reaches the government coffers. This is why VAT taxing is so popular with the wealthy. They will then have a legal shelter for their riches and the government will never touch it as long as they don’t see it. Our Federal taxing system is a plethora of mixed regulations, both inconsistent and benign with partiality. The question most often asked is: where do we begin to reform our Federal tax system? A good starting point would be with our current Non-Profit status. Non-profit status has been consistently abused. Once again, as in those that are not required to pay an Income Tax because of their lower wage bracket, it is a shelter unfairly shifting the tax burden to others. Non-profits have the right to vote on issues affecting those that are paying taxes. If Non-Profits have the voice of a representative voting, then they should also contribute to the tax system. The best guideline of fair taxing comes from our very own Constitution. In Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution there is a phrase that defines the Federal government’s role in taxation. The phrase is ‘. . . uniform throughout the United States’. These four simple words have been misaligned and ignored by our Federal government for centuries now. But it is the one phrase in the Constitution that defines our Founders concept of equality. And it specifically refers to the Congressional power to levy taxes. So the answer of taxation becomes much less complex. All citizens should pay Federal taxes regardless of their economic stature or their non-profit business status. And what would be a fair Federal Tax rate? Yes, Seven Percent would be a fair tax rate for all citizens to pay the Federal government to provide for our defense and our general welfare.
Why, you ask, should churches, social organizations and those with meager income pay a 7% Federal Tax? Because by paying their share of federal taxes they become Federal taxpayers and stand on equal footing with all other taxpayers. Income is still the best system for Federal taxation. Abolish Social Security taxes on Income and Federal Withholding taxes on Income and collect a flat 7% tax on Income from all citizens and registered business entities without exception. This is a ‘fair’ Federal tax. All citizens and business entities would have an equal stake in how their money is spent and all voters would have an equal voice in their government. If income is invested in any type of savings, then it should not be taxed until it is withdrawn. If income is donated to charity, then it is not taxed. The government would still receive a 7% revenue from the charitable organization through the abolishment of non-profit status. The 7% revenue from charitable organizations would go into a strategic fund that would provide for Foreign Aid to other countries. Foreign Aid should be non-existent except for funding coming directly from the strategic Foreign Aid Fund provided by the 7% tax coming directly from charity organizations and indirectly from the income of taxpayers donating to charity organizations. Foreign Aid should not be a political tool, but it should be a charitable contribution from taxpayers for countries in need.
A 7% flat tax on income from all citizens and business entities is the foundation of a fair Federal taxing system and it is ‘uniform throughout the United States’. Government, with taxpayer approval, can create a tax relief of 3% for investment in education, relieving some of the tax burden on those paying to educate themselves or their offspring, while at the same time promoting education as a national priority. 7% is a base rate. For those with incomes above the national average, an additional ascending income tax would be appropriate. A flat 7% tax rate on all products and services sold in the United States from other foreign countries would not only simplify our system of import tariffs, it would also provide a level competitive playing field for all countries wishing to sell their goods and services in the United States. It may also inspire other countries to do the same. A 7% preferential import tariff for countries that also charge us a 7% import tariff, is a good incentive to promote fair trade throughout the world. Corporations and businesses should only be charged a 7% Federal Income tax rate on income and profits made here in the United States, or profits brought into the United States from their subsidiaries in foreign countries. Profits made from their subsidiaries that remained in the countries where the subsidiaries are located, would be exempt from the Federal taxes here in the States. This would be a fair taxing system for corporations. It would require them to pay the taxes on their income from their subsidiaries, in the countries where the subsidiary resides, and at the tax rates of the countries where the subsidiary is located. This would also level the playing field for companies deciding on whether to do business here or abroad. Corporations would no longer be able to shelter profits overseas, because if the income and profits were made here in the United States, then they would be taxed here in the United States. All corporations doing business in the United States, whether foreign or domestic would be taxed at the same 7% base tax rate on all income and profits.
The Seven Percent Solution would require much stricter record keeping and monitoring of the income of citizens and businesses. But it would also provide a consistency and fairness we have yet to experience in our Democracy. The last time the nations Federal spending to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio was near 7% was in 1907. Since then wars would double the ratio. And after the war the ratio would significantly reduce, but never to previous levels. Government would find comfort in spending more. Currently the ratio of Federal Government spending to GDP is almost 50%. This is certainly economic suicide. The Federal government should also live by the 7% solution when it comes to annual Federal spending. Seven percent of the 12 trillion dollar National Annual Income is just under a trillion dollars. This is certainly a reasonable figure for a Federal government to operate on. An increase in National Income would mean an increase in tax revenue and vice versa.
UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE STATES
The Constitution requires our Congress to provide for two very important tasks with our tax dollars. It requires Congress to provide us with ‘National Defense’ and the ‘General Welfare’ of citizens. I prefer to define these as International Spending and Domestic Spending. Each should have equal revenue from the Federal coffers. Each should receive their equal share of the 7% of the Federal Budget. Dedicating an equal share to both the obligations required by our Constitution would dismiss the arguments and debates on how much of our tax money should go to Defense and how much should go to Domestic programs. Defense spending would include our intelligence agencies, law enforcement and military. Domestic spending would include the operating budget of the Federal government and social services. States should also be budgeted a single annual revenue payment from the Federal government based on the ‘uniform throughout the States’ Constitutional mandate. Each State would receive its annual appropriation from the Federal government based on a calculation of State population and area. This would eradicate the ‘honey’ deals, pork barrel and behind the scenes chicanery so prevalent in Congressional disbursement of funding to the States.
I sense the dissidents cry, ‘but 7% of all of our incomes is not enough to run our government and provide our current social services’. In order for the Seven Percent Solution to work for taxation of Income and for Federal spending on social services two things must occur. Both are also symbiotic one with the other. First we must understand that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, and Workmen’ Compensation, all provide the same basic service. They all provide for the ‘General Welfare’ of our citizens. In effect they should all fall under the same bureaucratic agency. By understanding that all of these programs achieve a similar goal, we can reduce redundancy and inefficiency in government. And in turn, provide a better system of social services for the general welfare. But to continue with the status quo will not suffice. Our system of Social Security and other so-called ‘entitlement benefits’ is neither realistic nor economically feasible in the long term. It will only burden us with more debt and a possible future failure of our economic system and our government.
We require a new system of operating to provide the beneficial services required in times of aging, ill health or other hardships where government may provide a cushion of support. On this note, I return to our taxing system. And to continue I must begin to provide firm numbers to work with. The best ‘standard’ numerical factor to work with is the ‘Average Individual Income’. The Average Individual Income is the Income level where an individual receives enough income to provide housing rent or mortgage costs, transportation costs, insurance costs, food costs, cost of utilities and a portion of income for clothing or other annual costs. A reasonable individual annual gross income of $30,000.00 in 2011 may provide those needs. This figure, the Average Individual Income, is important for two reasons. First, it becomes the basis for where the 7% Income Tax bracket is incremented to the next tax bracket. And second, it provides a reasonable figure for individuals to earn a comfortable living. The key word here is ‘individuals’. This does not include a spouse or children.
