tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31489370273556494602024-03-23T22:03:52.045-05:00DallasAreaOpinionThis blog has evolved into a series of rough drafts of thoughts and ideas that inhabit my brain. And if you read my blog regularly you realize an editor is worth their weight in gold, unfortunately I have neither. Also I still talk about the Dallas area and what is going on around here.Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.comBlogger1008125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-89909713578910827392024-03-23T22:02:00.003-05:002024-03-23T22:02:49.985-05:00Unhoused versus homeless, words do matter and secondly a completely different topic on life. <p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This combination post shouldn’t go together, but both
thoughts filled my brain this morning.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First I do not like the word unhoused. It sugar coats a
major problem in this country in there are way too many homeless. Homeless may
sound stark to some people, but the problem is stark. It needs to slap people
in the face. People do not like feeling uncomfortable, yet we need to make people
feel uncomfortable so they know the reality facing homeless people. So many
times we allow ourselves to let homeless people be out of sight so they are out
of our minds. This needs to change. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do I have some magic answer? No and as part of my ongoing
platform efforts I will try and add some ideas. I have posted about the
homeless before even touching on some public policy. We need something. And
homeless like Latinos are a much larger variety of a group of people than the
labels suggest. People are homeless for a variety of reasons so there is no one
solution to homelessness. Which means there are no easy solutions to address this
problem. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet for now I wanted to state words do matter and saying
unhoused is just too woke. I certainly understand wanting to give people
dignity and it is especially important to give dignity to those who are struggling,
yet saying unhoused instead of homeless to me just doesn’t accomplish this
goal. Recognizing them as people first and foremost and going to meet them in
their situation to so they can tell you what they need shows much more dignity
to them than changing descriptive words. We need to see them for who they are, not
hide behind pleasantries.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And strange but true in thinking about life, I made one of
those so profound to me, but probably everybody else has thought of it too
thoughts. Yes life should be fun.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have made tons of mistakes, either I or my family has had
to crawl out of self inflicted wounds or sometimes the wounds came from other
sources. No matter the reason or cause somehow or another we have survived and
throughout it all I have to say I and my family have had tons of fun. I stress,
I worry, I fret, I have no idea what to do, but at some point we found a way to
just have fun no matter how bad we thought we were having it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also it shouldn’t matter if you believe in a creator or other
higher power or you are just secular. You need to make sure you have fun in
life. Because no matter which way you believe, life is too short as the saying
goes. And fun can be different for different people, but whatever it is, make sure
you enjoy it as much as possible. Some days may be all work, but that is okay
because when you can relax and let your hair down it makes it all the more enjoyable.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I struggle with people who work all the time or think they
must suffer. There is enough suffering, stress and things you have to do not to
enjoy as much time as possible. And if their only goal is to work for money,
that is sad. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is so much to do. Anywhere from the proverbial gone
fishing to the highly charged adventure life. I fall somewhere in between
overall, yet many times fun has just been laughing with the better half and the
kids maybe driving somewhere or eating out or all of us just sitting at the
dinner table long after we finished eating. All the kids played sports at
various levels and had other school competitions and those were fun also. I do
not know how many Saturday mornings were spent on a field, gym auditorium,
cafeteria or somewhere else yelling and screaming or trying to be quiet for the
academic events, yet we all enjoyed cheering each other on. Or the Sundays we spent
teaching faith formation and the kids either having to go and giving us grief since
they went to parochial school or finding ways to get out of taking a class that
year. Weekends were always extremely busy as the kids grew up, but would never
change a moment. Sure our garage was never the cleanest, can’t say house since
the better half may read, lol, but did it really matter. Actually cleaning the
house was a family project and everyone had their weekly or alternating daily
chores. Most of the time it got done so why worry when it didn’t. People take
some things too seriously.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And yes summers were just as busy even though school was out.
The kids had their activities or played or were running around with friends
while the two so called adults worked. One of the grandparents always stayed
with us during the summer to be home while we worked which added to the things
to do. Grandparents always need to be running errands or needing special things
of their own which means Mom or Dad is driving around until 8 or 9 at night.
Yet nothing slowed us down when it came to enjoying the day. Or taking the
grandparent along for the infamous family vacation always added to madness that
we laugh about until this day. And with any family sometimes you can say three
words and everyone laughs, but the one who stuck their foot in their mouth at
the moment. Somethings are just etched into the family dynamic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Find something you enjoy and make it a hobby or a treat. Do
not waste this life beating yourself up that things aren’t getting done or you
haven’t accomplished what you want in life. I am much older now and am at least
still trying to knock some things out. That is all you can do and while you are
doing it, go fishing or climb a mountain or plant a garden or scuba or snorkel
or ski or paint or write or have a mimosa at 9am on a random Tuesday, but don’t
sit around bemoaning how bad things are because as you well know shit happens. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I thank God I finally learned I have had a good life
young enough to go out and enjoy it more even if I am walking a little slower.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And like I mentioned sometimes you are too busy and today I
didn’t get the beer I was promised, yet Cheers anyway<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-22208065726158062962024-03-17T13:55:00.001-05:002024-03-17T13:55:19.831-05:00I’m mad at Hotels.com hence Expedia, and other corporate gripes<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Happy St. Patrick’s Day, hope you are having a wonderful
spring day. A bit chilly here in North Texas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not sure what other corporate gripes are going to come to
mind, but for now a general gripe since it seems we are stuck with them and
their madness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For Hotels.com it is more specific. They use to have a
pretty straightforward rewards program, but lately it is pretty puny. And why
does this matter. I can go to any number of hotel brands and join and have a
rewards program which is true. Yet that means choosing a brand and sticking
with it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason I like Hotels is because I could have choices. I
wasn’t restricted to one brand. And that is important to me for a variety of
reasons.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sometimes we travel from point a to b and it takes more than
one day so we have to stay the night somewhere on the way. And since the midpoint
location tends to be a moving target it allows us to be able to look at reviews
of different hotels for the city or town we end up staying. So many times one
brand will have good reviews in one city and not so strong in another city. By
having a choice we can price and quality compare. This gives me strength as a
consumer, or at least in my mind. If I pick one brand to gain reward points I
may be stuck with an inferior product in one town compared to another brand. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another reason is because of the end destination. Many times
with Hotels we can choose a local hotel instead of a corporate hotel. And this
has worked out well for us. We have enjoyed staying in some unique hotels over
the years and this adds value to any vacation or trip. There have been many
wonderful memories created by having this option. And with Hotels we would
still get the reward points that were equivalent with any other hotel we stayed.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And this last point leads me to the corporate gripe in
general. If you like a rewards program to help save you money then many small
hotel chains or individual properties are hurt by Hotels’ reward program being
so weak. And if these individual properties etc lose business then this only
increases the wealth gap in this country even further. When there is more
competition in business, more choices then people have to work harder for your
business. If a few corporations can hook you into their rewards program then
you are more likely to stay there. Yes this can be good in some circumstances
such as familiarity, comfort level, certain perks, but you lose out on
corporations competing for your business more dynamically. And like I mentioned
small chains and individual properties lose business. The corporations already control
too much of the market and for them to swallow up Mom and Pop businesses, then
this hurts our economy in ways not often considered in most economic or
business articles including increasing the wealth gap. Many small businesses
created wealth for people, maybe not billions, but individual wealth. With small
businesses being eaten up, more and more people are relying on a few
billionaires to provide products and services. And of course they manage their businesses
to achieve more profits not provide better customer service.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You may say their rewards program gives me customer service,
but in the long run, those rewards and apps benefit the corporate bottom line
more than you as a customer. It takes a bit of study and comparisons to realize
this, but the bones they throw you are a small cost to the amount of real work
they would have to do if there were more competition. And you lose out on
originality, value for the dollar spent, meeting and interacting with locals
who thrive and can tell you more about the city than some person hired working
at barely above minimum wage just getting through a shift. Yes people who own
their own business tend to care more about the customer experience than corporations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And this watered down program from Hotels shows what happens
when corporations have all the power, they can take away something from you if
they expect you will still be their customer. Again Hotels.com has one
advantage and that is choice of brand so they still offer some value, yet in a
value conscious world that value is watered down with the loss of monetary
reward such as a free night. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been a customer of theirs for years so this hurt when
Expedia came out with this watered down program. I am struggling with how far I
want to redefine where I stay. Again we have enjoyed some wonderful experiences
in independent hotels. I hate losing that because if you like to travel it is
the experience you are wanting. There was so much more discovered by either
what the hotel offered or the information the people provided about where to go
or best routes to take when sightseeing or just generally experiencing the
town. Nothing like knowing the best restaurants to go in a small town instead
of eating at another chain for breakfast or lunch. Small businesses need all
the help they can receive nowadays, and the more business the better. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a sad state of affairs that for this one industry. One
of the perks independent properties had was that Hotels.com gave them business
and now if people like me feel the rewards aren’t worth the effort what else can
they do. So for now we still us them, but I hate to think what the future
brings. I am cheap so I like my free nights and struggling with a budget in
today’s world that unfortunately matters. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No cheers for this madness<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-75257540727410251222024-03-10T22:27:00.000-05:002024-03-10T22:27:29.387-05:00Cabrini: some thoughts and I have a critique of Father Mike Schmitz’s one critique<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">If you have not seen the movie Cabrini, go see it even if
you are not Catholic or Christian or any religion. It is a well made movie and
it is great. Yes, it is about a Catholic Saint, but there is much more to it than
a pious film about a Saint, which leads me to my critique of Father Schmidt’s
critique.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But first if you haven’t seen it, stop, see it then come
back to this post. I am about to describe some of the scenes in the movie and I
don’t want to be the spoiler guy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Father Schmitz overall is right on target with his thoughts
on this movie. He describes it well and presents an excellent discussion. His
review is on youtube so you can see for yourself. He states his one critique
with the movie is God or Christ is not emphasized enough. He then states this
is not a Church film, this is a main stream film. Yet this is not the point I
want to make. And my point is God is in the movie, it is the quiet part not
said. The better half put it well, this is a movie about a Saint in action. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that is one part of what is Christ in the movie. We
revere God, Christ, yet we do not always have to say it. One of the primary
teachings of the Church is to live our life as Christ lived his. Mother Cabrini
does this and it is in the film. Her actions, her acts of love made in the face
of all her adversaries and adversities show something that she has, faith. I too
came out of the movie and wanted it said somewhere in the movie that it was her
faith that gave her the strength to do what she did. Like Father Schmidt
wanting more emphasis on God in her life, I wanted some recognition of her
faith emphasized. Yet as I now critique Father Schmitz I realize the strength
of the movie. It is the unspoken faith, the unspoken devotion to following God’s
will that gives the movie more power.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sure some people who do not want the Church to succeed or
want to criticize the Church are saying this movie is more about a strong woman
and will not concede what is behind her strength. Yet the movie is so well made
a person has to ask themselves what gives her this strength, what helps her persevere
when no one is behind her. You have to ask yourself how does a woman in the
late 1800’s go to an all male world and conquer them and obtain what some will
say <i>what she wants</i>. We know in reality it is God’s will that marches her
on. Who says to people I want to create an empire of hope? Where does this come
from? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And when you see that her actions have a foundation of love,
it becomes obvious that there is more than just one determined woman involved.
