I just uploaded some stuff to google docs from Microsoft Word and I'm pretty confused by the number of "misspelled" words google now recognizes. For one, I didn't know that "alot" is a word and "a lot" is misspelled. Considering how blogger is now underlining this post, I'm even more confused (google owns blogger).
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Bite Club by Rachel Caine
I'm reading Bite Club by Rachel Caine today. Once again it seems like Caine's suffering from Alzheimer's because she's once again forgotten what I think is pertinent information--the car Eve's supposed to be driving, her relationship with Miranda, namely. It doesn't really bug me, but it's obvious and therefore annoying.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Why I voted for Romney
Yeah, yeah, yeah...about 3 weeks late, but it's still something I want posted for posterity.
I voted for Romney because it didn't matter whether he was elected or not, Conservatives were screwed. Three (prominent) men ran for election on November 6--Obama, Conservative Romney, and Liberal Romney.
We all know who Obama is, so I won't bother to describe him or why Conservatives would be screwed if he won. I'll let them do that.
Conservative Romney is the one he tried so hard to portray himself as--the one who hates immigrants, Obamacare, taxes, yadda, yadda, yadda. He'd hurt the GOP because he would be unable to work with a Democratic Congress since it would be against all his principles--like a good GOP follower. He'd show the country once and for all that the Conservatives are just as ineffectual as the Democrats.
Liberal Romney is the guy he kept shoving into the trunk of his Cadillac, the man who was Governor of Massachusetts. This would be the same man who promoted and passed the origins of Obamacare and a variety of other liberal agenda issues in the state. He'd be able to work with the Democratic Congress. This would show that Romney not the guy the front men of the party want you to think he is.
So you see, either we'd get Obama, who may or may not be able to work with Congress to get anything done, Conservative Romney and more grid-lock, or Liberal Romney and turn this country around with true bi-partisanship.
I voted for Romney because it didn't matter whether he was elected or not, Conservatives were screwed. Three (prominent) men ran for election on November 6--Obama, Conservative Romney, and Liberal Romney.
We all know who Obama is, so I won't bother to describe him or why Conservatives would be screwed if he won. I'll let them do that.
Conservative Romney is the one he tried so hard to portray himself as--the one who hates immigrants, Obamacare, taxes, yadda, yadda, yadda. He'd hurt the GOP because he would be unable to work with a Democratic Congress since it would be against all his principles--like a good GOP follower. He'd show the country once and for all that the Conservatives are just as ineffectual as the Democrats.
Liberal Romney is the guy he kept shoving into the trunk of his Cadillac, the man who was Governor of Massachusetts. This would be the same man who promoted and passed the origins of Obamacare and a variety of other liberal agenda issues in the state. He'd be able to work with the Democratic Congress. This would show that Romney not the guy the front men of the party want you to think he is.
So you see, either we'd get Obama, who may or may not be able to work with Congress to get anything done, Conservative Romney and more grid-lock, or Liberal Romney and turn this country around with true bi-partisanship.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Plan for America--Forward to Obama and Romney if you "Like"
Real "job creators" should not fear an income tax increase to 50% or above (for those making over $500,000) with a similar increase in eligible deductions (for...you know...actually creating jobs--wages, building and machine investments, heck, even for building a new vacation home or buying AMERICAN MADE goods and services). These people should be able to decuct everything up to 20% of their tax burden (in other words, just as Romney just paid an effective tax rate of 14%, under my plan they can pay an effective tax rate of 20%) or we could make it even less if this proves to be too high of a tax. The point is to get the wealthy to spend their money on real job creation, rather than just bowing to their earning potential, though all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct some portion of their tax burden, though the ultimate percentages depend on how much revenue the government needs to function.
Deductions also include those made to reputable non-profits because the ultimate goal is to get government out of individual lives. The food banks can deal with food stamp issues just as easily as a government office, as can private social welfare groups and churches.
