Caps on executive salaries
I see where Congress is trying to impose limits on Wall Street Executive salaries. If they go about it correctly it might be a good idea. If they do it heavy-handedly the cries of socialism will start to ring true. In the ideal world the companies and executives would make these changes without government intervention. I have two suggestions about how this should work. Both of these have been mentioned in earlier posts but I see the need to revisit them.
First, I would like to see a rule limiting any executive’s total compensation to no more than 5 times the average salary of all the company employees. This would help (in theory at least) raise the incomes of all employees. As a working class employee all my life I find it hard to forget that my co-workers and I carry the weight of the executives. They have the education, talent, and personalities to make the million-dollar decisions and I understand that. Still, someone has to tighten the screws and sweep the floors. I have had a hard time in the past being sure MBA didn’t mean” Must Be an Asshole” or “Master of Being Abusive” instead of the accepted meaning. Increasing a company’s profits by limiting wages just to get a large profit-based bonus at the end of the year seems abusive to the workers. Sure, we don’t want to be responsible for the decisions; in a large part because we might have a different point of view.
The economy is not powered by high priced executives; ultimately it is powered by consumers. $25 more disposable money in the hands of 50,000 families has more impact than $1,250,000 divided among 10 top executives. Stockholders expect a few cents per share income on the 100,000(or so) shares they each own. That is capitalism and I have no problem with it. You cannot convince me that paying out multimillions total in bonuses does not impact the stock dividend. If I were an executive I might forego a larger dividend in order to receive a million dollar bonus atop my $750,000 salary.
My second idea for executive compensation is a totally different approach for rewarding top people for extraordinary success. I realize that people who have the personality to make the good business decisions expect to be recognized and rewarded for their success. I also believe there is a rational limit for the personal wealth any person actually needs. There is a point where additional income simply becomes superfluous. If too large a portion of a country’s capital is removed from the groups with the most impact on the economy the economy will suffer. An executive with a personal wealth in excess of $30Million (or another arbitrary figure) doesn’t really need a million-dollar bonus. He should be rewarded for his successes of course. I propose the board of the company (any company) determine what his contribution to the company is worth then publically donate the amount to charity in the executive’s name. A public announcement of the donation and public recognition of the executive’s efforts would be more personally rewarding than another big bonus to hide from the IRS.
I would love to see a full-page ad in the WSJ saying that St Jude Children’s Research Hospital just received a million dollar donation in my name from my company. Public appreciation of this type might be incentive for others.
I realize republican politicians with rich backers will have to label my ideas communist or socialist. I am not a communist or socialist and your opinion of me is inconsequential.
DRP
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Health care compromize and More Professor Gates
Healthcare compromise, Partisanism, Racism again visible
I see members of congress have managed to put a small portion of their “irreconcilable differences” aside long enough to make some compromises on healthcare reform. Any progress is welcome since the current conditions are not acceptable. In the end though, the most important consideration was cost. No elected official is willing to publicly admit the only solution is a tax increase. The threat to their personal power base and the support from their party weighs heavier than their commitment to public service. Not one has (to my knowledge) publicly said health reform was important enough to risk his/her re-election over. President Obama appears to see the personal costs paid by victims of the current healthcare system and is pushing hard for the reform we need.
Way back in high school, I wrote a paper about the development of political parties in this country. I did not see it then but in recent years I have grown to see many failures of the party system as practiced in this country. In order to achieve election success the vast majority of politicians must have access to the parties’ war chests and the incumbent power base. The person with an independent viewpoint and the personal strength to stand by it has no chance on the large scale political arena. The successful politician has to be willing to sell out to one or the other parties in order to be elected. He or she then has the parties’ leaders in his head writing his speeches, controlling his appearances, designating his votes and effectively pulling his strings. The sound bite is the primary political tool. President Obama has shown more independence than any president in my memory. The remark about the police department that arrested Professor Gates shows a willingness to say what’s on his mind – however misguided or misinformed. Unlike a normal politician who avoids confrontation and keeps his bridges well protected from fire, President Obama seems to want to make a difference in his first and probably only term. Re-election is not his goal. Making a difference in the lives and future of the American people is his applaudible goal. Even if your party wants him gone, you have to respect his goals on a personal level.
The arrest of Professor Gates will not go away. As a white person who grew up seeing “black” and “white only” signs over public water fountains and restrooms I can see how much racism has been eroded in this country. I think I see a rebound effect lurking deep within this incident. Professor Gates’ ethnic heritage is much closer to the surface than he would have admitted before this encounter. In the heat of the moment he fell back on this heritage as a personal explanation of what was happening to him. The officer, not having this heritage, did not understand the Professor’s actions or reactions. As I said in an earlier post, the officer’s training required him to seize control of the situation quickly. An unruly (in the officer’s point of view) person needs to be controlled. The most effective means was arrest. As long as living people remember the past at such a core level we will experience these incidents. We need to work toward real understanding and away from the blame. Continuing to keep the incident in the spotlight after a couple of days is counter-productive.
