By reading the title of this entry your probably shaking your head, tensing your eyebrowns, or doing the one eyebrow raise. Or at least that is what I do when I see something that does not make sense. This year's tennessee football season explains in a way what Alexander Hamilton said about our government many years ago as one of our founding fathers.
This year I think Philip Fulmer was asked to resign due to emotions. Is it true that recently he has struggled to win as often as we use to? Yes. Is it true that the SEC is tougher this year than it use to be? Yes as well. Is it true that last year Florida lost 5 games, just two less than Tennessee this year? Yes. I do not think that Athletic Director Hamilton wanted to fire Fulmer. I think the fans emotional spills at Neyland Stadium and in the Blogs forced him to make a change. The emotions of the fans impacted him too much in other words. That does not take away the blame I put on Hamilton, but it does show the problem with the masses making so many decisions.
Alexander hamilton said he was afraid of true democracy because of the emotional swings of the public that would cause them to make bad decisions. He was against having a monarchy as well, but wanted safety clauses in our government not to only protect from the rise of kings, but the rise of pure democracy. I think it is interesting in that I believe the masses made the decision on Fulmer. Today many of those fans are regretting it because they learned that Fulmer is one of the most loved coaches in the nation, and how well or team could have been with a quarterback. Yes there were many other problems. I'm not blind and know a good deal about football. But with a quarterback, other things fall into place. Without the fans emotions changing so much, Fulmer stays, changes the offense back to something his players can adapt to, and they probably win 10 games next season with so many returning players, including the best running back we have had since Travis Henry - Lennon Creer.
Fulmer will be missed. Lets learn from this emotional decision, how you NEVER EVER VOTE or make a decision based on EMOTIONS.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Just a thought...
I would love to hear people's opinion who read my articles from time to time. On this subject particularly.
The idea that I will interest you in is restrictions on voters. Restrictions on who can vote that is. Alexander Hamilton had if not the most influence on our founding, the second most aside from James Madison. He said that he feared the ignorance of citizens and their tendency to allow their emotions to fluctuate when making decisions. It is this reason that he was not a big fan of the Virginia Plan (the plan eventually chosen as our government with a compromise included) that was written by James Madison as a proposal for our national government. He feared democracy. He was not in favor of an aristocracy or monarchy, but he was against pure democracy. He did favor representative government to keep the voter out of most all decisions other than who would be those representatives. And even with that there were restrictions on who could vote for representatives.
Originally only land owning non-slave men could vote in elections. Women, Slaves, and those who did not own land could not vote. My question is should we re-think this idea of allowing all people to vote? I'm not talking about restricting based on race or gender. But should we only allow those who have worked a certain amount of weeks over the past 2 years to vote? What about those on Welfare? Should someone that has to live off of worker's taxes be allowed to vote? Should a homeless man who has not worked in 2 years have his vote count the same as a business man who has created jobs for hundreds or thousands of people like Bill Gates? If over half the country does not pay taxes, are they not more likely to vote for a candidate that says : "I will have the rich pay their fair share (meaning all the taxes while you pay none unless you get a better job and make more money) so that you will not have to pay any taxes." Even if the candidate is not close to being qualified, if half the electorate are non-tax payers, do they not have an emotional incentive to vote for the unqualified candidate simply because he guarantees that they will never have to pay taxes?
I only bring this up not as a radical who wants to only have rich people vote. I'm simply explaining some of the thoughts of our founding fathers and just maybe, despite them being wrong on many things such as slavery and woman's role, were they right on this one? Should all Americans be able to vote? I personally think not. I believe our electorate is so dumb that their decisions are the wrong ones in many cases. Our founding fathers did not vote to have a democracy. They voted and signed a document to protect us from both the rise of kings and the rise of ignorant democracy. Both they feared, and both equally feared.
What say you?
The idea that I will interest you in is restrictions on voters. Restrictions on who can vote that is. Alexander Hamilton had if not the most influence on our founding, the second most aside from James Madison. He said that he feared the ignorance of citizens and their tendency to allow their emotions to fluctuate when making decisions. It is this reason that he was not a big fan of the Virginia Plan (the plan eventually chosen as our government with a compromise included) that was written by James Madison as a proposal for our national government. He feared democracy. He was not in favor of an aristocracy or monarchy, but he was against pure democracy. He did favor representative government to keep the voter out of most all decisions other than who would be those representatives. And even with that there were restrictions on who could vote for representatives.
Originally only land owning non-slave men could vote in elections. Women, Slaves, and those who did not own land could not vote. My question is should we re-think this idea of allowing all people to vote? I'm not talking about restricting based on race or gender. But should we only allow those who have worked a certain amount of weeks over the past 2 years to vote? What about those on Welfare? Should someone that has to live off of worker's taxes be allowed to vote? Should a homeless man who has not worked in 2 years have his vote count the same as a business man who has created jobs for hundreds or thousands of people like Bill Gates? If over half the country does not pay taxes, are they not more likely to vote for a candidate that says : "I will have the rich pay their fair share (meaning all the taxes while you pay none unless you get a better job and make more money) so that you will not have to pay any taxes." Even if the candidate is not close to being qualified, if half the electorate are non-tax payers, do they not have an emotional incentive to vote for the unqualified candidate simply because he guarantees that they will never have to pay taxes?
