I might in the future comment on this post to add/revise some of this information as I will be no doubt reading many articles written by economists that I follow. I confess, many of my ideas that I write about on here come from other people. Many ideas are mine. But most of my views are based in large part on the ideas and beliefs of those that I study. I add/revise them to fit my own belief system. But I study those other guys a lot. Now back to the current Debt Deal.
On surface I am against the compromise. To briefly sum up: Small rise in the Debt Ceiling for small cuts to spending up front to non-defense and non-entitlement areas. All these cuts will be cut over a period of probably 10 years. The debt ceiling rise is immediate. So truly these cuts are marginal at best. Then a committee is formed to determine what other cuts are possible and the President will be able to get another larger rise in the debt if the commission can come up with cuts that are agreed upon. If the committee cannot come up with cuts, automatic cuts take place. Most of these cuts(little more than 50%) will come from defense spending. Other cuts from entitlement programs. Its amazing that Defense gets the largest cut, when off all the major programs, Defense is one of the few Constitutional obligations our federal government actually has. The later vote on a balanced budget means nothing, Democrats will not support it.
The truth is drastic change is needed and needed fast. Our debt is a problem that is growing out of control. The public in America is far too weak to mustard up the courage to allow what needs to happen take place. Senior Citizens (on average the most wealthy amongst us) are too cowardly to accept cuts to their benefits. This, although the great majority of them will receive far more than they ever paid into the entitlement system. Thus, the wealthiest amongst us will be living off the tax dollars of the still working and less wealthy people. Go figure! I love our elders by the way. But lets not act as if they are not to blame for any of this. They were the voters during a time that America grew its government to Communist sizes and thus they deserve a large part of the blame.
There is only one segment of the government that will take the necessary steps needed to deal with the problem. And that segment is roughly 2/3 of 3/5 of 1/2 of 1 of the 3 branches of our federal government. Did you follow that? I am referring to the conservative and "tea" party side of the Republican Party. The tea party members of the Republican party only control the House of Representatives. This is 1/2 of the Legislative branch of our government. The Legislative branch is 1 of 3 branches of our federal government. And the Tea party/Conservatives make up probably just 66% of all Republicans who are true conservatives.
Thus there are 2 situations we have here:
1) On principal as a conservative Libertarian (somewhat in line with many tea party members) I am against this deal and any deal that as Senator Rand Paul says: "Does not balance the budget". To balance the budget would require massive cuts. We borrow about half of what our Federal government spends. I believe we need a non-violent revolution of government principled on Constitutional ideas. I'm glad that the compromise did not include tax raises. To raise taxes on people at this time is ignorant. You can read past blog entries to understand how taxes always end up being paid by consumers, most of which are not rich people. On principal I would vote against the plan despite this positive aspect of the deal. If I were in congress, I would vote against the plan. But I am glad that the deal got done. What you say? Well now for the 2 situation.
2) Our founding fathers set up a form of government that does not allow things to be done quickly. For good reason. It requires that a law be Constitutional (this of course has not stopped past laws from being passed but the courts are highly populated with anti-Constitutional Liberals). A bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress. Then has to be approved by the President. Elections only take place ever 2 years. And it takes 6 full years before each seat of congress has come up for election because Senators serve 6 year terms. Those with my principals again make up a very small part of that government. Therefore this deal might be the only thing that could have gotten done. So in conclusion:
Obey the rule of law and understand that just as it has taken 80 years, beginning with FDR mainly, to cause this problem, it will take years to reverse. In the 2012 elections, win the Presidency with someone like Rick Perry as President. Expand your control in the House and take the Senate by just enough seats this year. All these takeovers need to be done by conservative Republicans who will stand on good principal. Meaning not the same Republicans that were leading during the Bush Administration. If this takes place then serious reform can be accomplished.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Does America Make anything anymore?
One of the worries in America is the idea that we can no longer feed ourselves, cloth ourselves, or make things for ourselves. This is typically the fear when people are debating that America is becoming a service economy and no longer a manufacturing economy that makes anything. Lets keep in mind that over a hundred years ago, most families individually fed themselves and clothed themselves when everyone had a farm and most everyone sewed their own clothes. But today we do not have anxiety over the fact that most people have never farmed much of anything and very few people have ever clothed themselves one outfit much less all their clothes. We would not complain that our lives are worse today than then! But yet when America as a whole shifts jobs overseas, we all the sudden fear that we are headed down a path to destruction. Aside from the fact that that in itself is ridiculous... even those who disagree might be surprised to find out that their facts are wrong to begin with:
America makes more "stuff" than anyone today! According to a U.N study (and we know the U.N hates us, so trust me if this article makes us look good you know its the truth) American manufacturing output in 2009 was 2.15 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars) compared to China's 1.48 trillion dollars. Yes! America manufactured more than China, the place everyone fears is taking our jobs. In fact America accounted for 20 percent of the entire world's manufacturing output. That is just one percent below the 1990 amount of 21%! Yes your math is correct, in a 20 year period of time, America's manufacturing as a percentage of the world's manufacturing, only dropped one percent.