This leads us to the second aspect of the symbiotic relationship required for the Seven Percent Solution to work. Out tax codes are complex, cumbersome and cater to special interests. This has to be stopped. Again we turn to our Constitution. A Federal Tax Code must be ‘uniform throughout the States’. This means that any Federal Income Tax Code has to apply to all entities across the board. This also means that the same Tax Code brackets that apply to individuals should also apply to Corporations, Business entities, Capital Gains and any other organization profiting from Income. Furthermore, the differentiations between filing Single, Jointly or as a Head of Household needs to abolished. Each individual, Corporation or business entity, would all pay the same base 7% Income Tax. An ascending tax scale would increase for those with a gross income over $30,000.00 annually. I’ve outlined an ascending tax scale which I will explain after this final point.
In order to provide for what we now classify as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other General Welfare benefits, we must develop a different system of revenue streaming. For those who earn ‘individually’ less than $240,000.00 annually, an additional 7% of Income is collected and invested in U. S. Treasuries as a savings account to provide for future retirement at 65 or medical expenses after retirement. It is important this revenue can ‘only’ be invested in Treasuries and not in other riskier market investments. The investment savings account will provide for retirement funds and medical expenses. If the total, including interest accrued is not used upon the death of the individual, then the revenue would be transferred to their beneficiary. Anyone with an income of over $240,000.00 would have the option of ‘opting out’ of the retirement and medical savings account, but when reaching their retirement age, would not be compensated by the Federal government for any retirement or medical benefits.
Here is the breakdown of the tax brackets and the percentage of income sent to the Federal government. This taxing Code and tax brackets applies to individuals, Corporations, Capital Gains and Business entities. Non-profits pay only the 7% base Income Tax. Deductions may be provided for children for anyone above the 7% tax bracket. Keep in mind that this tax system replaces all Payroll deductions of both employees and employers.
* Note: Total charitable deductions allowed for all tax brackets is 7% of gross income. Total legitimate deductions allowed is equivalent to the percentage of the tax bracket. In other words if you are in the 35% tax bracket, you are allowed a maximum of 35% of legitimate deductions. Hence you would only pay taxes on the Income sum after deductions. The 7% Retirement Medical Savings Investment Account tax would be taxed on gross income (before deductions).
Under $30,000.00 Gross Annually ……….7% ........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $60,000.00 Gross Annually ………..14%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $120,000.00 Gross Annually………..21%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $240,000.00 Gross Annually ………..28%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $480,000.00 Gross Annually ………..35%
Under $960,000.00 Gross Annually ………..42%
Optional Revenue Tax Bracket for International conflict where additional military spending is required:
Under $1,920,000.00 Gross Annually ……...49%
I’ll leave it to the number crunchers to calculate the difference in tax revenues between our current system of taxation injustice, and the simplified fair taxing system of a Seven Percent Solution. I do know a Seven Percent solution for banking, business and taxation would rekindle the trust, honesty, and fairness we all long for. And in turn it will provide a simple formula with consistent results, and the potential for consistent growth and success for everyone to share. Comments and suggestions encouraged. Please post them on my blog at: http://myspace.com/txmax
It's now up to you.
tmk
February 11, 2011
Revised August 17, 2011
An Essay:
A Universal Solution For Economics And Taxation Policy
We live in a world of consistently fluctuating variables. Yet our success is dependent on constancy and stability. Our lives are quickly disrupted when any single one, of the many constants we depend on, are threatened. All facets of our economic system, such as tax rates, bank rates, and profit margins, require us to incessantly recalibrate our budgets and our lives. Public forums are always cluttered with debate on what is ‘fair’ and what is not. We find it difficult to agree on where boundaries lie. How much of a tax is too much? How much of a tax is not enough? How do we achieve a fair balance and simplify a complex economic system so the entire system is equally beneficial to all, and in turn assures the success of all? Many economists and naysayers would conclude this is never possible. Without a dictatorial government, or a socialist system of redistribution, they would deem it impossible. I disagree. I believe within a Democratic system, a fair system of economics is not only attainable; it is the most effective economic system to sustain and grow a true democracy.
I now present the Seven Percent Solution. The 7% solution is a guideline for economic policy to balance the fair and mutually beneficial trade among government, business, and individuals in our society. This is not a mandate, nor is it a call for mandatory legislation. It is a guideline. A template to provide a center point of economic activity, easily understood by all, and just as easily implemented by all. The focal point of debate, and the question we struggle with the most is, where does the fine line set? Where does ‘not enough’ become ‘too much’? I conclude, through study and research, seven percent is the balance point. It is not only the beginning of a solution; it is also the continuation of a solution, ad infinitum. Why is seven percent so significant? And what makes it the perfect balancing point in economic theory? In order to explain the significance of the numerical value, we must define the parameters. And in order to define the parameters, we must begin by defining the subject matter. To begin, we will study three facets of our economic system that are critical to all: taxation, banking, and business profits.
Taxation, banking, and business profits are each very unique facets of our economic system. Yet at the same time they are very similar, and all three facets have a direct correlation with each other. Not only do they have a direct correlation with each other, but each is dependent on the other for its success or failure. A failure of the banking system will create a failure within the business community, which in turn creates a failure in the taxation system. This is most evident today in our current economic situation. A failure of the taxing system will create a failure in the business community, which in turn creates failures within the banking system. And any failure of a business will create a failure of the bank for additional revenue. And the failure of the business will create a failure to provide additional tax revenue for government. It is a symbiotic relationship. This is a relationship which in the recent past, has been both ignored and overlooked by all parties involved, and in turn has created failures for all three. The relationship is no different than the relationships we find in nature within a food chain. If one system breaks down, the entire system fails.
Such has been the recent economic downturn that has reverberated throughout the world. The balance has been tipped and therefore the scales have brought down the entire system. The failure of banks and government housing programs, along with the failures of greed, unscrupulous accounting, and the exceptionally risk laden investment practices of Wall Street and other financial markets, have created a failure of business and a decrease in tax revenues required to provide public services for individuals. Within the great failures of these three facets of our economy is one more group, whose relationship is also completely and directly symbiotic with the other three. The fourth group, are those that do not make decisions in government, do not own their own business, are not bankers, nor are they usually directly invested in financial markets. The fourth group is better known as the ‘consuming public’. In many ways they are just as powerful as the other three groups. They are the workforce of business, government, and banking. They are the investors in business, government, and banking. And they are the catalyst for the success or failures of business, banking, and government. All four groups are beneficial to each other, and also dependent on each other. Without the success of one group, the other three do not succeed. As in any relationship among partners, complete trust, honesty, and fairness are critical. Without trust, honesty, and fairness, all are doomed to fail miserably in time. And here is where we find ourselves now. Consumers do not trust banks, or government, or business. They have been lied to and swindled by all three. Public trust has been broken, and no one seems to know how to repair it.
