Home » Politics

Category Archives: Politics

This is where I observe and analyze politics.

Why a Libertarian Voted for Obama (Short Version)

Posted on by | Leave a comment

I voted for Obama because I’m a Libertarian. Under Romney the successful would have had no need to fight and the disenfranchised would have gotten the boot. Under Obama, the disenfranchised will be protected while the successful can carry on the battle with wealth redistribution policies. We, the successful, are much more equipped to fight a policy war than students, the disabled and the elderly.

In an Obama America, we can have everything we want. Social liberties (because the people in power mostly won on the promise to establish social liberties) AND economic freedom (because citizens now have more than enough incentive to rise up and correct our crumbling infrastructure and tax code).

I have nothing to say for those who fear America is becoming amoral because I wholly disagree. To allow all types of people to blossom we need non-judgmental social policy AND economic freedom.

Everyone comes into this world with their own lessons to learn. We cannot judge the choices people make when it comes to the family they choose to create. But we can ensure that no one’s economic freedom is hijacked by the government.

That is why I voted Obama and a Democratic Senator, while voting all Republicans into the House and Commissioner seats in Miami-Dade.

 

Obama.................reasons why you should vote

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Reblogged from sleepwalkingthrutheuniverse:

1. He ended the war in Iraq, which he did not start.

2. He will end the war in Afghanistan, which he also did not start.

3. He prevented the auto industry from imploding.

4. He prevented the U.S. from going into a deep recession, which was started by someone else.

5. He put safeguards in so banks and Wall Street could not continue their ways.

Read more… 113 more words

A nice list about Obama. Go Obama!!

Miami-Dade Voting

Posted on by | Leave a comment

This election season I refrained from adding to the noise and instead absorbed it. I avidly read every new article and watched clips of stump speeches. I voraciously ate up all the “facts” and the “latest developments”. After carrying on for months getting barraged by people trying to sway me to either side, I decided to shut it down.

It took me a moment to gather my thoughts, to filter out my own thoughts from those that were constantly shoved down my throat. Needless to say, it has been an uncomfortable election season for all of us. This $1 Billion dollar industry is taking advantage of the fact that most people don’t know everything that’s going on, and these campaign organizers are more than delighted to film a commercial in hopes of filling in those gaps and make you see the issues their way.

Once I finally found my center, I reaffirmed my values. I truthfully was not sure who I was going to vote for in this presidential election, mostly because I did not know what I wanted my future to be. I was feeding in to the fear culture, and I realized the fear culture is far worse than the entitlement culture. In an older post I ripped into the entitlement problem, so this is a true switch in stance.

I’d rather be a nation of “takers” who doesn’t take away people’s freedoms just because they’re scared.

Here are some major examples of the effects of the fear culture: DOMA, TSA, Patriot Act.

When you take these into consideration and you look at what Obama has brought us… it makes increased spending on Food Stamps look like the helpful policy it is. Seriously.

I believe in freedom. Real freedom. And it doesn’t come in the form of low taxes. With that, here are my answers to the Miami-Dade Ballot.

President: Barack Obama

Because I believe in education, equality, fair pay for equal work, and replenishing our amazing government programs through increased taxes. And not the other way around.

Senator: Bill Nelson

Because he has a distinguished track record, will protect our environment, works across the aisle, and puts people first.

House: Eddie Gonzalez

I feel like this guy read my cross-analysis of the Tea Party and OWS and is basing his campaign off it…. http://voteforeddie.com/issues.php

Commissioners: Keon Hardemon, Luis Garcia, Juan Zapata.

All are for increasing government transparency, working better with the people, regulating government contractors to reduce corruption, and setting term limits among other things.

Judge: Andrea Wolfson.

She is endorsed by groups I believe in.

House seat 115: Michael Bileca

The Miami Herald endorses him and he seems more open to progress and bipartisanship than his competition.

Amendments to constitution: NO to all.

 

So there you have it, my entire ballot.

On another note, as I was doing research on the politicians in my new district (I just moved) I found out my state senator has filed 4 bills, all are claims to award harmed citizens nearly 1 million in public funds. http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/s38/District#district I would LOVE someone to discuss this with me.

Right Hook, Cross.

Posted on by | Leave a comment

There are two very big ideas fighting for dominance in the boxing ring: Occupy Wall Street and Entitlement. But instead of punching each other, they’re punching us. In the face.

The right hook that caught us all in our half-slacked jaws was OWS.