Think about this: In the digital display of the history of racial mistreatment in this country this is but a pixel on a huge bitmap, inconsequential except at a microscopic viewpoint. It makes absolutely no difference in the appearance of the whole picture. Let it go people. We have more important things to worry about.
I see members of congress have managed to put a small portion of their “irreconcilable differences” aside long enough to make some compromises on healthcare reform. Any progress is welcome since the current conditions are not acceptable. In the end though, the most important consideration was cost. No elected official is willing to publicly admit the only solution is a tax increase. The threat to their personal power base and the support from their party weighs heavier than their commitment to public service. Not one has (to my knowledge) publicly said health reform was important enough to risk his/her re-election over. President Obama appears to see the personal costs paid by victims of the current healthcare system and is pushing hard for the reform we need.
Way back in high school, I wrote a paper about the development of political parties in this country. I did not see it then but in recent years I have grown to see many failures of the party system as practiced in this country. In order to achieve election success the vast majority of politicians must have access to the parties’ war chests and the incumbent power base. The person with an independent viewpoint and the personal strength to stand by it has no chance on the large scale political arena. The successful politician has to be willing to sell out to one or the other parties in order to be elected. He or she then has the parties’ leaders in his head writing his speeches, controlling his appearances, designating his votes and effectively pulling his strings. The sound bite is the primary political tool. President Obama has shown more independence than any president in my memory. The remark about the police department that arrested Professor Gates shows a willingness to say what’s on his mind – however misguided or misinformed. Unlike a normal politician who avoids confrontation and keeps his bridges well protected from fire, President Obama seems to want to make a difference in his first and probably only term. Re-election is not his goal. Making a difference in the lives and future of the American people is his applaudible goal. Even if your party wants him gone, you have to respect his goals on a personal level.
The arrest of Professor Gates will not go away. As a white person who grew up seeing “black” and “white only” signs over public water fountains and restrooms I can see how much racism has been eroded in this country. I think I see a rebound effect lurking deep within this incident. Professor Gates’ ethnic heritage is much closer to the surface than he would have admitted before this encounter. In the heat of the moment he fell back on this heritage as a personal explanation of what was happening to him. The officer, not having this heritage, did not understand the Professor’s actions or reactions. As I said in an earlier post, the officer’s training required him to seize control of the situation quickly. An unruly (in the officer’s point of view) person needs to be controlled. The most effective means was arrest. As long as living people remember the past at such a core level we will experience these incidents. We need to work toward real understanding and away from the blame. Continuing to keep the incident in the spotlight after a couple of days is counter-productive.
Think about this: In the digital display of the history of racial mistreatment in this country this is but a pixel on a huge bitmap, inconsequential except at a microscopic viewpoint. It makes absolutely no difference in the appearance of the whole picture. Let it go people. We have more important things to worry about.
Monday, July 27, 2009
"Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man"
Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
New York Times (07/25/09) Markoff, John
TECHNEWS@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG
This was a headline on a recently received email and it spurred my thoughts as many things often do. Machines will outsmart man because man has reached a social stagnation in his evolution/advance. We have the power to change our environment in almost any way we decide to take it. We have the knowledge to end most of the causes of human suffering in the world. We have the means to expand beyond our one tiny world if we just set our minds to it.
Instead of doing the things we can and should do to improve ourselves, we find ways to impoverish each other, to kill each other for no reason other than pride, and to impose our wills on others just because they’re weaker. Greed is the driving force of humanity. Greed is in fact the vilest of human weaknesses because it is too easily rationalized away in our minds. Greed is a corruption of our animal instincts in that it has connections deep within us to our survival instincts. Intelligence should be the human strength that controls greed. Far too many of us allow our greed to control our intelligence. This will be the root cause for the eventual collapse of human civilization worldwide. We could use our collective intelligence to see the future path to our destiny. Instead we work as individuals pulling in directions of personal interest. The strength that brought humans to the top of Earth’s heap of life has devolved into a misdirected cancer that erodes our future. I can see this but I do not have the solution. Do you?
DRP
New York Times (07/25/09) Markoff, John
TECHNEWS@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG
This was a headline on a recently received email and it spurred my thoughts as many things often do. Machines will outsmart man because man has reached a social stagnation in his evolution/advance. We have the power to change our environment in almost any way we decide to take it. We have the knowledge to end most of the causes of human suffering in the world. We have the means to expand beyond our one tiny world if we just set our minds to it.