In 2009, we manufactured more than Japan, Germany, Britain, and Italy combined. And we keep increasing our manufacturing! You say what? How can this be from everything I have heard? American manufacturing today has more than doubled since 1970.
It is true that we have lost millions of American manufacturing jobs. But this is not because all those jobs are moving overseas. This is because we have become so much more productive! Technology today allows the American worker to produce far more than the American worker of decades ago. Many decades ago young people could dream about working in the factory as opposed to farming jobs which were dropping off due to this same increase in productivity levels in agriculture. Today young people can dream about becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, architects, engineers, or many other jobs due to technological improvements in manufacturing.
Many speak of how everything they buy is "made in China"! That is often true. This is because China specializes in producing toys, shoes, sporting equipment and other low-tech, labor-intensive jobs. These products do not require the high tech and sophisticated factories of America.
In fact a large amount of "stuff" is made in the United States. Of course this is not usually the cheap inexpensive items you find on the shelf of your local wal-mart or target. America specializes in making things like: planes, air-conditioners, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and more. These are not on your weekly shopping list. Nor is this "stuff" you pick up off the shelf and can turn over and read where it was made.
The fact is, the cheap items we buy on the shelf of our stores should and are made in cheap labor countries. America prospers when we free up labor to do the high tech jobs by allowing other nations do the low-tech jobs. Are some workers hurt for a time in America? Absolutely. The farmer had a tough time making changes years ago when many of them lost their jobs. So did the blacksmiths and buggy makers when the automobile replaced horse and buggy. But was America worse off? No! Today the fighter jet maker, mechanic, doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer, teacher, and more are replacing the factory worker. But as it was true a hundred years ago, we are better for it today!
*Much of this comes from author Jeff Jacoby
America makes more "stuff" than anyone today! According to a U.N study (and we know the U.N hates us, so trust me if this article makes us look good you know its the truth) American manufacturing output in 2009 was 2.15 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars) compared to China's 1.48 trillion dollars. Yes! America manufactured more than China, the place everyone fears is taking our jobs. In fact America accounted for 20 percent of the entire world's manufacturing output. That is just one percent below the 1990 amount of 21%! Yes your math is correct, in a 20 year period of time, America's manufacturing as a percentage of the world's manufacturing, only dropped one percent.
In 2009, we manufactured more than Japan, Germany, Britain, and Italy combined. And we keep increasing our manufacturing! You say what? How can this be from everything I have heard? American manufacturing today has more than doubled since 1970.
It is true that we have lost millions of American manufacturing jobs. But this is not because all those jobs are moving overseas. This is because we have become so much more productive! Technology today allows the American worker to produce far more than the American worker of decades ago. Many decades ago young people could dream about working in the factory as opposed to farming jobs which were dropping off due to this same increase in productivity levels in agriculture. Today young people can dream about becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, architects, engineers, or many other jobs due to technological improvements in manufacturing.
Many speak of how everything they buy is "made in China"! That is often true. This is because China specializes in producing toys, shoes, sporting equipment and other low-tech, labor-intensive jobs. These products do not require the high tech and sophisticated factories of America.
In fact a large amount of "stuff" is made in the United States. Of course this is not usually the cheap inexpensive items you find on the shelf of your local wal-mart or target. America specializes in making things like: planes, air-conditioners, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and more. These are not on your weekly shopping list. Nor is this "stuff" you pick up off the shelf and can turn over and read where it was made.
The fact is, the cheap items we buy on the shelf of our stores should and are made in cheap labor countries. America prospers when we free up labor to do the high tech jobs by allowing other nations do the low-tech jobs. Are some workers hurt for a time in America? Absolutely. The farmer had a tough time making changes years ago when many of them lost their jobs. So did the blacksmiths and buggy makers when the automobile replaced horse and buggy. But was America worse off? No! Today the fighter jet maker, mechanic, doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer, teacher, and more are replacing the factory worker. But as it was true a hundred years ago, we are better for it today!