For people who may not believe for whatever reason though this movie can open
them up to asking themselves these questions. Her life, her work, her love for
the children and the sick are all what Christ asks us as Christians to do. For
a person who has not been brought up on Christian teaching the movie can inspire
them to think, reflect and ponder what drove this woman to such efforts. This
is where God or more specifically the Holy Spirit comes in. Once a person
starts asking questions, once their heart opens a tad, once they think, what is
behind all this, then they will look for answers. We, as Christians, know the
answers, yet if we try to force them it does not always work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are to evangelize, and in this case and all cases the we
is spelled with a capital “I”. It is our responsibility to bring souls to
Christ. Yet telling people about Christ so they know he exists is one approach,
yet a true conversion a true understanding of the need for repentance doesn’t
come with the vocal word, it is when a heart opens and lets the Holy Spirit
touch on the longing we all have to what can truly bring us joy. This movie
shows a Saint in action and gives the fence sitters, the non believers, the
atheist, the agnostic food for thought. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not want to compare myself to any Saint, and I say this
to illustrate a point. The greatest compliment anyone has ever given me was
when I left one of my employments the person in charge said you could see
Christ in me in my work and what I did. I never went around telling people they
needed to convert to save their soul. I never preached, but this recognition
that I do try to treat all people with real respect and it was noticed in the
little things I do every day is a compliment like no other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By no means at all was I like Mother Cabrini,
but it was the notice of the simple things I did for others each day and
recognizing it was one of the best moments of my working life and it left me
speechless. Again it is us living as Christ that shows the world Christ. Mother
Cabrini does this so well and the movie gives us this in all Christ’s glory
without ever having to say Christ. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So Father Mike Schmitz, you know so much more than I. And I know
this because I do listen to your work and teachings, yet I truly think you
missed this very important nuance. I ask you to remember the final scene of where
she is drowning and then comes a man that sees her and reaches down to her and you
see her looking up to see the help she needs and then he rescues her. This
scene comes at the point in the movie when she received the strength she needs
to overcome the final obstacles to get what she needs to start the success of
her mission. Just because no one says God or emphasizes God, you see God, not
in the individual man, but in the help, him pulling her up to live so she can
become the Saint we now admire. The example she gives us to emulate. Many of us
may never become Saints like her, but if us who are already Christians become
inspired to be more Christ like similar to her or those who have not yet seen
Christ in their lives open their hearts and begin to ask the questions then the
emphasis of God is seen and hence is there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">YBIC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers!.<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-52014831031034855092024-03-06T23:17:00.002-06:002024-03-06T23:17:30.133-06:00I am supposed to call someone dumb or stupid or whatever or worse<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Yet YOU are not dumb or stupid or whatever or worse. It is
not that I feel I have to insult someone, it is just society seems to relish in
it. And that is not correct. It is not society that wants me to insult someone
or some thing, but rather I wonder have we just devolved to that point. And I
think not. So what gives?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is it social media? Is it the media? Maybe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would love to have tons of likes on “X” what use to be Twitter.
Why can’t it just be twitter? People change things for reasons that make no
sense or it gives them a sense of power<i>. I affected your life by my action. </i>Yet
is that true? I still say the same thing I would have no matter the medium.
Maybe some people are affected. There seems to be even more hate on Twitter I
mean “X” than before. Is it because the name changed? Or because the owner
changed? Or because we are just going further down the crazed rabbit hole no
matter what you call it or who owns it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">People are obsessed with being accepted by their side. And I
am not sure what that even means anymore. Politically we have two sides and
everything is geared for those two sides to control our lives. I personally
have railed against this for decades and in print for over a decade now. Yet what
do the great unwashed masses think is their side. Certainly not the political
sides, but are they accepting that the two sides as their only choice or have
they gotten to the point where they don’t even care anymore. Of course that
presumes that at some point the great unwashed masses cared. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Polls say the majority of this country does not want a Biden
v. Trump rematch, yet we are staring at it in the face. We got it no matter
what we wanted. So what gives?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Did Ms. Haley make a valiant effort? Or was it just a waste
of media space all along? I am perturbed she dropped out. I wasn’t going to
vote for her, but I was routing for her.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet as a person that posts on some type of social media, do
I fail because I do not have a thousand likes and is it because I do not play
the hate game? Do I succumb to insulting the other side to make a bigger name
for myself? Yet I am against both sides. I do say both sides have failed this
country, but I do something “weak” and attack them on points, try to come up
with something better, argue for policy changes, patter for new ideas, but it
falls on deaf ears or unresponsive ears. Why? Do I need to say horrible things
to get noticed? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some people might call me a Mike Milquetoast, someone who
acquiesces or lets others run over them because I do not attack, yet those same
people do not define on what hill I should die on. That is for me to choose. I feel
no matter what age you are, whether you are 33, 43, 53, 63, 73, 83 acting like
the 13 year old mean girl is not the answer. And just because I do not act like
the 13 year old mean girl does not mean I am not ready to fight. Again I choose
what hill I die on. And quite frankly like 99.999999… percent of humanity I am
not ready to die on a hill, any hill. I may have an inkling of what that may
be, but like most everyone except the Saints I am not that strong, yet it is
mine to choose. And it is definitely not joining the crowd and spewing vindictives
against some imaginary enemy to make me feel good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet here we are staring as a country at something we say we
do not want. The hate, the candidates, the public ridicule some people are
suffering through for no reason are some of the current madness we say we don’t
want, but open your local social media outlet and what do you have.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Invite someone to a barbecue, a back yard cook out, a dinner
party, and we can talk about everything, but what it is we don’t want. Sports,
books, movies, recipes, how to build a better deck for the backyard, cars,
makeup, the list goes on, and we might even disagree about some aspects of it
like what is the best sauce for barbecue, but what is staring us in the face
right now we cannot bring up. People who normally like each other have been set
on fire with angst about someone being on the other side. There is no
compromise because it has become sacrilegious to say lets get something accomplished.