Occupy Wall Street began as a protest against overpowered and corrupt corporations. Hundreds of people slept in a park for nearly two months. They were pissed that the…people (holding my tongue here)… who caused the global monetary insolvency that then caused the enormous financial crisis were also able to get away with most of the loot.

Exhibit 1

When we really think about it, all of us can relate with what Occupy Wall Street was trying to do. They were trying to fight for civil rights. But NOT the same civil rights African Americans & women had to fight for. When we think of civil rights, we think of the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to NOT be thought of as property… these were the basic civil rights people actually had to fight for during the beginning era of this country.

However, Occupy Wall Street protesters are fighting to restore and expand upon basic consumer rights.

But wait, we were talking about civil rights, right? Exactly. What they neglected to include in the list of basic consumer rights was how the corporations would treat their consumers’ livelihood (which often happen to be their own employees!). So Occupy Wall Street protesters decided to remind the big money fat cats that consumers are people. The civil rights OWS is fighting for are simple: (among them are) to be paid a living wage, granted access to medical care, and to have efforts be rewarded. If a corporation earns a billion dollars in profit and employs 19000 people, there is obviously something wrong when the executive board takes 150 million for themselves and leave about 44 thousand for the rest.

In consumers eyes, not only should corporations’ products solve our needs, but the way corporations create and distribute those products should solve our needs as well. And I agree with this to some extent. I think its screwed up that Apple and Facebook are earning billions upon billions of dollars, yet the people who gladly pay money and give their time to their products never see a dollar in return. But at the same time, the companies only need so many employees. And this is where we get to the second lurking punch in the face:

Entitlement.

The rich “job creators” have pushed back against protesters, claiming that they are all blinded by entitlement. After all, who says a corporation has to charge you a fair price AND pay you a fair wage? Who says they can’t use their money to tip the scales in their favor, so that they may continue to build their wealth at the expense of ours?

Honestly, WE are the ones who are allowing this. Nobody is holding a bullet to our head forcing us to consume beyond our means and continue to work a dead end job. There is nothing but our own apathy stopping us from turning the tables.

Exhibit 2

So what am I saying? I’m saying that if you choose to allow other people to run your life, you don’t get to choose how they run it. If you want the “peace of mind” of working at Starbucks because they provide benefits and flexible scheduling instead of pushing through the painful process of creating your own business, you don’t get to complain that you can’t afford a two-bedroom apartment on $9/hour.

I strongly believe that housing (and education) are a basic necessity. But I also generally understand economics and how pricing works. There are too many people settling for dead end jobs and not building, not creating. Not adding supply to the economy. These worker bees add nothing but demand. Therefore, prices go up.

Yes, some people are hoarding the world’s wealth, bur before you get to argue against the entitlement theory, make sure you’re not fitting the stereotype.

A few things that can mean you are entitled:

1. You owe thousands in student loans that you have no plans to pay back

2. You expect monetary compensation for any little effort (“I sweep these floors so well, I should get a raise.” or “I made that customer so happy, I should get a raise.”)

2a. You’re not looking to get promoted

3. You spend more time looking for get rich quick schemes than putting in the hard work that will get you there over time (this mentality shows a huge misconception over how money is earned)

4. You haven’t planned for your own retirement (“Hey, I had kids for a reason.”)

5. You can’t believe how hard it is to qualify for food stamps and you will actively get yourself low enough to qualify because you see more monetary benefit in welfare programs than employment opportunities

6. You expect other people to share in your responsibilities (Read the article I linked to Entitlement, please.)

I never understood how the corporations could be so blind to the plight of consumer civil rights until I became aware of the real issue of entitlement.

Does Occupy Wall Street have a point? Heck yes. Corporations should place equal care into how they distribute the wealth they’ve received from success as they do into acquiring that wealth.

Do the corporations have a point? Yes. We can stop buying from them and use our money to rebuild local communities, but keep in mind that millions of workers will lose their jobs. Look how many jobs were lost when consumers held back their spending.

Both solutions require huge sacrifices and I think nobody is gonna budge until we see that both sides of extreme are to blame. I’m obviously a bit bias towards OWS’ stance, but I don’t think the corporations should bend over and give money to anyone who will take it. I do, however, believe that by creating more distribution of wealth within their company the corporations will help local communities enough. And, obviously, only people who work very hard are going to be given high paid positions. So those entitled people, paralyzed by laziness, will miss out on the gravy train and hopefully learn their lesson once the corporations learned theirs.

