In his time, government controls forbade the export and set prices on the crop of corn farmers. Franklin's outrage was surely righteous on this issue. Being given a limited market and prevented from selling the product at the desired price, the farmers were forced sell the fruits of their labor at prices below what they should have earned in the market. Supposedly, this was so that poor consumers could afford the product; however, Franklin claims similar measures were not made in other markets. I doubt there is anyone who would not be upset at this.
He then proceeds to lambaste the poor of America for being lazy, drunk, and ungrateful. Reasonably, this makes Franklin appear to be a grouchy old-man with a, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn," mentality. After all, how dare the poor not come up to him each day and give their thanks to him. Such a rant would seem unbecoming of someone of his intellect, yet things were different then. How does his rant hold up today?
"There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor."
It certainly seems that in his day, the poor and unfortunate were better cared for than today. Nowadays, none but the ultra-rich can afford serious health care without health insurance. Yes, there are clinics available; however, treatment for serious ailments is still beyond the means of the uninsured to afford. Most care will be limited to dealing with the deadly repercussions of not being able to afford the care that would have prevented catastrophe in the first place.
It also seems unlikely that the rich of today would urge Congress to pass a law that would tax them for the benefit of the poor. According to the modern Tea Party, that is the sort of thinking that would be the most wrong.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
This does seem pretty common sense to me. I imagine that this does to everyone. However, given that he wanted to "do good" to the poor, it is illogical to conclude that he felt letting them starve and die in an environment with no jobs would have been Franklin's desire. If only temporary until such a time as conditions for employment change, such care for the unfortunate could not be objected to be Franklin.
One thing is certain, simply letting the poor be without assistance or guidance as most conservatives today should be done would not match Franklin's desire to actively lead or drive the poor out of poverty. Inaction is never leading.
It's likely many will say that if social security had existed during Franklin's time, this would be his argument against it:
"The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness."
With the slow death of the American economy that is ongoing today and with the majority of jobs paying wages so low that meaningful saving is impossible, Franklin's idea that a program such as Social Security should not exist is certainly outdated.
Instead of applying Franklin's desire as to how social protections should work while in an economic model that is vastly different from what existed while he lived, it would be better, and the only logical goal, to instead make today's economy into something in which Franklin's desired type of social protection could work. That economic model requires that jobs be available and that those jobs actually pay a wage that allows saving to be made for the future. That certainly doesn't exist today.
I have no doubt that, if Franklin were to meet today anyone trying to apply his comments on the economy then to the economy now, he would tie that person to a kite and send them up to meet a storm.
Here is a link to Ben Franklin's On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1776.
Note: The above link is provided by the Claremont Inst. which excluded Thomas Paine (among others) and his works. By means of excluding disagreeing Founding Fathers and/or excluding certain writings, it uses false assertions to claim that the Founders unanimously endorsed certain ideas.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Fight Socialism by Recognizing It
According to the Tea Party definition of socialism, our police, fire departments, schools, social security, medicare, medicaid, any proposed universal health care, and our military are all socialist. Everyone pays a different level of taxes for them, yet everyone gets equal benefit of them. By Tea Party logic, they all need to be privatized because they're all evil socialism!
What is socialism actually? It's where the workers control the means of production, almost as if the workers own stocks in their employer and are encouraged to work harder because they receive economic benefits of their hard work! The horror! Or, state socialism which is where the state has ownership of all businesses (basically, communism)? Why, that sounds exactly the same as me working in a capitalist economy and then paying taxes so that the government can exist and provide a service to me, such as police, firefighting, or health care! Wait, that sounds completely different from socialism! That's capitalism and having a government instead of anarchy!
So, the Tea Party, pretty much all Republicans, and heck - most liberals don't know what they're talking about when they talk about socialism. They just use it as a label to slap on anything their (puppet)masters say.
Recognizing actual socialism is the best weapon for fighting for it.
What are the warning signs of socialism?
