The Direction America Should Go In, Is…

Most polls which ask the question “Do you think America is headed in the right direction?” find that an exceeding majority of respondents answer “NO” to that very simple, straight-forward question.

Since January 2009 to today (October 13, 2020), those who believe the country is on the wrong track has ranged from a high of 76.5% to a low of 45.8%, with the majority occurring in the 60% range for most of that time, who think the country is headed in the wrong direction. That’s according to the averaged aggregate polling data collected by RealClearPolitics from a variety of polling organizations.

About the President, some have intoned sarcastically, “Poor ol’ Trump is the only President that has ever made mistakes.”

No, of course not, and it’s easy to understand the tenor and gist of such sarcasm.

Flooding by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans

I can say, have said, and will say this, however, and it is that, to date, in our nation’s history, he is the ONLY President whom has NEVER held any office of Public Trust of any kind, whatsoever – neither elected nor appointed – nor has he EVER volunteered for or with any kind of Public Service in ANY capacity with any public policy or public service-based organization. And for that reason, he is as unfit for duty as his bone spurs made him during Vietnam.

While many criticize and make political hay out of regarding a candidate’s “inexperience,” and tout that as being a strong point of benefit, there is this to consider – which I’ll explain using analogy.

Most people are employees. They have a job to do, and do it well. But they’ve never owned, nor run a company of any kind.

So it would be utterly preposterous, absurd, and even stupid, to imagine that just anyone would be able to step into Jeff Bezos’s shoes (Amazon’s Founder, President, CEO) and perform his job at least as good as he does.

We would be utter failures… just like the President is.

Another part of that problem is that the President’s “mistakes,” or “failures,” as they’re properly called, affects 330,441,455 people, and the world’s LARGEST economy.

And on that note, I’ll make this observation:

As the world’s 3rd most populous nation, to China and India, respectively, each with over 1 BILLION MORE people than we have, it is the height of absurdity and preposterousness to imagine for even a moment that somehow, with that many people and STILL GROWING, that we should somehow have a “smaller” government is not merely stupid, it is moronic.

Analogously again, it’s like imagining that you should wear smaller clothes the bigger you get. It’s nonsensical on the order of Alice in Wonderland.

VERY few people want to talk about it, and even FEWER want to hear it, but… because our elected officials

Sodomy: A prime example of what’s wrong with #ALpolitics

A dear friend who is a long-time retiree, aged 78 years, entire subsistence is from a meager pension (earned from a lifetime of work in a unionized organization), supplemented with a paltry Social Security check.

She’s lived through breast cancer surgery (mastectomy) & reconstruction, other major surgeries (knee replacements) and procedures, and lives in a trailer which she owns, situated upon a lot which she rents. She has resided there many, many years.

To save money, she recently

Necessary but Not Sufficient: Why Taxing the Wealthy Can’t Fix the Deficit

NOW OR NEVER | SEPTEMBER 2012

By David Brown, Gabe Horwitz, and David Kendall

In this paper we shatter the myth that taxes on the wealthy can come close to solving our long-term budget problem. We readily acknowledge that raising taxes on top earners is necessary, but it is not sufficient to solve the looming fiscal crisis. And we make clear that if entitlements are left on autopilot, burdensome middle class tax hikes become inevitable.

Even a 50% tax rate on the wealthy can’t fix the deficit.
This is the first in a pair of papers that demonstrate that purely ideological fixes will not sufficiently address our fiscal issues. Our other report, Death by a Thousand Cuts: Why Spending Cuts Alone Won’t Fix the Deficit, proves that a cuts-only strategy cannot solve our budget woes without severely compromising our safety, security, and economic growth. Together, these papers make the case that a big and balanced fiscal package is the preferred way to avoid the fiscal cliff, prevent deficits from exploding in the future, and allow our economy to grow.

To stabilize the debt and create a positive economic climate for U.S. growth, most mainstream economists agree that annual deficits must be reduced to 3% of GDP. The question is: how do we get there?

In order to demonstrate that taxes alone cannot solve our budget woes, we explore three budget scenarios, all of which rely solely on

GAO IDs Billion$ in federal wa$te

In a recently released report, the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the Government Accounting Office), has identified Billions of dollars of waste in federal programs, many of which are described as “duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services.”

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R), said that by implementing the suggested changes – such as through consolidation, “We could save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year without cutting services.”

Some examples of streamlining include consolidating responsibilities within agencies, such as with catfish, for example. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has responsibility for monitoring catfish, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also has responsibility for oversight of the seafood industry. As well,

The Impact of the Flat Tax Reform on Inequality

Some assert that everyone should pay the same rate of taxes, claiming that one “flat rate” would solve many problems.

I beg to differ.

The inequality of the so-called “flat tax” is quite simply, self-evident, because given that the cost of living is indexed similarly, the one whom has more income and wealth does not use as much to live, whereas the less fortunate and less wealthy use a greater percentage of their income to make ends meet.

Put another way, if it costs $500 annually to live, and you make $1000, that’s 50% of your income.

If it costs $500 annually to live and you make $10,000 that’s 5% of your income.

Who, then, does a flat tax benefit?