For this economic and inter-relational quagmire, I present the Seven Percent Solution. Again, why seven percent? It is because seven percent is fair to all parties involved. Seven percent provides growth. It provides consistent growth without gouging each other. If we were all treated fairly with a Seven Percent Solution, we would all grow and succeed and benefit mutually. Please allow me to expound. In order to do so, I will focus on each group individually and explain the current situation, the required changes, and how it will benefit all.
It is best to begin with the banking system, which is currently where much of our problem has developed. Banks control two very important facets of our lives, the interest rate at which we borrow money, and the interest rate we earn on our savings. First, we will analyze the interest rate at which we borrow money. Interest on loans will vary extensively. Yet it is the same money, although it may be used for many different things. We pay interest on our home loans, our auto loans, our business loans, and our consumer loans. The balloon loans are the reason many have lost their homes. A low ‘teaser’ loan which eventually led to an inflated loan rate based on rising Federal loan rates. Consumer loans were also hijacked with low teaser loans that eventually ballooned into extensive loan rates when banks invested themselves into a failing corner. Businesses have also struggled because growth capital ground to a halt as banks refused to loan money and the rates they had provided businesses on their credit was increased. Yet the same banks continue to borrow money from the Federal Treasury at discount rates, most often below 4%. This inconsistency in loan rates has created panic and failure. There was a time when anything over ten percent was considered ‘loan sharking’. That is no longer the case. Banks consistently strap consumers and business with rates well above 10% while borrowing from our own government with our own Federal dollars at 2-3%. So what is considered a ‘fair’ loan rate? On a home loan 7% is fair. On an auto loan 7% is fair. On a business loan 7% is fair. On a consumer credit card loan 7% is fair. This is the Seven Percent Solution.
There was a time when returns on Savings Accounts paid 6-7%. Lately the average return on a Savings Account is 1 ½ to 3%. Maybe slightly higher on longer term CD’s. Yet the average stock market gain annually has been 10% for decades. So what is a fair gain on money you have invested in a bank to help you later in life when you need it? I say it is 7%. If you are required to pay 7% interest on money you borrow, wouldn’t it be only fair to receive 7% interest on money you loan? Yes, it would. This is fair, honest and a pillar of trust. And it provides you with consistency you can budget on, grow, save and succeed. But that is not what our monstrous banking system has morphed into. Instead they have transformed from a Service Trust where we hold our money and transfer our funds, to a greedy megalomaniacal system that leeches every cent from us any chance it gets. They bombard us daily with fees and gimmicks to cover their slight of hand with our earnings. All this is achieved with the blessings of our State and Federal governments. Yes, banks should be compensated for handling our financial transactions. But the money we invest with them is for them to invest with others. It is for them to invest in markets where their returns will achieve 10% or more so they can profit and pay for their expenses of handling our money. And if the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are providing them with money at 3-5% interest, then it is not unfair for us to receive 7% interest on money we provide them to make their investments. The trust has been broken. Banks are not satisfied with profiting enough to pay their employees, grow their businesses, and pay their expenses. They want to get fatter, and the management at the top wants to have more and more--- at our expense.
You don’t have to show a year end profit to grow a successful business! Read that last sentence again, because it may come as a surprise to many. But it is a fact. That is not to say you don’t have to make a profit on the goods and services you sell. In order to survive, you certainly do. But as long as you make enough profit to pay your employees, and your expenses, and you use whatever else is left to re-invest in your own company, you don’t have to show a year end profit after expenses to have a growing and successful business. The ‘game’ of quarterly, or year end profit after expenses, is strictly a Wall Street game. It’s a game that is costing us all very dearly. Let me explain. There are two types of profit. One type of profit is necessary. The other type of profit is manufactured to achieve prominence in the trading pits of Wall Street. Making a profit to pay all your bills and reinvest in your company is essential. You must make a profit on your goods and services to survive. But the quarterly and year end profits companies report to Wall Street are ambiguous at best. If your company forecasts an earnings profit and you achieve it, your stock price goes up. The stockholders are happy and the companies that pay dividends also keep their stockholders even happier. But because these companies report a profit to Wall Street, does not necessarily mean they are running at a profit. They could be holding huge debt which they are not paying down on, just to report a greater profit to the stockholders. Most companies run on debt. Few companies run with all debts paid up to date. The small few that do, are the companies that are actually making a profit after expenses are paid.
This is the dark dirty secret no one will tell you. Instead, the real picture is hidden in financial geek speak of P/E, equity, asset, and other ratios that need to be deciphered before anything is easily understood. So what is a fair return on investment on a company in the markets? A fair return is 7%. If all the accounting is above board and the debt is being reduced, or remains consistent from reinvestments in the company, then a fair annual growth is 7%. That’s not to say companies shouldn’t grow at a higher rate, or sometimes fall below the 7% rate of annual growth. But 7% annual growth is progress. 7% should be the median where positive annual growth is judged. The formulas for judging company growth on Wall Street are skewed. Without a level playing field to judge true progress, all financial reports are ambiguous and more often than not, deceptive. This creates wide swings in stock prices that are not true to the actual health of the companies involved. And it creates deceptions that create failures and fraud exemplified by such names as Enron, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, AIG, and many others that have failed or have been prosecuted for deceptive trade practices. The pressure to report consistent quarterly gains to satisfy investors and stockholders leads to deception and fraud. A business that makes a fair profit on goods and services, pays all of their employees and expenses, reduces their debt, uses a portion of those profits to reinvest in their company, and can still report a consistent annual profit of 7% at the end of the year . . . is a company that is strong and will continue to succeed.
And so what is a fair profit margin on sales of goods and services? A fair profit margin is 7%. Can all companies survive on a 7% profit margin on good and services? No, they can not. Some companies have a much higher overhead and require a higher profit margin. But if the overall ratio of overhead to profit is 7%, the Seven Percent Solution provides a guideline for success. Now we all know that some businesses sell their products at much higher margins than 7%. Some companies can get away with selling their products at hundreds of percentage points of margin, even after covering overhead costs. But generally, this means that a company has an exclusivity on a product or service and minimal or no competition. In some cases, such as intellectual patents, this may be acceptable. But if the high profit margin is due to market manipulation, monopolization, government favoritism, protectionism or cronyism, then the exorbitant profit margins are inflated and we all suffer. Other companies take the opposite approach. They prefer to sell in quantity at margins below 3%. This can also have an adverse effect on the economics of the industry concerned. It creates an artificial market, decimates competition, and eventually the company fails, because it cannot survive or pay operating expenses on such minimal margins. These high and low extremes in profit margins are what have created such an imbalanced distribution of wealth in our society. The low margins have resulted in bankruptcies and higher costs passed down to consumers, a stifling of competition where large corporations easily out compete smaller family based businesses, and an exporting of jobs to struggling economies that can afford to pay minimal wages. The exorbitant margins through cronyism, monopolies, protectionism, government subsidies, government favoritism, and market manipulation have created a wealthy class based on artificial or manipulated economics.