I am willing to concede a point to do something better is criminal behavior. You
have failed your side. And quite frankly we are all on the same side just looking
differently at the answers. Does our side’s answers make us feel better? What
gives?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will continue to offer my version of sanity. Some type of
idea that normalcy, what ever that may be, still exists. I will not create more
hate just to get a name, yet I still want some success. How does a person create
space for themselves in this environment by trying to jolt people awake to
something better? What can give? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope to find out, but for now have a good evening.<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-24511746406415000452024-03-05T15:31:00.002-06:002024-03-05T15:31:21.724-06:00The independent platform part 4: taxation<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I think I want to keep this simple. I have written proposals
before and as time goes on it becomes more apparent to me that we do not much hubris
in the tax code, we just need something everyone can understand.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you think we should have a flat tax I disagree and have
spelled out the specifics in an earlier post, however the headline is flat tax
rate is significantly primarily detrimental to the working and middle class.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet if you want something simple like a flat tax and want to
stick with the concept of a graduated income tax, here goes. The numerical
examples are totally for illustration. They can be adjusted to what works best,
however this illustration should give you an idea of a simple graduated income
tax code. They are going to be a couple of differences that will be spelled out
below the example. Otherwise this should be the code. Just keep it real simple
for all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Income<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>tax rate<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$0-25,000.00<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>0%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$25,000.01-150,000.00<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>5%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$150,000.01-500,000.00<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>10%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$500,000.00-2,500,000.00<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>15%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$2,500,000.01-5,000,000.00<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>25%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">$5,000,000.01 and greater<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>35%<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This tax schedule applies to individuals, small businesses,
corporations etc. and encompasses all types of income such as earned, passive, short
term capital gains, dividends for example.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A couple of caveats:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No social security income is taxed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Long term capital gains would be moved to 24 months and for
people up to $150,000 in income there would be no taxes. For people with income
$150,000 to 2,500,000, it would be 10% and then 20% for income over the 2.5
million.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hedge funds, investment banks etc would be taxed 90% on
short term trading, algorithm trading and probably need to go a bit deeper in
how this is addressed or define some specific parameters, but basically it has
to hurt to manipulate the market for immediate gain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am open to some slight changes in the actual numbers once
they are plugged into they system, but the general principle would apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if you want a flat tax rate and do not like this instead
then you are just a very wealthy individual who doesn’t care about the vast majority
of this country.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More platform ideas to come.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-35088220369355087592024-02-29T21:47:00.003-06:002024-02-29T21:47:34.462-06:00Does the national nightmare prove we are not who we say we are<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I am tired of this crap. Let’s get this over with. Time to
find out if the national nightmare is over or is it coming to fruition. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Will we find out if the Supreme Court is a plaything for the
rich, a ruse to us the people like Citizen’s United suggests? Or will we
finally learn we are a nation of laws and all men are created (and treated) as equals?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The delays are allowed to give everyone a legal chance to
prove their innocence, however we need to know before we vote. Why should we
have to wait? All appeals on the secondary claims to be heard post haste.
Everyone lover or hater needs to know what is the answer. Guilty or innocent it
matters and doesn’t matter anymore. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No matter which way your wind blows you should want this
done. We need to know if our rights are important and matter, that justice is
blind and not given to those who have versus those who have not. Or know so we
can make decisions on where we want to live. If the wealthy have all the rights
then state it. No more lies. Either stand up and render justice or stand down
and leave us to figure out what we want next. Yet either way get out of the
way, stop the delays and rule. Give us an answer a truthful answer now. And if
the truth is that the rich have it all then face those consequences because we,
the people do not think so. Yet, state your position so we can decide. Are we a
nation or are we serfs?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can we live as free men? Can we send the MTGs and Jim Jordans
to the Federal Assembly? And either the State Duma or Federation Council will do.
They and their ilk’s desire to be beholden to tyranny is their desire not ours so
let them go. For those of us who desire to speak of what we care about and
fight for what we believe, we do not need their subjugation to cults of
personality. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can fight for stronger immigration laws, please do. Write
them, champion them, proselytize them with fervor, but do it as an act of
policy, do not subject us to the madness of a demagogue. Stand up for your
beliefs, yet remember it is your beliefs that makes us great, not one
individual. Do you not read the document you swear by? And this goes for any
and all policy you prefer. Just remember you are not the only one who sits on this
land.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So let’s find out. End the delays, send it to the jury so we
can know once and for all. Does it matter that we care for this country? Or is
this all a joke perpetuated on us for the benefit of a few individuals so they
can inflate their bank accounts while we fight each other in regards to the
national nightmare? Are we ignorantly blind or willfully blind? Either way time
to remove the blinders and face the truth. Is the nightmare a reality, and we
will never be allowed to thrive or can we once and for all become the country
our forefathers promised us in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No cheers tonight<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I will get back to the platform, just sometimes you have
to ask yourself if it is worth the effort.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is and we need new parties.<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-88996524644123993102024-02-25T20:46:00.003-06:002024-02-25T20:46:37.996-06:00Two old guys, yet one Party is luckier than the other<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">First of all I must be missing something. I know most people
are accepting that Biden and Trump will be the respective nominees of their Party.
And I know it has been discussed here and there that both are old and what
might happen if one of them were to pass away. Yet I haven’t seen this dominate
any political landscape and the major issues it might cause one party if their
presumptive nominee passes away.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I cannot believe that there isn’t a significant hum in the
background noise about this happening. Everyone complains about the other
candidate being too old. Their cognitive capabilities aside either one of them
could pass away at any given moment. And yes I realize that people in worse
health than either one has lived well into their eighties. Yet the possibility
that one if not both could actually pass away between now and November is real.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which brings me to this thought. Everyone in the Republican Party
that is high on Trump wants Ms. Haley to concede and drop out of the race. Much
to their chagrin that is the last thing they want. Here is the strangest rub.
The reality is that some that support Trump probably won’t go out and vote for
Ms. Haley. That is actually not that much of a problem. Most moderate Trump
supporters will vote for her because they don’t want Biden. She will only lose
that most radicalized of the Trump supporters. She will more than make up those
votes with non Trump Republicans and independents. The Republicans need her to
stay in the race as a back up plan. At this point and this is just opinion, but
I don’t think Ron DeSantis can come back and garner enough support to become
the nominee. If he tries and forces a floor fight at the convention, he splits
the party and guarantees the Democrats win even if the candidate is Kamala
Harris.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which leads me to the Democrats problem. Kamala Harris will
lose to either Trump or Haley. Independents are not getting excited about
Harris so would stay home even if Trump is the candidate. She does not have
enough time to make a name for herself. Yes die hard Democrats will support
her, but that will not be enough to overcome her lack of headlines now. The closer
we get to November, the worse and worse things get for the Democrats if Biden
were to pass away. Even though Kamala Harris is Vice President, too many people
do not know enough about her to go out and vote for her. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if the Democrats try to nominate someone else they split
the Party and lay one big egg in November. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Republicans by Haley staying in the race have a built in
back up plan as long as Ron doesn’t poop the party at the Convention. And will
be in a much better place to win than the Democrats. Haley will have huge name
recognition for having stood up to Donald to the very end. This will be attractive
to independents which hands her the race. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again many people live well into their eighties so this
scenario may never play out, but if I was a Republican donor or operative who
wasn’t cultistly tied to Trump, I would quietly encourage her to stay in the race.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet for people like me, who see both parties as having failed
this country, and not that I want anyone to pass away, it would be quite fun to
see two explosive floor fights at both conventions with both parties so damaged
that an independent could win enough to create the most interesting election in
the history of the country. What happens if no one gets to 270 electoral votes
and we have tied House, okay one vote majority, and Senate which might happen. And
yes the House could go really crazy with all the factions that might be
created, the hard right, the freedom caucus, moderate Republicans and
Democrats, the far left and leave us with one wild ride of uncertainty that
would make last year’s 15 votes for Speaker seem mundane. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Historically this seems absolutely absurd that something
like this would happen. Currently I am more than surprised that this isn’t on
more radars publicly. Next week is March and by the end of the month all the presumptions
will be in concrete. And then the headlines say….now I lay me down to sleep I
pray the Lord my soul to keep, if I should die before I wake I pray the Lord my
soul to take. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Life can be quite interesting some days. Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-65146117396364679182024-02-22T16:53:00.002-06:002024-02-22T16:53:49.883-06:00The independent platform part 3<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Good afternoon all, just thought I would throw that in since
I am in a weird place at the moment. Yet, we need to be productive on occasion so
I thought I would try such behavior at the moment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This next topic I do not have solutions. When I originally
started this blog I put in the introduction or description that I wanted to not
complain, but offer solutions, but here we are. I do not think this is just
complaining though. There is this problem/issue that needs to be addressed so I
am going to address it and then work forward on trying to obtain ideas on how
best to deal with the topic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think I have brought this up throughout the years, but I
now think we should take this head on to hopefully come up with some ideas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I am not the only one that is all up in arms about this
topic either. I think my libertarian side is coming through, but most Americans
do not have to be so inclined to want some solutions. We are losing way too
much of our lives to corporations and the government. They demand so much from
us and give so little back. Have you tried to enroll in Social Security, sign
up at IRS. Gov? If so you have probably run across something called IDME. If
you can avoid it, do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And this is just a tip of the iceberg of the problem. Today
in the news AT&T was down and so what happens when some corporation is
down. Were they hacked? Some news reports say no, but this was today. More info
will be needed. And if hacked we all know we are at the mercy of the hackers. And
it is not just data breaches that drive this issue. It is across the board. We
give up inordinate amounts of our information and privacy so the government and
large corporations/tech giants can “make our lives more convenient”. They have
no control of anything, but they have all the information.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Today I read a story about the size of the Chinese hacking
operations and it stated many vulnerabilities were in systems designed by IBM
and Google. Yet it is our lives that are affected and in quite numerous ways.