Anyway, I’ve been punched in the face by both of these realizations, so I’m going to do some soul searching of my own on how to contribute to the solution. In the meantime, hopefully more people will start to see how these relate and stop the perpetual negativity of hate.

From infants to teenagers, hard times hit kids the hardest with poverty up in South Florida

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Article from Sun Sentinel

South Florida children have been among the hardest hit by the Great Recession: Poverty among those 18 and under increased 16 percent in five years — nearly 15,000 more poor kids in Broward and Palm Beach counties, according to data released Wednesday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

In Palm Beach County, the number of children in poverty was up 32 percent from 2005 through 2009, the foundation found through analyzing county Census Bureau data.

Almost three years later, those numbers are most certainly higher. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration reported a 60 percent increase in the number of poor children on Medicaid in Broward and Palm Beach counties since 2007.

In Hollywood, the soup kitchen at the Jubilee Center of South Broward now sees mothers coming in with babies and other young children to get a hot meal — Tuesday it was a mom with 4-year-old triplets, said executive director Joyce Curtis.

She tells her staff not to cry, because the children don’t realize the desperate circumstances they are in. Instead, workers serve them ice cream as a treat and take them to a more festive area with stuffed animals. “But it is heart breaking,” Curtis said.

Overall, Florida ranked 44th out of 50 states for the economic well-being of children, according to the foundation’s 2012 KIDS COUNT Data Book.

[Read More]

My Thoughts on Welfare Drug Testing

Posted on by | 16 Comments

Apparently, FL Gov Rick Scott tried to justify the mandatory drug tests on welfare recipients by saying it helps the kids. 

I love how the “job creators” think they know everything. Truly, it tickles my cortex. Prepare for my rant.

Hey, Rick Scott, you want to help the kids? Then it’s all about the follow through. Forcing druggies to shy away from welfare out of fear of being reported to DCF DOESN’T HELP THE KIDS.  Take it from someone who PERSONALLY was raised (until age 12) by a drug-addict—the less money there is, the less money there is for the kids. If a drug addict has $500 and it costs $500 to feed the kids for a month and $500 to do drugs, trust me, those kids AREN’T EATING.

And what’s worse is that nobody will know it until a neighbor notices the lights haven’t turned on for two weeks. Hm… are they on vacation? Wait, is that candlelight coming from the bathroom window? Dear God, those poor children…. And they’ll probably leave it at that.

The sad truth is that it is socially taboo to call the cops on suspected bad parents. And if the neighbor won’t do it, you definitely can’t expect the family to stand up and care for those children. Mainly because if this is a serious drug-addict, they’ve already cut contact with most of the family due to their disapproval of the drug abuse. To the drug-addict, communicating with family becomes all about the drug abuse, and they simply don’t like to be reminded of what they are. I.E. Watch the crack addict ease her mind about being called a crack addict by promptly snatching some crack. Unfortunately, in a situation where the family is at odds with a drug-addict parent, people tend to forget the kids. I know this from experience.

Here is my suggestion: If Rick Scott really does want to help the children, he needs to hire on more part-time social workers to check up on the families on welfare. And I mean home visits. I NEVER saw my mom move faster than when DCF called to schedule a visit. The house would go from looking like a landfill (and all of us looking like homeless people) to the house smelling like Lysol and us looking like normal kids. I vividly remember the craziness that would happen the day before a DCF visit. My mom would actually call my family members and everyone would come over to clean up the house and the kids as well. I would thank God for those visits. I know -without a doubt- that following up, in person, with welfare recipients is the best way to get them on track.

And if people speak out “Oh, but that is totally disrespecting their privacy!” to you I say: they are public figures now. Once you get yourself on government/my taxes’ payroll (no matter if you’re a politician, a soldier, or government employee) you decidedly waive your right to privacy IN SO FAR as your reason for the paycheck goes. I demand to know what politicians, public workers, and soldiers are doing during working hours. That’s the whole point of transparency. And welfare recipients get themselves included on that list because they opted to receive government money. The only way they differ is that they don’t have to work any hours to get that money, so in return, they should make themselves available and open to the public’s right to know what they are doing to resolve their issues.

Even people on disability and Medicare have to go through many steps to keep receiving their benefits. I am definitely not arguing the point that Rick Scott made of holding welfare recipients accountable. I just think that it’s insulting, narrow-minded, ignorant, and ineffective to believe that mandatory drug tests will be enough. All welfare recipients should be on some type of rehabilitation course. Period.