*Much of this comes from author Jeff Jacoby
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
ignorance needed to pass an agenda
Politicians, mostly Democrats these days push for policies (their agenda) by using talking points that are easily proven wrong with just a smidgen of evidence. Lets look at it...
Those who favor larger government control over our lives often try to discredit our founding fathers by misrepresenting some of their Constitutional ideas. One of the most often misrepresentations used is the three-fifths compromise. Rhetoric such as: "They only counted black people as 3/5 a person!" "How can we listen to these people when they considered my people (this is said by a Black American liberal) 3/5 a person?!"
Politicians are often pretty intelligent people. They know what the 3/5 compromise really was. But that means nothing to them when they are trying to push an agenda through. But with a public that is as undereducated as our public is, its easy to see why they choose to speak in talking points and not reality. Even some of my readers might not be able to defend this example. The three-fifths compromise counted slaves as 3/5 a person when counting for the House of Representatives and for the electoral college. IN other words, if slaves were counted as a whole person for these considerations, it would have made the southern slave states even stronger politically. This would have in effect hurt the African American at the time.
Tax cuts for the rich is another issue. What is rich? Some say its an income of $250,000 a year or more. But many small businesses that just get by file taxes under individual income. If their company has revenue of just over $250,000 they might be taxed at that top income bracket percentage. Thus to lower taxes for small businesses would require you to lower the tax rate on the highest income tax bracket. Politicians know this. But they public often does not.
These are also the people that hire individuals. So do corporations. The fact is, lowering these taxes often allows companies to expand and become larger. This in effect can actually increase the amount of taxes these rich people pay because of increased wealth and increased incentive to move operations back to America. This is seen throughout history where lowering these taxes has led to economic expansion and increased government revenue. Also corporations do not pay taxes only people do. Higher taxes on corporations means one of three things: higher prices for consumers, lower pay for workers, lower dividends for investors.
Lastly is Rent Control laws: Designed to keep the price of rent lower in low income areas actually has the opposite affect. I have explained the affects of this in other blog entries. You can read those to understand that. But the two most prominent cities with strong rent control laws are San Francisco and New York City. These two cities also have some of the highest rent prices despite these controls. Politicians know this but the public does not.
Our job: Become educated and vote out these politicians that no longer can take advantage of our ignorance.
Those who favor larger government control over our lives often try to discredit our founding fathers by misrepresenting some of their Constitutional ideas. One of the most often misrepresentations used is the three-fifths compromise. Rhetoric such as: "They only counted black people as 3/5 a person!" "How can we listen to these people when they considered my people (this is said by a Black American liberal) 3/5 a person?!"
Politicians are often pretty intelligent people. They know what the 3/5 compromise really was. But that means nothing to them when they are trying to push an agenda through. But with a public that is as undereducated as our public is, its easy to see why they choose to speak in talking points and not reality. Even some of my readers might not be able to defend this example. The three-fifths compromise counted slaves as 3/5 a person when counting for the House of Representatives and for the electoral college. IN other words, if slaves were counted as a whole person for these considerations, it would have made the southern slave states even stronger politically. This would have in effect hurt the African American at the time.
Tax cuts for the rich is another issue. What is rich? Some say its an income of $250,000 a year or more. But many small businesses that just get by file taxes under individual income. If their company has revenue of just over $250,000 they might be taxed at that top income bracket percentage. Thus to lower taxes for small businesses would require you to lower the tax rate on the highest income tax bracket. Politicians know this. But they public often does not.
These are also the people that hire individuals. So do corporations. The fact is, lowering these taxes often allows companies to expand and become larger. This in effect can actually increase the amount of taxes these rich people pay because of increased wealth and increased incentive to move operations back to America. This is seen throughout history where lowering these taxes has led to economic expansion and increased government revenue. Also corporations do not pay taxes only people do. Higher taxes on corporations means one of three things: higher prices for consumers, lower pay for workers, lower dividends for investors.
Lastly is Rent Control laws: Designed to keep the price of rent lower in low income areas actually has the opposite affect. I have explained the affects of this in other blog entries. You can read those to understand that. But the two most prominent cities with strong rent control laws are San Francisco and New York City. These two cities also have some of the highest rent prices despite these controls. Politicians know this but the public does not.
Our job: Become educated and vote out these politicians that no longer can take advantage of our ignorance.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Why tax cuts work for the country... and liberal governments
Today one of the largest debates is taking place in our nation's history. How to correct our deficit and ultimately our national debt. (Deficit is the yearly debt that the United States government racks up, the national debt is all those years added up through the years).