First to repair any damages to the actual corporation has costs and as we know
all businesses pass on costs, no matter what they say. Then we are directly vulnerable
to anywhere from outright theft of our assets to untold amounts of propaganda
being sent our way. We must presume that at any given moment someone knows more
about us than ourselves as individuals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is convenience worth it? Sometimes it is easy to say yes.
Most of the time many of us have no idea our data has been compromised. And
possibly because so much data has been compromised that the so called evil doers
haven’t had time to sort through it all. Yet this should not mitigate our
outrage. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe we don’t need too many bells and whistles in our lives
right now. Maybe we don’t need social media coming at us at 100 miles per hour
each minute. Maybe we need time to go to the store and the people in the store
try to earn our business. Why are apps the required method of doing business
right now. The little bit in discounts I may earn do nothing to the amount of marketing,
cost saving, preferred choices, products that the corporations steer me to for
their benefit. Apps are for the corporation, do not let yourself be fooled.
They can work less to earn your business, employ less people to help you
whether in store or worse in a call center, spend less, but in no way shape or
form are they lowering product costs to match their savings and are constantly
reporting their profits to the kings of Wall Street to satisfy the .01 of one
percent who rake in all our hard earned money to buy off the government so they
can exploit us even more. And yet this post is about privacy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that is the problem, we keep giving up more and more yet
are less protected from corporate greed, corporate malfeasance, government intrusions,
corporate intrusion and there are no safeguards. If all hades breaks lose we
are the cannon fodder of the disaster. Our government was established to be for
the people, yet the people have become a very small group of individuals who
have more to say about our lives that is imaginable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I know I am complaining and I promised I wouldn’t. Yet, the
solutions we have in front of us are pretty demanding and a hard fight. The
first policy is to reduce the impact lobbyists have on Congress. And by reduce
probably need to remove. The second is to have two Supreme Court cases either
reviewed under new light for change of law or create laws that change their effect.
The first is the older ruling that corporations are people. The second is the
Citizen United’s decision that pretty much says money trumps free speech,
individual rights and disenfranchises votes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This means new blood in Congress. I always say we need new
parties and this is one of those situations where the Democrats and Republicans
are the root cause of the problem. The fact that we are held hostage by such a
microscopic minority of uber wealthy individuals shows our representative form
of government has been hijacked. The form of government is not the problem. The
problem was ourselves for letting what has happened. So it is up to us to take
it back. The good news is we still have a functional ballot box, Trump be
damned, so we must use it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The current political party leadership though needs to go.
They have become to beholden to this uber group to effect any change at all for
the general population on any issue. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So after two pages of complaining, one paragraph of
potential action, we come down to the platform starting with supporting major
changes to how people become elected or essentially make it just as easy for an
independent or third party candidate to be on the ballot as the major parties.
Drastic changes to funding political campaigns and serious campaign finance
reform which includes limiting all contributions to the candidate, no PACs, no
groups, and all must be identified so no hidden money. And to get this we need
to get in office. A catch 22? Not necessarily, but one uphill battle. Also we
need to include legislation that changes the two Supreme Court cases mentioned
above. Also legislation that shuts down or severely impacts lobbying. I once
encountered an argument that some lobbying is needed and previously have
thought maybe lobbying based on information provided to Congress by request
from industry groups could be beneficial, yet even that would need serious
vetting when writing that legislation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All in all, until we make serious changes to how our
Congress is held accountable to us, the people, our information, our rights, our
privacy will be at the mercy of those who want to exploit our data for their
gain, yet cannot guarantee it’s safety. Maybe we should add serious
consequences for data breaches and some might think how much data do they
really need. I am definitely a believer in businesses need to earn my business
and trust and Government should act in a way that keeps my trust not my
information. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And on a complete side note that just proves to me the elitist
left is clueless and pretentious I saw a headline from the LA Times written by
Jackie Calmes that says” I watched a Trump rally so you don’t have to, but you
need to know what he is saying.” Are you friggin’ kidding me? I am so opposed to
Trump, but for one person to think their political lens is more important than
mine for me to dictate my own opinion is the absolute epitome of elitism. Their
view point matters more than mine. I know not. This is why we need new blood in
Congress and in the national conversation. <o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-27678220703077138732024-02-10T00:48:00.002-06:002024-02-10T00:48:43.609-06:00Platform still coming, however a Mavs break <p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I am a bit perturbed by the national media’s reflection on
the Dallas Mavericks’ trades. Many are not grading the trades well. I certainly
understand they may not be an “A” grade, but there marks are way off the mark.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First in a strange way the first advantage is Luka can play
five minutes or less per game if Gafford just gets 8 or more rebounds a game. And
this can be with Luka on the court or on the bench. The more rebounds we get
means the opposing team is getting less offensive rebounds which means less
opportunities for them. This allows Luka to rest since teams will have less
opportunity to make runs at any leads we have created. Kidd will not feel
forced to put Luka back in too early in second and fourth quarters just to stop
runs. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second the depth at center improved mightily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though we love Powell in Dallas, he is
not your best option night in and night out to play major minutes as a center.
Powell now becomes the third or even fourth option at the five. This is way
overdue. Even Maxi can play some minutes at five in a small ball lineup better
than Powell. Again I know he is a fan favorite in Dallas and has been showing a
high basketball IQ this year along with always working hard, it is time for him
to finish out his contract and retire. Maybe become part of the post game show
or something, but he really needs to retire soon. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The draft capital was a bit much to give up, but half our
team is young now and if they play well we should be contending strongly for
four or more yeas so our first round picks would be pretty far down the line
anyway. And soon Powell, Hardaway and Kleber’s contracts will have completed so
we will have money to get up and coming free agents to go along with who we
have now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wish Curry had stayed since THJ can be very streaky, but
we have some good balance now for non Luka and Kyrie scoring with adding
Washington to the mix. Basically we now have Washington, Green, Hardaway,
Hardy, who have the potential to get 20 plus points on a given night and the
others scoring in double figures gives us a well rounded attack. You add in either
one of Exum, DJJ, Kleber also touching double figures regularly and things look
really good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which leads to the next point, we have a deep rotation that
could be used in tough 7 game series which again allows Luka not to have to
play 45 minutes per game. I know rotations shorten in the playoffs normally,
but when you have 8-10 players like what we have will help, even if some just
play a few minutes. Keeping people fresh so come game 7 Luka and Kyrie have it
in them to play 40 plus is an added bonus. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“X” feeds have quite a few depth charts now and even some
people saying we may get Spencer Dinwiddie back which would be really
interesting and means we are definitely ten deep in the playoffs, can work through
minor injuries, and still run basically the same offense with all ten players
in the rotation to having some serious flexibility as needed. IE Maxi playing
small ball center to having two bigs to play the Timberwolves or the Nuggets if
needed. We have not had that flexibility before and playing against some teams
that will be a definite benefit. I don’t think Lively and Gafford will play
together, but one of those with Maxi may not scare teams, but it will allow us
to match up better than before. Yes not perfect, but much better than Powell
being out there by himself which is what we have had to do too many times. Of
course Maxi’s health has to improve, but still him stretching out and bringing
a big out to guard him since he can hit threes will really open up spacing.
Throw in Washington, Green or even Spencer at the three that can create on
their own and things can get real fun. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can play with pace with Kyrie and Hardy at times or even
Luka some, or slow the game down to a crawl with Luka working the clock looking
to score or see where the defense breaks down for the open shot. This makes the
Mavericks are harder team to prepare for and in a 7 game series this matters. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Imagine being able to successfully have 3-4 different
starting line up options and you can still play the same sets to start a game
until you see how it develops. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can have Luka, Kyrie, Green, Washington and Lively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luka Kyrie, Hardaway, Washington and Lively<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luka Kyrie, Green, DJJ and Lively<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luka Kyrie, Exum, Green and Lively<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luka, Kyria, Hardaway, Green and Lively,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You get the point, basically small nuances in who starts to either
match up with specific teams or maybe just the healthiest players for the
evening. Gafford could play in all of the above groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then your bench rotations are based on how the other team is
reacting, need to pick up the pace throw in Hardy, get bigger you go Lively,
Kleber and Washington or even Morris if needed. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luka may get less triple doubles but he still gets his
points and averages more assists since Kidd can play the hottest hands that
night throughout the game and not play anyone not shooting well that evening.
Kidd can rest Luka longer and still keep two ball handlers on the floor at all
times especially if we get Spencer which helps Hardy develop and play more
freely and hopefully Exum gets healthy soon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Imagine a five guard rotation line up of Luka, Kyrie, Hardy,
Exum and possibly Spencer who all can create for others or make their own shot.