That is what I truly recommend for an action-plan to clean up our broken families. Actual CARE, not just an iron fist. Gov Scott is just plain WRONG to think that forcing people to take a drug test will (in any way) help the children. We need to teach parents on welfare proper discipline (for themselves and the children!) if we want to see true empowerment of the lower class (all you smart alecs who say that the rich don’t want to see self empowerment of the lower class—shut it. Let my bleeding heart bleed!)

All in all…

Drug tests are like random and inconsistent discipline. Rebellious children only get more rebellious when mom or dad randomly lay down the law for all of their mistakes.

It takes reasonable and consistent rules and procedures to attain positive and lasting change. Period.

–Edited for clarity on May 5th, 9:00 pm

I AM A JOB CREATOR… or at least redirect opportunities…

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Lately, I’ve been wondering… what makes it so difficult for people with millions and millions in capital to hire on more employees?

Even I, a 23-year old career rookie, have helped people to earn living wages thanks to my fortune of knowing people that actually pay for services. I must admit, though, that I am shocked at how easy it has been to help people around me get work.

So I got to thinking… What is a “job creator”?

The best explanation I have come across came from The Daily Show when the brilliant Jon Stewart pointed out: “Job Creator” is code-word for RICH.

Basically, whenever you hear candidates talking about protecting “Job Creators” and cutting taxes on “Job Creators” and lessening regulations and infringements upon “Job Creators”, they’re really talking about the RICH.

When Jon Stewart brought this to my attention, I had a mind-gasm. It explained to me why I experienced brain fuzz whenever I heard the term “Job Creators”. I knew there was something fishy about how this term has been thrown about. I knew that the term itself made no sense.

Grammatically speaking, the term “Job Creators” is perfectly parallel to “Rich S.O.B.s”, whereas it is incompatible with “Hiring Businesses” (what it’s supposed to mean).

Let’s see if I can back this up with proof.

Here’s a recent quote discussing “Job Creators” on NPR:

“While President Obama travels the country pushing his jobs bill, Republicans insist the White House wants to raise taxes on what they call job creators, to pay for the bill. These days, House Speaker John Boehner often remarks: Job creators are on strike.”

But how does the term “Hiring Businesses” fit?

“…  Republicans insist the White House wants to raise taxes on what they call [hiring businesses], to pay for the bill. These days, House Speaker John Boehner often remarks: [hiring businesses] are on strike.”

Hmmm… something doesn’t sound right. Why would Republicans take issue with Hiring Businesses bearing the brunt of the Jobs bill? And, either way, it’s grammatically impossible for a hiring business to be on strike!

Now let’s insert “Rich S.O.B.s” where it says job creators:

“…  Republicans insist the White House wants to raise taxes on what they call [rich S.O.B.s], to pay for the bill. These days, House Speaker John Boehner often remarks: [Rich S.O.B.s] are on strike.”

I think we have A MATCH!

Anywho, just to continue with the tone of transparency, definition of S.O.B.s: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=S.O.B.

__

What do you think of the so-called “Job Creators” and their role in our unemployment rates? Do you think the elite corporations have more responsibility to their “fellow” human citizens? Do you think rich S.O.B.s deserve the same treatment as wealthy hiring businesses? Should tax cuts be based on proof of employees? Let’s hear it.

Miami Heat VS Cleveland Cavaliers February 2012

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Needless to say, I went to the Miami Heat VS Cleveland Cavaliers game last night. I was impressed at the turnout and I thought it was a wonderful sight to see school busses dropping off inner-city children to enjoy a night with sports, fun, and community.

Mars straight up cackled at the several slam dunks powered through by LeBron. Seems he is set on making up for his performance last year and giving his haters something to choke on.

Anywho, it was a fun outing with music, food, and a genuinely entertaining game. Was especially great that the Heat was leading at the end of every quarter and smoothly stomped the Cavaliers out (even with endless free throws those guys couldn’t get it in!).

I sat back for a moment pondering over the major sports franchises. It seems that both the NFL and NBA have been very resilient to the woes of this economy, with team-owning families still in the billionaire sector and players themselves approaching the multi-multi-millionaire sector.

Looking around the crowded, enormous stadium, I had to wonder: are they leeching off the local community or contributing to it?