Instead of doing the things we can and should do to improve ourselves, we find ways to impoverish each other, to kill each other for no reason other than pride, and to impose our wills on others just because they’re weaker. Greed is the driving force of humanity. Greed is in fact the vilest of human weaknesses because it is too easily rationalized away in our minds. Greed is a corruption of our animal instincts in that it has connections deep within us to our survival instincts. Intelligence should be the human strength that controls greed. Far too many of us allow our greed to control our intelligence. This will be the root cause for the eventual collapse of human civilization worldwide. We could use our collective intelligence to see the future path to our destiny. Instead we work as individuals pulling in directions of personal interest. The strength that brought humans to the top of Earth’s heap of life has devolved into a misdirected cancer that erodes our future. I can see this but I do not have the solution. Do you?
DRP
Saturday, July 25, 2009
New thoughts about Professor Gates' arrest.
An important lesson! Can we learn it?
The latest word from the White house and some of the public in general is that Professor Gates was no less responsible for the arrest than the arresting officer. The incident escalated much more rapidly than it should have. We have two intelligent people with much different histories and perspectives in a situation where both personalities expect to be in control. In the end, control went to the authority of the police department and overrode the Professor's personal need to control a situation. The officer was backed up by his department while the Professor was on his own. His personal anger kept the situation more heated than was justified. The police officer could have relinquished control but his training would not allow that. We can learn from this if we understand the two points of view. If we refuse to understand and continue to blame one side or the other we learn nothing.
DRP
The latest word from the White house and some of the public in general is that Professor Gates was no less responsible for the arrest than the arresting officer. The incident escalated much more rapidly than it should have. We have two intelligent people with much different histories and perspectives in a situation where both personalities expect to be in control. In the end, control went to the authority of the police department and overrode the Professor's personal need to control a situation. The officer was backed up by his department while the Professor was on his own. His personal anger kept the situation more heated than was justified. The police officer could have relinquished control but his training would not allow that. We can learn from this if we understand the two points of view. If we refuse to understand and continue to blame one side or the other we learn nothing.
DRP
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Harvard Professor Arrested
A comment about the recent [unfounded] arrest of a black college professor.
I suspect the professor reacted the same way almost any black person would react in the same situation. He was outraged, and understandably so. If a white person were arrested in similar circumstances he would have no reason to react with outrage to perceived racial bias. The white person would likely be able to quickly provide proof of identity without getting angry. Given the history of mistreatment and misunderstanding between white police officers and African-Americans in general the specter of racial profiling is easily brought into being.
Also, I suspect the police officer has heard the same or very similar argument more than once from a person who was actually breaking into a home. He is not likely to believe what he hears from a suspect until there is some proof of what is said. Rapid escalation toward anger might have made it even harder for the police officer to accept a suspect’s statements. Police training (again I merely suppose) is to gain control quickly in any situation. Arrest is his most effective means of gaining control of an angry and potentially dangerous suspect. Maybe the officer was afraid of the professor.
To a police officer arresting a suspect is no big deal. They do it daily and it very rarely is a personal thing – it is part of the process of completing a task. To a Professor it is a much more personal act of mistreatment.
Without hearing the actual exchange between the participants in this mess I cannot go any deeper into an explanation for either side’s actions.
A quote from AP via Yahoo
“Police supporters charge that Gates, director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, was responsible for his own arrest by overreacting. “
DRP
I suspect the professor reacted the same way almost any black person would react in the same situation. He was outraged, and understandably so. If a white person were arrested in similar circumstances he would have no reason to react with outrage to perceived racial bias. The white person would likely be able to quickly provide proof of identity without getting angry. Given the history of mistreatment and misunderstanding between white police officers and African-Americans in general the specter of racial profiling is easily brought into being.
Also, I suspect the police officer has heard the same or very similar argument more than once from a person who was actually breaking into a home. He is not likely to believe what he hears from a suspect until there is some proof of what is said. Rapid escalation toward anger might have made it even harder for the police officer to accept a suspect’s statements. Police training (again I merely suppose) is to gain control quickly in any situation. Arrest is his most effective means of gaining control of an angry and potentially dangerous suspect. Maybe the officer was afraid of the professor.
To a police officer arresting a suspect is no big deal. They do it daily and it very rarely is a personal thing – it is part of the process of completing a task. To a Professor it is a much more personal act of mistreatment.
Without hearing the actual exchange between the participants in this mess I cannot go any deeper into an explanation for either side’s actions.