Today there are two main arguments. One group is for major spending cuts(conservative Republicans, libertarians, those in the so called "tea party") the other group is for bringing in more revenue through higher taxation (liberals and most democrats). Those who are for bi-partisan negotioting will go for a little of both(this is probably what will come about). The sad fact is that this argument is stupid to have considering the argument has been going on for years(in fact at least since 1920) and there is irrefutable proof that both can be accomplished by cutting spending and you can also raise revenues by yes LOWERING TAX RATES.
Economist Thomas Sowell writes that most would think a liberal democrat once made this statement: ""It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered." In fact the man that made this statement was the Secretary of the Treasury under the conservative republican president Calvin Coolidge.
Andrew Mellon made this statement because he knew that at higher prices people buy and invest less. When taxes are high on something, capital will not fly towards those things that are being taxed so highly. Therefore one might consider lowering these rates which will lead to an increase capital investment and in fact an increase revenue from those taxes. Lets look at the facts to back up this claim:
In 1916 there were 206 people who reported making over one million dollars according to the IRS. Five years later under liberal democrat Woodrow Wilson, there were only 21 people reporting making that much money. Why? tax rates on the rich skyrocketed. But then Congress later passed the tax cuts that Andrew Mellon was asking for and by 1925, there were once again 207 people reporting an income of a million dollars or more. So what had happened during that time when all the sudden millionaires disappeared?
Those rich people had put their money towards tax-exempt securities like local and state bonds. Sowell goes on to say that Mellon argued for two things. To get rid of those tax-exempt securities and to also lower the tax rates. He succeeded in only the latter after a long debate, just as we are having again today. Yes they used the "tax cuts for the rich" argument even years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Some more facts:
In 1924 the federal government collected $50 million dollars in capital gains taxes. In 1925 that amount reached over $100 million dollars. When taxes were lowered, it made more sense to invest money in the economy because you got to keep more of the money you made, than to invest it in the tax-exempt securities that do not lead to economic expansion. Expansion that eventually leads to these increases in tax revenues. And as for those "rich" people in the top income bracket, they paid 30% of all taxes in 1920 but paid 65% of all taxes by 1929 after those "tax cuts for the rich". The reality is, there were more rich people that came about paying taxes and the already existing rich were investing money into the economy that allowed for this and thus they too were now paying into the nation's tax revenues.
All this was then replayed again under JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Some can bring about statistics that show a strong economy even with high taxes. But this proves nothing other than the economy can still grow to some extent even with high taxes. I will not argue with that. Its easy to use that argument when prosperity unforeseen does not exist. In other words, we cannot know whether at lower taxes the economy would have even been stronger during those "strong" periods.
What is easy to judge is economic theory and science that makes sense. People will invest more when they can keep more of their return on investment. That common sense knowledge in itself should be enough. But if not the before mentioned evidence provided for nearly a century should be more than enough evidence that tax cuts work.
Cut spending and lower taxes!!
Today there are two main arguments. One group is for major spending cuts(conservative Republicans, libertarians, those in the so called "tea party") the other group is for bringing in more revenue through higher taxation (liberals and most democrats). Those who are for bi-partisan negotioting will go for a little of both(this is probably what will come about). The sad fact is that this argument is stupid to have considering the argument has been going on for years(in fact at least since 1920) and there is irrefutable proof that both can be accomplished by cutting spending and you can also raise revenues by yes LOWERING TAX RATES.
Economist Thomas Sowell writes that most would think a liberal democrat once made this statement: ""It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered." In fact the man that made this statement was the Secretary of the Treasury under the conservative republican president Calvin Coolidge.
Andrew Mellon made this statement because he knew that at higher prices people buy and invest less. When taxes are high on something, capital will not fly towards those things that are being taxed so highly. Therefore one might consider lowering these rates which will lead to an increase capital investment and in fact an increase revenue from those taxes. Lets look at the facts to back up this claim:
In 1916 there were 206 people who reported making over one million dollars according to the IRS. Five years later under liberal democrat Woodrow Wilson, there were only 21 people reporting making that much money. Why? tax rates on the rich skyrocketed. But then Congress later passed the tax cuts that Andrew Mellon was asking for and by 1925, there were once again 207 people reporting an income of a million dollars or more. So what had happened during that time when all the sudden millionaires disappeared?
