See you Later!

This might sound like a bad spin off from the bar stool economics e-mail that has been circulating for years now, but bear with me.

Imagine this: You are a big time executive that makes a million dollars a year. You probably worked pretty damn hard to get there, and might just die of a heart attack twenty years early, but you did it. You are living the American dream and you make a mil a year. Woohoo. This is not how it works, but let’s just say taxes are fair and everyone is taxed ten percent.

So if you are taxed ten percent, you are paying in a hundred thousand dollars a year. If you make 100k per year, than you are taxed ten thousand dollars. Someone making, say, a hundred thousand a year (which is not much if you live in a high tax location with a high cost of living like California- just sales taxes nearing 10% there, significantly lowering the quality of life) would pay ten thousand dollars.

Fair, right? Both individuals have one tenth of their income taken from them- ten percent. For the millionaire, that is a more significant chunk- one hundred thousand. But you won’t often see the millionaire whining about how he has to pay in more money even though he worked harder to get there. He could, sure, but he probably doesn’t have time. He pays ninety thousand dollars more in taxes than the six figure bread bringer, and he probably makes more money for a reason, whether it be talent or just plain hard work. But still, they are both paying ten percent, so it is fair, even though one has to pay a lot more than the other.

At a fair tax rate you wouldn’t see the millionaire whining. And at an unfair tax rate, you might not so much either. I work with executives enough to know that when they see a problem, they come up with a solution, or they find an alternative one.

The tax system, as we all know, is not fair. The more money you make the higher the percentage you have to pay in, thus discouraging hard work and determination. This is just increasing with all the spending taking place. So what are the rich Americans doing?

Leaving the country. I see it every day in my occupation, some literally begging for an out. So, when you have less rich Americans…who is going to be there to pay for the poor? Or for the debt the government has gotten us into? Considering Obama spent more than Bush did in all his years in office, the blame it on Bush tactic doesn’t work for explaining our deficit. Nope, not anymore. Typically, when a country is in debt, spending is not the way out.

Here are the Zogby International results:

• 1.6 million U.S. households already decided to move offshore and are headed in that direction.

• Another 1.8 million households are seriously considering moving and are likely to do it. Many have taken preliminary steps.

• 7.7 million households are “somewhat seriously” considering moving and “may” do it.

• Nearly 3 million households are seriously considering buying a vacation home or other property outside the United States. Another 10 million are “somewhat” seriously considering it.

This means that almost 10% of U.S. households are considering leaving the country. Another 10% are considering living outside the country part-time. Most analysts are ignoring this silent massive emigration.

These would-be emigrant households plan to spend an average of US$260,000 on buying or building a house. They’re also planning to spend at least US$36,000 annually on living expenses outside the United States.

In total, they represent hundreds of billions of dollars leaving the U.S. economy each year.

Bauman quoted John Gaver of ActionAmerica.org, who said:

The problem is that increasingly, the wealthy perceive that they are under attack by their own government and they are taking the only rational option left open to them. They’re taking their wealth and leaving.

Is there a solution to help those in poverty, that isn’t through a government mandated program? Of course, through the people. Encourage humanitarian efforts and provide incentives for them as well, providing a more focused cost effective way to help people get on their feet- through a situation where everyone will benefit. Concentrate on encouraging a society that promotes individual responsibilities and you will have a stronger whole. Not encouraging the stronger part to run away because you keep robbing them.

Obama is not a bad president, in my opinion. A president is basically the representative for a country, and Obama meets and surpasses the criteria for the charisma needed to be successful in the position. He has fresh ideas, and encourages the people to take charge. I believe it is the congress that needs to be regulated.

If the republicans end up taking over the senate you will have what I consider to be an ideal situation: A humanitarian president with fresh, innovative ideas and a senate to make sure we can afford them and implement them in a cost effective manner.  Just like the Clinton administration, but even better… assuming Obama can keep his pants on during work hours.

Working Together

It gets a little tiring to see voters spend so much  time ranting about how they dislike each other or  calling each other names without coming up with  a solution to a problem. It is sad to see so much  energy wasted in such a non-  productive inefficient way of doing things. If both parties spent less time arguing and despising each other, maybe something would actually get done. It is in situations like these that emotions cloud logic in a most destructive way.

It seems to be the spectators, those who have not much control over the bills being passed that are the most immature, encouraged by the media. This behavior is likely stemmed from frustration, which is understandable from a position where one can do so little. People are becoming ugly for the causes they believe in, attacking each other instead of finding a solution that will work for all involved. The ugliness spreads; children watch their parents and continue to act like vultures, attacking instead of discussing. Too quick to write the other party off as wrong without ever considering they could be right.