And finally, we arrive at the third group in our economic analysis, government and government taxation policy. The best examples of government subscribing to the Seven Percent Solution are State Governments. The average State Sales Tax is 7%. In States where State Sales Taxes (or adding in additional State Income Taxes) exceed 7%, we find the States struggling to survive. In California, New York, and other States where Sales and State Income taxes combined exceed the 7% rate, we find businesses struggling to survive or leaving the States for more fertile ground. Or we find consumers so over-taxed, their economies are failing in every responsibility of government; Social Services, Infrastructure and Development. On the Federal level, the taxing system has become a quagmire and a nightmare. The complexity for a solution astounds economists and politicians alike. Yet here again, a Seven Percent Solution is not only viable, but it is the most sustainable answer to a system wrought with loopholes and legal verbiage that is incomprehensible to everyone except the most astute. The first and most important requirement for a taxing system to be fair for everyone, is for everyone to pay into the taxing system. In this way, tax equity becomes everyone’s concern, not just those that pay into the system.
The current debate continues deciding on whether a Federal Tax system should be based on Income or based on a VAT tax (Value Added Tax). VAT taxes are based on the sale or purchase of products or services (much like a sales tax). The problem with VAT taxing is the complexity of accounting for VAT taxes. And the susceptibility for fraud is even more prevalent than in our current 'Income' taxing system. VAT taxing is another opportunity for the very wealthy who can afford to shelter a portion of their incomes in places where the reach of VAT does not touch it. They never spend it. They simply hoard it and it never reaches the government coffers. This is why VAT taxing is so popular with the wealthy. They will then have a legal shelter for their riches and the government will never touch it as long as they don’t see it. Our Federal taxing system is a plethora of mixed regulations, both inconsistent and benign with partiality. The question most often asked is: where do we begin to reform our Federal tax system? A good starting point would be with our current Non-Profit status. Non-profit status has been consistently abused. Once again, as in those that are not required to pay an Income Tax because of their lower wage bracket, it is a shelter unfairly shifting the tax burden to others. Non-profits have the right to vote on issues affecting those that are paying taxes. If Non-Profits have the voice of a representative voting, then they should also contribute to the tax system. The best guideline of fair taxing comes from our very own Constitution. In Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution there is a phrase that defines the Federal government’s role in taxation. The phrase is ‘. . . uniform throughout the United States’. These four simple words have been misaligned and ignored by our Federal government for centuries now. But it is the one phrase in the Constitution that defines our Founders concept of equality. And it specifically refers to the Congressional power to levy taxes. So the answer of taxation becomes much less complex. All citizens should pay Federal taxes regardless of their economic stature or their non-profit business status. And what would be a fair Federal Tax rate? Yes, Seven Percent would be a fair tax rate for all citizens to pay the Federal government to provide for our defense and our general welfare.
Why, you ask, should churches, social organizations and those with meager income pay a 7% Federal Tax? Because by paying their share of federal taxes they become Federal taxpayers and stand on equal footing with all other taxpayers. Income is still the best system for Federal taxation. Abolish Social Security taxes on Income and Federal Withholding taxes on Income and collect a flat 7% tax on Income from all citizens and registered business entities without exception. This is a ‘fair’ Federal tax. All citizens and business entities would have an equal stake in how their money is spent and all voters would have an equal voice in their government. If income is invested in any type of savings, then it should not be taxed until it is withdrawn. If income is donated to charity, then it is not taxed. The government would still receive a 7% revenue from the charitable organization through the abolishment of non-profit status. The 7% revenue from charitable organizations would go into a strategic fund that would provide for Foreign Aid to other countries. Foreign Aid should be non-existent except for funding coming directly from the strategic Foreign Aid Fund provided by the 7% tax coming directly from charity organizations and indirectly from the income of taxpayers donating to charity organizations. Foreign Aid should not be a political tool, but it should be a charitable contribution from taxpayers for countries in need.
A 7% flat tax on income from all citizens and business entities is the foundation of a fair Federal taxing system and it is ‘uniform throughout the United States’. Government, with taxpayer approval, can create a tax relief of 3% for investment in education, relieving some of the tax burden on those paying to educate themselves or their offspring, while at the same time promoting education as a national priority. 7% is a base rate. For those with incomes above the national average, an additional ascending income tax would be appropriate. A flat 7% tax rate on all products and services sold in the United States from other foreign countries would not only simplify our system of import tariffs, it would also provide a level competitive playing field for all countries wishing to sell their goods and services in the United States. It may also inspire other countries to do the same. A 7% preferential import tariff for countries that also charge us a 7% import tariff, is a good incentive to promote fair trade throughout the world. Corporations and businesses should only be charged a 7% Federal Income tax rate on income and profits made here in the United States, or profits brought into the United States from their subsidiaries in foreign countries. Profits made from their subsidiaries that remained in the countries where the subsidiaries are located, would be exempt from the Federal taxes here in the States. This would be a fair taxing system for corporations. It would require them to pay the taxes on their income from their subsidiaries, in the countries where the subsidiary resides, and at the tax rates of the countries where the subsidiary is located. This would also level the playing field for companies deciding on whether to do business here or abroad. Corporations would no longer be able to shelter profits overseas, because if the income and profits were made here in the United States, then they would be taxed here in the United States. All corporations doing business in the United States, whether foreign or domestic would be taxed at the same 7% base tax rate on all income and profits.
The Seven Percent Solution would require much stricter record keeping and monitoring of the income of citizens and businesses. But it would also provide a consistency and fairness we have yet to experience in our Democracy. The last time the nations Federal spending to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio was near 7% was in 1907. Since then wars would double the ratio. And after the war the ratio would significantly reduce, but never to previous levels. Government would find comfort in spending more. Currently the ratio of Federal Government spending to GDP is almost 50%. This is certainly economic suicide. The Federal government should also live by the 7% solution when it comes to annual Federal spending. Seven percent of the 12 trillion dollar National Annual Income is just under a trillion dollars. This is certainly a reasonable figure for a Federal government to operate on. An increase in National Income would mean an increase in tax revenue and vice versa.
UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE STATES
The Constitution requires our Congress to provide for two very important tasks with our tax dollars. It requires Congress to provide us with ‘National Defense’ and the ‘General Welfare’ of citizens. I prefer to define these as International Spending and Domestic Spending. Each should have equal revenue from the Federal coffers. Each should receive their equal share of the 7% of the Federal Budget. Dedicating an equal share to both the obligations required by our Constitution would dismiss the arguments and debates on how much of our tax money should go to Defense and how much should go to Domestic programs. Defense spending would include our intelligence agencies, law enforcement and military. Domestic spending would include the operating budget of the Federal government and social services. States should also be budgeted a single annual revenue payment from the Federal government based on the ‘uniform throughout the States’ Constitutional mandate. Each State would receive its annual appropriation from the Federal government based on a calculation of State population and area. This would eradicate the ‘honey’ deals, pork barrel and behind the scenes chicanery so prevalent in Congressional disbursement of funding to the States.