A quote from AP via Yahoo
“Police supporters charge that Gates, director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, was responsible for his own arrest by overreacting. “
DRP
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
anti-reform ads point to Canadian socialism
I just endured a TV ad opposing healthcare reform. The spokesperson related a horror story about Canadian health care - implying any American healthcare reform would become like the Canadian system. That is an insult to the American people because we CAN do much better than Canadians. We do not have to destroy the good parts of our current system. The level of care available to most people in this country in unmatched anywhere in the world. There are some problems we need to address though. The cost of health care is rising at an unsustainable rate and the effects of this inflation are felt at all income levels. Businesses are reducing or eliminating health benefits for workers. Retirees are being pruned off existing plans. The cost of self-paid insurance is absolutely prohibitive for the very people who need it most. If a person has any of several chronic conditions, most plans won't even insure him/her and those that will cover him impose premiums beyond reason. We continue to strangle our local governments by refusing to pay taxes needed for adequate services putting unfortunate people in need out on the street.
What we need is some reasoning going beyond politics and greed. We can support our unfortunates while allowing people with money the access to all the healthcare they can afford. We do not have to socialize the system. We need to teach capitalism the concept of compassion. Capitalism with a conscience is not an alien concept. Capitalism is the strength of this country and must continue to be. A minor progressive tax to subsidize healthcare for families below certain income levels or with chronic conditions that make then otherwise uninsurable is not socialism. We should work together to devise a plan that is the envy of the world. We should combine the strength of capitalism, some human compassion, American ingenuity, and our American capacity for compromise to help unfortunates. As we work on the problem we might also find ways to fund research without allowing drug companies outrageous subsidies and free reign to rip-off consumers. Drug companies are second only to oil companies in the way they rape the public.
I do not want a Canadian style "socialist" system - I expect an American style innovative solution to a tough problem. Stop beating up on each other and listen to people like me. I know what is needed. I can see it well from down here. There are too many layers of greed, politics, and power brokering obscuring the government's view. Contact me!!! I know what is needed!!!
DRP
What we need is some reasoning going beyond politics and greed. We can support our unfortunates while allowing people with money the access to all the healthcare they can afford. We do not have to socialize the system. We need to teach capitalism the concept of compassion. Capitalism with a conscience is not an alien concept. Capitalism is the strength of this country and must continue to be. A minor progressive tax to subsidize healthcare for families below certain income levels or with chronic conditions that make then otherwise uninsurable is not socialism. We should work together to devise a plan that is the envy of the world. We should combine the strength of capitalism, some human compassion, American ingenuity, and our American capacity for compromise to help unfortunates. As we work on the problem we might also find ways to fund research without allowing drug companies outrageous subsidies and free reign to rip-off consumers. Drug companies are second only to oil companies in the way they rape the public.
I do not want a Canadian style "socialist" system - I expect an American style innovative solution to a tough problem. Stop beating up on each other and listen to people like me. I know what is needed. I can see it well from down here. There are too many layers of greed, politics, and power brokering obscuring the government's view. Contact me!!! I know what is needed!!!
DRP
California snubs the people rather than raise taxes.
California's ongoing budget problem has reached a settlement. According to national TV news the solution is massive cuts in government services. I cannot disagree with the proposal to sell oil drilling rights or the idea of selling Arnold-signed products to add money to the coffers. Cutting services such as health care, welfare, police, or fire is unconscionable. This puts the lives and welfare of many people second to raw greed. There is no argument against raising taxes that cannot be boiled down to basic greed. Refusing to pay for vital services just to keep a few hundred dollars in ones account is nothing else but raw greed. One of my earlier posts mentioned letting people die rather than pay a couple percent more in taxes. How much is a life worth? Are all of you so self-centered as to ignore the real impact of your decision on people's lives? All my life I have existed at or just below the level of basic comfortable living. Even at this income level I never truly felt bad about paying my fair share of taxes. I understand the need to pay for government services - especially services for less fortunate. Any other approach is just greed.
drp
drp
Monday, July 20, 2009
More on Health care reform
fiveboxes - a twitter user - recently commented on my healthcare opinions. The gist of the comments, as I understand it, is that healthcare reform amounts to socialization of the healthcare industry. I can see the reasons for that argument although I disagree. I believe calling reform "socialization" could be much less negative than fiveboxes implies. I recognize that a homeless person dying of cancer can walk into a hospital and receive some treatment for free. That same person will be "streeted" as soon as the hospital can justify it because the hospital does not want to absorb the cost. The well insured person will always receive a higher standard of care because the hospital's greed for profit will demand full services. The limits and restrictions described in fiveboxes' comments are already real in the industry. The healthcare industry and the insurance industry are regularly finding new reasons to limit non-profit services while spinning the limits as cost savings. Either way the less fortunate always fall through ever-increasing cracks leading to poor quality of life and premature death. Socialization, as bad as it could possibly become, will be better for the people on the bottom of society's structure.