What is socialism actually? It's where the workers control the means of production, almost as if the workers own stocks in their employer and are encouraged to work harder because they receive economic benefits of their hard work! The horror! Or, state socialism which is where the state has ownership of all businesses (basically, communism)? Why, that sounds exactly the same as me working in a capitalist economy and then paying taxes so that the government can exist and provide a service to me, such as police, firefighting, or health care! Wait, that sounds completely different from socialism! That's capitalism and having a government instead of anarchy!
So, the Tea Party, pretty much all Republicans, and heck - most liberals don't know what they're talking about when they talk about socialism. They just use it as a label to slap on anything their (puppet)masters say.
Recognizing actual socialism is the best weapon for fighting for it.
What are the warning signs of socialism?
- Forbidding private ownership of the means of production, giving the workers equal ownership of the means of production, and then requiring equal pay for each worker regardless of their contribution.
- Having the state control all industry and forbidding private ownership of the means of production.
- A violent overthrow of government where the ruling rich capitalists and/or aristocrats are slaughtered, and the poor take over in order to create a socialist society (Marxism). In this case, the administrators of the socialist society may become the new ruling class. In essence, becoming the enemy they hated.
- When a government gives loans to private businesses so that they can stay in business and help protect the economy from increased unemployment.
- Providing citizens of a capitalist society with desired services (that apply equally to each citizen) paid for by taxes, services such as police, firefighters, a military, education, health care, retirement savings, unemployment insurance, and roads. However in the case where someone may say some (but not all) of these services are socialist because they provide each citizen with equal availability of such services, it must be recognized that each such service would be equally socialist. In such a case, a person would be saying, "I only like the socialism that benefits me, not others."
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Welfare Fraud
Welfare fraud is a problem. A number of individuals spend their government assistance money on inappropriate activities and then complain that they don't have money for their kids, school, housing, and food. I've had the misfortune to hear a few of these people complain about it in person. This fraud is both stealing as well as depriving those in real need of the aid they need.
The solution is to audit recipients, either at scheduled times or randomly several times a year. The recipient will need to present receipts (or other proof) detailing their expenditures. Any income unaccounted for will be considered inappropriate. Failure to show appropriate handling of assistance money will result in a probationary period of reduced aid with improvement required to remain on assistance.
Not only may this encourage responsibility and frugality, the auditing system will root fraud and inappropriate use of aid in ways that drug testing welfare recipients won't. For one, drug testing doesn't show who spent the money on the drugs. Two, 98% of welfare recipients passed their drug screenings when it was implemented in Florida, meaning that the tests wasted the time of 98% of those involved. Three, although there will be a cost to the auditing, just like there is for drug screening, this will employ auditors willing to work for the fees that welfare recipients can afford. Also, I'm suggesting a quick and expedient audit of monthly income and spending, not an in-depth tax year audit that you may get from the IRS.
While I will admit that random drug testing of welfare recipients may be beneficial in fighting fraud, I'm opposed to the up front drug testing of those who apply, just as I am to drug testing job applicants. It all comes down to accusing people of being addicts and criminals without cause. However, Florida's implementation of drug testing welfare applicants has resulted in 98% of the people passing and will cost the state $178 million over the year in the form reimbursing those who passed. That's a lot more than the $1.5 million Fox News report said welfare recipients in Florida spent on trips to Disney.
All in all, auditing those on welfare to make sure they actually need the help and aren't spending money meant for their kids on booze seems like common sense. In addition, knowing audits will happen can encourage people who may not be good at handling money to become better at keeping track of their spending. It seems like common sense, but we'll need someone (or some people) who can implement it fairly and effectively. It does little good (or more harm than good) if the cost of fighting fraud is more than the actual cost of fraud.
The solution is to audit recipients, either at scheduled times or randomly several times a year. The recipient will need to present receipts (or other proof) detailing their expenditures. Any income unaccounted for will be considered inappropriate. Failure to show appropriate handling of assistance money will result in a probationary period of reduced aid with improvement required to remain on assistance.
Not only may this encourage responsibility and frugality, the auditing system will root fraud and inappropriate use of aid in ways that drug testing welfare recipients won't. For one, drug testing doesn't show who spent the money on the drugs. Two, 98% of welfare recipients passed their drug screenings when it was implemented in Florida, meaning that the tests wasted the time of 98% of those involved. Three, although there will be a cost to the auditing, just like there is for drug screening, this will employ auditors willing to work for the fees that welfare recipients can afford. Also, I'm suggesting a quick and expedient audit of monthly income and spending, not an in-depth tax year audit that you may get from the IRS.