The United States is divided into two main parties… Democrats and Republicans.  It isn’t exactly fifty/ fifty, and other parties exist as well, of course. But quite frankly, approximately half the country tends to be conservative and the other half are liberal. Yet both parties often think their way is the only way with little regard or respect for that other party. The more stubborn the parties become, and the more they belittle each other’s characters instead of dealing with the specific issues at hand, the more we regress to a country that needs to go back to kindergarten. In some cases, literally.

There are situations where one party is just plain unjust and cruel. There are some situations that just shouldn’t be a matter of opinion. These are often social issues, since fiscal issues cannot be wholly predicted based even on history due to changing circumstances and unexpected events. A good example of an unjust social issue that should never have been argued against is keeping African Americans as slaves, or not allowing gays to marry. Although I know not one person who would say today that having any sort of slave is okay, there are people out there who do not believe it should be legal for homosexual oriented individuals to be married as a man and woman would be. This is something that will of course be looked back in time as unjust discrimination as the times improve. So of course it is understandable for one party to get frustrated- but if that party ever wants to enlighten the other party they are going to have to be adult about it. Intimidation tactics don’t often work so well on the stubborn.

My opinion is that republicans could take some lessons from the democrats with social issues, just as the democrats could take some lessons from the republicans on fiscal issues. After all, republicans are often the big business types that understand finances, and democrats often the compassionate humanitarians that understand human rights. Instead of the two parties walking in with open minds and being civil, learning from each other and discussing… they go head to head. I find it amusing when people wonder how countries can go to war,  when the people within them cannot even be civil with their own country!

There needs to be serious change taking place in not just the government, but the way people behave and respond to it- including biased media. Intimidation and manipulation tactics do not do anything but cloud information. It is not until people can start respecting each other for having a difference of opinions, and learn to live with each other in their difference of opinions, that human beings will get along.

Of course, you still have those social issues that need to be passed quickly for people are not getting the rights they deserve, and the fiscal issues that need to be thought through before money is spent and our country is too far in debt and not in a position to help anyone. But attacking another person for their party is never a trait that is admired by many. It could be compared to attacking another race for their color or a religion for their beliefs. It starts with you, not the government.

Going Back to Basics- Why Gold is Worth More Than Paper

Gold has been a form of currency for countless centuries all around the world. Our dollar used to be backed by gold, up until the early thirties hit along with some hardship. People no doubt tried to fix the economy by converting our onced gold backed dollar to paper money, or ‘fiat’ currency. The term fiat basically means ‘let it be done’ in latin and this term is used for this form of currency because it is not worth anything unless people think it is so. By the early 1970’s, almost all nations had abandoned their currency forms to  the fiat currency. The last country to do so was Switzerland in 1999. Now every single country uses a fiat currency, which is unprecedented in history.

Many people believe that it was the gold standard that caused the great depression, which is why the gold standard was abandoned. While this is debatable, the switch to fiat currency is certainly responsible for inflation. What happens when you have a system built on fiat currency? It works, until the government starts printing more money.

Gay Marriage- From a Liberal and Conservative Perspective

Personally, I am socially liberal. I do not believe the government should decide what is morally ‘right’, and what is ‘wrong’. It is usually the Republicans that remind people that our government exists to preserve our freedom. I find this ironic at times, considering the freedom to marry is one I believe every adult should have a right to.

Yesterday, I asked a Republican their view on gay marriage. He answered, as a typical Republican would, that he does not believe it should be legal. When I asked him why, he said that he didn’t feel it was natural. I have noticed this to be a common response of those who oppose the marriage between two homosexuals. Then I asked him to put himself in the shoes of someone who is gay, and imagine that he only had feelings for other males, and there was nothing he could do to change that. Would he feel ostracized from society, considering that marriage to someone he is sexually attracted to is ILLEGAL? His answer was yes, he would. Then I asked him if he still opposes it, and he shrugged. I notice that many social conservatives object to this because they don’t understand it. I have also noticed most of the conservatives that tend  to be really adamant on rejecting gay marriage are typically religious.

I have a couple of things to say to those who feel that being gay goes against your religion. First of all, while our country was established as ‘one nation under God’ and should continue to remain so for historical purposes only, our country was also established as a haven for all types of religious people, and for those who chose not to be religious. Hence, the popular saying that America is a ‘free country.’  Now, the catholic church has just voted to allow gays to be priests and openly gay at the same time, just as the Evangelical Lutheran church just voted to allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality and still pastors. These are arguably two of the strictest branches of Christianity. So if the churches are okay with it, and ones argument still has religious undertones, I suggest they think about that for a second.