Those rich people had put their money towards tax-exempt securities like local and state bonds. Sowell goes on to say that Mellon argued for two things. To get rid of those tax-exempt securities and to also lower the tax rates. He succeeded in only the latter after a long debate, just as we are having again today. Yes they used the "tax cuts for the rich" argument even years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Some more facts:
In 1924 the federal government collected $50 million dollars in capital gains taxes. In 1925 that amount reached over $100 million dollars. When taxes were lowered, it made more sense to invest money in the economy because you got to keep more of the money you made, than to invest it in the tax-exempt securities that do not lead to economic expansion. Expansion that eventually leads to these increases in tax revenues. And as for those "rich" people in the top income bracket, they paid 30% of all taxes in 1920 but paid 65% of all taxes by 1929 after those "tax cuts for the rich". The reality is, there were more rich people that came about paying taxes and the already existing rich were investing money into the economy that allowed for this and thus they too were now paying into the nation's tax revenues.
All this was then replayed again under JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Some can bring about statistics that show a strong economy even with high taxes. But this proves nothing other than the economy can still grow to some extent even with high taxes. I will not argue with that. Its easy to use that argument when prosperity unforeseen does not exist. In other words, we cannot know whether at lower taxes the economy would have even been stronger during those "strong" periods.
What is easy to judge is economic theory and science that makes sense. People will invest more when they can keep more of their return on investment. That common sense knowledge in itself should be enough. But if not the before mentioned evidence provided for nearly a century should be more than enough evidence that tax cuts work.
Cut spending and lower taxes!!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
a painful truth...that could lessen the long term pain
No doubt it would be hard for a person such as Paris Hilton who is born into riches to have to give up that life for a life of struggle or responsibility. But this is the unfortunate thing that is going to have to take place nationwide to fix our coming financial collapse (as opposed to the financial meltdown we are currently facing). Individuals who are use to nice handouts will soon have to face the fact that those handouts are no longer feasible.
According to the most recent census, "around 80 percent of Americans 65 and older own their own homes compared to 43 percent under 35. Twenty-three million households, or 37 percent of all homeowners, own their homes free and clear, and most of these are seniors aged 65 and older. According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2007 "Survey of Consumer Finances," the median net worth of people 65 and over is $232,000, those under 35 years have a net worth of $12,000 and for those 35-44, it's $87,000." (Economist Walter Williams)
Naturally older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. This is for good reason-they have had longer to do so. The question is why would our federal government's soon to be largest single expenditure program be a program that subsidizes of this wealthiest group of American's healthcare-Medicare.
Obviously not all senior citizens are rich but if the median net worth is 232,000 then half of senior citizens have at least that much. Currently those people's healthcare (medicare) is subsidized by taxpayers(yes some of it was their own taxes but someone living decades after retirement, receives far more money back than they ever paid into the program). Why not allow that senior citizen to make a deal with a financial institution(bank) to relinquish their home to the bank at the end of her life for a large lump sum of cash up front that will allow that senior citizen to live the rest of his/her/their life off the thousands of dollars he/she/they are worth. At death the bank comes into complete ownership of those belongings that were agreed upon. Anything she does not have to give up in order to get that lump sum of cash, will still be passed on to his/her/their heirs.
Currently heirs to these people greatly benefit. When Senior Citizens die their belongings go to their kids or benificiary. For years, taxpayers pay for much of their retirement(Social Security) and for their healthcare(Medicare). These people may not have the cash on them to pay for their own healthcare. But their accumulated wealth is plenty to pay for these services for the rest of their lives. With the above program our taxes could be lowered, and taxpayers would not subsidize the wealthiest amongst us. Some citizens would still need assistance. I would support a state by state approach to handle this. But for most Senior Citizens, they would have plenty enough to pay for these services.
Instead a tax payer supported program that is going broke and bankrupting our nation is used with no serious change in sight. Why? Probably because only 50% or less of young people vote while 70% of seniors vote. Since this distruction will not take place until these seniors and politicians are dead, why committ political suicide and consider fixing a serious destructive program with a system like the simple description above?
According to the most recent census, "around 80 percent of Americans 65 and older own their own homes compared to 43 percent under 35. Twenty-three million households, or 37 percent of all homeowners, own their homes free and clear, and most of these are seniors aged 65 and older. According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2007 "Survey of Consumer Finances," the median net worth of people 65 and over is $232,000, those under 35 years have a net worth of $12,000 and for those 35-44, it's $87,000." (Economist Walter Williams)
Naturally older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. This is for good reason-they have had longer to do so. The question is why would our federal government's soon to be largest single expenditure program be a program that subsidizes of this wealthiest group of American's healthcare-Medicare.