While I will admit that random drug testing of welfare recipients may be beneficial in fighting fraud, I'm opposed to the up front drug testing of those who apply, just as I am to drug testing job applicants. It all comes down to accusing people of being addicts and criminals without cause. However, Florida's implementation of drug testing welfare applicants has resulted in 98% of the people passing and will cost the state $178 million over the year in the form reimbursing those who passed. That's a lot more than the $1.5 million Fox News report said welfare recipients in Florida spent on trips to Disney.
All in all, auditing those on welfare to make sure they actually need the help and aren't spending money meant for their kids on booze seems like common sense. In addition, knowing audits will happen can encourage people who may not be good at handling money to become better at keeping track of their spending. It seems like common sense, but we'll need someone (or some people) who can implement it fairly and effectively. It does little good (or more harm than good) if the cost of fighting fraud is more than the actual cost of fraud.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Bigotry is Pervasive in our Society
Bigotry is so pervasive in our society that even some "good" people may not realize they are bigots.
Heck, just look at the recent flap over the Sesame Street petition to have Bert and Ernie be gay. I saw many people saying "no" because gay sex or the gay "agenda" shouldn't be promoted on a kids' educational show.
However, the show features couples, and the store owner is married. Showing straight couples but refusing to show gay couples is simple bigotry, no matter how you dress it up.
It's important because if more kids see a gay couple on Sesame Street, then maybe those few kids who turn out to be gay later won't feel odd about themselves and commit suicide. Likewise, maybe they'll get bullied less.
I'm sure that decades ago, people would've been upset about showing an interracial couple on TV. Heck, a Louisiana justice refused to marry an interracial couple in October of 2009.
Sesame Street responded to all of this by saying they are puppets and don't have a gender. I don't buy that. How do you explain Kermit and Miss Piggy? I know that's The Muppet Show, not Sesame Street, but they're both Jim Henson puppets. The Sesame Street response also doesn't say why Bert and Ernie couldn't be a genderless couple. There's also the fact that there have been numerous puppet families and couples in numerous sketches (Oscar's girlfriend Grundgetta, the Count's Countesses, The Twiddlebugs). Sesame Street's response is simply dishonest.
While I wouldn't say it's bigotry to not want to have Bert and Ernie be a gay couple, it is if that response also includes not wanting any human gay couples or gay couples involving different puppet characters.
The evidence shows that being gay, straight, or bisexual isn't a choice; therefore, singling out gay couples is the same as singling out interracial couples. However, the whole "it's a choice" argument is really a red herring. It's entirely possible to be bigoted against a lifestyle.
It's time to recognize and end the bigotry whether it stems from religion, homophobia, or feeling insecure in one's heterosexuality.
Heck, just look at the recent flap over the Sesame Street petition to have Bert and Ernie be gay. I saw many people saying "no" because gay sex or the gay "agenda" shouldn't be promoted on a kids' educational show.
However, the show features couples, and the store owner is married. Showing straight couples but refusing to show gay couples is simple bigotry, no matter how you dress it up.
It's important because if more kids see a gay couple on Sesame Street, then maybe those few kids who turn out to be gay later won't feel odd about themselves and commit suicide. Likewise, maybe they'll get bullied less.
I'm sure that decades ago, people would've been upset about showing an interracial couple on TV. Heck, a Louisiana justice refused to marry an interracial couple in October of 2009.
Sesame Street responded to all of this by saying they are puppets and don't have a gender. I don't buy that. How do you explain Kermit and Miss Piggy? I know that's The Muppet Show, not Sesame Street, but they're both Jim Henson puppets. The Sesame Street response also doesn't say why Bert and Ernie couldn't be a genderless couple. There's also the fact that there have been numerous puppet families and couples in numerous sketches (Oscar's girlfriend Grundgetta, the Count's Countesses, The Twiddlebugs). Sesame Street's response is simply dishonest.
