Pay or Not

I always want to discuss about Taxes, but Ingrid posted it already in her blog so I will just elaborate on that a little more.

Everyone pays taxes in one form or another- mostly income and sales taxes. But why do we pay these taxes? There are many services offered to citizens that could not be managed effectively under any other system.

I do agree with Ingrid that the federal government uses our tax dollars to support Social Security, health care, national defense and social services such as food stamps and housing. Services provided by taxes in South Carolina are public schools, safe highways, health care, prisons and social services for low-income citizens.The city or county where you live provides water and garbage service, police and fire protection and also contributes to public schools.

But.... why must they be paid for with taxes?  Why shouldn't we just pay individually for what we use? 

The answer is simple:  Because no one could afford it.  Each person would have to pay the full fee for the service regardless of their ability to pay. Our tax system is based on our "ability to pay."  The more money we earn, the more taxes we pay.  And the opposite is also true.  If we earn a small income, we pay less taxes.

Ingrid lists some of the celebrities who owe a lot of taxes that support my next point. 

Yes, we can all admit that these services are necessary. So it's not a question of Should we pay taxes?, but Should we raise taxes on the rich?

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income. 

Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay. Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government. 

Let's take an example with insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public.

How about social spending? Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

So, I'm with you Ingrid, and not just both of us, everyone has to pay the damn taxes! (your pic is cute)


 

Don't double the rate...

 

Hoping for a federal student loan to help pay for college? 

Beware, because the interest rates are set to double on July 1, unless Congress and the White House find a way to avoid what could be another looming political standoff.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bill that cut in half interest rates on subsidized student loans until 2012. Those low rates will expire on July 1, going back to 6.8 percent from 3.4 percent, and, to prevent college from becoming even more unaffordable for millions of students, the obvious move is to renew them.

The White House is pushing for an extension of the current interest rate of 3.4 percent. Without it, the rate will climb to 6.8 percent for more than 7 million students across the country, and the average loan recipient would be an additional $1,000 in debt, according to White House spokesman Matt Lehrich.

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

“Let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.” – President Barack Obama, January 27, 2010

In his weekly YouTube address – posted to the official White House channel Saturday – President Obama sternly warned Congress to take action and prevent interest rates for a popular federally subsidized college loan program from doubling this summer.

Students are already struggling to keep up with rising tuition and living expenses and, if anything, the government should be working to make college more accessible to high school graduates.

As we work to get the economy back on track, no one is suggesting it would be a good idea to double interest rates on credit cards or home mortgages. Why then do some believe it's a good idea to double interest rates for students?

Cecilia Muñoz, White House domestic policy director, said Monday in a conference call with reporters: "We must keep rates low so more Americans get a fair shot, a more affordable education and a clear 'path to the middle class.' "

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

"Given the bleak job prospects that young Americans coming out of college face today, I encourage Congress to temporarily extend the current low rate on subsidized undergraduate Stafford loans," Romney said. "I also hope the president and Congress can pass the extension responsibly, that offsets its cost in a way that doesn't harm the job prospects of young Americans."

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/many-student-loan-rates-are-poised-to-double-if-congress-white-house-cant-agree/#storylink=cpy

Although college certainly isn’t for everyone, rising costs and interest rates will dissuade many who would otherwise consider pursuing a college education. This will contribute to the erosion of the middle class and increase the strain on public assistance programs that are already struggling to deal with across-the-board budget cuts.

Now Congress has an important decision to make. Do they double interest rates for Stafford loans, or they keep interest rates where they are? This is not about politics. It's about doing right for America's students - and for our nation's economy.

Should we stay away from the two-party system...?

    After surfing through all of the classmates' blog, I find the post of Jay Herrin seems interesting.

I do agree that our two-party system has its flaw.And it's been flawed for many many years. It gives too much control to a small group of leaders and those leaders tend to dictate what those parties stand for. The primary voting system in the US is a ridiculous race to garner attention to one’s own state and forces candidates to campaign earlier and earlier, tailoring views to those primary states that get the most media coverage.