Recently, one of my readers submitted a very emotional analysis on capitalism, classifying it as a system that most greatly benefits the greedy. Allowing the emotions of his “rant” to get to me, I kind of jumped on the bandwagon and stated that what we are currently experiencing is the manifestation of all things bad about capitalism.

Let me explain a little. Due to the freedoms of our democracy, lobbyists and corporations have been “capitalizing” on the governmental and economic systems in this country, twisting every path in their favor.

This is the reason why successful businesses continue to become more and more successful: they destroy the competition.

*FYI, this post will no longer be about basketball, but stick around because I will get back to the Miami Heat.*

Romney made his multi- multi- millions by devouring businesses and turning them around for his personal profit. What most upsets me about Romney is that he calls himself “conservative”. He is purely a capitalist!

This is the chart:

Right

Center

 Left

Republicans

Independents

 Democrats

Conservatives

marked by moderation or caution

Conservative Liberalism

 Liberalsmarked by generosity

Capitalists

a person who has capital especially invested in business

Mixed Economy

 Socialistsa member of a party or political group advocating socialism

*Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster Online. To get a great refresher on conservative vs liberal policies, take a look at http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

Even though Romney’s principles, platforms, and priorities do land him on the right, he is not classified as a conservative. Romney is a person driven by money far more than he is driven by his religion or personal values. In fact, besides his religion and his family, what else do we really know about Romney as a person? He is a faceless mass of capitalism.

As much as I love to see people succeed and thrive, I hate to see enormous amounts of capital sequestered into a single area. I say sequestered because the people who have the most money are the least likely to pump it into the local economy, buying wares from local sellers and donating directly to local charities. And that is what I thought I saw at the triple A arena this Tuesday night.

I saw so many inner-city children sporting Heat jerseys and talking about their love of the game. I found myself wishing I could provide more jobs for athletes. Why is it that there are so few teams, with so few players, making such a ridiculous amount of money?

It is because they stomped out the competition. The rich owners made it so impossible for a team to start up and get an equal share that the same teams have always been around and always will be around, regardless of how much talent there is or isn’t. The game will always revolve around the rules laid down by these people and fans will have to follow suit.

Which brings me to another point: Why is it that children are playing sports less and less? Is it really because of video game consoles? Is it really because of a free and open internet?

I believe it is because there is nowhere for the winners to go. Once the little league is over, it’s back to the real world. Because sports is a business that has been completely overtaken by the franchise owners.

Hm…

The original intent of this blog was to investigate how much of its ridiculous profits the Miami Heat gives back to the city of Miami. After a few moments of searching I found that they have highly publicized charity work, yet no schedule, no reported figures, and no contact person… funny right?

However, there was a refreshing piece of literature. The philanthropy section of Dwayne Wade’s wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwyane_Wade#Philanthropy

The Daily Show: A Way to Stay Informed or an Excuse to Stay Uninformed?

Posted on by | 6 Comments

This is not a partisan politics piece. I am fiercely independent and stand in the middle on many subjects. As my love for this show has grown, so have my questions. You see, I have been watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart religiously since 2007. And I say religiously because I forget to watch it for weeks on end and then I make up for it with a marathon or two.

In this span of years, I have noticed the show evolve as quickly as the volatility of politics has evolved, not missing a beat and whacking the moles every single time. They have made me think ten times more about the garbage politicians spew, separating fact from presentation, and have made me a more discerning consumer of media. Got to thank those wise asses and point out the merits!

Oh yeah, wise asses. It’s true: Jon Stewart repeatedly reiterates that he is not a journalist.. simply a comedian. The voracious masses eat up every word he says like hard fact, and he does check his sources and admit when he’s wrong, but the sheer fact that he is a comedian has got to mean something!

If the president were to go up in front of congress and narrate to a montage of their stupidity, would it be as well respected as when Jon Stewart does it? Have we really grown so cynical as a nation to believe that laid back sarcasm can replace genuine authority and professionalism?

When Jon Stewart interviews politicians, lawmakers, or even journalists, does he outright hold them accountable for their flaws and lay down ground rules on how to move forward with projects? Of course he doesn’t, but most of his fans seem to expect it! Daily Show fans count on Stewart and his team to cut a gash through the saturated media they so often succumb to until the truth gushes out, or they begin to feel the familiar tingle of their brains actually operating. I think this is where we find the issue.

If The Daily Show is the smelling salt for the  media-coma masses, then stubbing your toe is the smelling salt for remembering to watch where you’re going. Granted, the two have opposing side-effects (laughter vs cussing), yet at first it’s the same motion: a big, deep breath.