I only bring this up not as a radical who wants to only have rich people vote. I'm simply explaining some of the thoughts of our founding fathers and just maybe, despite them being wrong on many things such as slavery and woman's role, were they right on this one? Should all Americans be able to vote? I personally think not. I believe our electorate is so dumb that their decisions are the wrong ones in many cases. Our founding fathers did not vote to have a democracy. They voted and signed a document to protect us from both the rise of kings and the rise of ignorant democracy. Both they feared, and both equally feared.
What say you?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Are we better off today?
Recently on another blog I had a somewhat heated debate about the well-being of people in America today. He wanted to argue that since the Reagan revolution, the poor have become worse off and the well to do have become better off. One arguement I used was that wealth is a better judgement than yearly income for a number of reason. Lets look at some facts that were reached by economists Michael Cox and Richard Alm at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas.
They did a study on income and spending differences of different income brackets. When taking statistics based on income only, retirement payments, investment pay outs, savings withdraws, capital sells such as homes and cares, and many other variables are not taken into consideration. These economist show that since 1975 the percentage of national income of the top 20 percent of income earners income rose from 43.6 to 49.6 percent while that of the lowest 20 percent, at $10,000, fell from 4.3 to 3.3 percent. Thus it appears that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lets take a closer look. Income is not a determinate of wealth. In fact Cox and Alm found that While the lowest fifth averages $10,000 in income, they spend almost twice that amount. The highest fifth averages $150,000 and spends about $70,000, the rest goes to taxes and savings. The middle fifth averages $45,000 and spends about $35,000. While there's a large income gap of 15 to 1 between the top fifth and lowest fifth, the spending gap pales in comparison. (Walter Williams article 04/02/08). Due to other areas of income, not just wages, statistics can be deceiving when not considering thos other areas of income.
These statistics are also for household. Keep this in mind as well... high-income households have more people living in those households due to averaging 3.1 people in the top fifth income brackett. This compared to 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. This means that the income gap per person in the house hold closes between those in the higher brackett and those in the lower brackets.
So let me conclude with looking at the wealth of these people which will allow us to look at the effects of the other areas of income and the drop in "real prices". Walter Williams states that "years ago, a worker earning the average wage had to work 365 hours to purchase a VCR; today it's two hours. A cell phone dropped from 456 hours of work in 1984 to four hours today. A personal computer, with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours of work to 25 hours." He continues "Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cell phones have reached more than 80 percent of households."
The fact is wealth has increased due to our capitalistic ways while some politicians and economist with an agenda might hide some variables out of their statistics and thus a true reading or description of our well-doing is mis-leading. Keep this in mind the next time someone wants to tell you that life is getting worse not better for those who are not the so called "rich" in America.
They did a study on income and spending differences of different income brackets. When taking statistics based on income only, retirement payments, investment pay outs, savings withdraws, capital sells such as homes and cares, and many other variables are not taken into consideration. These economist show that since 1975 the percentage of national income of the top 20 percent of income earners income rose from 43.6 to 49.6 percent while that of the lowest 20 percent, at $10,000, fell from 4.3 to 3.3 percent. Thus it appears that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lets take a closer look. Income is not a determinate of wealth. In fact Cox and Alm found that While the lowest fifth averages $10,000 in income, they spend almost twice that amount. The highest fifth averages $150,000 and spends about $70,000, the rest goes to taxes and savings. The middle fifth averages $45,000 and spends about $35,000. While there's a large income gap of 15 to 1 between the top fifth and lowest fifth, the spending gap pales in comparison. (Walter Williams article 04/02/08). Due to other areas of income, not just wages, statistics can be deceiving when not considering thos other areas of income.
These statistics are also for household. Keep this in mind as well... high-income households have more people living in those households due to averaging 3.1 people in the top fifth income brackett. This compared to 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. This means that the income gap per person in the house hold closes between those in the higher brackett and those in the lower brackets.
So let me conclude with looking at the wealth of these people which will allow us to look at the effects of the other areas of income and the drop in "real prices". Walter Williams states that "years ago, a worker earning the average wage had to work 365 hours to purchase a VCR; today it's two hours. A cell phone dropped from 456 hours of work in 1984 to four hours today. A personal computer, with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours of work to 25 hours." He continues "Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cell phones have reached more than 80 percent of households."
The fact is wealth has increased due to our capitalistic ways while some politicians and economist with an agenda might hide some variables out of their statistics and thus a true reading or description of our well-doing is mis-leading. Keep this in mind the next time someone wants to tell you that life is getting worse not better for those who are not the so called "rich" in America.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
What does it mean?