I have heard people say that “if the government does not control our morals, then what would happen? People would be able to start killing each other?” and often scoff at that, for I have always considered marriage a positive issue. Murder is a lot more than immoral, it is intrusive  to the highest extent. Murder is the ultimate freedom eliminator as well as many other crimes. So to those of you so conservative that you worry where society is going if same genders were allowed to marry, rest assured, this will not cause our country to result in anarchy.

I have heard conservatives argue that this would produce more homosexuals. Even if it did, what is wrong with someone being able to openly homosexual if that is how they feel? But the fact of the matter is, it wouldn’t produce more homosexuals, but it would allow people living their lives in secret to have a freedom that previously only existed to heterosexuals. Homosexuals have been criticized and ostricized throughout history, and religious people have argued that all homosexuals are going to hell. Still, homosexuals existed, but in private. They were forced to live secret lives due to their natural feelings. So while homosexuals may seem more prominent in society if gay marriage was legal, it would only be because many people would finally be able to come out of hiding…or as some say ‘the closet’. Having to live a lie cannot be fun, and there is nothing wrong with allowing people to be themselves if they are not harming others.

Legalizing gay marriage is the first step to ending the discrimination and hate that exists against homosexuals today. To treat someone differently because of their orientation, or think they should not be allowed certain freedoms that others have, is as bad as being a racist and it is discrimination to the highest extent. So get with the times, because people are starting to realize that mindless discrimination is ignorant…even the churches.

Job Creation That The Stimulus Package Helped

Obama, January 2009: “Now most of the money we are investing as part of the plan will get out the door immediately, and will go directly to job creation, generating or saving three to four million jobs. Immediately.”

Obama, April 2009: “Because we know people are hurting right now, we need to create jobs and get money into peoples pockets right now, so we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This government effort is coming in ahead of schedule, and under budget.”

Obama, July 2009: “The recovery act was designed to make sure local school districts didn’t lay off teachers, and fire fighters, and police officers and it’s done its job.”

“The stimulus package is working exactly as we had anticipated”

“As I made clear at the time it was passed, the recovery act was not designed to work in four months. “

It is now October 2009, and the unemployment rate and is 9.8% and rising. We can only hope Obama did not just prolong a present day Great Depression.

The 2016 Olympics…in Chicago?

Obama has made many residents of chicago furious when it was declared that he would be trying to get the Olympics to take place in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago is currently the city with the highest crime in the entire United States, and they are doing poorly in terms of money right now and our president wants chicago to spend 100 million dollars on the Olympics…because…it is his home town. A little selfish, right? Here is what the people of Chicago are saying:

I have a message to President Barack Obama: You have arguably more power than any other single man on this planet right now. So it may be a good time to stop thinking about how you can benefit the government, but rather the people.  Fortunately for the United States, Obama did not get his way and the Olympics will be hosted in Brazil. I wonder when it will occur to Obama that we cannot afford to keep spending like this…

Collaberation Will Not Be Successful in the Government Until Maturity is Incorporated into Washington

Anyone who has ever watched a meeting in Washington on C-Span knows how it could easily be compared to that of a soap opera. Drama, drama, drama. They spend more time attacking each other than they do the actual ideas they are debating! Anyone who hasn’t watched C-Span and is interested in politics, I suggest you do so. It has the raw meetings, not bits and pieces played over and over in commentary clips from biased media. They are surprisingly interesting to watch, so before you pass that channel writing it off as ‘boring’, give it five minutes of your time.

In these meetings you will notice a lot of animosity. These state representitives do not just dislike each other, they hate each other. When Bush was president, many democrats were extremely immature just as many Republicans are immature about our current administration.

Hate has NEVER solved anything in a positive way. Republicans that make racist comments about Obama bring down the party. Someone who is racist is also shallow and ignorant. If you are racist, you are biased and your opinion is invalid.

Yelling out ‘you lie!’ during a meeting that is supposed to be civil and professional, is more than rude even if it is true. Yes, Mr. Republican Joe Wilson, I am speaking of you. Senator John McCain stated how disrespectful he thought the comment was, and I admire him for that because he was honest even though Joe wilson is a member of his own party. Do they need to be instructed to raise their hands as a child would in grade school?

If someone hates someone else for their opinion, they will never get anywhere. It is a difference of opinions that brings discussions to progression. To hear someones political opinion and disagree is one thing, but to attack their person for it is another. Try to think of someone you dislike, maybe you even hate them. When they express their opinion, do you listen as you would to someone you loved? Probably not, even if you don’t realize your subconcious is naturally going to back away from truly listening to that person with an open mind. And it is when people open their mind that things actually start to make sense.

Bottom Line: Don’t Hate.

Can You Just Print More Money to Save an Economy?