I sense the dissidents cry, ‘but 7% of all of our incomes is not enough to run our government and provide our current social services’. In order for the Seven Percent Solution to work for taxation of Income and for Federal spending on social services two things must occur. Both are also symbiotic one with the other. First we must understand that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, and Workmen’ Compensation, all provide the same basic service. They all provide for the ‘General Welfare’ of our citizens. In effect they should all fall under the same bureaucratic agency. By understanding that all of these programs achieve a similar goal, we can reduce redundancy and inefficiency in government. And in turn, provide a better system of social services for the general welfare. But to continue with the status quo will not suffice. Our system of Social Security and other so-called ‘entitlement benefits’ is neither realistic nor economically feasible in the long term. It will only burden us with more debt and a possible future failure of our economic system and our government.
We require a new system of operating to provide the beneficial services required in times of aging, ill health or other hardships where government may provide a cushion of support. On this note, I return to our taxing system. And to continue I must begin to provide firm numbers to work with. The best ‘standard’ numerical factor to work with is the ‘Average Individual Income’. The Average Individual Income is the Income level where an individual receives enough income to provide housing rent or mortgage costs, transportation costs, insurance costs, food costs, cost of utilities and a portion of income for clothing or other annual costs. A reasonable individual annual gross income of $30,000.00 in 2011 may provide those needs. This figure, the Average Individual Income, is important for two reasons. First, it becomes the basis for where the 7% Income Tax bracket is incremented to the next tax bracket. And second, it provides a reasonable figure for individuals to earn a comfortable living. The key word here is ‘individuals’. This does not include a spouse or children.
This leads us to the second aspect of the symbiotic relationship required for the Seven Percent Solution to work. Out tax codes are complex, cumbersome and cater to special interests. This has to be stopped. Again we turn to our Constitution. A Federal Tax Code must be ‘uniform throughout the States’. This means that any Federal Income Tax Code has to apply to all entities across the board. This also means that the same Tax Code brackets that apply to individuals should also apply to Corporations, Business entities, Capital Gains and any other organization profiting from Income. Furthermore, the differentiations between filing Single, Jointly or as a Head of Household needs to abolished. Each individual, Corporation or business entity, would all pay the same base 7% Income Tax. An ascending tax scale would increase for those with a gross income over $30,000.00 annually. I’ve outlined an ascending tax scale which I will explain after this final point.
In order to provide for what we now classify as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other General Welfare benefits, we must develop a different system of revenue streaming. For those who earn ‘individually’ less than $240,000.00 annually, an additional 7% of Income is collected and invested in U. S. Treasuries as a savings account to provide for future retirement at 65 or medical expenses after retirement. It is important this revenue can ‘only’ be invested in Treasuries and not in other riskier market investments. The investment savings account will provide for retirement funds and medical expenses. If the total, including interest accrued is not used upon the death of the individual, then the revenue would be transferred to their beneficiary. Anyone with an income of over $240,000.00 would have the option of ‘opting out’ of the retirement and medical savings account, but when reaching their retirement age, would not be compensated by the Federal government for any retirement or medical benefits.
Here is the breakdown of the tax brackets and the percentage of income sent to the Federal government. This taxing Code and tax brackets applies to individuals, Corporations, Capital Gains and Business entities. Non-profits pay only the 7% base Income Tax. Deductions may be provided for children for anyone above the 7% tax bracket. Keep in mind that this tax system replaces all Payroll deductions of both employees and employers.
* Note: Total charitable deductions allowed for all tax brackets is 7% of gross income. Total legitimate deductions allowed is equivalent to the percentage of the tax bracket. In other words if you are in the 35% tax bracket, you are allowed a maximum of 35% of legitimate deductions. Hence you would only pay taxes on the Income sum after deductions. The 7% Retirement Medical Savings Investment Account tax would be taxed on gross income (before deductions).
Under $30,000.00 Gross Annually ……….7% ........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $60,000.00 Gross Annually ………..14%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $120,000.00 Gross Annually………..21%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $240,000.00 Gross Annually ………..28%........add 7% for Retirement/Medical Savings Investment Account
Under $480,000.00 Gross Annually ………..35%
Under $960,000.00 Gross Annually ………..42%
Optional Revenue Tax Bracket for International conflict where additional military spending is required:
Under $1,920,000.00 Gross Annually ……...49%
I’ll leave it to the number crunchers to calculate the difference in tax revenues between our current system of taxation injustice, and the simplified fair taxing system of a Seven Percent Solution. I do know a Seven Percent solution for banking, business and taxation would rekindle the trust, honesty, and fairness we all long for. And in turn it will provide a simple formula with consistent results, and the potential for consistent growth and success for everyone to share. Comments and suggestions encouraged. Please post them on my blog at: http://myspace.com/txmax
It's now up to you.
tmk
February 11, 2011
Revised August 17, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
In The Spirit of Unity and Advancement
I have always noted that I would be the strongest critic when things were wrong, but I would also herald the highest praise when things were right. So now we begin a new year with a new balance of power. A new beginning. A new chance to correct all those errors of the past. With that brave thought in mind, I have cleaned the cobwebs and nurtured the new light of the coming dawn. In the hopes that all of us . . . will consider our decisions with the utmost of care and compassion for others.
I've made my initial move. Cleaning the slate. I can only hope others will do the same. I'll begin with a few words of poetry and a new essay on economics for our modern world. A template to guide those that make the important economic decisions in our lives . . . and for each and every one of us that wants to know what is fair and what is not. A road map we can all follow to promote a fair environment of opportunity for all. And a guideline that can pull us out of the current economic darkness we all fear.
Stay tuned for . . . . THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION!
I've made my initial move. Cleaning the slate. I can only hope others will do the same. I'll begin with a few words of poetry and a new essay on economics for our modern world. A template to guide those that make the important economic decisions in our lives . . . and for each and every one of us that wants to know what is fair and what is not. A road map we can all follow to promote a fair environment of opportunity for all. And a guideline that can pull us out of the current economic darkness we all fear.
Stay tuned for . . . . THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What Would America's Founders Say?
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so
the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
-- Thomas Jefferson
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the
minds of men.
--Samuel Adams
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and
silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
-- George Washington
When governments fear the people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to
arms, without concert, without system, without resource;
except in their courage and despair ...
The natural strength of the people in a large community, in
proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater
than in a small ... the people, without exaggeration, may be said
to be entirely the masters of their own fate.