By its very nature, it allows a basis for only a maximum of two ideological viewpoints. The huge spectrum of beliefs, opinions, ideas, and values that are found in the U.S. need much more specialized representation than the current system can provide. If we look at many of the European countries, such as Germany or Sweden, we can see concrete examples of just how beneficial a multi-party system can be, in terms of making sure there is adequate representation of the governed, and that minority viewpoints are taken into account.

But some recent discussions about voting have started to sway my thinking. First, Intelligence Squared debated the idea of the two-party system and whether or not the US was becoming ungovernable because of it. I was one of the people who was swayed by none other than P. J. O’Rourke into believing the two-party system is the way to go for now.

And more recently, Cheap Talk pointed me to an article about the flaws of other voting systems compared to what the US has today. The concern with other systems is the use of tactical voting. That is, voting for a candidate you don’t like as much to help eliminate another.

    And yes, about Ron Paul. He's a Republican since he's in that particular party. As for his political views, he's actually a libertarian rather than a typical conservative Republican. Key elements is his hatred of the US military and wish to pretty much disband it. He repeats DNC lies such as the number of military bases we have in the world. The figure counts weather stations, envoys and even a couple unmanned facilities as military bases. 

Here is a genius video Paul just did opposing our occupation of foreign countries. Not just about Afghanistan, but military bases elsewhere. The video asks us to imagine a Chinese base in Texas.

I'm not going to raise a topic about "Is Ron Paul the best choice for president?" , "Will ron paul win 2012 election? ". But there are a few things that just don't sit well with me concerning him.

Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. He also wants to cut funding in some departments. While I concede that current funding isn't wisely used, I think that move would be closer towards destroying America rather than helping it. Cutting the funds of the FDA, the CDC, and Homeland Security just don't sit well with me.

The 2012 election is coming near and we all will soon know who will still be standing till the end.

Enough in Afghanistan

      In December of 2009, President Obama announced that the last American troops would leave Afghanistan in 2014. On June 22 of last year, Obama declared that 10,000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 would be leaving Afghanistan by this summer. Currently about 80,000 troops remain in Afghanistan.

 

U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 with three objectives: find Osama bin Laden, destroy his al-qaeda terrorist organization and unseat the Taliban government that was shielding them. A decade later, bin Laden is dead and al-qaeda is in disarray, its remaining elements scattered across Africa and the Middle East. Those are major accomplishments, a tribute to the American military. But it's increasingly unclear how a continuing occupation in Afghanistan advances U.S. goals.

Now, it's time to bring them home.

The Gallup poll provides a good summary on the US's citizens opinion. Also, a new New York Times/CBS News poll shows that more Americans than ever want the U.S. to end its involvement in Afghanistan, with 69 percent now saying the U.S. shouldn't be fighting there. That's a huge jump from just four months ago, when 53 percent said it was time to go.

President Barack Obama needs to expedite the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It's costing us a fortune to stay there and, increasingly, appears to be doing more harm than good.

The Afghan people's anger at the United States and distrust of U.S. troops have only deepened in the past few months with a series of blunders, from soldiers' burning of Qurans to a rogue sergeant's one-man killing spree. The deaths and cultural insults are inspiring calls for vengeance that further erode Americans' ability to bring about positive change in Afghanistan.

Some members of Congress, including the Bay Area delegation, are calling on the president to hasten the timetable. Even before Sunday's killing of Afghan villagers, polls showed more than half of the U.S. public believed the U.S. should withdraw even if the Afghan army isn't adequately trained.

During Tuesday's hearing, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., quoted a wounded Marine he met during a hospital visit. He asked, “Why are we still there?”

Canada, which has been Washington's key ally in Kandahar, will be out by 2011. Britain will likely withdraw soon after, along with most of NATO's European contingent. If Obama does not synch his withdrawal with his allies', it won't be long before America finds itself alone in Afghanistan.

