Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. So Obama's last term is like Bush's first term.
This is not Obama's last election.
Imagine he loses by a close margin. Say Romney gets 50.1% and Obama gets 49.9% or it would be Romney 49.9% to Obama 49.8% with the remaining 0.3% going to third parties.
As a result there would be a call for Obama to run again in 2016
Monday, August 27, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
>> Biggest oddities in all professional sports. You ready? The great state of New York has three, count them, three different professional football teams. There’s the Buffalo Bills, the New York Jets and the New York Giants. One state, three football teams. Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team. I come from an hour south of L.A., which is not in itself a state but it also does not have a football team, quite to our annoyance but the great state of New York is blessed with three of them. The odd part, of the three New York NFL teams, only one of them plays in New York. The buffalo bills play in orchard park New York, right outside of buffalo. The jets and giants play not in New York but rather in New Jersey. That’s right. The New York Jets and the New York Giants are both based out of New Jersey.
I hit pause after he said “Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team.” I had to pause it because It seems like I recall hearing Chris Christie saying how one of the recent teams should be called the New Jersey Giants or Jets. So I looked it up to see that as a matter of fact, New York only has one football team. Despite keeping the New York in their name, the Jets and the Giants do not play or even have a their headquarters in New York, so it seems strange to complain about how New York is blessed with three, when as a matter of fact they have only one. Then he discusses how they do play in New Jersey, and does say they are ‘based’ in New Jersey.
This beginning was a bit misleading. I wondered what his point was. Why this complaint? Well this monologue was to lead mentioning of a water mane break out in front of MetLife stadium home of the Giants and Jets then to a discussion on focusing on infrastructure.
Here are his reasons.
We have construction workers who aren't productively employed. the unemployment rate in that sector is about 14%, it's a depression. The global slowdown has meant a slowdown in construction costs because raw materials are cheap because countries like china and India aren't using as many of them. We have factories lying dormant that could be making those materials and employing people to make those materials and we have money that is on the table to borrow for essentially less than nothing. let's be clear -- putting this stuff off is not fiscally responsible. it's like a dollar of borrowing, a dollar to pay later. when you delay the maintenance, that dollar today can become 50 tomorrow as a bridge you were going to fix has now collapsed. so we need to do it, it cheap to do it and it gives people jobs. it is an unbelievable deal. in any world we should be doing it and yet we're not. there be are some things in American politics and policy we should be having real armies about.
What I don't see here is any mention of the unemployment rate for civil engineers. It takes more than just the construction workers. Tear up a road and you will need adequate detours. It may require pre-construction in order to have detours ready. It is also pointless to tear up the road, if you will go back a few years later, in order to have more construction to deal with traffic issues. So you would first examine what changes could be made with traffic flow. Does the road need to be widen? Or does it need to be narrowed? You would need to prioritize projects, you won't be able to do all the projects at once. So you would need to study what roads need changing, then design it, get some government approval, and public feedback on the projects, besides getting financing, so it may be years before a project is shovel ready.
Oh and remember New York only has ONE football team.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
If Roberts is motivated by political pressure and media pressure, I wonder if he is being a bit passive and aggressive on his opinion.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The biggest problem is the tax is not big enough to make it an economic incentive to purchase Health Insurance.
Provide an economic incentive by increasing everyone's income tax rate, and offering a Health Insurance Tax Credit. . Nothing prevents congress from raising income tax rates, and nothing would prevent them offering a tax credit. Inactivity does not trigger the tax.
It seems its doing it the same way, but you could have increased the tax on some to be higher than average cost. But since the current method increases your tax when you don't purchase health insurance, and it could not be punitive by being higher than the price of insurance. But increasing a person tax rate can always be done. Looking back at National Taxpayer union website pulled (July 4th, 2012)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html We see rates of over 90 % at times for income over 200,000.
So Congress could increase the income tax rate, of all tax payers. The higher income levels would have their rates increased to a spot higher than the cost of insurance and lower income. The size of the credit would be income based.