You have three pick and roll centers in Lively, Gafford and Powell. You can
stretch the floor with Washington, Green, Hardaway and a bit with Kleber. You can
run or play small ball with Kyrie, Hardy, Exum, Green, Washington and Lively or
Kleber. And when you need to get a stop in the last minute you have Lively or
Gafford, Green, Washington, Exum, DJJ, Morris and depending on the situation Luka
or Kyrie or Kleber or Spencer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not sure why the national press or media doesn’t think the
Mavs did well. They may seem minor additions, but we didn’t need to kill depth
to get a superstar we just needed to find the right players to complement our
superstars. Adding the depth at center allows the other players to play more
their roles and strengths. And Washington just has to be more consistent than
Grant Williams and play with desire and the difference grows even more. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And everyone on the team should be playing hungry now for
that championship. There is a window opening. This team just needs to find
itself, play together and let the intangibles of the game come to them. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking to say Cheers with meaning.<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-72233611519781810852024-02-07T12:39:00.001-06:002024-02-07T12:39:12.273-06:00The one thousandth post<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">It has
been over twelve years since I first started this blog. And I knew the 1,000 post
was coming up, so I wanted to write something so profound the universe would
stop, you know the pride thing going on. Well…I can’t think of a thing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And
between spending three weeks in Washington D. C. moving, being tired, and
uninspired I haven’t gotten around to this post. Yes we are in a new place and
are settling in so do I have all the good excuses not to be Mt. Tibet inspired
to save you all from your daily drudgery? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I was
thinking this morning just in general not for this blog and thought the more I
travel the more I realize how little I know. And that just sounded so familiar
that I internet searched. Yep there are quite a few similar quotes running
around about traveling and realizing how little you know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet I do feel quite strongly about that
thought. And I think I have blogged about something similar before because one
of my favorite quotes is from St. Augustine “The world is a book and those who
do not travel read only one page.” And as always he hits the nail on the head.
And my thinking is quite a few problems we face could be eventually solved if
more people had a better idea of everything going on beyond their scope of
life. And besides traveling is quite fun. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">So the above
is not quite the earth shattering post I wanted to make, however, it does incorporate
one of my favorite topics and pastimes, traveling. I love to travel and see new
and even familiar places. Right now though I am sitting on my couch trying to
figure out what to post. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And since
I have not reached the peak of thought for mankind I decided I just needed to make
my post and move on. I still owe you the rest of my independent or fictional third
party platform for 2024’s election. It isn’t like our government is racing to
solve all our problems right now and with Tucker in Russia committing treason,
Trump crying don’t do anything so I can win, the Democrats caught between the
games the Republicans play and their inability to push through them, the left
and right wing media all geared up to tell us how bad is the other side, and
absolutely no legislation of any kind about to be passed we, the people as usual
are screwed. And quite frankly the Republicans now saying we shouldn’t do anything
until the people decide with the next election along with them saying it was a
rigged election if they lose, we can now guarantee nothing will be achieved for
years. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And yet
for some reason, as little as I don’t like government it would help if it
actually did address some issues. And yes I know the Democrats are trying to do
something and there was a bi partisan attempt at the border issue, but hey
Trump passed gas so the Republican righteous jumped at the prescribed height
and so no border bill. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And for
the vast majority of us, we are stuck paying too much for everything, mainly now
for corporate greed because hey, Wall Street prescribes the height they are to
jump to, and no help from the people who we pay through tax dollars to protect
us from enemies within and outside of our borders. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I will
continue my tirades just so when the deal goes down there is something in
writing that says I tried to tell you so. Maybe some future alien civilization
will come across the remnants of our planet and dig through all the terabytes
of information left behind and go, hey at least someone knew things weren’t
working. Ah to be so redeemed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Anyway if
you are reading this on Tumblr or Wordpress you may go I do not see 1,000 posts
and that is because I originally started this on blogger or blogspot or
whatever and then somewhere along the line I started this same blog on the
other two platforms and just copy and paste the same post to all three sites. My
thinking is I need to try and reach more people. Who knows if that is
succeeding. So if you want to catch up you have to go to blogger or blogspot and
read from the beginning. I also changed my original description of this blog.
At first it was a couple of paragraphs long, now it is a simple sentence that
really doesn’t describe the blog, yet is more of my feeling about the whole sha
bang. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Eventually
I do want to do a podcast tied to this blog while still posting in the written
word. I have a microphone someone gave me, however in all the moves we have
made in less than a year I cannot find it. Once I do, be forewarned. My plan is
for some of the podcasts to compliment my written posts and some to be on
separate topics. And then there is the quote the best laid plans of mice and men
and if you want to read something profound maybe read Steinbeck. And according
to all the modern world thinking, I also need to create a brand so people can
understand who am I. That is simple: crotchety old man who thinks he knows it
all, who is frustrated that the people who say they know it all keep screwing
it up. How about that for a brand? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Folks, we
all need something better than the current leadership we have in this country
and elsewhere on this planet, and honestly I hope we find it because I want to
travel to where you live and enjoy life with you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Cheers!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And
before I forget, Go Mavs, Stars, FC Dallas, Rangers and then Cowboys (sheesh).
Wish Dallas had received the World Cup Championship, but we did receive 9 games
so it will be fun around here in 2026.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And
yes there is quite a bit of news right now, but everyone else is commenting on
all the craziness so another time maybe. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-23082183027041937782024-01-07T14:20:00.003-06:002024-01-07T14:20:48.980-06:00The we need third party/independent platform 2024 part 2<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This is a new topic for me and it is a single issue post. I
am struggling with how to address this problem because it involves two dynamic
forces colliding. And maybe not the best description, but I hold fast to this
is a dynamic collision in how do you address the best policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And this is the housing situation in America. More and more
you read that corporate America is buying up homes. The obvious problem is
where does this leave individuals and families when it comes to owning a home. Do
we let the market dictate everything? And allow those with the assets to have
free reign on the market? Or is the opportunity to own your own home at a
reasonable price something that allows for government interference in the
housing market?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a dynamic collision in America. Does one side have
an inherent priority over the other? And if we say the government should get
involved what exactly does that look like?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And it can become a major political fight if anyone wakes up
and realizes how fast corporate ownership of houses is growing. For now,
investors have been buying houses for years and some people feel that is one of
the problems that caused the 2008-2009 recession. There were too many house
flippers buying houses borrowing too much money to do such. Well things are a
bit different now. We are looking at full corporations buying into the housing
market. They bring a much stronger financial balance sheet than the house
flippers so their ability to gain larger market share is real and depending on
your outlook potentially dangerous. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Historically owning a home is one of the ways young couples
in the working and middle class could start to build wealth or have something
to pass on to their children. If the housing market consolidates too much then
the wealth gap only increases. And if you are a regular reader you know that I
feel the wealth gap is a danger to this country and democracy/our republic in
general. I am of the camp that believes a strong middle class is the backbone
of a strong democracy. Yet as a conservative I do not want too much government
overreach into our lives and this includes the economy. So where does this land
us with trying to balance these two competing dynamics?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A strong purpose of an elected government is to defend or
protect the public in general, whether it be from external forces or internal
issues. You can make the case that at times the government should get involved
when the general welfare of its people is negatively affected by an issue. I
think this is one of those cases. And since our government is founded on
certain ideals such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the
government can at times look to balance competing interests to help the general
welfare of the populace. And owning an affordable home is beneficial to the
general populace. Now you also have to realize that owning a home is not a “right”
nor is it a privilege,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but being able to
afford where you live should be considered a necessity in modern times. And
having the opportunity to thrive is an opportunity that should be open to all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So how do we keep the door open for home ownership to many
while not interfering with businesses well, doing business?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a interesting question and I do not think it has
been addressed enough with ideas. It is talked about in the press somewhat, but
there is not a plethora of competing arguments, policy, or platforms that addresses
the pros on either side, much less discussions in general that weigh the two
competing sides. I will make the joke/statement this is ripe for some dissertational
work. I say this knowing we need some immediate action or policy to this before
housing does get out of reach for most Americans. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And since I have not seen too much in regards to public
policy initiatives and maybe I have missed them and I feel the Democrats and
Republicans are just too weak to step up and address this problem I will step
into whatever mess is lying on the floor and put forth some thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if you read through many of the immediate platform posts
you may start to notice a theme so I will state it now. And some will not like
it. Since I fear the wealth gap growing some policy proposals will have
considerations to tax activities that drive the wealth gap larger. And since I
have already stated I feel this is happening with corporations buying home large
swaths of the housing market or will have in the near future one approach is to
tax at very high rates profits on transactions that remove properties from the
open markets or corporations owning too much of the housing market. Does this
interfere with business opportunities? Yes, yet something needs to be done to allow
anyone and especially young people a fighting chance to create a worthwhile dynamic
for themselves for those that choose to want a home. Some people do not want a
home and so we are not going to force everyone into that mindset, but for those
that do, they should not be priced out of the market. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what does taxing at a higher proportional rate for
business activities in the housing market look like? And that is difficult because
corporations owning the housing market is a change from what was considered the
norm for the last fifty plus years. I have seen articles that state corporations
may own forty percent of the market by 2030. Honestly is that too much and if
you support the business models of life you may think not. Yet if you support
the wealth gap problem, you would feel way too much.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if corporations can change the mentality and find a way
to make their ownership just a way to make money as a conduit to more people
owning a home, you wouldn’t need to tax at a proposed higher rate. For example
since the real estate market is changing with the amount of commission real
estate agents may be charging in the future, what if the corporations buy the
house then sell it at a six percent mark up which was the previous real estate
commission rate. That would not be affecting the market in a negative way. Yet
if the corporations buy up houses and then start creating their own market for
rental pricing then they are taking away wealth from the general populace. One
way to determine if rental prices are too high would be relative to past