Obviously not all senior citizens are rich but if the median net worth is 232,000 then half of senior citizens have at least that much. Currently those people's healthcare (medicare) is subsidized by taxpayers(yes some of it was their own taxes but someone living decades after retirement, receives far more money back than they ever paid into the program). Why not allow that senior citizen to make a deal with a financial institution(bank) to relinquish their home to the bank at the end of her life for a large lump sum of cash up front that will allow that senior citizen to live the rest of his/her/their life off the thousands of dollars he/she/they are worth. At death the bank comes into complete ownership of those belongings that were agreed upon. Anything she does not have to give up in order to get that lump sum of cash, will still be passed on to his/her/their heirs.
Currently heirs to these people greatly benefit. When Senior Citizens die their belongings go to their kids or benificiary. For years, taxpayers pay for much of their retirement(Social Security) and for their healthcare(Medicare). These people may not have the cash on them to pay for their own healthcare. But their accumulated wealth is plenty to pay for these services for the rest of their lives. With the above program our taxes could be lowered, and taxpayers would not subsidize the wealthiest amongst us. Some citizens would still need assistance. I would support a state by state approach to handle this. But for most Senior Citizens, they would have plenty enough to pay for these services.
Instead a tax payer supported program that is going broke and bankrupting our nation is used with no serious change in sight. Why? Probably because only 50% or less of young people vote while 70% of seniors vote. Since this distruction will not take place until these seniors and politicians are dead, why committ political suicide and consider fixing a serious destructive program with a system like the simple description above?
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Tunica and beyond
Friday afternoon shortly after lunch time, my and a friend left for Tunica. A trip that in the past has always resulted in success (financially) and in terms of entertainment and fun. This trip was however much different.
After arriving Friday I went to play poker for hours straight. For those who know me well, they know that I play a tight but aggressive poker style. However it does take me a few hours to become comfortable enough to truly be aggressive. Tight-aggressive is also the style that most poker pros (those who make a living off poker, obviously putting down the belief that it is a game of pure luck) use. This time however my luck was not in my favor. Playing for up to 5 hours and only getting around 15-20 playable hands. I struggled to get anything going. I profited a grand total of 20 dollars during that 5 hour period. Keep in mind this is a trip of 6 1/2 hours. Not worth it up to this point.
After playing, me and Justin left to go to a local gas station. When we returned to my Trailblazer the vehicle would not start. It is over 90 degrees and about 2AM local time. Tunica has no real business that is open at this time. The closes Wal-Mart is 45 minutes away. I had no idea what was wrong with the vehicle. We believed it was a battery issue. We were correct. Luckily for us there was a kind good hearted slender black Gentlemen that saved our lives. He tested his battery on my vehicle and confirmed it was in fact the battery. My truck started no problem. As long as it keeps running I could drive to Wal-Mart and get a new battery and install it at roughly 3:30 AM. But the car died before even pulling out. This man then offered to drive us 45 minutes to the nearest Wal-Mart to buy a battery! I know of very few people who would have been willing to do this.
Roughly 2 hours later we returned to the gas station at around 4:30. New battery worked, we drove back to the Goldstrike Casino/Hotel and slept that night. I got a wonderful 4 hours of good sleep. The next morning we awoke and drove around to banks to go to the ATM. Justin's card was not working despite having plenty of money in his checking account. While out we stopped at one last gas station to try that ATM machine. As we are getting out of my car I see first hand the hardest T-Bone collision I have ever seen! A small white car hit an SUV causing it to roll over in the middle of the street! I thought for sure this was an injury resulting in serious injury. To the contrary the safety of those big gas using American SUV's that destroy the environment (according to some odd people) once again saved two people's lives. This type of accident would usually do me little harm but functioning on 4 hours of sleep over the past 30 was not the best thing for my soul.
We drove back to the Casino where we had little money. I knew Justin of course was good for it so I got money out of the ATM instead for us to use. I continued to play cards for another 4-5 hours. What was the result? More terrible cards! Finally on one of my last 6 hands I got pocket JJ and ended up rivering quad JJ's. This put me up 90 dollars for a grand total profit of $110 over about 10 hours of playing poker. In the past I had averaged winning about $700 in each of the past trips.
This profit paid for half of my battery trouble as we did pay the man for his great help to us. There were other misfortunes that are not to be posted publicly. But last night driving home on 4 hours of sleep over the past 42 was not easy. I bought coffee that poured out onto Justin, blistering his butt. Finally returned home this morning around 3:30 local time.