A person with income above the poverty level, could have a larger credit, as you reach higher incomes they would receive a credit slight less.
Each year would be adjusting the tax rate and credit to best fit insurance rates.. Hoping the price of the insurance would go down over time. As the insurance pool would be increased and the amount needed to cover the cost of treatment would go down. Even the cost of treatment would go down as you may be able to get earlier diagnoses.
Stu Burguiere analysis would be correct. as soon as preexisting conditions are covered, companies would drop their insurance plans, setting up some money to cover some things, and then only have people part of the plan when they need the insurance. But with this possibility, insurance rates would have to be increased for everyone. But that would drive people away from insurance and just pay the small fine. Could health insurance premiums be cut enough to encourage people to get the insurance over paying the fine?
I wonder if we could set up a game, an online game, and let people play out the effects of the health care laws. Call it SIM Insurance or SIM Health Care, and maybe we could play out the effects of the law before we get to far in and find out we have major problems. I would enjoy playing this game.
Monday, July 2, 2012
It seems as if Chief Justice John Roberts is very hated. But I would like to withhold judgment on this until some further examination. I keep hearing the beginnings of some conspiracy theory on BOTH sides.
The commerce clause is used too much. It becomes a source of limitless power. In my reading, this is an attempt to limit the commerce clause, to put boundaries on it. Had the ruling been 6-3 and Roberts went over to the other side in order to “right” the opinion he would be praised in an attempt to salvage some of the damage caused.
Now from the decision:
…Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
What WHat WHAT! ..[G]oing without insurance [is] just another thing the Government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income.
What do you mean Like? Gasoline is a thing, earning an income is something, Not getting health insurance is NOT A THING! Is there ANYTHING taxed if I don't have it?
It is not sufficient to raise taxes if someone does not do something. In my opinion, raise everybody’s taxes, and give a Health Insurance Tax Credit (HITC) to those who have health insurance. Insurance companies will give out a proof of insurance forms as well as an electronic form which you would file with your taxes. Thus allowing you to claim you tax credit.
Show me precedent of taxing the lack of something. Where in the History of the United States has our lack of doing something or lack of having something results in us being taxed. Such an example should be used if it ever existed. To compare it like buying gasoline or earning an income, is the fitting of a square peg into a round hole.
As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895).
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 32 (2012).
This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 28 n 4 (1953)
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 33(2012).
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 34 (2012).
In these examples we have the purchase of licenses and nuclear waste shipments, all seem to be activities being taxed.
- In Drexel Furniture it involved a 10 percent 'tax' on income, regardless of size of infraction. The Health Care Tax then could never exceed the price of Health Care.
- The offender must know they are breaking the law.
- The agency collecting the 'tax' has to have had a history of collecting taxes. IRS yes, Dept of Labor No.
So Chief Roberts is now attempting to address my concern of “taxation without activation”. He first says this NOT a capitation since not everyone pays for it. Then in an attempt to allay my concern, Chief Justice says the Constitution does not guarantee avoiding of tax through inactivity. His example is Capitation. How is it phrased? “Capitations are taxes paid by every person, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” This is a tax which is not able to be avoided by inactivity it also can not be avoided by activity. It is a tax laid “without regard” to action or inaction.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 44-45 (2012).
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Many things Atheists disagree with Christianity but in the process allow Christian to have things for which they should not be denying yourself
Being organized. Some will say they are against organized religion and never organize them selves. There is power in numbers. Lack of organization weakens you.
Get together with other Atheists and have a study at local restaurants similar to what Christians do. Develop a study called "The Cross-Examination". In this study you will take a look at Christan apologetics and develop a reply to it. Take "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" . and cross-examine it.
Get together and sing. Unless you believe the singing is bringing God's presence why do you think nothing positive can come of it. You should be doing most of the same things but just not giving a higher power credit.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
People will paint Romney as being too rich. But Romney needs to consider finding a strong VP candidate. One who will help him gained votes in the South. Find one which would give him a stronger lead over Obama.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
In the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs I am hearing about broccoli. Some say it’s a meaningless argument but others seem it makes a good point. What would be the case of Broccoli? Should we have it?