inflation, current inflation and if rental prices are adding to inflation and
not being affected by inflation. Quite a few parameters in that scenario, but
that could be a start to determine if rent prices should be taxed at higher
rates than regular income tax or corporate tax rates. So instead of starting
with the formula to determine if it is excessive you force the business <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>prove their income is not excessive. So the
rates start higher and I mean higher so hopefully to discourage corporations
trying to raise rates just for profit motives. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To lower their tax rate they would have to
prove their income is not driving housing costs up either through buying and
selling or rental income. You may say this is quite a bit to prove. And yes
that is the point. We are trying to discourage corporations for over owning
housing in America so you have to make it difficult for corporations to take
advantage of a monopoly in the housing market. Would it be better for them to
keep housing prices in line or would the cost of managing many homes for little
profit keep them out of this business? If they are doing so only for their
bottom line, then they are negatively affecting the market and the higher tax rates
are implemental. If they are trying to generate a new way for Americans to obtain
housing at affordable housing and this is a new business model, then their
profits should be reasonable and taxed at current corporate rates. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes we are walking some thin lines here, but we have to
start talking about this issue with more emphasis on maintaining affordable
housing and this can be either ownership or rents. The housing market is changing
fast and my idea may not be the most ideal. So my goal is to force the issue
and bring it to the forefront of political discussion requiring politicians to
make decisions on policy to protect the American public from runaway housing
costs. Better ideas are always welcome. Until then I am sticking with my
general theme that the government can take action to protect the general welfare
of its populace as best as it can without completely stifling free market
competition. Again a very thin line to walk, but one that is needed always and
specifically with housing. Otherwise our illustrious two major parties will sit
on this until it is too late since neither has any backbone to really help the American
people.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Cheers</p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-2628100007508781972024-01-06T22:00:00.003-06:002024-01-06T22:00:54.964-06:00The we need third party/independent’s 2024 platform, part 1<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">So it is time to give you a different perspective than what
you will see from the two major parties. I have done this before so some of
this may sound familiar to regular readers. And I think that is good. Hopefully
my ideas are consistent. Some changes may be made here and there, yet that is
because the times change every four years and some of my ideas getting
furthered developed as time goes on. As I mentioned in a post last month I will
be presenting the platform in multiple posts. And I am starting with one topic
I have discussed many times previously. This should be shorter than future
posts since I hope to more or less consolidate what I have expressed
previously.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Part one is about social security and ideas to help it survive
and even thrive. Social Security is something that I think most Americans agree
needs to not only be kept, but improved so that it is available for all working
Americans now and in the future. One point I recently mentioned was I am glad
Ms. Haley is talking about it, but her main point of extending the retirement
age until 70 should not be considered. You can choose to work as long as you
want, but you should always be able to choose to have your own life after
working 40 or more years. I know this is not a “right”, yet if the company you
work for won’t take care of you when you retire and we have a system to help
you in place then we should make it as strong as possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So to keep social security viable we really need to have a
multi prong approach. Trying to keep social security solvent beyond next decade
is too difficult for a one solution fix, so I propose these ideas to keep it
funded and to build up the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first step is to change some of the current income tax
policy. Currently the worker and the employer each contribute an equal share
into the coffers of the Trust Fund. And more on the Trust fund later. You could
say just raise the amounts that are contributed which would be helpful for
social security, yet would be difficult for both the employer and worker. You
are taking more out of the pocket of the employer and worker at a time when
many workers are struggling with high inflation and high cost of rent or
mortgage. And the housing situation is another platform idea that will be
addressed in a future post. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A better approach is to lower the income tax bracket of the
working and middle class by a certain percentage and use some of that tax
reduction and move it into social security. And yes this does mean that the
worker contributes more than the employer, but this helps many small businesses
by not raising how much they have to contribute to social security. You can
create an inordinate amount of mathematical examples, yet to keep it simple I
will say, cut the tax rate for the first few tax brackets by ten percent. Verbiage
here is important, I am not saying cut the tax rate by ten percent so we are
not moving the fifteen percent bracket to a five percent bracket. No I am
saying cut the fifteen percent bracket by ten percent so a worker’s income is
now taxed at 13.5 percent. And then of that 1.5 percent reduction half stays in
the worker’s pocket and the other half, .75 percent, goes to social security.
Honestly we would need to cut more than ten percent, but the math is going to
be much more involved as to how much we can cut into the fifteen percent and
other brackets once the numbers are looked at in depth. I just use the ten
percent example so you can see how the cut can be hypothetically applied. This
also means there will be changes to the overall tax code to make this work and
that will be discussed in a future post. I will say for now that corporations
and people with large incomes will see a shift upward, however for corporations
if they apply certain other aspects of the taxes to their employees their tax
increase can be mitigated, but not removed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second idea is to increase earnings in the Trust
fund.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To some people this sounds like we
need to have Wall Street manage the Trust fund. I am one hundred percent
against Wall Street or any facsimile of private enterprise taking over this
amount of money. I along with you fear the potential for abuse of people with
this much at their disposal. What kind of havoc would be unleashed on the
financial system by people trying to cook up earnings for social security so
they could get paid? I know some people will say they would just manage it
according to whatever protocol Congress sets up, but as you know the same
people managing money have an extensive lobbying apparatus set up in Washington.
It would not take them long to change whatever laws set in place to keep them
in check were drastically changed. And I am saying this with complete confidence
that this would be a horrible mistake. No I am talking about a more measured
approach. And yes I realize some experienced money managers would need to be
hired to run the amount of money in the Trust fund, however, you keep it out of
the Wall Street economy by only allowing investments in public/private
partnerships in infrastructure. Another words social security is invested in municipal
projects such as water treatment plants where revenue bonds are normally
issued. Or public school districts needing to build new schools. I also have
some development projects that will be discussed in an economic platform post
where to solve problems private enterprise entities that might benefit from the
development will be required to invest their own money and not totally rely on
tax payer funds for the specified project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This way the project is developed for the general good, but any type of
industry or business that benefits has skin in the game for their own rewards. A
Social Security public/private partnership projects allows some public money to
be invested in larger projects to help reduce the burden on local governments
and entities so taxpayers are not funding someone else’s profits. Businesses
develop as the project is built while the public benefits in general from the
project itself. This is a quick example, but try thinking about toll roads
being partially funded by the company that profits from running the toll road.
In Texas we have companies making significant profits from roads that are built
by tax payers so there needs to be a balance to building the road, and if we
have to pay tolls then then the money should go back somehow to the general
populace who pays for it. Or some of the tolls collected go back to the social
security trust. Rates can be set by local government also so the tolls do not
become overly burdensome. End result is a road is built by the public/private
partnership, less, not none state and local tax money is used, some private
enterprise money is used to help lower this taxpayer cost and then the company
receives a portion of the profits and they can make a reasonable profit, and
some is used to pay social security back for their investment with a competitive,
but maybe a half point to point lower interest rate than on the open market for
bonds. Not all the money comes from social security so the overall markets are
not left out of infrastructure development. It allows for multiple partners on
public projects to benefit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The third idea is a small addition. Social Security is taken
from all paid wages. Basically there is no cap on income. Some may say corporations
will find away around this to pay their higher wage earners and this means some
creativity will need to be created in the tax code to discourage this behavior.
And there will be a future post on taxes. Now a strange difference though is
that high wage earners can take a cash payout of their social security when
they retire. I heard and I forget who said this, yet it made sense to me. The
person was reputedly a billionaire and he was complaining what the heck am I
suppose to do with this monthly check. I sure do not need it. Or something to
that affect. And I agree with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
possibly a burden to keep track of this check in his income and tax planning,
there is no need for this check, and he understood paying into the system for
him to receive this money was to him a waste. I still think a person should pay
into the system because until you reach a certain point financially it might be
good to have social security available until you reach said certain point
financially. Yet at that point it does become a potential hindrance. So to
avoid social security having to pay out over a person’s life time they can
elect to receive back what they have contributed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now the question becomes is a rate of return
calculated so they receive their contributions plus? Maybe something similar to
an annuity cash out where you end up with less than if you took the lifetime
payout, but more than you contributed. I think you could work something out
where the person who does not need social security still receives a small
investment return while the majority of the people who need it can receive the
lifetime payout amounts. Making this available to all might be dangerous because
this is suppose to be their lifetime support. So creating a buyout option would
need to have some serious caveats, but I think should be offered if we up the
requirement that all wages are included in social security. If people want to
invest their own money in retirement they still can through work place and IRA
savings accounts. I would make using social security to try and increase their
earnings difficult since there are no guarantees in the investment world. And that
does go back to corporations saving some on their taxes by offering more to employees
as touched on above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These are just a few ideas and I am open to others. The goal
is to find ways to strengthen and improve social security so it is viable for
our grandchildren’s grandchildren without putting the burden on workers to work
so long they never receive anything in social security. Hence working until 70
as a solution only means every few years we just keep adding to the retirement
age until we work until our death and receive none of our contributions. This
may be what the corporate world wants from us, or the short sighted, but I am
of the mind set that social security is a healthy option for so many people
that it needs to be preserved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Happy New Year and Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-54904390723531433942023-12-27T12:13:00.003-06:002023-12-27T12:13:30.774-06:00Merry third day of Christmas<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And Merry Christmas. We have been
so busy, yet that is no excuse that I also need to focus on what is important.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I hope you had a great Christmas,
got what you wanted and found a moment to find joy in your heart. And for those
of you that normal life overwhelmed your Christmas and holidays, I hope you too
can find a moment to quietly enjoy the season.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Merry Christmas and Peace on
Earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-90532343958432252992023-12-19T14:07:00.002-06:002023-12-19T14:07:24.889-06:00So, it is about that election year time again<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">First I will eventually, hopefully write a Christmas post.