I do not believe we will let any president take our healthcare too far toward socialism. We will always support and glory in capitalism. What we need to do is practice capitalism with a conscience. We must be willing to give up a small piece of the profit margin in order to distribute some of the benefits of capitalism to those whose shoulders actually carry capitalism. The people who tighten the screws on our products and sweep the floors in our factories struggle to live a reasonable quality of life when their access to basic healthcare is limited.
I am 57 years old. I have suffered the closings of more than one employer and subsequent personal financial straits. I have had to fall back on 401K money just to survive on three different occasions. I lost my last two jobs in part due to medical problems that impacted my performance. Now I'm unemployed, uninsured, surviving on unemployment compensation for the next three months, and in poor health. I have a place to live as long as the unemployment checks continue but my health is deteriorating because I cannot see a doctor. I make just enough to disqualify for indigent care provisions at hospitals but nowhere near enough to pay for healthcare or insurance. To me a socialized system does not look quite so poisonous.
drp
I do not believe we will let any president take our healthcare too far toward socialism. We will always support and glory in capitalism. What we need to do is practice capitalism with a conscience. We must be willing to give up a small piece of the profit margin in order to distribute some of the benefits of capitalism to those whose shoulders actually carry capitalism. The people who tighten the screws on our products and sweep the floors in our factories struggle to live a reasonable quality of life when their access to basic healthcare is limited.
I am 57 years old. I have suffered the closings of more than one employer and subsequent personal financial straits. I have had to fall back on 401K money just to survive on three different occasions. I lost my last two jobs in part due to medical problems that impacted my performance. Now I'm unemployed, uninsured, surviving on unemployment compensation for the next three months, and in poor health. I have a place to live as long as the unemployment checks continue but my health is deteriorating because I cannot see a doctor. I make just enough to disqualify for indigent care provisions at hospitals but nowhere near enough to pay for healthcare or insurance. To me a socialized system does not look quite so poisonous.
drp
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Jury Nullification: the reason juries are needed.
Recently I came upon a series of tweets discussing Jury Nullification. I was shocked to learn that prospective jurors are being rejected just for mentioning it. THIS IS JUST WRONG! Any law, no matter how carefully thought out and crafted by strongly legal minds can encounter circumstances where blind application of said law becomes unjust. Juries "of peers" are the means for real people to influence the way a law is applied to specific situations. I'm sure the people who spend most of their lives studying the "legal" application of the law do not want a jury to bypass legal education and decide according to circumstance. The founding fathers intended the jury system to be the check/balance on the legal system. Juries keep the lawyers and judges human and limit their power to be blind to circumstance. Jury nullification is an implied right and a citizens duty when a law is being applied wrongly. As long as people have the right to make decisions as people we will have lawyers instead of robots in control of the legal system. Once the juries loose the right to decide, the government becomes much more powerful and dangerous. Sure there are cases where juries have freed widely accepted guilty persons. This is not a condemnation of jury nullification, instead it highlights a prosecutorial failure. We need to spread the word through the "underground" that if you serve on a jury, you have the right to decide guided by your own heart and soul, and not according to the judge's instructions. I know the one jury I was part of did just that.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Let the poor die - we don't need them
It is painfully obvious that people who have the money to spend would rather spend the money to fight a tax increase than to pay a tax to help people who need healthcare. The concept is: “I would rather have 3 people die due to lack of health care than to pay an extra $1000 a year out of my $250,000 a year income.” What is wrong with America? Greed is the driving force in this country. What happened to freedom, belief in God (or any god), and respect for others?
It is equally obvious that people who are in a position to do something about this are too afraid of offending their heavily moneyed supporters to do what needs to be done. Maybe the consensus among rich people is: if enough poor people die we won’t have the problem anymore. Is that what is being implied here? Is that the message we want to show the world - We don’t care and we aren’t afraid to hide it. Is it?
Come on people. Don’t be afraid to do what must be done. Don’t be ashamed to admit to your friends that your conscience requires you to help people. How many people in this country have incomes of $250000 or more? How many have incomes less that this? If we organize the voters, we can outweigh the money with votes. The money itself cannot overcome a mass of voters unless the voters let themselves be manipulated by the money-driven media.
DRP
It is equally obvious that people who are in a position to do something about this are too afraid of offending their heavily moneyed supporters to do what needs to be done. Maybe the consensus among rich people is: if enough poor people die we won’t have the problem anymore. Is that what is being implied here? Is that the message we want to show the world - We don’t care and we aren’t afraid to hide it. Is it?
Come on people. Don’t be afraid to do what must be done. Don’t be ashamed to admit to your friends that your conscience requires you to help people. How many people in this country have incomes of $250000 or more? How many have incomes less that this? If we organize the voters, we can outweigh the money with votes. The money itself cannot overcome a mass of voters unless the voters let themselves be manipulated by the money-driven media.