This is why President Obama should stick to his plan to start withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in 2011, and finish withdrawing soon after.

 

Can we conquer nature?

On March 8, 2012, the Washington post published an article about the triple disaster in Japan on 3/11 "A year after the disaster of 3/11, Japan looks inward "

Fred Hiatt starts out very interesting with "the reaction of the two countries" , Japan, America after Hurricane Katrina, and a quote from some well-known people.

With that he points out a good question : can we conquer nature?. Really, "Can we conquer nature?".

It's easy to think that man has conquered nature. We have risen from subsistence nomads to a mass of billions, settled for the most part in cities of glass, steel and air-conditioned bliss, writes Mark Wilson in this week's Mate. We have crossed oceans, bridged them and even hold them back around us as they threaten to drown our homes. It's easy to think we can do whatever we please and that man and his many inventions can conquer all.

A few years back as the oceans streamed relentlessly inland across Asia, washing away hundreds of years of development and many of the individuals responsible for it, we all lamented the force of nature and our powerlessness to stop her in full flight. Then we watched in shock and awe as Hurricane Katrina pounded New Orleans, a proud city in the most powerful nation of Earth. Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a state-of-the-art military and millions more on flood protection, early warning systems and civil defence infrastructure, man was comprehensively defeated.

While I agree we can't completely defeat Nature, we can, with good planning and engineering, mitigate natures effects.

It's time we learnt a valuable lesson: nature always wins and we must adapt and if that means moving our towns away from these focal points of nature's wrath then, as hard as it is, we probably should. Our role is to grow with nature and learn from nature not to defeat and do better than nature

English as a official language

On February 23, The Washington Post published an article of Petula Dvorak about Frederick County forces immigrants to speak English

First, one of the things that makes a nation a nation is a common language. The author makes a great case for the need to have English designated as the official language of the US. It would save the federal and state governments billions by reducing redundant printings of government forms (and websites).

We should gladly accept immigrants... those who have an education or skills, who know or want to learn English, who can support themselves and want to be Americans and join us. If you come here, it should be because you want to be an American, and that means speaking English to communicate with us. 

Petula sadly misses the real point, which is that, when you immigrate, you are expected to confirm to the culture that you are now living in. English should be the only language offered anywhere for all services as a matter of law. Don't like it? Then go back where you came from. 

Though I found this article to be a little confusing. Her personal story about herself and her parents is sweet and show how learning a country's predominant language helps immigrants by giving examples of common experience of all Americans, but her conclusion that English-only supporters are xenophobes makes the whole article contradictory. 

"The folks who pushed for this legislation in Frederick aren’t doing it because they want to commune with their new neighbors. They aren’t offering English immersion classes or anything else constructive". Frederick Community College does exactly what she accuses them of not doing. Dvorak generally is pretty weak on actually making any conclusion. 

We welcome anyone here who wants to become American. But the very first step to becoming American is to speak English. All you have to do is try: we are very happy to teach you. 

U.S. government regularly monitoring news blogs, social media

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security regularly monitors dozens of websites, including Facebook, Twitter, WikiLeaks, YouTube, .....

The NOC’s Media Monitoring Initiative, approved in November, means the government can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use "traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed"

To sum it up, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will keep tabs on who says what from now on. The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but why invest the time, resources and especially the money towards the effort?

The openness and the freedom of expression allowed through blogs, social networks, video sharing sites, and other tools of today’s communications technology has proven to be an unprecedented and often disruptive force in some closed societies. Governments that seek to maintain their authority and control the ideas and information their citizens receive are often caught in a dilemma: they feel that they need access to the Internet to participate in commerce in the global market and for economic growth and technological development, but fear that allowing open access to the Internet potentially weakens their control over their citizens. The ongoing situation of Google in China is representative of these issues.

The double whammy of the WikiLeaks ruling and the DHS National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative have serious implications for not only journalistic freedom, but to all American's freedom.

Hello World!