Tunica is a place of surprises. I have always had pleasant surprises. This trip did not have many. But the most pleasant surprise I have ever had from a stranger came from a slender, older, black gentleman in the middle of the night who blessed our hearts by driving us 45 min two ways to get a battery that he then installed for us. this man was truly a blessing on a trip that was not much of a blessing in any other fashion. thank you sir!!!
After arriving Friday I went to play poker for hours straight. For those who know me well, they know that I play a tight but aggressive poker style. However it does take me a few hours to become comfortable enough to truly be aggressive. Tight-aggressive is also the style that most poker pros (those who make a living off poker, obviously putting down the belief that it is a game of pure luck) use. This time however my luck was not in my favor. Playing for up to 5 hours and only getting around 15-20 playable hands. I struggled to get anything going. I profited a grand total of 20 dollars during that 5 hour period. Keep in mind this is a trip of 6 1/2 hours. Not worth it up to this point.
After playing, me and Justin left to go to a local gas station. When we returned to my Trailblazer the vehicle would not start. It is over 90 degrees and about 2AM local time. Tunica has no real business that is open at this time. The closes Wal-Mart is 45 minutes away. I had no idea what was wrong with the vehicle. We believed it was a battery issue. We were correct. Luckily for us there was a kind good hearted slender black Gentlemen that saved our lives. He tested his battery on my vehicle and confirmed it was in fact the battery. My truck started no problem. As long as it keeps running I could drive to Wal-Mart and get a new battery and install it at roughly 3:30 AM. But the car died before even pulling out. This man then offered to drive us 45 minutes to the nearest Wal-Mart to buy a battery! I know of very few people who would have been willing to do this.
Roughly 2 hours later we returned to the gas station at around 4:30. New battery worked, we drove back to the Goldstrike Casino/Hotel and slept that night. I got a wonderful 4 hours of good sleep. The next morning we awoke and drove around to banks to go to the ATM. Justin's card was not working despite having plenty of money in his checking account. While out we stopped at one last gas station to try that ATM machine. As we are getting out of my car I see first hand the hardest T-Bone collision I have ever seen! A small white car hit an SUV causing it to roll over in the middle of the street! I thought for sure this was an injury resulting in serious injury. To the contrary the safety of those big gas using American SUV's that destroy the environment (according to some odd people) once again saved two people's lives. This type of accident would usually do me little harm but functioning on 4 hours of sleep over the past 30 was not the best thing for my soul.
We drove back to the Casino where we had little money. I knew Justin of course was good for it so I got money out of the ATM instead for us to use. I continued to play cards for another 4-5 hours. What was the result? More terrible cards! Finally on one of my last 6 hands I got pocket JJ and ended up rivering quad JJ's. This put me up 90 dollars for a grand total profit of $110 over about 10 hours of playing poker. In the past I had averaged winning about $700 in each of the past trips.
This profit paid for half of my battery trouble as we did pay the man for his great help to us. There were other misfortunes that are not to be posted publicly. But last night driving home on 4 hours of sleep over the past 42 was not easy. I bought coffee that poured out onto Justin, blistering his butt. Finally returned home this morning around 3:30 local time.
Tunica is a place of surprises. I have always had pleasant surprises. This trip did not have many. But the most pleasant surprise I have ever had from a stranger came from a slender, older, black gentleman in the middle of the night who blessed our hearts by driving us 45 min two ways to get a battery that he then installed for us. this man was truly a blessing on a trip that was not much of a blessing in any other fashion. thank you sir!!!
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Government's power
Is it more dangerous to do something stupid or is it more dangerous to have a government which restricts your right to do that stupid thing? I believe the second is far more dangerous.
I have listed in many blog entries where government involvement in our lives based on good intentions has led to dire consequences. Government is primarily responsible for unemployment amongst individuals, especially young people, the housing meltdown and current economic turmoil, and even the Great Depression. It is responsible for so much more but I digress. Because of these historical facts, the latter is far more dangerous in my humble opinion.
I believe it to be stupid to not buckle your seat belt while driving a car. I believe almost all studies show that the chances of someone surviving a wreck with their seat belt on is is far greater than it not being on. But as a libertarian I also defend to the utmost the right for stupid people to choose not to wear their seat belts while driving their own cars. Its their body and lives.
Drive a motorcycle on the highway without a helmet? That is more stupid than not buckling up. But it is even more ridiculous and stupid for the government to force an individual to wear a helmet to protect his/her own head and health. What power delegated from the constitution gives the government that kind of power?
