Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and other. The Politicians should get payed a lot less then what they are making now. In 2009, the Congressional Politicians where taking in a yearly salary of $174,000. We should pay our Congressional Politicians well but not to much to make it a career out of it. According to the salary of $174,000 about 1/2 is taking from taxes so there take home is about $87,000. After a good 20 years in Congress they become millionaires. Gee I wonder why there is so much corruption on the Republicans and Democrats. Don't get me wrong there are a few politicians that refuse to have a pay-raise. We should pay our politicians but not so they can do a good 20 years and become millionaires after words. They should only make about $75,000-125,000 a year not $174,000. I wonder if politicians would stick around for years if they start out making $125,000 a year then every year they get a reduction of pay. Say for every year that a politician is in office he/she gets a reduction of 10% from his/her first year's pay. They can stay forever but they won't have really any incentive of staying around. That might be a good idea but are the politicians are going to do that probably not. If they did they'll just raise there pay so high it the 10% won't mean anything.
Reference(s):
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Foreign Policy
I had written an argumentative paper for my composition class in the Spring Quarter at Minnesota School of Business (if you are going for a business degree go to that school, it is really great). The teacher said that we could write about any topic. So I decided to write about Nation Building.
While I was searching for things of Foreign Policy/Nation Building, I stubble on this article on the history of Nation Building of the United States, and how successful the United States were in Nation Building.
"Since 1898, the United States has been nation building"-Nation Building by me. It was in Cuba that the United States first intervention conflict. The war was to help Cuba to be independent from Spanish rule. The press played a big roll in starting the Cuba intervention. Some major reporters went down to Cuba and saw some things that Spain was doing to Cuba. The reporters stretched the truth on how bad Cuba was in. Spain was ruling Cuba with an iron fist but reporters decided to over play what was going on. The United States citizens, as whole, wanted something done about Cuba. So Congress took action to send the military down to Cuba to help the natives to be free.
Cuba was the first taste of Nation Building that the Untied States had.
Nation-Building, The American Way-Colonel Jayne A. Carson United States Army wrote about how Nation Building got its start and how the USA is doing now with Nation Building. In his paper he basically says that Nation Building only truly works when there is a major war against one country, like WWII Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany is rank in the top 5 economies in the world. All of the other nation building that the Untied States did never gotten as good as Japan and Germany. The cost of Japan and Germany to be a prosperous nation is too hard to calculate. Probably untold billions of dollars.
The cost of nation building is so costly and only works in certain conditions that is not worth the USA's money and blood to help the nations to be free. If a nation's citizen wants a change in leader/government the citizens must be united and must be like the Untied State revolutionary war.
Closing statement:
We should not nation build because it is way too costly.
References:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-gross-domestic-countries-map.html
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/carson.pdf
Ron Paul, The Revolution A Manifesto (book)
While I was searching for things of Foreign Policy/Nation Building, I stubble on this article on the history of Nation Building of the United States, and how successful the United States were in Nation Building.
"Since 1898, the United States has been nation building"-Nation Building by me. It was in Cuba that the United States first intervention conflict. The war was to help Cuba to be independent from Spanish rule. The press played a big roll in starting the Cuba intervention. Some major reporters went down to Cuba and saw some things that Spain was doing to Cuba. The reporters stretched the truth on how bad Cuba was in. Spain was ruling Cuba with an iron fist but reporters decided to over play what was going on. The United States citizens, as whole, wanted something done about Cuba. So Congress took action to send the military down to Cuba to help the natives to be free.
Cuba was the first taste of Nation Building that the Untied States had.
Nation-Building, The American Way-Colonel Jayne A. Carson United States Army wrote about how Nation Building got its start and how the USA is doing now with Nation Building. In his paper he basically says that Nation Building only truly works when there is a major war against one country, like WWII Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany is rank in the top 5 economies in the world. All of the other nation building that the Untied States did never gotten as good as Japan and Germany. The cost of Japan and Germany to be a prosperous nation is too hard to calculate. Probably untold billions of dollars.
The cost of nation building is so costly and only works in certain conditions that is not worth the USA's money and blood to help the nations to be free. If a nation's citizen wants a change in leader/government the citizens must be united and must be like the Untied State revolutionary war.
Closing statement:
We should not nation build because it is way too costly.
References:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-gross-domestic-countries-map.html
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/carson.pdf
Ron Paul, The Revolution A Manifesto (book)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Divisions in the Liberty movement.
