Why all of this talk of gay marriage.The discussion should be about marriage itself.Why do we need marriage.I have never considered marriage as necessary.Take away all of the legal and religious ramifications pertaining to marriage and what do you have?An agreement between individuals.We can have that agreement without all kinds of relative laws and regulations.We don't need all of the laws and punitive or beneficial regulations associated.
The talk should be about abolishing legal marriage
It will go away by itself,probably in the next generation,so why not do it now?Marriage,as it is now,simply perpetrates the complications it creates:divorce,unnecessary laws,religious animosity,tax regulations,ad infinitum.Keep an agreement if you like,but"divorce" it from all of the associated laws and regulations.Let's accelerate it's inevitable demise".
Monday, March 25, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Size of government
In my opinion,the federal goverment is much too small.Yes,I said much too small!The U.S. has progressed to a point where we need more uniformity.We just don't need and shouldn't want all of the separate forms of government that we have.States should have much more unifomity.Why should states be like separate countries?Why do we have different speed limits from state to state?Why do we have different laws from state to state?It's ridiculous.
Why do we need state,county ,and local government-all different?We need more uniformity,not less.This obsession with competition impedes progress.We don't need govermment competition.We are one country,not 50 countries.Everything should start from the federal government.We need a bigger,stronger federal government!
Why do we need state,county ,and local government-all different?We need more uniformity,not less.This obsession with competition impedes progress.We don't need govermment competition.We are one country,not 50 countries.Everything should start from the federal government.We need a bigger,stronger federal government!
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Entitlements?
Entitlements must be handled within the respective funds.They are separate entities and should be treated as such.Fund surpluses should be invested in retrievable assets that can be used be used by the fund.Social Security and Medicare have their own budgets so why should they be part of the general budget?Treat them as separate entities.
Social Security problems can be easily be solved.Simply apply FICA taxes to all incomes and all types of incomes.Many things could be revised in current pension plans,especially public plans,that could that could affect social security,but that should be discussed in a separate segment.
Medicare funding can be improved immediately by letting Medicare D negotiate with drug companies.Lowering the age of eligibility,strangely enough,would also be benificial.Eventually we will have a universal plan anyway.It's inevitable.I hope that we don't have to wait for a world plan.
Social Security problems can be easily be solved.Simply apply FICA taxes to all incomes and all types of incomes.Many things could be revised in current pension plans,especially public plans,that could that could affect social security,but that should be discussed in a separate segment.
Medicare funding can be improved immediately by letting Medicare D negotiate with drug companies.Lowering the age of eligibility,strangely enough,would also be benificial.Eventually we will have a universal plan anyway.It's inevitable.I hope that we don't have to wait for a world plan.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Social Security and Medicare
With all of the talk about sequester,why do the conservatives keep referring to SS and Medicare as part of the budget problem?They aren't even part of the sequester and shouldn't be.They are both self contained programs that aren't supposed to be part of the budget and shouldn't be;so,conservatives,quit already!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Guns,Guns,Guns
I was watching a debate(?) on guns.If the participants would have had access to guns,I think they would have shot each other!They almost came to blows but,fortunately,that's a little too personal.
As I watched ,I also thought that it's a big mistake to assume that most gun owners or purchasers are responsible,law abiding citizens.Just look at our elected officials and their propensity to abide by the law.
As I watched ,I also thought that it's a big mistake to assume that most gun owners or purchasers are responsible,law abiding citizens.Just look at our elected officials and their propensity to abide by the law.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Crazy
NRA members(leaders) say that mental health takes precedence over the prevalence of firearms in gun violence.None of those speaking out in support of guns seems particularly stable.HSBC laundered money for drug cartels and committed numerous other serious crimes but we won't or can't prosecute.AIG stockholders are suing the US because they think their bailout was too costly; and we don't want to regulate anybody.Are we all crazy?I think that none of us is mentally stable enough to own a gun!
Friday, January 11, 2013
NFL ref strike
The NFL referee strike reveals some things about unions and strikes.The general public usually knows little about the businesses and workers and issues involved in a strike.But the public knows about football.This strike shows us what a union can do and why strikes occur.
How would refs be treated without the union?How were they treated before they unionized?I always think back to the '50's and '60's when talking about unions(when they had strength).Since sports related unions are relatively new,this strike is similar to strikes then.It reveals why unions were beneficial to workers and why group action was needed to counter exploitation.
The first thing that is revealed is that union workers are usually better than non-union workers.It's not easy to simply replace the workers.Also apparent is the propensity for companies to run roughshod over workers,especially corporations or a conglomorate of owners(NFL)-pay them as little as possible,allow no benefits or as little as as it takes to keep the workers(usually because of unionized competitors),pick and choose workers with no regard to descrimination,favoritism,etc.
The NFL strike allows us to look at potential employer greed and their disregard for employees.We've seen examples of this disregard as unions have declined and are eliminated.Employers are very good at exploiting public opinion.They do it with reverse psychology.They publicize benefits that their employees have that others don't as if they don't deserve them...and the public responds as if they don't deserve them.Instead of thinking that they should have the same benefits,they sympathize with the employers-illogical,but that's what happens.You'd think that they would want a union and those benefits,but it seems to work in reverse-crazy.
The NFL strike ended because the replacement workers couldn't replace;not unusual,but much more visible because it's the NFL.As I stated before ,union employees are usually better,simply because union protection allows them to gain experience.
Unions aren't perfect,but they're necessary to counter employer exploitation,discrimination,and greed-especially greed .employees should benefit from company success and the only way to do it is with organization.Without it almost all profit goes to managerial salaries and bonuses.
Unions are necessary!The NFL strike is an example.
How would refs be treated without the union?How were they treated before they unionized?I always think back to the '50's and '60's when talking about unions(when they had strength).Since sports related unions are relatively new,this strike is similar to strikes then.It reveals why unions were beneficial to workers and why group action was needed to counter exploitation.
The first thing that is revealed is that union workers are usually better than non-union workers.It's not easy to simply replace the workers.Also apparent is the propensity for companies to run roughshod over workers,especially corporations or a conglomorate of owners(NFL)-pay them as little as possible,allow no benefits or as little as as it takes to keep the workers(usually because of unionized competitors),pick and choose workers with no regard to descrimination,favoritism,etc.
The NFL strike allows us to look at potential employer greed and their disregard for employees.We've seen examples of this disregard as unions have declined and are eliminated.Employers are very good at exploiting public opinion.They do it with reverse psychology.They publicize benefits that their employees have that others don't as if they don't deserve them...and the public responds as if they don't deserve them.Instead of thinking that they should have the same benefits,they sympathize with the employers-illogical,but that's what happens.You'd think that they would want a union and those benefits,but it seems to work in reverse-crazy.
The NFL strike ended because the replacement workers couldn't replace;not unusual,but much more visible because it's the NFL.As I stated before ,union employees are usually better,simply because union protection allows them to gain experience.
Unions aren't perfect,but they're necessary to counter employer exploitation,discrimination,and greed-especially greed .employees should benefit from company success and the only way to do it is with organization.Without it almost all profit goes to managerial salaries and bonuses.
Unions are necessary!The NFL strike is an example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)