While I wouldn't say it's bigotry to not want to have Bert and Ernie be a gay couple, it is if that response also includes not wanting any human gay couples or gay couples involving different puppet characters.
The evidence shows that being gay, straight, or bisexual isn't a choice; therefore, singling out gay couples is the same as singling out interracial couples. However, the whole "it's a choice" argument is really a red herring. It's entirely possible to be bigoted against a lifestyle.
It's time to recognize and end the bigotry whether it stems from religion, homophobia, or feeling insecure in one's heterosexuality.
Friday, August 26, 2011
America: A Christian Nation (Let's Take a Look)
As most everyone knows, many religious folk claim the USA as a Christian nation. Mostly, these people are highly conservative and will go on to tell you how we must protect marriage from "the gays" and cut government spending by eliminating Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), welfare, and other entitlements.
If America was truly a Christian nation, it would mean that it would be the government's job to carry on the will of Jesus. In other words, the government's job would be to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and stop coddling the rich who are going to have a hard time getting into heaven (something about a new meat processing method of passing camels through the eyes of needles - check out Matthew 19:24). And if we want to actually heal all the sick, Obamacare, with it's "evil" desire to enforce personal responsibility by slinging an additional tax on those who choose not to carry insurance but instead want to ride the system when they get ill, simply won't cut it. The government is going to need to simply say, "That's it, we're just insuring everyone," using one or several of the options available to do that.
A compassionate nation that takes care of its own? That sounds pretty good. Where do I sign up for this Christian nation? Crap, what do you mean I can't eat meat during Lent? Hey, why is everything closed on Sunday? It's illegal for me to work overtime on a Sunday? That's not all bad. Though, I am curious why the story of Adam and Eve is being taught in science class during the human development chapter.
Unfortunately, any of the programs required to make this a Christian nation would be called socialist by a large number of people with a narrow and incorrect definition of socialism. We have universal health care? Why obviously, that means we live in an economic system where the workers control the means of production! It's almost as if the workers own stocks in their employer and are encouraged to work harder because they receive economic benefits of their hard work! The horror! Although, I wonder if they mean state socialism which is where the state has ownership of all businesses (basically, communism)? Why, that sounds exactly the same as me working in a capitalist economy and then paying taxes so that the government can exist and provide a service to me, such as police, firefighting, or health care! Wait, that sounds completely different from socialism!
Therefore, my main problem with people telling me that the USA is a Christian nation is that everyone who has told me that is a freaking hypocrite. What they should really be saying is that the USA is a country that happens to have Christians in it. In regards to the assertion that the founding fathers were all Christians and that means the USA is supposed to have a government that rules according to religious law, the founding fathers DID NOT AGREE. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't anywhere claim that the USA is a Christian nation. The Constitution, at best, has a few references to God which are agnostic in nature.
The US has even made treaties in which it declares " . . . the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ." Just check Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
I'll leave you with a few of these Thomas Jefferson quotes which came to my attention via Jim Walker's Thomas Jefferson page.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Although speaking of a Christian nation, we have a deficit, and this is BS:
Military Spends Millions Evangelizing Troops
Peace.
If America was truly a Christian nation, it would mean that it would be the government's job to carry on the will of Jesus. In other words, the government's job would be to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and stop coddling the rich who are going to have a hard time getting into heaven (something about a new meat processing method of passing camels through the eyes of needles - check out Matthew 19:24). And if we want to actually heal all the sick, Obamacare, with it's "evil" desire to enforce personal responsibility by slinging an additional tax on those who choose not to carry insurance but instead want to ride the system when they get ill, simply won't cut it. The government is going to need to simply say, "That's it, we're just insuring everyone," using one or several of the options available to do that.
A compassionate nation that takes care of its own? That sounds pretty good. Where do I sign up for this Christian nation? Crap, what do you mean I can't eat meat during Lent? Hey, why is everything closed on Sunday? It's illegal for me to work overtime on a Sunday? That's not all bad. Though, I am curious why the story of Adam and Eve is being taught in science class during the human development chapter.