Is the government really printing money to get us out of debt? The answer is yes. This is a question that is not much of a debate, because if you just look at other countries who have done this then you know what happens. This is a public post I found from someone named Carmela who is from Argentina:

“Well, I grew up in South America where our government in Argentina did this many times through my growing up years.  We had to live within our means no matter what but I thought that was just the way life was!  We stocked food, and always had cash and savings for a rainy day.  Our peso was pretty worthless.  I remember many times when the government came up with new currency so our bread wouldn’t cost a $1,000.”

Anyone who is aware of a situation where this has happened, or who has had history lessons knows the outcome of this ‘great idea’. It is very important to take a look at history before we make catastrophic decisions that affect others. I am by no means an economist, but I can quote one from the history news network:

Just how much money is the U.S. government printing to meet its debts? Steven Horwitz, professor at St. Lawrence University, and co-author of The Austrian Economists blog, explains that the amount of money printed in the past few months since the October economic crisis, has been absolutely unprecedented in U.S. history. “Since September, the ‘monetary base,’ which is the measure of currency plus bank reserves, has doubled from about $850 billion to $1.7 trillion, about $600 billion of which is in the form of bank reserves,” he says. When the Fed wants to raise money for the government it sells government bonds. The more bonds it sells the more money it raises. As long as there are buyers the government can raise as much money as it needs. If the buyers grow skittish the government can raise the yield on the bonds to make them more attractive. Most of the time the Treasury sells bonds either to private investors of governments like China. But it can also sell them to the Federal Reserve. When the Fed buys bonds it can pay for them simply by printing money.

If there is more of something, then it is worth less. Imagine you had thirty hungry people and thirty bowls of rice. You could sell each bowl of rice for whatever price you choose…lets say $2.00. But if you had fifteen bowls of rice and thirty hungry people, the rice would be worth $4.00…because there is less of it. So essentially by printing more money we are making it worth less.

I really don’t have much to say about that. The numbers and history books speak for themselves. So what DOES happen if someone tries to print more money to get out of debt? The answer is in one word: Inflation. We may quite possibly be about to see the highest inflation rate to ever hit the United States, and the money in your bank account may not be worth as much as it is now.

Spending That Doesn’t Make Cents

Sometimes in order to look at the bigger picture you need to step out of the picture entirely. It is very important to constantly consider the opposing point of view with an open mind. He who steps into the ocean with a blindfold may not be able to swim back to shore.

I have been reading the democratic point of view, and trying to understand why the administration thinks spending more money is going to get us out of a recession that was caused by irresponsibility and over spending. That is exactly what caused the recession in the first place. The housing market started to do poorly because people were given loans for homes that they couldn’t afford, and thus the credit card companies suffered. Democrats and Republicans alike agree that it was irresponsibility on both ends that pushed this recession over the edge.

I am seeing a lot of opinions blaming the lack of return to our thriving economy on Bush and his spending. That may very well be true, but in the first couple of months in office Obama had already spent more than Bush did in all of his eight years. So while to blame the recession on Bush’s spending may be an accurate accusation, why would you spend more on trying to fix it? Injecting a problem with the problem itself only works with vaccinations.

Bottom line: You can’t just spend more money to fix an issue caused by spending.

The Independent Party Revolution

Americans, formerly classified into two main parties, are evolving away from tradition. Many recent polls have indicated that the independent party is now the nations largest party. If this trend continues, this means there could become three major parties.

Basically, the definition of a republican is someone who is fiscally conservative, and socially conservative.

The definition of a democrat is someone who is fiscally liberal, and socially liberal.

This is why democrats are classified as ‘liberals’ and republicans are classified as ‘conservatives’. Today’s generation has grown tired of these long-lived classifications and are choosing to become independent voters. Although the term means free from classifications, independent voters tend to possess certain qualities. The typical characteristics of an independent voter is a fiscal conservative, social liberal with libertarian tendencies. That basically means less taxes, and more freedom.

This is not just a movement, it is a revolution. The republican party began to dwindle during the presidency of Bush, just as the democratic party is shrinking under Obama’s administration. A new type of citizen is emerging, and freedom- something we had to fight for in the past- is once again an issue as history continues to repeat itself. People are beginning to understand that the government shouldn’t tell you how to live your life when it comes to social or fiscal issues. In fact, if you go back to the message our founding fathers were trying to get across, the only thing the American government is really supposed to do is ensure people are able to keep their freedoms.

When George Bush was in office, his controversial war in Iraq and lack of public speaking skills gave him a bad reputation. Many Republicans actually converted to democrat, although most that converted did so to the independent party. Now we are seeing the same pattern. The citizens of the United States don’t like where their tax dollars are going, and many democrats are switching to independent. The independent party is larger than ever, and it is the only party that allows you to make a decision based on a candidate and their ideals rather than the category they fit into. It has become a game of attacking the other party and nobody is getting anywhere, so people are branching off for freedom. And I’m joining them.