DRP
Sunday, July 12, 2009
California is loosing its collective mind
I see that California lawmakers, strangled by the greed of the voting public, are continuing to cut services in their attempt to resolve the budget. This is not really a legislative problem. The people in the state who are not willing to pay for the services provided by the state have hobbled the legislature with an impossible situation. Sure, we all want to keep as much of our own money as we can. If I had any money coming in I would want to keep it as much as anybody. When I did have some income I never complained about the taxes I paid but I certainly complain about the quality and level of services I get for the money. The people who most need the services are the people least likely to vote. This means responsible people who vote must not forget the people who desperately need state services. Cutting services to balance a budget mostly hurts people who neither vote nor have any other resource to fall back on. If people are too greedy about their own money to pay for the services they are not likely to provide charities with enough money to ensure effectiveness.
There is only one way to do this effectively. Raise taxes on those who can afford it. Make the tax temporary based on some measure of economic growth or resource surplus. People who become desperate also become unpredictable and even violent. Think people. Plan ahead. Be people instead of greedy despots.
Ok, I apologize for getting carried away but I hope I can make you think. (AND To the Tennessee legislature: you're not much better.) No one is saying "we need to help people" every one is saying "I pay too much tax already".
DRP
There is only one way to do this effectively. Raise taxes on those who can afford it. Make the tax temporary based on some measure of economic growth or resource surplus. People who become desperate also become unpredictable and even violent. Think people. Plan ahead. Be people instead of greedy despots.
Ok, I apologize for getting carried away but I hope I can make you think. (AND To the Tennessee legislature: you're not much better.) No one is saying "we need to help people" every one is saying "I pay too much tax already".
DRP
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Some thoughts about religion and conflict
One good thing about this method of communication - If I make people mad at me they have to use up their anger just to find me. That's why I can post opinions like this one.
I recently watched a TV show examining the common origins of the three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. There is a common origin in all of them and that origin is Abraham. One theme winding through the tv show was the way these three religions have lost focus on the message of God while arguing about the "mechanics" of worship and faith.
A couple years ago as part of my college requirements I had to take a humanities course. Segments of this course dealt with these three religions. I had to complete several assignments and one common theme I embraced was the idea that the three great religions had obscured the message of God. The three religions, instead of working to understand their differences and learn tolerance, had devolved into deadly conflict. This conflict continues to this day in very visible and deadly ways. I believe God is above the petty conflicts of man and evil uses these conflicts to weaken us all. Religious leaders try to justify their existence and exercise their power by promoting these conflicts. These leaders, in their blindness to the real message, are doing the work of Satan. I include all religions in this statement but certainly not all leaders in any one religion.
Tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and cooperation will strengthen us all. Intolerance, hatred, exclusion and violence are Satan's work and far too many people are being sacrificed to Satan in the name of God.
I recently watched a TV show examining the common origins of the three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. There is a common origin in all of them and that origin is Abraham. One theme winding through the tv show was the way these three religions have lost focus on the message of God while arguing about the "mechanics" of worship and faith.
A couple years ago as part of my college requirements I had to take a humanities course. Segments of this course dealt with these three religions. I had to complete several assignments and one common theme I embraced was the idea that the three great religions had obscured the message of God. The three religions, instead of working to understand their differences and learn tolerance, had devolved into deadly conflict. This conflict continues to this day in very visible and deadly ways. I believe God is above the petty conflicts of man and evil uses these conflicts to weaken us all. Religious leaders try to justify their existence and exercise their power by promoting these conflicts. These leaders, in their blindness to the real message, are doing the work of Satan. I include all religions in this statement but certainly not all leaders in any one religion.
Tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and cooperation will strengthen us all. Intolerance, hatred, exclusion and violence are Satan's work and far too many people are being sacrificed to Satan in the name of God.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Finally some real financial sense in Washington
I recently read an article (from AP via Yahoo) saying a tax increase on the wealthy might part a large part of the proposed healthcare reform. Here is an excerpt:
"Democrats on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee agreed to a new surtax that would start with households making $350,000 a year and begin in 2011, said the committee's chairman, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
It would raise some $540 billion over 10 years, about half the cost of Obama's ambitious plan to reshape the nation's health care system and provide care to the 50 million uninsured. However, lawmakers could not provide an exact price tag of the overall bill."
I have been screaming this message to anyone who'll listen for months now. I like to think maybe my message got through somehow but I realize that's not likely. The "rich people" who will carry this burden can well afford it. I suspect most of them will spend more than the tax amount to influence greedy legislators to oppose it. The people who exist in the suggested income level certainly have the resources to handle the tax. Sure they might have to forgo an extended trip to Europe or they might decide to keep their BMW for a few months longer than the normal 6 but the real impact on their lives will be minimal. The impact of health issues without medical care is much more real to the poor people who will be the recipients of the health care.