The stock market would also be transferred from a capital gains rate to the standard income tax rate because any 1st year business student can tell you that the stock market does not create jobs. In fact, it can lose jobs if used improperly. I could use the Great Depression as an example, or how about Dollar Tree whose quarterly earnings will be DOWN this year purely because Halloween, one of their biggest sales occasions, fell in the fourth quarter instead of the third. Their stock prices will fall because they appear less profitable right now, but they will go up in a few months when it looks like the fourth quarter was exceptionally profitable over last year. Well, except that we know this will happen and why, thus negating much of the effect that it could have. It would negate ALL effects, except that there are many who dabble in the stock market who don't actually know what they're doing and don't listen to all the available information, and there are those who know everything including that they can "play" the ignorant and make a lot of money.
But simply put, the stock market doesn't put in money into actual companies hands and therefore isn't job creation. McDonald's isn't going to build a new restaurant because you bought their stock (from someone else not connected to the restaurant chain who welcomes your money into his pocket), but will if you and your friends buy a few hamburgers.
The only real thing we need to do to cut spending is to cut Congress', the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court's salary to the average income earned by their constituents, but with an "as needed" clause that brings their current income to that amount (so if the constituents of VA-3 make on average $35,000 and the congressmen makes $50,000, he gets no government stipend, but if he makes $25,000, he'll get $10,000). There will be no housing stipend, but we'll open "The Congressional Hotel", 535 rooms that the Congressmen can use while in session for free and when they aren't in session works as a traditional hotel (it has been mentioned that Congress should never be in session during the Cherry Blossom Festival, but I see no problem with that). Travel expenses would only be covered to come to and leave the sessions.
If all government funded programs have a budget using the same "as needed" clause, if the public fund these groups fully, then government doesn't have to pay the guaranteed difference and government spending has been cut.
If we could get people to donate to more non-profits in lieu of donating to campaigns, along with these aforementioned ideas, we might actually get this country on the right track.
Deductions also include those made to reputable non-profits because the ultimate goal is to get government out of individual lives. The food banks can deal with food stamp issues just as easily as a government office, as can private social welfare groups and churches.
The stock market would also be transferred from a capital gains rate to the standard income tax rate because any 1st year business student can tell you that the stock market does not create jobs. In fact, it can lose jobs if used improperly. I could use the Great Depression as an example, or how about Dollar Tree whose quarterly earnings will be DOWN this year purely because Halloween, one of their biggest sales occasions, fell in the fourth quarter instead of the third. Their stock prices will fall because they appear less profitable right now, but they will go up in a few months when it looks like the fourth quarter was exceptionally profitable over last year. Well, except that we know this will happen and why, thus negating much of the effect that it could have. It would negate ALL effects, except that there are many who dabble in the stock market who don't actually know what they're doing and don't listen to all the available information, and there are those who know everything including that they can "play" the ignorant and make a lot of money.
But simply put, the stock market doesn't put in money into actual companies hands and therefore isn't job creation. McDonald's isn't going to build a new restaurant because you bought their stock (from someone else not connected to the restaurant chain who welcomes your money into his pocket), but will if you and your friends buy a few hamburgers.
The only real thing we need to do to cut spending is to cut Congress', the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court's salary to the average income earned by their constituents, but with an "as needed" clause that brings their current income to that amount (so if the constituents of VA-3 make on average $35,000 and the congressmen makes $50,000, he gets no government stipend, but if he makes $25,000, he'll get $10,000). There will be no housing stipend, but we'll open "The Congressional Hotel", 535 rooms that the Congressmen can use while in session for free and when they aren't in session works as a traditional hotel (it has been mentioned that Congress should never be in session during the Cherry Blossom Festival, but I see no problem with that). Travel expenses would only be covered to come to and leave the sessions.
If all government funded programs have a budget using the same "as needed" clause, if the public fund these groups fully, then government doesn't have to pay the guaranteed difference and government spending has been cut.
If we could get people to donate to more non-profits in lieu of donating to campaigns, along with these aforementioned ideas, we might actually get this country on the right track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)