Responce to National Sales Tax

I have to agree with the latest post from Plain truth. I feel that a national sales tax could be the way out of our current situation. The taxation system is flawed and I personally am sick at tired of paying the way for everyone. I am a giving person, but only to those that really need it. They must be willing to help themselves first, then I don't mind helping to make the ends meet. A national sales tax sound as if the equality of taxation would be even and just. When we look at all the tax breaks companies and people get for stupid reasons I get so mad that I end up footing the bill. A fair and equal taxation of the people is what our founding fathers intended and it has evolved into a means of generating unfair taxation of the people to fund many unreasonable programs. For any who are interested read about the details of the Fair tax. I support it, because I want my kids to have afair chance.

Trimming the fat

I have been keeping up with the on going battle with the economy lattely and asking myself a few questions. What is the problem with balancing the budget? If this were any other company in the existence of business we would be homeless. It is as simple as bringing in more than you give out. Balancing the budget is a necessary plan that the federal government should be required to do every year. The states have to turn in an annual budget report before receiving any more federal aid, so why would the federal government not be also held to the same requirements. I also feel that the people have a right to know exactly how the money, our tax dollars, will be spent.
A few problems I have with the budget as a whole is the accountability of where the money goes and how it is spent. I understand how lawmakers have a lot of pet projects and such that they really would like to continue, but as my grandfather always taught me, if you can’t take care of yourself then you will never be able to help anyone else. We need to stop and analyze that statement for a minute. If the federal government would cut back on its spending, so that it could lower its deficit spending, then we could get back in the black, which would lead to the government eventually being able to spend surplus money on pet projects again. Baffling to the mind isn’t it.
The recent budget proposal from President Obama talks a lot about cutting spending from different area that a grossly inefficient. I thank this is absolutely wonderful, while we are at it we should cut some of the lawmakers salaries and salary budgets as well. They are the equivalent of the drowning CEO’s of the banking and finance industry right now. I really want our lawmakers to do a good job I just think that lately there are too many special programs and such going on that help the lobbyist and big companies instead of helping the American people. I mean I run a successful small business and if I spent any where near $600,000.00 to keep my staff I would be in the red too, and quickly. I love this country but the spending has got to stop. Let’s get back on track and encourage more small business and individuals to start business in the United States. This would help the economy by keeping more jobs here and encourage spending in the U.S. I know that it might be cheaper to build overseas but this is not smart business it is exploitation of the working class of other countries. Half of what goes on overseas would not be tolerated here. If you can’t afford to build it here then you should redesign your company plan to adjust for the changes.

Is church and state separate?

I find it funny that in the last decade of presidential elections we find that a topic that keeps getting pushed around in the media is that of gay marriage. I am not completely sure how this should even be a topic or why it is even coming up that states need to vote for gay marriage to be recognized. Except for the defense of marriage law that makes the states choose. How did it get to this?


Marriage as defined by the Webster dictionary is really the third description, basing the root of the word to have credible meaning, stating that it is an intimate or close union. This is the raw and un-opinionated definition and should be the only one in the dictionary. The other two are purely for show as I see it.

So I get back to why? Why should it matter who is marrying who? Why should I care? Why is it any of my business?

The answer is what really gets under my skin, Church. If we are to have true separation of church and state then this should not be a topic. First we must understand that it is not the church, known as an organization that is directly in conflict here. It is the people that are religious. That being said, the people that are following their religion believe that they are doing what is best to protect their way of life. If you look closely what is going on, I don’t understand why they feel threatened. Most of the gays in America also have their own religion. The only real issues here are, if we believe that in ‘our religion’ it is wrong to have same sex marriages, why would we want to impose that belief to someone else. This is part of the fundamental rights that we are given. I do not need to believe the same thing as anybody else. I think that too much time has been spent on this topic already.

Let me quote to you from the bill of rights, or the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is really not a matter for government to be a part of. Who are we to really tell someone who they can fall in love with, or who they want to spend the rest of their life with? Before the topic became a heated debate, I could not find anything about the Constitution giving permission for opposite sex marriages to take place, so why would we need to give permission to same sex marriages. The only reasoning is to protect the rights of the same sex marriages. The Defense of Marriage Law was a hastily thrown together patch to stop the states momentum of passing a protective law honoring same sex marriages. Again you have to ask why it would matter if we gave recognition to same sex marriages. Again the only answer I can come up with is that so many religious people don’t believe in this. This is not seperation of church and state when the church decides any issues that are used to govern the people. If you don't believe in it then don't practice it. I don't belive in cathalicism, but I would not ever think of passing a law to stop anyone else from practicing it.