-- Alexander Hamilton
We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by the majority who participate.
-- Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of
the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe
depositories.
-- Thomas Jefferson
As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now
let us show them we can fight like men also.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will
delineate and define you.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which
they draw their gains.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to
a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so
the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
-- Thomas Jefferson
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the
minds of men.
--Samuel Adams
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and
silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
-- George Washington
When governments fear the people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to
arms, without concert, without system, without resource;
except in their courage and despair ...
The natural strength of the people in a large community, in
proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater
than in a small ... the people, without exaggeration, may be said
to be entirely the masters of their own fate.
-- Alexander Hamilton
We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by the majority who participate.
-- Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of
the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe
depositories.
-- Thomas Jefferson
As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now
let us show them we can fight like men also.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will
delineate and define you.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which
they draw their gains.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to
a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Media Circus
Tues, Oct 10 2006 11:01 pm
The media has gone Hollywood. They have created their own illusive world view. They are drunk on self-importance. News has now become fictionalized entertainment. Not even good entertainment at that.
The media isn't a birds-eye. It's not even a magnifier. It's a keyhole view through the eyes of a biased editor or producer. You have the Wolf Blitzer school of sensationalism and self-importance. Or the Anderson Cooper school of tears and lamentation for the social order.
Or else you can read the pulp fiction. The New York Times and Washington Post school of political activism. They're not newspapers. They're wasted trees full of fat-headed opinions and political agendas.
We're screwed. Hollywood morons running their mouths with political trash expecting us to pay to see and hear their dirty crap. Not me. Nuke crazed dictators drunk on poltical self-importance and power hunger pains.
Perv politicians with cigars in genital cavities and male organs in tight young anus's. A worthless billion dollar waste we call the media and entertainment industries. A media that doesn't protect the public, it only undermines it.
A greedy corporate monster with a mentality that thinks the only way to make money is to screw John and Jane Q. Public. We're screwed, that's all.
The media has gone Hollywood. They have created their own illusive world view. They are drunk on self-importance. News has now become fictionalized entertainment. Not even good entertainment at that.
The media isn't a birds-eye. It's not even a magnifier. It's a keyhole view through the eyes of a biased editor or producer. You have the Wolf Blitzer school of sensationalism and self-importance. Or the Anderson Cooper school of tears and lamentation for the social order.
Or else you can read the pulp fiction. The New York Times and Washington Post school of political activism. They're not newspapers. They're wasted trees full of fat-headed opinions and political agendas.
We're screwed. Hollywood morons running their mouths with political trash expecting us to pay to see and hear their dirty crap. Not me. Nuke crazed dictators drunk on poltical self-importance and power hunger pains.
Perv politicians with cigars in genital cavities and male organs in tight young anus's. A worthless billion dollar waste we call the media and entertainment industries. A media that doesn't protect the public, it only undermines it.
A greedy corporate monster with a mentality that thinks the only way to make money is to screw John and Jane Q. Public. We're screwed, that's all.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Why Is the Media so blind and failing so miserably?
For those old folks out there, you might remember 'unbiased journalism'. No more. Now, it's feed them what you want them to know. They are full of cow turds. Here's an example straight from today's headlines. The President of China is here. A protestor in the press area starts to yell. Well, the media reports it as 'they turned off the TV in China'. Damn right they did. And that protestor was the exact opposite.
The protestor was a prime example of the freedom in this country. She couldn't have done that in China. Instead of a fine, minimal jail time and probation, she would have spent most of the rest of her life in a jail. But the media had to put their spin on. They talked about how embarrassed the Presidents were, and how it was a 'stain' on the visit. It wasn't a damn 'stain'. It was America at it's finest. Get it right.
Why do I always get the feeling that those that run the media are a daffy bunch of socialist puppets . . . well I'll save that one for later. Because besides being really ticked off about how inept our modern media is and how 'unbiased journalism' has gone the way of the dinosaurs, failed philosophies is another one of my pet topics.
Stay tuned!
The protestor was a prime example of the freedom in this country. She couldn't have done that in China. Instead of a fine, minimal jail time and probation, she would have spent most of the rest of her life in a jail. But the media had to put their spin on. They talked about how embarrassed the Presidents were, and how it was a 'stain' on the visit. It wasn't a damn 'stain'. It was America at it's finest. Get it right.
Why do I always get the feeling that those that run the media are a daffy bunch of socialist puppets . . . well I'll save that one for later. Because besides being really ticked off about how inept our modern media is and how 'unbiased journalism' has gone the way of the dinosaurs, failed philosophies is another one of my pet topics.
Stay tuned!
Pictures from the Coast of Mississippi - December 2005
This past year for Christmas, I decided to get away from all the commercialism and the hypocrisy that often nowadays surrounds Christmas. I was tired of spending a bunch of money on presents people didn't really want or appreciate. Of getting presents that people spent their hard earned money on that I really didn't need. And all the rest of the pushing and shoving and rudeness that is now part of celebrating the beautiful time of Christmas. So I decided that after seeing all the news footage on the hurricane damage, I would travel to the area myself and feel what the spirit of Christmas was really like for those that were suffering through the worst tragedy of their lives. These are pictures from the coast of Mississippi between Biloxi and Gulfport. If you've ever been there before, then you know what it is supposed to look like.
I felt like I had stepped into a different realm, another dimension on our own planet. This part of Mississippi was ground zero. Most people forget, because all of the attention has been focused on New Orleans. But what I saw and heard I will never forget.
When you see it in person it is not the same as an image on the Television. You begin to appreciate what you have and how powerful nature is. How easily nature can take away everything you ever had or worked for. The lesson here is: Respect Nature. Call it God or call it Nature, but respect it. It is more powerful than any man will ever be.
The first picture is of the cemetery. These images went on for fifteen miles or more. And still further inland for 60-100 miles. What was once a thriving community with decades old homes and the usual commercial fluff, was now piles of rubble and cement foundations. Skeletal remains of structures and lives.
I felt like I had stepped into a different realm, another dimension on our own planet. This part of Mississippi was ground zero. Most people forget, because all of the attention has been focused on New Orleans. But what I saw and heard I will never forget.
When you see it in person it is not the same as an image on the Television. You begin to appreciate what you have and how powerful nature is. How easily nature can take away everything you ever had or worked for. The lesson here is: Respect Nature. Call it God or call it Nature, but respect it. It is more powerful than any man will ever be.
The first picture is of the cemetery. These images went on for fifteen miles or more. And still further inland for 60-100 miles. What was once a thriving community with decades old homes and the usual commercial fluff, was now piles of rubble and cement foundations. Skeletal remains of structures and lives.
I arrived in Mississippi as the sun was setting. Even among the destruction, the serenity and beauty of the coast was evident. Here you see the moon and the sun along the bridge over the Gulf Coast. My new Nikon at it's best.
It's amazing this house survived. almost every other home around it was rubble.