Unfortunately, any of the programs required to make this a Christian nation would be called socialist by a large number of people with a narrow and incorrect definition of socialism. We have universal health care? Why obviously, that means we live in an economic system where the workers control the means of production! It's almost as if the workers own stocks in their employer and are encouraged to work harder because they receive economic benefits of their hard work! The horror! Although, I wonder if they mean state socialism which is where the state has ownership of all businesses (basically, communism)? Why, that sounds exactly the same as me working in a capitalist economy and then paying taxes so that the government can exist and provide a service to me, such as police, firefighting, or health care! Wait, that sounds completely different from socialism!
Therefore, my main problem with people telling me that the USA is a Christian nation is that everyone who has told me that is a freaking hypocrite. What they should really be saying is that the USA is a country that happens to have Christians in it. In regards to the assertion that the founding fathers were all Christians and that means the USA is supposed to have a government that rules according to religious law, the founding fathers DID NOT AGREE. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't anywhere claim that the USA is a Christian nation. The Constitution, at best, has a few references to God which are agnostic in nature.
The US has even made treaties in which it declares " . . . the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ." Just check Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
I'll leave you with a few of these Thomas Jefferson quotes which came to my attention via Jim Walker's Thomas Jefferson page.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Although speaking of a Christian nation, we have a deficit, and this is BS:
Military Spends Millions Evangelizing Troops
Peace.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Abortion: What's up with that?
Abortion isn't really a main issue of mine, but I have an opinion on it just like most everyone else. My opinion on it is that it's horrible, and we should prevent it. Really, the whole concept of it is right out of a horror movie.
However, what should we do in regards of whether or not to keep it legal and how to prevent it? The currently necessary path is quite clear.
Firstly, let's cover why there's even an argument. The reason is that murder is bad. Even most serial killers will tell you that killing someone who has done nothing to wrong you is evil. Of course to them, that's probably part of the charm.
A whole lot of people think abortion is murder, even that those who perform or request abortions should be charged with murder. What is murder? It's killing a person. It's not taking a life; otherwise, me just swatting that fly would make me a murderer.
Most people on both sides agree that murder (killing a person) is wrong so the argument is about what
constitutes a person. Is it the life? Technically, all of the human life cycle is life. If we say that the life cycle qualifies, then even sperm and eggs must be protected by law. Well, some women may say menstruation is murder, but they don't mean it literally. Is it the start of the life cycle? Scientists say the life cycle starts at conception. However, some step had to be Step One for the text book. It could just as easily have been ejaculation.
constitutes a person. Is it the life? Technically, all of the human life cycle is life. If we say that the life cycle qualifies, then even sperm and eggs must be protected by law. Well, some women may say menstruation is murder, but they don't mean it literally. Is it the start of the life cycle? Scientists say the life cycle starts at conception. However, some step had to be Step One for the text book. It could just as easily have been ejaculation.
Pro-lifers cite this example from 1981 but only because they think it supports their argument. Do we really think they'd be pro-choice if the scientists had said life begins at birth? How many trust the scientific consensus on this but not on evolution or global warming? They're citing a source they don't trust.
However, taking a life isn't murder. Taking the life of a person is murder. I still don't hear any sirens over that fly. So, the whole argument over life is a distraction from the real issue.
What makes anyone of us a person? Unique DNA? Embryos can have unique DNA but so can tumors. Is it the soul? Well, the Bible doesn't state at what point in the life cycle a soul is granted. Also, we're not a theocracy so the religious answer has no place in this debate. The mind is what makes us unique. Would an adult body kept alive without a brain be considered a person? Or, is it just a shell? How about a brain dead adult? By definition, brain death is the irreversible cessation of brain functions. At various points in the human life cycle after conception, there is no functioning brain. And although it is irrelevant, I would have to say the answer to the religious question of the soul would be that the soul arrives when the brain has at least some degree of awareness. Without our consciousness, the body is just a shell
The question we need to ask is at what point in the life cycle do we acquire a brain? Scientists know that the possible capacity for the lower boundary of sentience is not developed until 18-25 weeks into a pregnancy. However, the most likely correct answer is 30 weeks. At some point during the life cycle, personhood must be bestowed, but the point must not be an arbitrary one. Because there is some degree of uncertainty here, I would recommend erring on the side of caution and going with an answer of 18 or 22 weeks. It is an answer that should change as we learn more.