So in conclusion I want you to look at this and ask some questions:

Why does it matter if same sex marriages are legal?

Does YOUR religion affect your final decision? If so, would this not be imposing your beliefs on someone else?

Is it your responsibility to make sure that everyone is not gay, and if so who put you in charge?

The Public gets Smoked

Based on changing the way the American people keep involved with government today, President Obama recently held an online town meeting. I think this is a great way to help get more people involved with what is going on in government, however, there has to be a little discretion or screening to the relevancy of the topics and involvement. The blog I read was by John Aravosis, a Washington DC based writer and political consultant. He has a lot of recognition as one of America’s top progressive political blogger.

The blog I read was about the recent online town meeting with President Obama and was focused on how the American public was overly zealous about the topic of legalizing medicinal marijuana. It was simply titled, Obama and marijuana. Simple and to the point and yet catchy enough to spark up anyone’s interest on the topic. I have to say that I agree with Mr. Aravosis’ view in the blog, which is not as much about the actual legalization and response from Obama, as it is about the stupidity and lack of relevance to what is going in the rest of these United States. He states how the focus of the online questions were stupidly redundant and how most of the questions seemed to lack any relevance to the categories in which they were supposed to be about.

Obama’s staff or whom ever is in charge of screening the white house website, where the questions were posted and voted upon, should be brought up to speed about how we would be better served and informed from diversity. Mr. Aravosis does a good job of relaying his opinion with a thick fog of sarcastic remarks that actually made me giggle a little. By the end of his blog I feel that most readers should have gotten his point, but in case they were to stoned, he states it very clearly.

“Now people are upset. Well too bad. It was a stupid question to ask the president of the United States.”

I would have to agree 100% with him.

Stimulate what?

So, as I am searching the articles and newsprint for interesting things about our government to read, I keep coming across the stimulus package and what it involves. How this is related to us, the common people, and what it does to actually put some money in our pockets and help.

This editorial, written by Robert J. Samuelson, expresses some of what I believe to be the main issues that we all need to know today about what the stimulus actually does or doesn't do for the American people. Samuelson is an accredited writer who has won many awards, and has written for the Post since his first column in 1969. He also has a couple of books published. You can read his biography here.

The basics of what he talks about in the stimulus package deals with what the national and global impact of what the stimulus does and very little of how it will actually help the common American. This is what frustrates most Americans today. It seems to me that what we want to know is how I will be affected and what is in store for my future. I think we can all agree that the first round of payments that went to the banks was very disappointing. I mean, how dare they use the money just to balance the books. If any other company head had ran a company into the ground, he would be out on his butt with no severance and no 18 million dollar salary. The article as a whole does help to explain where some of the money is being distributed to, but this is very disappointing to hear. I have to completely agree with him on the points of how all of this is designed to be long term and help to keep the entire economy from collapsing, but some of what is happening is still very confusing and unclear about how it will help me.

Some of the money spent on things that I feel are more important in the long run, there is very little money spent at all. For example, if the government would help to regulate the cost of wind turbines as an alternative source of energy, then we all could have them for our home and seriously cut down on the use of fossil fuels for electricity. If any one is interested, you can find a good turbine though helixwind. This is a good alternative. We could even pass legislation to make them new standards for homes. Gas prices going down and the fact that we would need less fuel would immediately put money back into our pockets. These are the things the American people want to hear, not how a long term buy out of the banks who are just trying to get as much money as they can to pay outrageous salaries and share holder dividends.

We need to make sure that stimulus is not just going to balance accounts of the rich and large companies that have ran themselves and the economy into the ground and make sure that what is left is not being used on projects that will do us little good for the years to come. The article was well written and I will follow Samuelson for a while because he sparks thought about what is really going on. You can read the article here in The Washington Post.

We all need it.

As I was reading through many articles in preparation of this blog. I thought to myself, how do I feel right now about Obama? What is the best way to express my feelings of urgency for necessary change in our government? I browsed for a while then found an article by Max Stier in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012600742.html

The opening quote is what really caught my eye. I really feel that big or small, our govenment has the potential to be great, but right now it does not work. We need this change as fast as possible, because if we don't we will sink like a mafia hit with concrete shoes. I can really respect the fact that Obama hit the ground running. Appointing people just as fast as Bush could mispronounce words. Change is what our forefathers anticipated in an unknown future and they set our government up for that, but I feel we have been stagnant for too long. Feeding the mouths of the big businesses and leaving the common people behind, leaving us with the feeling of helplessness and lost hope. WE must continue as we snowball into a new era of change and make sure that the American people are rolling with us.