What was left of the sign.
Their art work did not go unnoticed.
These are just a few of the pictures I took. I hope you appreciate what you have. And that you have compassion for those that no longer do. Nature always has more surprises in store for us.
Think about that next Christmas. Please.
SEX IS SCIENCE
SEX IS SCIENCE
Sex is Science.
If you know human behavior,
biology, anatomy,
social human behavior,
social organic behavior,
sociology,
psychology and the attraction
of pheromones and all about
hormones and testosterone
and the balance between
and among them.
You’d have to know passion
for knowledge and Science
and the faults of our species
and the advancement of our species
and being human.
And love.
Sex is Science.
You can’t teach Science
without teaching about Sex.
And you can’t know Sex
if you don’t know Science.
Sex is only part of Science.
Science is everything about Sex
and more.
It even covers love
and planets and universes and stars
and the smallest things, smaller than
all of us. And the biggest things
bigger than all of us
and more.
It even covers us.
Who we are, what we think,
why we do the things we do.
Once we know all that.
Sex is only Science.
But Love is still
even bigger than Science.
Letter To John Stossel on Education and Immigration
Letter to John Stossel March 2006
RE: Education/Immigration
Hi John,
Just saw your report tonight on the pissed off teachers. Great stuff. I tried to wake my wife, but she is a high school principal and was zoned out from dealing with it. You are soooo right. The teachers unions have created a safe bureaucracy for teachers where they can sit on their duffs like other government bureaucrats, get a paycheck, and never have to worry about repercussions. It makes the public school system a losing battle. I've watched my wife burn over the years, but she loves what she does and despite the obstacles she moves ahead.
Around here, the only teachers that lose their jobs are the ones that get caught with porn or sexually assault students. My wife works in a 'high risk' school. It's the same school she graduated from, so she can relate to those kids like no one else I've ever seen. Her staff loves her because she rewards efficiency and smart thinking. The 'bad teacher safety net' issue bothers me because I see her suffer through it when I know her, and her staff and the 'good' teachers are only trying to advance those students.
There is another issue in education that bothers me (among others). You may not have this problem way up there in NYC (I lived up North, so don't think I don't understand), but here in Texas it is prevalent. A large percentage of the children in our 'high risk' schools do not speak English. Many of them came from Mexico, Central or South America in the last few years. Most of these are here illegally.
Think about it, John. You have 40 students in a classroom and 25 of them barely speak English. As a teacher, who do you teach to? Do you teach to the ones that do speak English and leave the others behind to fail and drop out? Or do you teach to the ones that hardly speak English and hold back the students that are there to learn and are linguistically capable to learn? It's not fair and it's not right. It is not fair to the teachers, it is not fair to the students and it is not fair to the administrators.
Needless to say most of the educators in high risk schools don't think much of the 'no child left behind' policies. From what I've seen, I don't think it is fair either. I voted for GW and even though I don't agree with many of his policies, I respect him as our President. But how can a teacher be expected to teach students that barely speak English and have them test on the same level as students whose parents are doctors and lawyers, and who sit around their dinner table discussing politics and history in the English language? You can't. And when the students don't score on the same levels as other kids across the country, the teachers and administrators are held accountable and lose funding because of it. There is no incentive for teachers and administrators to work in the schools where they are needed the most.
Why are children tested for both State and National tests more than once each year? I grew up in a parochial school in Philly in the late sixties and once a year we knew we had to take a national test that told us what we knew and what we didn't. It was the SRA test. And it wasn't taken to judge the competency of teachers and administrators; it was used to test the proficiency of students. Here in Texas the students, teachers and administrators go through test trauma at least twice every year. Why? Can't they just be given one test per year to know where they stand? Why do we insist on the trauma? And shouldn't teachers and administrators be judged on their competency and not by the absorption capability of their students. It's just not right.
And while I'm on the topic of Education, I want to point out an issue I've been ranting about lately to anyone who will listen. I can not understand how any school can teach History or Literature without mentioning God. It's like teaching auto mechanics and not explaining the combustion engine. You don't have to preach God, but you do have to explain to them the importance of God/gods to mankind throughout History and in Literature. No wonder our kids are ignorant, all we do is lie to them. And why don't we teach Science? Why do we have to call it sex education when all it is, is Biology and Behavioral Science? All the politically correct crap and the ACLU rights extremists have made us lie to our children every day. They don't learn because we don't teach them.
And finally, John, my other observance of holes in Education (from personal observation, OK), all kids are not equal. Every child has strengths and weaknesses. Why do we try to teach all kids the same? Why don't we orient the children toward the areas they are best in? And work with them in the areas they are not. Kids aren't robots. They don't all have equal left/right hemisphere capability. Some are great at Science and Math and others are great at Literature and the Arts. Why do we wait till their later years in High School and then College to let them succeed in what they are best at?
It's up to you, John. You guys and gals in the media are the ones that point the magnifying glass. I have a lot of respect for the good journalists out there, John, and you're one of them. I was a Communications (U. T.) student once too, John, and when I see all the bad journalism going on it makes me want to puke. It's the Al Gore school of Journalism I guess. Whatever is popular is what works and bias is a good thing. Your story on myths a few weeks back was a perfect example of objectivity. Hey, I didn't agree with everything you said, but you hit the right spots and dealt with the issues head on in a fair way.
When I write a letter to a Journalist, John, I don't write short letters because it wouldn't be right. I know you're very busy and don't have time to read a bunch of fluff, but I want you to know where I'm coming from. My wife's parents were immigrants from Mexico. They worked for years in the fields. I myself was born in Havana; my parents were smart enough to get me the hell out back in July of '62'. I am not a Cuban-American, I am an American. I am proud of my heritage, but when I came to this country I became an American. I didn't expect Americans to adapt to my culture, it was up to me to adapt to the native culture. It pisses me off when I see immigrants today that have a peeve against rich, white guys. This country was founded by rich white guys and it is their heritage. The problem with immigrants is not that they are immigrants; it is that they do not appreciate America. They want to mold it for their own and that is not how it should be.
My wife's parents eventually became American citizens as did I. But my wife and I are both concerned about immigration issues today. I have no problem with many of the hard workers that come here. But they are not here legally. They put a strain on American citizens living here that is costing us in Education, Public Health and Economics. If there was a better system for documenting immigrant workers so they could work here legally, we would be OK. Once they commit a crime, they go back not to return. It doesn't work that way now. We both know why. Corporations and small business save billions of dollars every year because they pay cheap labor, don't have to worry about health care or safety and Workmen's Compensation issues. It's the slavery of the 21st century.
Please let Hillary Clinton know that Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California are willing to send as many illegal immigrant workers to New York State as you want. Maybe she can figure out how to keep her constituents happy when they lose their jobs, or have to pay higher taxes for undocumented workers living in her State. I'm serious, John. I can place an ad in a few Mexican newspapers and work on transportation issues and you could have two-four million undocumented workers in New York State by the end of this year. Let me know.