Some people say that comparing a brain dead patient to a fetus is unfair. They say it's different because the fetus is a potential person. An abortion would prevent a potential person. However, there are several stages of the life cycle where potential humans are prevented. One can't defend the “potential person argument” without saying that not knocking up a woman and not getting pregnant are crimes. While I'm typing this, I'm not impregnating anyone. It is a missed opportunity. I could currently be denying life to the person who cures cancer or to a person who will someday flip burgers. So, should not having unprotected sex at fertile times be a crime? Should we become a society where we all devolve into some kind of orgy whenever a fertile woman is present? Although it's the case on MTV reality shows, I hope that doesn't become everyday law.
So, should we make abortions illegal? If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. It will certainly be a boon to the industries run by Dr. Coathanger, Dr. StomachPunch, and Dr. SwallowBottleofRandomPills. Women will still have abortions, and they will be far less safe. Approximately, one million women had underground abortions in the two decades preceding legalization. Besides the back alley abortion business, outlawing abortions will also certainly please some rapists who will be glad that women must bear their children.
No, the answer is to prevent abortions and make them readily available until the fetus reaches the developmental point where it can be agreed it is a person., perhaps at 22 weeks. However, there needs to be an exception to this with regards to the safety of the mother's life. This prevents it being murder and gives sufficient time for most women to decide whether or not to remain pregnant. Most women know they're pregnant by 8 weeks. However, a far better answer would be only getting pregnant when it is desired. I will admit that even the concept of legal abortions that aren't murder are still pretty horrifying. Nobody would look forward to those, despite some on the Pro-life side claiming that others are Pro-Abortion.
No, the answer is to prevent abortions and make them readily available until the fetus reaches the developmental point where it can be agreed it is a person., perhaps at 22 weeks. However, there needs to be an exception to this with regards to the safety of the mother's life. This prevents it being murder and gives sufficient time for most women to decide whether or not to remain pregnant. Most women know they're pregnant by 8 weeks. However, a far better answer would be only getting pregnant when it is desired. I will admit that even the concept of legal abortions that aren't murder are still pretty horrifying. Nobody would look forward to those, despite some on the Pro-life side claiming that others are Pro-Abortion.
So, how do we prevent abortions? Here's how:
- Make contraceptives and so-called morning after pills readily available.
- Provide comprehensive sex education. Abstinence is a valid choice; however, abstinence-only education relies on kids having an unbreakable iron will and actually agreeing with abstinence. The education they're provided pretty much guarantees unwanted pregnancies. Proper sex education must involve pregnancy and both the male and female responsibility in pregnancy.
A nasty roadblock to the accessibility of medication to prevent pregnancies are conscience laws. A pharmacist shouldn't be able to refuse to sell medication that a pharmacy sells based on that pharmacist's own religious or personal code. It is an employee's duty to fulfill a job function. If it is someone's job to sell drugs, but they only sell some drugs when they feel like it, they should be fired. If a personal code gets in the way of doing a job, they should pick a different job. However, I do think a pharmacist should be able to deny medication(s) to someone when there is a valid medical or legal concern (such as that person possibly being a drug abuser).
Some people are happy to sit back and say that abortions have risen in countries where there are more contraceptives and sex education. There are several problems with that statement. In developed countries, proper education has a better chance of success. The truth is that legal abortion increases the number of abortions that we know about. Unfortunately, not all illegal abortions are reported. Also, raw numbers usually rise in less developed, poorer countries as the population rises. Success has to be measured in terms of percentages of the current population. So if you see a graph showing that the number of abortions is staying constant, that means the abortions per person are decreasing because our population is increasing. Given population counts in the USA, the number of abortions are decreasing.
In the current times, that abortion has become such a big issue makes me think it is a distraction from solving our current issues, such as high unemployment, poor economy due to high unemployment, and poor economy due to a few having most of the wealth in this country, preventing the masses from spending.