This has been a rough week for myself. The "firing" of my coach Phil Fulmer, tough week in basketball practice, and now yes the worse news of all... the American people have decided that socialism is the way to go.
So what does it mean? It means very simply that the teacher unions, Department of Education, Our college universities, and media have been victorious in polluting a generation of minds to think very liberal like. Our founding fathers feared democracy because they were not sure that a population could be educated enough on the facts to make good decisions. That is why we have a republic and not a pure democracy. This election was partially about Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans have lost their way. They have very few conservative voices of reason that can express their ideas with ease and excitement. Fred Thompson proved that. The most conservative of all of them couldn't say a sentence without clearing his throat. We need some Barack Obama type figures in the party that can express themselves in a persuasive manner. Obama is a socialist on the verge of Marxism. Some possible candidates in the future- Bobby Jindal, Bob Portman, Jess Raby.... ok just kidding.
It is sad that President Bush did not stick by his values and take his views to the American people. He should have warned us about what happens when government forces and pressures companies into making loans to people who could not pay them back. He should have cut out wasteful spending, not passed the largest welfare package of prescription drug benefits, or passed one of the largest transfers of education power to the federal government in history with "No Child Left Behind."
So what now? Sadly enough, we have to allow Barack Obama screw things up so bad with socialist like policies that have hurt Democrats in the past like Roosevelt and Carter. Republicans then have to come back in with pro-market and pro-freedom ideas. I hope that they do not think this was a sign that they must become more like Democrats. If they do, which I'm afraid they might, then we can kiss our prosperity goodbye within about 20 years. Remember the only reason socialist countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and most eastern European nations can have such prosperous lives (although not as nice as ours) is because America produces so many things that they use, that they would not produce themselves very efficiently if we did not. Things like medicine. America gets alot from other nations, but only because we have a comparative advantage in trading with them. European nations simply do not produce a lot because of their backward economies. Keep in mind also that it is the American military that is paid for by our tax dollars, which are generated due to our GDP and growth of wealth that protect our world from evil. If we spent all our military money on welfare policies like those countries do, we too could survive for a time. That is until evil attacks. With those countries, if evil attacked them, they know we would come to help.
Our nation's voters have turned to liberalism, socialism, and now close to Marxism. Can we turn it back? I don't know. The facts are on our side if we could get some educated people to show this. John McCain, George Bush??? Are you kidding me? We need to choose leaders that gave a clue of how to express those ideas. I hope we get them in 4 years before its way too late!
So what does it mean? It means very simply that the teacher unions, Department of Education, Our college universities, and media have been victorious in polluting a generation of minds to think very liberal like. Our founding fathers feared democracy because they were not sure that a population could be educated enough on the facts to make good decisions. That is why we have a republic and not a pure democracy. This election was partially about Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans have lost their way. They have very few conservative voices of reason that can express their ideas with ease and excitement. Fred Thompson proved that. The most conservative of all of them couldn't say a sentence without clearing his throat. We need some Barack Obama type figures in the party that can express themselves in a persuasive manner. Obama is a socialist on the verge of Marxism. Some possible candidates in the future- Bobby Jindal, Bob Portman, Jess Raby.... ok just kidding.
It is sad that President Bush did not stick by his values and take his views to the American people. He should have warned us about what happens when government forces and pressures companies into making loans to people who could not pay them back. He should have cut out wasteful spending, not passed the largest welfare package of prescription drug benefits, or passed one of the largest transfers of education power to the federal government in history with "No Child Left Behind."
So what now? Sadly enough, we have to allow Barack Obama screw things up so bad with socialist like policies that have hurt Democrats in the past like Roosevelt and Carter. Republicans then have to come back in with pro-market and pro-freedom ideas. I hope that they do not think this was a sign that they must become more like Democrats. If they do, which I'm afraid they might, then we can kiss our prosperity goodbye within about 20 years. Remember the only reason socialist countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and most eastern European nations can have such prosperous lives (although not as nice as ours) is because America produces so many things that they use, that they would not produce themselves very efficiently if we did not. Things like medicine. America gets alot from other nations, but only because we have a comparative advantage in trading with them. European nations simply do not produce a lot because of their backward economies. Keep in mind also that it is the American military that is paid for by our tax dollars, which are generated due to our GDP and growth of wealth that protect our world from evil. If we spent all our military money on welfare policies like those countries do, we too could survive for a time. That is until evil attacks. With those countries, if evil attacked them, they know we would come to help.
Our nation's voters have turned to liberalism, socialism, and now close to Marxism. Can we turn it back? I don't know. The facts are on our side if we could get some educated people to show this. John McCain, George Bush??? Are you kidding me? We need to choose leaders that gave a clue of how to express those ideas. I hope we get them in 4 years before its way too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