Drop me a line and we'll chat anytime.
Great work.
RE: Education/Immigration
Hi John,
Just saw your report tonight on the pissed off teachers. Great stuff. I tried to wake my wife, but she is a high school principal and was zoned out from dealing with it. You are soooo right. The teachers unions have created a safe bureaucracy for teachers where they can sit on their duffs like other government bureaucrats, get a paycheck, and never have to worry about repercussions. It makes the public school system a losing battle. I've watched my wife burn over the years, but she loves what she does and despite the obstacles she moves ahead.
Around here, the only teachers that lose their jobs are the ones that get caught with porn or sexually assault students. My wife works in a 'high risk' school. It's the same school she graduated from, so she can relate to those kids like no one else I've ever seen. Her staff loves her because she rewards efficiency and smart thinking. The 'bad teacher safety net' issue bothers me because I see her suffer through it when I know her, and her staff and the 'good' teachers are only trying to advance those students.
There is another issue in education that bothers me (among others). You may not have this problem way up there in NYC (I lived up North, so don't think I don't understand), but here in Texas it is prevalent. A large percentage of the children in our 'high risk' schools do not speak English. Many of them came from Mexico, Central or South America in the last few years. Most of these are here illegally.
Think about it, John. You have 40 students in a classroom and 25 of them barely speak English. As a teacher, who do you teach to? Do you teach to the ones that do speak English and leave the others behind to fail and drop out? Or do you teach to the ones that hardly speak English and hold back the students that are there to learn and are linguistically capable to learn? It's not fair and it's not right. It is not fair to the teachers, it is not fair to the students and it is not fair to the administrators.
Needless to say most of the educators in high risk schools don't think much of the 'no child left behind' policies. From what I've seen, I don't think it is fair either. I voted for GW and even though I don't agree with many of his policies, I respect him as our President. But how can a teacher be expected to teach students that barely speak English and have them test on the same level as students whose parents are doctors and lawyers, and who sit around their dinner table discussing politics and history in the English language? You can't. And when the students don't score on the same levels as other kids across the country, the teachers and administrators are held accountable and lose funding because of it. There is no incentive for teachers and administrators to work in the schools where they are needed the most.
Why are children tested for both State and National tests more than once each year? I grew up in a parochial school in Philly in the late sixties and once a year we knew we had to take a national test that told us what we knew and what we didn't. It was the SRA test. And it wasn't taken to judge the competency of teachers and administrators; it was used to test the proficiency of students. Here in Texas the students, teachers and administrators go through test trauma at least twice every year. Why? Can't they just be given one test per year to know where they stand? Why do we insist on the trauma? And shouldn't teachers and administrators be judged on their competency and not by the absorption capability of their students. It's just not right.
And while I'm on the topic of Education, I want to point out an issue I've been ranting about lately to anyone who will listen. I can not understand how any school can teach History or Literature without mentioning God. It's like teaching auto mechanics and not explaining the combustion engine. You don't have to preach God, but you do have to explain to them the importance of God/gods to mankind throughout History and in Literature. No wonder our kids are ignorant, all we do is lie to them. And why don't we teach Science? Why do we have to call it sex education when all it is, is Biology and Behavioral Science? All the politically correct crap and the ACLU rights extremists have made us lie to our children every day. They don't learn because we don't teach them.
And finally, John, my other observance of holes in Education (from personal observation, OK), all kids are not equal. Every child has strengths and weaknesses. Why do we try to teach all kids the same? Why don't we orient the children toward the areas they are best in? And work with them in the areas they are not. Kids aren't robots. They don't all have equal left/right hemisphere capability. Some are great at Science and Math and others are great at Literature and the Arts. Why do we wait till their later years in High School and then College to let them succeed in what they are best at?
It's up to you, John. You guys and gals in the media are the ones that point the magnifying glass. I have a lot of respect for the good journalists out there, John, and you're one of them. I was a Communications (U. T.) student once too, John, and when I see all the bad journalism going on it makes me want to puke. It's the Al Gore school of Journalism I guess. Whatever is popular is what works and bias is a good thing. Your story on myths a few weeks back was a perfect example of objectivity. Hey, I didn't agree with everything you said, but you hit the right spots and dealt with the issues head on in a fair way.
When I write a letter to a Journalist, John, I don't write short letters because it wouldn't be right. I know you're very busy and don't have time to read a bunch of fluff, but I want you to know where I'm coming from. My wife's parents were immigrants from Mexico. They worked for years in the fields. I myself was born in Havana; my parents were smart enough to get me the hell out back in July of '62'. I am not a Cuban-American, I am an American. I am proud of my heritage, but when I came to this country I became an American. I didn't expect Americans to adapt to my culture, it was up to me to adapt to the native culture. It pisses me off when I see immigrants today that have a peeve against rich, white guys. This country was founded by rich white guys and it is their heritage. The problem with immigrants is not that they are immigrants; it is that they do not appreciate America. They want to mold it for their own and that is not how it should be.
My wife's parents eventually became American citizens as did I. But my wife and I are both concerned about immigration issues today. I have no problem with many of the hard workers that come here. But they are not here legally. They put a strain on American citizens living here that is costing us in Education, Public Health and Economics. If there was a better system for documenting immigrant workers so they could work here legally, we would be OK. Once they commit a crime, they go back not to return. It doesn't work that way now. We both know why. Corporations and small business save billions of dollars every year because they pay cheap labor, don't have to worry about health care or safety and Workmen's Compensation issues. It's the slavery of the 21st century.
Please let Hillary Clinton know that Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California are willing to send as many illegal immigrant workers to New York State as you want. Maybe she can figure out how to keep her constituents happy when they lose their jobs, or have to pay higher taxes for undocumented workers living in her State. I'm serious, John. I can place an ad in a few Mexican newspapers and work on transportation issues and you could have two-four million undocumented workers in New York State by the end of this year. Let me know.
Drop me a line and we'll chat anytime.
Great work.
GOD IS HISTORY
GOD IS HISTORY
God
Is
History.
History is the story of Man.
Man has died, suffered and killed
for gods and the belief in God.
God is History.
You can’t teach History
if you don’t mention God.
God and gods.
You’re lying to the children.
The story of Man is the story
of man’s belief in gods
and God.
So someday men might
step into the shoes of God
as a man.
Many men have tried to step
into the shoes of gods and God
and fallen.
Few others have stepped
into the shoes and fit.
God
Is
History.
History is the story of Man.
Man has died, suffered and killed
for gods and the belief in God.
God is History.
You can’t teach History
if you don’t mention God.
God and gods.
You’re lying to the children.
The story of Man is the story
of man’s belief in gods
and God.
So someday men might
step into the shoes of God
as a man.
Many men have tried to step
into the shoes of gods and God
and fallen.
Few others have stepped
into the shoes and fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)