(BTW in looking at the case it states it as Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs and Department of Health and Human Servs V. Florida in the oral arguments. So was this officially two cases, and we could have two different decisions (i.e. two majority decisions and two descending decisions.)? May be it was just an error.
"I would like to play Supreme Court. I get to be Chief Justice!”
Well I would like to read the oral arguments and listen to them and then write my opinion, I would also work on writing opinions of both sides and see if how I argue it would agree with the final decision.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I wonder how the Supreme Court makes decisions?
During Ruth Beta Ginsburg's confirmation hearing she was asked “What is the worse Supreme Court case” She had said the case of “Roe V Wade” but she had a better argument for Abortion rights, but would not state what it is in case it is brought up before the Court.
So how much do the oral arguments play in the decisions of the court?If a justice did not think one side may a good case, would they be willing to make the better case in their opinion. If someone would make a bad argument, would that side lose because of the poor argument or will a justices better opnion be used in its place.
If the case is going to be based on the quailty of the oral arguments it would seem the Health Care Reform law would be overturned.
I will try to take sometime to further study of the oral arguments. It would be interesting to be able to create my opinion of the case and examine if how I wrote it would in anyway be close to what is finally presented.
When the Supreme Court is making decisions, I would hope they would be willing to grant individuals freedom before they would grant greater power to the Federal government. If it is a choice of say, an individual's right to have an abortion or the Federal government being able to exercise greater power to require abortions in certain cases I would hope individual freedom is chosen. The Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government to those given to it by the people through the Constitution. If the constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to do something then it should not be allowed to do it.
If every one but one person or a small minority of people in the United States of America, wanted to band guns, but the constitution was not changed, then the constitution should prevail, and even if strict gun control is in the main stream it should not be the ruling of the court. But they should defend the Constitution even if a small number or even if no one is for the 2nd amendment.
You may hear at the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court nominee, someone wanting to make sure he/she is in the 'main stream' but if the 'main stream' is unconstitutional, then don't be main stream. To change the constitution is tough, and it should be. If something is main stream enough it should be easy to alter the confirmation.
So as the Court is considering the Health care Act they should be much harder on the government, than on the plaintiff. If the government has difficulty defending the law, then it should be over turned. It should be a very strong and compelling case for the court to allow a federal mandate to occur.
Lets hope the court protects freedom, and puts down tyranny.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
If he does not win, then he needs to consider on getting a V.P. who is from the south and will do well in debates. Newt will do well in the south but won't be enough to help him. Santorum showed he can win in the south so he could work, but would he be good and debating V.P. Biden? He would need to work a lot to prepare for the debate.
So, assuming Romney get the nomination, here are some options
Robert J. Bentley
Jeb Bush (Could help get Florida, and attacks about Bush would back fire)
Nikki Haley (she is young, would be compared to Sarah Palin and would need to do a lot of prep work, She has to study hard to do ok against Biden.)
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
If it would be possible for no candidate to have enough votes, it is thought we will have a brokered convention . But I don't think that is what Newt Gingrich wants. I think he would like to be the vice presidential nominee. So if Mitt Romney wants his supporters, he would add Gingrich to the ticket, bringing his delegates over to Romney.
Now I question if it would be possible to be part of the ticket, with out releasing his delegates. It seems like he would have to but would be depending on them to vote for Romney.
Also if Romney rejects the proposal, would Santorum have enough delegates to allow the Gingrich delegates to give Santorum the nomination? I don't think so.
So Newt Gingrich is going to have to use the threat of a broker convention against Romney in order to get the vice president spot on the ballot. But are any of these candidates willing to settle for be the number two?
How about Romney and Santorum put aside their differences, and work together. If they would join forces, it would neuter Newt. Polls need to be done checking on the Romney and Satorum vs President Obama and Vice President Biden race. Could they together, beat President Obama? Maybe.