There seems to be a unhealthy division between the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Republicans. I was at the Libertarian Party of MN meeting on Saturday morning. One of the topics that was talked about was the division between the Libertarian Party and Libertarian Republicans/Ron Paul People. I think if there is some kind of organization that would help unite the two camps but leave them separate to do there job in promoting Freedom and Liberty. The LP has a general mission to seek anybody to Liberty and Libertarian Republicans could focus on their mission to keep the Republicans in check. Both sides should agree to vote for a candidate that scores the most for Liberty. Say, if there is a Republican that is not for Liberty then the Liberty should vote for the LP candidate. If there is a candidate that holds to Libertarian values in the Republican Party both camps should seek to support him/her and hold there feet to the fire if they fail to promote Liberty while in office. It is more important to get small government people in office than bickering from both camps of the Libertarian Camp.
Friday, October 15, 2010
MN Politics
There is no real candidate that holds Liberty values in the governor race in Minnesota.
I don't like Emmer(R) because I now he doesn't hold to the values of Liberty as much as I wanted him to. Don't get me wrong, he seems nice and is the best out of the three candidates but I don't trust him because he spend some time in the State Legislative. Maybe to him this is like the next step up toward more power and maybe to the president seat.
I dislike Dayton(D) more so than Emmer. Dayton wants to tax the richest Minnesotans because of "fairness" Some business owners are already planing to move out of the state if Dayton wins. If Dayton wins South Dakota sounds really good, especially if I am going to start a business.
I like Horner(IP) simply he is not a Republican/Democrat. I do agree with him on some issues. He himself was a business owner and really knows how to do payroll. He score big with me with business owner at least he understands.
I am stuck between three choices Emmer, Horner, or a write in. I might want to write in a person just so I can save my conscience for voting for somebody I don't enjoy.
I am little disappointed in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota because they don't have a candidate running for Governor. I might just write in one of the leaders of the Libertarian Party of MN.
I don't like Emmer(R) because I now he doesn't hold to the values of Liberty as much as I wanted him to. Don't get me wrong, he seems nice and is the best out of the three candidates but I don't trust him because he spend some time in the State Legislative. Maybe to him this is like the next step up toward more power and maybe to the president seat.
I dislike Dayton(D) more so than Emmer. Dayton wants to tax the richest Minnesotans because of "fairness" Some business owners are already planing to move out of the state if Dayton wins. If Dayton wins South Dakota sounds really good, especially if I am going to start a business.
I like Horner(IP) simply he is not a Republican/Democrat. I do agree with him on some issues. He himself was a business owner and really knows how to do payroll. He score big with me with business owner at least he understands.
I am stuck between three choices Emmer, Horner, or a write in. I might want to write in a person just so I can save my conscience for voting for somebody I don't enjoy.
I am little disappointed in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota because they don't have a candidate running for Governor. I might just write in one of the leaders of the Libertarian Party of MN.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Taxes & Spending
There should be NO INCOME TAX! Instead, there should be a consumption tax at 5%-10%. But in order to ever have a consumption tax at 5%-10%, there needs to be a BIG SPENDING cut. If there is a major reduction of taxes there will be a deficit if there is no decrease of spending.
Ideally spending should be only 10% of GDP not 17-20%.
Actually when politicians say that there would be more revenue if we tax more, that might be true up to a year from the tax hike. But the GDP would go down so it will level off to about 18% (give or take 3). This is a very historical number. So, no matter how high taxes are GDP will shrink to get to the point where taxes will only be about 20%. In 2008, the percent of receipt(mostly taxes) is 17.7% of GDP, but outlays(spending) was 21%. Last year 2009, the receipts are 15.1% that means the GDP has gone down. But the outlays of 2009 are even more striking comparing to the receipt as a percent because the outlays are 28.1%.
This is why raising taxes is generally a bad thing for the GDP. Tax hikes in the short run (with in a year) might make sense but it will quickly result in a decrease of GDP which means either the private sector will not create jobs or cut jobs.
The most pressing issues are Taxes, Spending, and Debt. It affects all Americans, young, old, in between, and future generations.
References
CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0
White House Budget:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY/pdf/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY.pdf
Ideally spending should be only 10% of GDP not 17-20%.
Actually when politicians say that there would be more revenue if we tax more, that might be true up to a year from the tax hike. But the GDP would go down so it will level off to about 18% (give or take 3). This is a very historical number. So, no matter how high taxes are GDP will shrink to get to the point where taxes will only be about 20%. In 2008, the percent of receipt(mostly taxes) is 17.7% of GDP, but outlays(spending) was 21%. Last year 2009, the receipts are 15.1% that means the GDP has gone down. But the outlays of 2009 are even more striking comparing to the receipt as a percent because the outlays are 28.1%.
This is why raising taxes is generally a bad thing for the GDP. Tax hikes in the short run (with in a year) might make sense but it will quickly result in a decrease of GDP which means either the private sector will not create jobs or cut jobs.
The most pressing issues are Taxes, Spending, and Debt. It affects all Americans, young, old, in between, and future generations.
References
CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0
White House Budget:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY/pdf/BUDGET-2010-SUMMARY.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)