There will continue to be loud speeches trying to say the government will control our healthcare, select our doctors, designate our hospitals...etc. I will go to any doctor I have to go to to get treatment I would not otherwise receive and a lot of people feel similarly. The rich folks will still go the their providers of choice because they can afford it. Also I really do not believe the government wants to control our healthcare. Only if the healthcare industry refuses to cooperate with government cost subsidy plans will interference be needed.
The speeches will be given by those legislators in the pay of the rich who don't want to pay back something to the country that provides them the opportunity and people who shovel the dirt and tighten the screws for them as they make their money.
Look closely at the people who oppose healthcare reform. Make an effort to look past the rhetoric and try to understand their real motives.
D. Page
"Democrats on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee agreed to a new surtax that would start with households making $350,000 a year and begin in 2011, said the committee's chairman, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
It would raise some $540 billion over 10 years, about half the cost of Obama's ambitious plan to reshape the nation's health care system and provide care to the 50 million uninsured. However, lawmakers could not provide an exact price tag of the overall bill."
I have been screaming this message to anyone who'll listen for months now. I like to think maybe my message got through somehow but I realize that's not likely. The "rich people" who will carry this burden can well afford it. I suspect most of them will spend more than the tax amount to influence greedy legislators to oppose it. The people who exist in the suggested income level certainly have the resources to handle the tax. Sure they might have to forgo an extended trip to Europe or they might decide to keep their BMW for a few months longer than the normal 6 but the real impact on their lives will be minimal. The impact of health issues without medical care is much more real to the poor people who will be the recipients of the health care.
There will continue to be loud speeches trying to say the government will control our healthcare, select our doctors, designate our hospitals...etc. I will go to any doctor I have to go to to get treatment I would not otherwise receive and a lot of people feel similarly. The rich folks will still go the their providers of choice because they can afford it. Also I really do not believe the government wants to control our healthcare. Only if the healthcare industry refuses to cooperate with government cost subsidy plans will interference be needed.
The speeches will be given by those legislators in the pay of the rich who don't want to pay back something to the country that provides them the opportunity and people who shovel the dirt and tighten the screws for them as they make their money.
Look closely at the people who oppose healthcare reform. Make an effort to look past the rhetoric and try to understand their real motives.
D. Page
Monday, July 6, 2009
Healthcare vs. Greed (its all of us!)
Ok, my liberalism has escaped control again. My friends will never talk to me again after this post.
Any person who does not want some form of health care reform is self-centered, profit-driven, short-sighted, young and healthy, or rich. No NORMAL person can be happy with the present system. Some intelligent people believe one indicator of a society's humanity is the treatment it has for the less fortunate in their world. We are headed toward being a very inhumane society if we do not find a way to support our less fortunate. There are people in this country who make large effort and even sacrifice to help poor, hungry children in Africa or other locations. I applaud any efforts in this direction and I wish I was able to contribute more myself. How do these same people feel about a tax increase to help poor children and sick grandparents in this country?
Any health care reform will have to be driven by the government. There is no way any private organization can cancel the profit chase in favor of helping people. There is no way people who cannot afford health care can influence a private organization to give them free health care. Charity has always been one resource for some but it has always fallen short of being a dependable solution. Charity only arises when a person's own wants and needs have been fulfilled and something is left over.
The middle class in this country always has and always will carry the burden of taxation. The higher income levels of the middle class (I believe)carry much of the current burden of charity. This is not so much because of a desire to help as it is seeking the tax breaks. This limits the resources of the charities. The lower we go in the middle class income scale the less there is available for charity and the less incentive there is for tax-break charity.
Any health care plan that helps the unfortunate will be costly. We should institute a progressive tax to pay this cost based on an entity's ability to pay. I say "entity" because I expect this tax to fall onto companies as well as individuals. Tax breaks should be granted to companies providing reasonable care to workers' families and retirees. Retirement accounts in excess of a certain amount should be taxed for health care when retirees access the accounts.
The 401K plan was and is a very good idea. I do not know if the originators of the idea realized the side effects but 401K accounts have driven the stock market higher for many years. Now the money is not being fed into this mechanism as much as it once was as we boomers retire. Our funds are being pulled out and this might have contributed to the stock market instability of late. If I had a six-figure retirement account I would not mind paying a $40 tax from my monthly withdrawal to support health care for less fortunate. I can see no reason why a person with a seven-figure retirement account could not pay $150 month. He might have to park his RV for a couple days but that would reduce our energy an pollution hits.