I believe smoking is harmful to a person's health. but to charge an excess "sin" tax on cigarettes and alcohol is more harmful because it adds to the growing power of government. The government has no right to infringe upon my desire to put tobacco in my own body. The government does not own my body. This is also why I support the legalization of Marijuana.
Government has gone even further. They do not allow restaurants that are owned by individuals to allow people to smoke in those establishments. This is insane in that the owner of his/her own business should have the right to allow any activity as long as it does not harm other individuals private property by force. In other words if I am allowed to choose not to eat at the establishment because the owner allows smoking, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and the owner should be allowed to function as he/she pleases.
The government also wants to restrict the amount of Salt (Sodium) restaurants put in their food. The fact that the government has to control our diets is now becoming a huge issue. I should be able to eat where and what I want without the government restricting my right to do so. If a store wants to add salt to their food to make it taste better, I have the right to go elsewhere if I believe it to be harmful. That is what the market is for.
Many of you who are my "conservative" friends might argue that these laws "protect" individuals and are not truly that harmful. But that is exactly the problem. These simple measures lead to more harmful measures. An economist I read made the perfect example: It can start out simple: Less sodium in our foods bought from businesses. Then parents who like turkey with more sodium will buy more sodium. As with cigarettes, salt containers will have to have warning signs put on them. Then if that does not work there will be a "Sin" tax put on the purchase of salt. Then parents who want to adopt children will have to pass a health screenings that does blood work to make sure you do not use too much salt and break the law. On and on we go until one day we say "how did we get here?
What if a vegetarian gets elected and says no more meat to be served in grocery stores or restaurants? What then my conservative friends? They will argue that it is harmful to your body as well as these animals. Should government have the power to restrict that?
Stupidity is a choice and should be allowed. Not allowing that choice it is the height of stupidity! Not to mention unconstitutional
I have listed in many blog entries where government involvement in our lives based on good intentions has led to dire consequences. Government is primarily responsible for unemployment amongst individuals, especially young people, the housing meltdown and current economic turmoil, and even the Great Depression. It is responsible for so much more but I digress. Because of these historical facts, the latter is far more dangerous in my humble opinion.
I believe it to be stupid to not buckle your seat belt while driving a car. I believe almost all studies show that the chances of someone surviving a wreck with their seat belt on is is far greater than it not being on. But as a libertarian I also defend to the utmost the right for stupid people to choose not to wear their seat belts while driving their own cars. Its their body and lives.
Drive a motorcycle on the highway without a helmet? That is more stupid than not buckling up. But it is even more ridiculous and stupid for the government to force an individual to wear a helmet to protect his/her own head and health. What power delegated from the constitution gives the government that kind of power?
I believe smoking is harmful to a person's health. but to charge an excess "sin" tax on cigarettes and alcohol is more harmful because it adds to the growing power of government. The government has no right to infringe upon my desire to put tobacco in my own body. The government does not own my body. This is also why I support the legalization of Marijuana.
Government has gone even further. They do not allow restaurants that are owned by individuals to allow people to smoke in those establishments. This is insane in that the owner of his/her own business should have the right to allow any activity as long as it does not harm other individuals private property by force. In other words if I am allowed to choose not to eat at the establishment because the owner allows smoking, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and the owner should be allowed to function as he/she pleases.
The government also wants to restrict the amount of Salt (Sodium) restaurants put in their food. The fact that the government has to control our diets is now becoming a huge issue. I should be able to eat where and what I want without the government restricting my right to do so. If a store wants to add salt to their food to make it taste better, I have the right to go elsewhere if I believe it to be harmful. That is what the market is for.
Many of you who are my "conservative" friends might argue that these laws "protect" individuals and are not truly that harmful. But that is exactly the problem. These simple measures lead to more harmful measures. An economist I read made the perfect example: It can start out simple: Less sodium in our foods bought from businesses. Then parents who like turkey with more sodium will buy more sodium. As with cigarettes, salt containers will have to have warning signs put on them. Then if that does not work there will be a "Sin" tax put on the purchase of salt. Then parents who want to adopt children will have to pass a health screenings that does blood work to make sure you do not use too much salt and break the law. On and on we go until one day we say "how did we get here?
What if a vegetarian gets elected and says no more meat to be served in grocery stores or restaurants? What then my conservative friends? They will argue that it is harmful to your body as well as these animals. Should government have the power to restrict that?
Stupidity is a choice and should be allowed. Not allowing that choice it is the height of stupidity! Not to mention unconstitutional
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