Speaking of big, deep breaths… As a public, we need to start taking bigger, deeper breaths when we’re watching these slander commercials paid for by humanoid corporations. Don’t let the propaganda get to you! We need to take a big, deep breath when we’re listening to someone’s reasoning for who they want to vote for. Don’t simply prepare what your next argument will be instead of listening to theirs! Finally, we need to take bigger, deeper breaths all throughout this long and tough decision. Thinking clearly and logically now will help us when it comes time to choose who will be the leader of our country come Election 2012. Whether or not that person is everything we need is completely irrelevant. No one person can change the direction of a nation. Don’t let them make you think otherwise! and Start by looking into your local elections first!

The support we put behind our figure heads is what matters. They’re nothing more than a symbol. We the people are responsible for making this work. We need to fight these corporations and lobbyists and return the power to REAL people.

And the only REAL people I see on the news lately, actors, comedians, journalists… are those wise asses on The Daily Show. And for me this is an issue!

15% Tax Policy: Creating a Failed State

Posted on by | 7 Comments
The 15% tax policy was created by a people who do not understand the other side.
The other side being the people who do not have the means to create policies.Sure, taxing everyone 15% sounds fair. The more income, the more tax, and *supposedly* vice-versa.

However, what’s not being taken into account is that 15% taxation on those who currently don’t pay taxes (and on those who currently pay a smaller percent) could be a disastrous policy creating an even greater divide between the poorest and the wealthiest.

Take a salary of $13000. Currently, this worker is not paying taxes. They’re barely making any money as it is. Now, strip them of 15% of their income for a mandatory tax. Those hundreds, on that salary, could make the difference between paying bills and paying bills without incurring a bank overdraft.

Alternatively, consider the effects on the wealthiest. Someone like Romney who makes $42 million a year, currently, is paying around 30% taxes on that income. At the end of the day, is that cutting into their means to survive? Is it cutting into their very basics, such as food, housing, and clothing? Not at all! Reducing their tax to 15% “to make it fair” is only adding more into their bank. Sure, more capital will allow them more freedom to do the things they want to, and everyone should have the freedom to use their earnings for their own means, however let’s weigh in on which means deserve more protection.

The argument of which is more important: achieving the basics versus achieving complete self autonomy has been decided by the self-actualization pyramid which placed the basics in a much more weighty role than self-autonomy. Self-actualization is a very valid concept and it is no secret that the wealthy have much more means to achieve it.

Yet, as a society, should we place equal importance on a person’s ability to achieve complete self-actualization as we do on a person’s ability to meet their most basic needs? Should our policy give equal weight to the plight of the rich versus the plight of the poor? The 15% tax model does exactly this.

Taking in this reasoning, we have assessed what is really at-stake for each class group concerning this tax model. Now, let’s assess the pains. The person with a $13k salary will experience a lot of pain when almost $2k is automatically removed for a mandatory tax. On the other hand, the person with the $42 million salary will lose $6.3 million to the mandatory tax (assuming he doesn’t finagle his income to show up as less than his actual profits). While the difference of losing $2k to losing $6.3 million is significant, the man with the $42 million salary will still have $35.7 million to add to his name, for that single year, whereas the man with the $13k salary will only have $11k remaining, of which every single penny is going to his basic needs.

The current tax policy does its best to allow everyone the fair chance to attain a reasonable salary, while taking the excess and injecting it into the poverty level. This is a message right from our constitution which ensures this society will do what it can to help everyone achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while blocking entities from attaining too much power. It is a cycle that has worked for a long time (although it could work better). A policy that can work so long as greed is kept at bay, but unfortunately recent events have caused the poor to want more and the rich to give less. The Obama administration inspired the tax code to bend a little more in favor of the poor and this has caused the delicate balance, the dam holding back the greed, to crack.

Now we are seeing the rich and poor fighting tooth and nail to create policies that will benefit their class. The 15% tax policy might sound fair, but will it really create a cycle that funnels money appropriately?

For now, let us all remember that the world rotates. Without a balance of North and South, East and West, everything will return to the center… and no one is prepared for that. We can’t make all the poor wealthy and we can’t make all the rich poor. However, what we can do is retain the delicate balance that funnels money in a cycle that meets everyone’s needs.

We cannot do that if we force everyone to pay a mandatory 15% tax.