Right now the hectic, crazy, unsettling moments of the holidays are driving me
bonkers. I know everyone wants peace on earth right now and yours truly is no
exception. Which in some says brings me to what I have planned for the first of
the year. If you are a regular reader you know every four years I offer a potential
platform of a party not named democrat or republican. The current morass in my
head not withstanding I will be putting this together for next year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And the current morass and maybe even molasses in my head is
preventing me from thinking clearly this wonderful holiday season. I cannot
even write two sentences before I sidetrack myself no end. I have already
forgotten more thoughts in the last two minutes than I can conceive. And another
reason I am trying to write something today. I plan on including in this post
an outline of what the platform may encompass once I finally get around to it
after the year starts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some other quick thoughts. First the Cowboys have no
business being in the playoffs if they cannot win two competitive games in a
row.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They beat the Eagles then lay an
egg against the Bills. They have to be ready to beat teams that are desperate
this time of year because all teams will be or at least should be desperate for
the playoffs. And I had no intention of saying anything about the Cowboys when
I sat down, but my brain is on synopsis overload and nothing is firing in any
kind of order. The Mavericks are still interesting at this point, but who knows
where they really are as a team since they can’t get Luka and Kyrie together
consistently yet. And I don’t blame Kyrie for anything, that was a freak injury
situation. I just hope they let him fully heal so sometime in January we have a
real idea of what this team can do. And yes Lively II is a wonderful and needed
surprise along with and I am going to avoid saying role players because teams
have stars and players. Some players have a specific role, but the term role
player is way over used in pro basketball. For some people to say Exum or Jones
are role players takes away from the great job they are doing as players on the
Mavericks. The press, and this includes Barkley ad Shaq, needs to go back and
focus on saying players on teams. Oh boy I am way off track.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any way shape or fashion, it is the holidays, we need more
of them, and even though I celebrate Christmas I am somewhat glad we say holidays
for this time of year. Whether I like it or not, many people around the world are
celebrating right now and of course for all the Western world it is followed by
the new year parties, events and thinking. Now I will say Merry Christmas come
next weekend and say it with complete joy, meaning and giving, yet it is nice
to realize the world is round and we need to celebrate all of us. Yet by no
means do I feel woke about all of this, just truthful. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And then back to reality. I do plan on sitting down and
creating a somewhat comprehensive platform and topics will include economic,
tax structure, social security, healthcare, education, world peace (foreign
policy), and even wokeness. This is where it is headed for now. Things could
change in a couple of weeks, heck in a couple of seconds. For now I do want to
address these topics and thoughts are already creating plaque in those synopsis,
but hopefully I can find enough electric impulses to push through the debris
field that is my mind. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I had all sorts of thoughts when I first sat down and I
wanted to talk more about what is happening on the other side of this keyboard,
yet to say something now would be just too confusing. I will say right now I
wish I was sitting on a beach with a very high dollar and fine glass of wine or
stiff drink staring at the ocean doing nothing. Or even a coffee drink because
I need to stop drinking coffee and right now in the middle of the afternoon I
have a hankering to go make another pot of coffee. I am fighting the urge as I
type, yet realistically I would even settle for that glass of wine even a “table”
wine right now while I type. The better half and I just cannot get a moment to
feel like we are living in the holidays. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And there was so much I wanted to say when I sat down that I
have totally forgetten. Shoot I just got up for three minutes and have already
lost track of upteen thoughts. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I am going to end with this thought for you to digest
with your eggnog. I know what heaven smells like. And if I shared the smell
with anyone they would immediately get angry, scream at the top of their lungs
that I have no idea what I am talking about. Heaven would never smell that way,
and it is not an unpleasant order, definitely not. It is not flowery or has a bouquet
smell or sweet or wispy or any other adjective that might create a sense of
that is so beautiful it must be heaven. They would call me grinch for my smell
because it creates no image of what people think what is heaven and here is the
catch…. What heaven may smell like because….they do not realize we will not
have our earthly senses in heaven. People want to project what they know upon the
unknown. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to do that, yet it can
leave us gasping at a reality that does not exist. We have no idea what is
heaven so my smell is just as viable as any other, and since we won’t have
earthly senses in heaven and yes I know we may rise body and soul into heaven
or at least some thought patterns suggest as much, we do not know at all.
Everything that we interpret is a complete guess and yes I do believe in
Christmas and everything it stands for including the knowledge the sole purpose
of Christmas is Easter. I am not trying to burst any bubbles, or ruin your
Christmas, but again just trying to get you to realize we are not as smart as
we think we are and we need to sit back and smell the roses while we are alive.
And that brings me back to one of my original thoughts when I sat down and why
I try to write a better platform for our country than the garbage we will
received from the democrats and republicans, mankind should have better. I avoided
saying deserves or a right to something better, yet mankind can have better. It
is up to us. I always pray and hope that all of us, from the Atlantic to the Pacific
and everything in between and outside of those boundaries have a terrific
Christmas and a life where they are treated with respect and can enjoy much of
what our given earthly senses has to offer, whether it be a beautiful blue sky
or ocean, a breeze blowing through leaves, a nice glass of wine or even ice
tea, a rose placed on your breakfast table, a kiss from a loved one tender on
your cheek, the feel of warm cotton against your skin, a drive down a wide open
highway, or a horse ride across a field, or maybe just standing out in the
middle of the desert feeling the warmth of the sun penetrating your being, so
whatever it may be, all of us should be able to enjoy this wonderful planet we
have been given with all our senses, and the ugliness of what we do to each
other be washed away in a strong rain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers and Happy Holidays <o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-17550330615798091962023-12-05T22:04:00.001-06:002023-12-05T22:04:10.898-06:00Not that it really matters, but it is too late to worry about it<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Okay okay, I am not young anymore so out of a moment of
trying to act responsibly for my age, I caved. Yep gave in to rational
thinking, did what I was supposed to do, behaved, and so forth and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I regretted it from the moment I sat down. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We went to Braum’s. If you do not know Braum’s it is a
pretty unique environment. It is simple, but has quite a bit going on. It is a
fast food restaurant or a comparable step above, it is an ice cream store and carries
groceries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So you can go get a burger
and then some ice cream. Simple but wonderful stop to enjoy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I always and I do mean always get a double dip hot fudge
sundae. Today though for some ill conceived notion I thought I should get a single
since I was already a bit full and you know that age thing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I sat down and looked at the puny ass serving and am still
regretting not getting the double dip and it has been well over a hour since we
got home. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Never again will I make that mistake, overly stuffed or
whatever. Shoot at my age I should go ahead and get what I want, too late to
worry about it now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-60156659127108482432023-11-27T12:56:00.000-06:002023-11-27T12:56:04.905-06:00Practical versus moderate or people compromising<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">At first I almost wrote compromised policy, yet doesn’t make
the presentation I wanted. This is about public policy and this obsession with
people that if Democrats and Republicans get together and either compromise
their positions or find a middle ground (moderate) we have better public
policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not saying you cannot achieve strong policy goals through
compromise or with a “moderate” bent. I do state that if you look at public
policy practically you might create much better public policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So many people are trying to find a solution to getting things
done in Congress that I think they confuse what you can accomplish by trying too
hard to say Congress passes better legislation when the two parties compromise.
This can be a fallacy. The nature of compromise in and of itself does not
necessarily make something better. It can complete a task or finish a project,
yet are you really achieving the best result? I think people have seen so much
failure as of late that they are trying to find a route to success without
defining what success may look like first.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To me success is what is best for the country as a whole
without taking away the freedoms and interests of a minority or groups that do
not directly benefit. Yet if you put the general populace first the policy will
eventually be beneficial to most if not all. The benefits may not be dispersed
equally, however if the results reach the vast majority then you probably have
a better policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A quick example might be where you lower the taxes on the
middle class where they can save more, have money to spend, or able to pay down
their personal debt. The wealthy may say what do we receive if the middle class
has a tax break and we do not. I use this example because I want to say the
phrase trickle up. Instead of relying on big business to pass their tax savings
down with all their trumped up logic, the tax break to the general population
spreads out and up. Note the word rely on in the above sentence. The whole
point of the trickle down theory was that it required the upper echelons to
take actions that would filter down to everyone else, such as lower prices or
invest in better products to create new jobs, but yet it had to be relied upon
by the general populace for the wealthy to share this gain to them. With
shifting the tax relief to the general populace they naturally will do one of
the three facets listed above. Savings and investments by the general populace
creates stability in the economic system, banks benefit because they now have
more resources to make loans, the general populace has more confidence in the
system and there is a possible reduction in the wealth gap. Less taxes also
mean the general populace has more money to spend so businesses benefit by
increased revenues. And finally if the general population pays down debt it
lessens stress on the economy. Banks and lenders such as mortgages are writing
off less bad debt. There cash flow increases and they can loan more money as
needed into the economy and can offer more competitive rates to a larger
audience. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This example is not perfect, but hopefully can give a
snapshot of the difference one policy change can make. The policy though is not
based on Democrats and Republicans compromising on tax policy, or some moderate
idea, but trying to find the most practical tax policy for the whole country.