If we could tackle the abortion issue logically as I laid out above, we could move onto the larger issues that affect us more greatly. This isn't to say abortion isn't an important issue, but the larger issues are also a matter of life and death. Poor economy creates crime. It means more people can't afford health care or sufficient food. It is not a good sign when the state of a country is a shambles and what goes on inside a uterus is the main focus of discussion.
Further Reading:
Carl Sagan on Abortion. http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
A pretty poor argument against the one presented by Sagan and myself. It is well-refuted by my above article. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/are_sperm_and_egg_cells_alive/
Tumors Can Have Distinct DNA http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755-8794/3/59
According to Psalm 139, an embryo/fetus may be an unformed substance and is not said to have a soul (despite this writer's interpretation that it says it does). This article also says that a doctor says there isn't enough genetic material to define a unique person until at least after 8 days, possibly later. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.6003193/k.2C54/When_Does_a_Fetus_Receive_a_Soul.htm
Regarding Fetal Pain: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain2.htm
Stages of Development: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm
Fetal Sentience: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/when-is-the-capacity-for-sentience-acquired-during-human-fetal-4YT0ohPF0w
Woman denied abortion, forced to endure her uterus crushing fetus to death: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214
GOP wants to censure legislature for saying the word “uterus” during discussion of abortion. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/gop-cant-say-uterus-statehouse-floor-florida
Over 97% of climate scientists and 82% of Earth scientists agree that humans are a significant contributing factor to the current global warming.
Source(s):
(I shouldn't admit it, but global warming is something I don't really care much about either. However, we should all agree that poisoning our air, water, soil, and food is bad. Friends deny global warming all the time, but it can't be denied that the city where I live constantly declares smog days. My lungs don't like it one bit. Let's agree that pollution is killing us, and we need to stop it.)
Bonus Video: Betty Bowers Describes All The Abortions in The Bible
Bonus Video: Betty Bowers Describes All The Abortions in The Bible
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
In Defense of the Simple Plan to Save America's Economy
In one of my first posts, I presented a plan to revitalize and preserve America's economy using tax incentives to raise wages.
Below, I respond to various criticisms of the plan, and show why those concerns are unfounded. I have culled and paraphrased these criticisms from various sources.
Counter:
“Higher wages increase the costs of goods and services, which will also raise prices.”
Defense:
Right. So, I guess we just don't increase people's wages then. Problem solved? Hey everybody, no more raises ever!
Actually, no. Wages have to increase. Wages have been stagnant for quite some time for the vast majority of Americans. Meanwhile, the number of millionaires has increased in this country and the riches of the mega-rich has increased dramatically.
However, the important thing is that higher wages don't increase the cost of goods. Anyone who understands economics knows this to be true. Cost is a function of supply and demand. When demand increases, more of a product is sold, the production cost is divided across more products and this reduces the cost of production per item, decreasing the cost of the item. The only time demand increases the cost of an item is when demand outstrips the supply. For the counter statement to be true, it would have to have said that demand increases the cost of goods and services when the supply is limited, and higher wages would also have to increase the demand on every product in the market to the point where demand outstrips supply. It is not as if everybody is suddenly going to want 50 gallons of milk every week. The truth is that many products will become cheaper though it is possible some items of limited availability may increase in price.
Therefore, those who say increasing wages in this country is a bad idea think we should keep the workers poor because there is a chance that the demand for some items may increase their cost. They're saying the money is better off in the hands of the rich CEOs. Unless, maybe you think the money is better off in the hands of the government. Personally, I wouldn't mind an extra $20 grand in my salary, even if maybe the price of milk were to go up by 20 cents a gallon.
In summary, that higher wages increases the cost of goods is blatantly false.
Counter:
“It will cause inflation.”
Defense:
See the above. This counter is simply not true. Also, the term inflation should only be used to mean rising costs associated with the devaluation of money caused by the government printing more.
Counter:
“Salaries & wages are already a write off. Corps only pay taxes on net. We'd be better off eliminating all subsidies and loopholes.”
Defense:
Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes will only increase government revenue. I guess this means the government can take better care of all the poor and struggling working class who become poorer as companies outsource their work.