DRP
Any person who does not want some form of health care reform is self-centered, profit-driven, short-sighted, young and healthy, or rich. No NORMAL person can be happy with the present system. Some intelligent people believe one indicator of a society's humanity is the treatment it has for the less fortunate in their world. We are headed toward being a very inhumane society if we do not find a way to support our less fortunate. There are people in this country who make large effort and even sacrifice to help poor, hungry children in Africa or other locations. I applaud any efforts in this direction and I wish I was able to contribute more myself. How do these same people feel about a tax increase to help poor children and sick grandparents in this country?
Any health care reform will have to be driven by the government. There is no way any private organization can cancel the profit chase in favor of helping people. There is no way people who cannot afford health care can influence a private organization to give them free health care. Charity has always been one resource for some but it has always fallen short of being a dependable solution. Charity only arises when a person's own wants and needs have been fulfilled and something is left over.
The middle class in this country always has and always will carry the burden of taxation. The higher income levels of the middle class (I believe)carry much of the current burden of charity. This is not so much because of a desire to help as it is seeking the tax breaks. This limits the resources of the charities. The lower we go in the middle class income scale the less there is available for charity and the less incentive there is for tax-break charity.
Any health care plan that helps the unfortunate will be costly. We should institute a progressive tax to pay this cost based on an entity's ability to pay. I say "entity" because I expect this tax to fall onto companies as well as individuals. Tax breaks should be granted to companies providing reasonable care to workers' families and retirees. Retirement accounts in excess of a certain amount should be taxed for health care when retirees access the accounts.
The 401K plan was and is a very good idea. I do not know if the originators of the idea realized the side effects but 401K accounts have driven the stock market higher for many years. Now the money is not being fed into this mechanism as much as it once was as we boomers retire. Our funds are being pulled out and this might have contributed to the stock market instability of late. If I had a six-figure retirement account I would not mind paying a $40 tax from my monthly withdrawal to support health care for less fortunate. I can see no reason why a person with a seven-figure retirement account could not pay $150 month. He might have to park his RV for a couple days but that would reduce our energy an pollution hits.
DRP
Just want to let everyone know
I'm sitting for the Linux+ exam tommorrow. I fully expect to be successful.
Does anyone know how to turn a Linux+ certification into a paying job?
follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/WyoKnott
Does anyone know how to turn a Linux+ certification into a paying job?
follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/WyoKnott
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Government shutdowns due to budget issues #2
California is, I believe, one of our most populous states. The California state government is about to collapse due to budget issues. The reason is obvious if people were willing to think beyond themselves. The people of California demand a certain level of services from the government while at the same time refusing to pay for these same services. If you are expecting your neighbors to pay for the things you want while letting you keep your own money you're living in a dream. The people in California (and any other state) must be willing to sacrifice a bit for the good of the local government and the services provided. The same concept applies to the Federal Government. If you want to support the American way of life and keep our country strong you have to be willing to sacrifice. A small tax increase across the entire population would go a long way toward propping up the national economy.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Government shutdowns due to budget issues
Ok - anyone who has read some of my wild ravings before should realize where this is going.
There is no excuse for any government entity to be nearing shutdown because of budget. The blame for the current situations looming over some (actually most) state and local governments falls squarely on the greed of the local voters. Yes greed! Blind insistence that "Its mine and I want to keep it" is greed. If you want the city to keep the streets clean, well lighted, and safe you cannot expect others to pay for it and not contribute your part. I could go on about the many services provided by governments at all levels but I assume you are at least smart enough to extrapolate beyond my one example.
We are the lowest taxed people in the western world and as a whole we have more than adequate income. Continuing to strangle our governments by refusing to pay our taxes is weakening our country. Stop voting down tax increases! Stop cutting services just to keep a few dollars a week of your overblown salary. The money you're burying in your retirement accounts will be useless when the gangs take over your city. Political unrest naturally follows periods of oppression driven by greed and power brokering.
WyoKnott
There is no excuse for any government entity to be nearing shutdown because of budget. The blame for the current situations looming over some (actually most) state and local governments falls squarely on the greed of the local voters. Yes greed! Blind insistence that "Its mine and I want to keep it" is greed. If you want the city to keep the streets clean, well lighted, and safe you cannot expect others to pay for it and not contribute your part. I could go on about the many services provided by governments at all levels but I assume you are at least smart enough to extrapolate beyond my one example.
We are the lowest taxed people in the western world and as a whole we have more than adequate income. Continuing to strangle our governments by refusing to pay our taxes is weakening our country. Stop voting down tax increases! Stop cutting services just to keep a few dollars a week of your overblown salary. The money you're burying in your retirement accounts will be useless when the gangs take over your city. Political unrest naturally follows periods of oppression driven by greed and power brokering.
WyoKnott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