My plan provides a tax write-off incentive for companies to increase wages and hire domestically. In the case of corporations only paying taxes on net profit, this is an additional write-off. In light of that, perhaps a write-off equal to 50% of a worker's wage would be sufficient. Although, I must say I'm in favor of eliminating all write-offs and deductions for everybody and taxing all income, regardless of the source (except for non-profit charities). I'd couple this suggestion with suggesting eliminating sales tax in America, putting the tax on the person doing the selling, not on the buyer. It is true that some localities depend on a sales tax, but I would rather they instead earn a local income tax from sales. I'm aware that could simply lead to building the cost of the “sales tax” into the price of the item instead of calling it a sales tax. I'm just not a fan of anything resembling double-taxation (taxed when you earn, taxed when you spend, ugh), but that's neither here nor there. I'm getting somewhat off-topic.
Counter:
“Let's enact tariffs. This will discourage domestic companies exporting their manufacturing to areas of cheap foreign labor and importing their products for sale. Then, they'll hire domestically instead.”
Defense:
Or, they'll just increase the cost of the product to make up for the tariff, pushing the cost onto the already struggling consumers in this country. Companies don't want to give up money. If there's a way around it, they'll do it.
Counter:
“These subsidies aren't sustainable. How long will they last? I'd rather a recovery be a function of the market.”
Defense:
We'll have given businesses a new tax write-off and eliminated other write-offs and loopholes. It's more likely the government would break even, given that the six richest corporations in America pay none or almost no Federal tax.
However, the government would likely earn more tax revenue overall from this plan, even if corporations end up paying the same amount or less taxes. The reason being that working Americans would be earning more, and therefore, paying more in income taxes. Unlike corporations, most working Americans are honest, tax-paying folk.
How long would this last? I'd make it permanent. After all, a recovery via this plan would be using the market itself. This isn't the government subsidizing wages; it's providing ground rules for fair, ethical, and moral capitalism. If you take those rules away, the same recession will happen all over again because all economic systems eventually break down. Everything needs ground rules. You don't play sports without rules, and driving without traffic laws (or road signs) would be chaos.
Counter:
“Companies don't have the money to increase wages, even with a tax write-off.”
Defense:
During our recession, oil companies have been posting record profits.
Taxes can be paid at the year's end. Companies can pay extra wages if they know they won't have to pay that in taxes.
There's also enough money in some CEO's salaries and stock options to increase worker wages. I'm perfectly OK if companies, in order to pay less taxes, decrease CEO paychecks and pay that to the workers instead.
The CEO of Occidental Petroleum made $76.1 million in 2010, as much as 1,465 workers making $52,000 a year. Cut that CEO's pay in half to $33 million and you can give a $26,000 raise to 1,465 workers.
His pay also increased 142% from 2009. The life-changing effect of that would have been far more greatly felt by someone making $52,000 a year who would have seen their salary jump to $73,840.
While true that this CEO's pay may not be entirely transformable into cash since he's paid in stock options too, why not pay the CEO a meager salary and the rest in stock options? Or, why not give workers stock options? Maybe, they'd care more about where they worked if they had a stake in it. Remember pensions? I thought not.
Counter:
“What if a hugely profitable company doesn't have a lot of employees? How will this help them?”
Defense:
In this case, it will improve the standard of living for the employees that they do have if those employees are paid less than the maximum deduction amount. However, the company won't be able to claim a giant deduction for wages that reduces its taxes to next to nothing. It'll just have to pay its regular taxes. This answer was pretty obvious.
I should point out that I do believe there should be a minimum taxation amount so that no company can use deductions to reduce their taxes to zero. I believe that 5% to 10% would be good.
However, government is all about compromise so I'm sure that if this plan is enacted some politicians will include a few write-offs and deductions even for companies without sufficient employee numbers to significantly reduce their taxes. I would also support that even if we tax companies on all of their income instead of merely profit, that a company with no profit would not owe taxes in most cases. However, the basic premise is simple, and I have heard of no other plan to revitalize America's economy that will sustain itself and pay for itself as this plan can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)