It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and some groups will try to
shoot down the logic. Their arguments though are based on where they fall into
the economic spectrum. Large corporations see the smallest immediate gain, yet
if the whole economy is strong they benefit whether they will publicly admit it
or not. Wall Street may not like it because the investment money is coming to
them in slow waves as the general populace makes slow incremental increases to
their savings, 401ks other investments etc. Wall Street has less of their own
money to double down on their own wealth, hence increasing the wealth gap. Yet in
the long run, a more practical policy is not based on either a conservative or
liberal bias, but more towards the larger beneficial aspect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And some may say since you are lowering taxes this is a
conservative policy. I ask are you sure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One difference to highlight is offering a practical policy
can be compromised a bit to take into account factors not originally considered
versus a policy that is compromised by one side trying to accommodate another
side. Or they change the goal or initiative and the policy becomes watered down
to appease groups trying to achieve a political win. It is the latter that I
see many of today’s advocators of compromise trying to achieve. They may think
compromise will get us better policy because of the extremes hijacking policy,
however are they doing a litmus test of who actually benefits once they make a
compromise. Or maybe in today’s world they think of a compromise they wish
happened. I do have to admit not much is being done right now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And many liberals will say the far right are the ones
hijacking public policy right now and they are correct, however if you look
closely though there are groups on the far left trying to create their own
goals that will not benefit the general populace. They are just quieter in their
public discourse so if you dig deep enough into what each side is saying a
person may find the distinction. I just hope I made it clear. Neither side wants
to admit that their ideas lack in merit, yet you have to step back and again do
a litmus test to determine exactly who benefits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And in researching what is needed versus being preoccupied
that it needs to have a liberal or conservative bias, you can write, produce
and evaluate better policy from the beginning. And of course as an independent
conservative, even my public policy I discuss in my posts starts with a
conservative frame, yet that does not mean it can be adjusted through analysis
and evaluation to be changed to a more suitable practical end result. Policy
can be liberal or conservative, it shouldn’t be driven by it has to be liberal
or conservative to appease the majority of the moment. I have always said sometimes
we need liberal policies and sometimes we need conservative policies. The moment
should be a more important driver of the policy needed, not the politics. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And so the next step is how do we step away from the need to
rationalize our compromises and step into policy writing to achieve what is
truly needed. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And the irony of this post is I am trying to reach out to a
moderate audience. Ha ha ha. Okay not really a moderate audience, but to the
vast majority of the country who by nature are generally moderate in their
views.<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-87199485192909412062023-11-22T13:44:00.001-06:002023-11-22T13:44:06.687-06:00Something even I forget, and Happy Thanksgiving<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">So the better half and I had to go out of town to take care
of some family business and on the way back we decided to take the scenic
route. We had a wonderful 2/3 of a trip. The last third it began to drizzle so
it took some of the luster off the whole trip, however the first part was all sunshine
and blue sky.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You forget how beautiful this country is when you take the
interstates all the time. I was thinking as we were driving that everyone in
D.C. needs to get off their back ends and go see America. It might remind them of
the people they should be representing. I know it is too late for road trips
back home for Thanksgiving for all our Representatives and their staffs, but
sometime soon they need to make it a priority.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They might see parts of the country that make up our agriculture,
the solar power plants, the wind farms the oil pumps, and even the road work on
the two lane highways. Yes we drove mostly through Texas and all of the above
was almost side by side as we drove. You pass a field of cotton, then cattle
grazing, a solar field, some oil pumps still going and it was quite an eye
opening experience. And all of it with the horizon stretching forever. And this
was especially nice with the sun shining.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You pass through many small towns and see the old businesses
boarded up and the new chains taking over and wonder what could be done to revitalize
local economies. Towns where main street is thriving, but the periphery is old
boarded up hotels and restaurants, yet the fast food chains and chain hotels
thrive. You see buildings of unknown businesses falling apart. At one time each
of the towns had their own economy, yet either through various recessions or
changes in the local economy it has slowly disappeared to be replaced by the
various corporate entities that populate suburbia. These towns are losing their
character. These are the descendants of the people that made this country great
and yet they are the visible signs of the wealth gap in this country. People
that use to own local businesses have children that make minimum wage in the
corporate world. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And you know their educational opportunities are slowly
disintegrating as the town loses its economic base. Those corporations are not
reinvesting in local infrastructure. All those profits are going back to Wall
Street. Schools in these towns are ignored in state capitals and then you read
about the school voucher system in Texas and wonder what it all means for the
children of farmers and the energy laborers. Will they be able to have the wherewithal
to rebuild their towns? If the family is struggling, if the opportunities are
working for out of state profiteers, if the schools are rotting, what does this
mean for the future of what use to be the backbone of this country. Yes I am
being somewhat idyllic, however we need the caregivers of our open spaces and
producers of what we eat given the opportunity to thrive. If we let the
corporations run everything, they will run everything into the ground then move
on. If profit is our country’s only goal then when the well run dries what
happens next? Death, depletion, desertion, despair for large portions of our
country do not make for greatness. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if you stop and do grab a bite to eat, or get gas you
find they are the same wonderful people you might want them to be. They are
friendly, cheerful on the outside, but when it is slow in the convenience store
you can see in their eyes the fatality of having no future. The children still
behave as children, laughing, talking running in and out, yet you worry what
happens when they turn 18. What do they do next? I think it was fortunate that
not too many Wal marts dotted the landscape, yet they were there slowly sapping
the money out of the town to make billionaires even richer while the worker bees
struggle to pay for housing and food. A few do well, especially the people who
owned land and were able to hold onto it. They had the oil boom, now it is
windfarms, but they are the minority. They lease the land and take in their royalties,
but their money is spent either at the chain restaurant or they go out of town
to buy what they need such as brand new trucks or other luxuries that they
alone can afford. The car dealerships are scarce, the repair shops are non
existent, an occasional real estate company has a sign, there are no farmer
markets, no grocery stores, just the Dollar General, where the market isn’t big
enough for a Wal Mart, which is an overpriced substitute for basic necessities.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, it is Texas but the price of gas in these towns is much
higher than the truck stops on the interstate. And honestly some of this is
because the markets are not big enough to support large businesses, but that
same small market at one point had an economy and people thrived, hair was cut
or styled by local people, furniture was bought or was available in one town
for a few, sundries existed so people could do their sewing or craft work that
was actually needed and wasn’t just some hobby for people at church. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what can be done to bring back strong local economies,
give people an opportunity to thrive again, and why does Washington ignore so
many of our own? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The drive is beautiful, the scenery breathtaking, the
rounding of a bend to see more and more, the cattle eating lazily near the
fences by the side of the road, a horse galloping by, the field full of cotton
or other deep green crop, (couldn’t tell what it was, but there were quite a
few fields of this really deep green, and it wasn’t too tall either) fills the
land between the towns. And yet the towns are losing their luster, their
hometown feel, their people so what becomes of not a nostalgic era, but of the
livelihoods of so many who choose not to live in a big city. Does Washington
think they do not matter? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes it would be a fantasy to believe that all of a sudden
thousands of pretentious lawmakers take it upon themselves to do a bit of fact
finding on the future of large swaths of our country. Unfortunately it is
necessary. Instead though they take the lobbyists money and campaign donations
to stay in power. Their stench stays in Washington to appease Wall Street and a
few others, but what would make the country great again rots away with a
different kind of stench. The stench of economic decay. And at some point it
will be too late and the greed of the uber wealthy will not be able to sustain
any economy as it sucks dry the people it has built its wealth upon. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These small towns are the first to go. They have survived
hard times before, yet as corporate greed takes over their economies the well
will run dry and many beautiful locales will be like the withering structures
of a bygone era that now appear on the roads in and out of town. Main street
still has some continuity going, but if you actually drive the speed limit
through town it is way too easy to see the dye cast for their lack of future. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So as you enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner and even though
this is bleak I do hope I haven’t ruined it. I just want to remind you that we
still can be a thankful nation, but it takes action and understanding. Why give
up on something that was so integral to our country’s growth? We should be
thankful for what we have, have had and what we can have, and not lose sight of
the whole of our country and what everyone brings to the table.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-58682639298800861592023-11-21T23:24:00.002-06:002023-11-21T23:24:24.300-06:00A lay person’s discussion of the difference between agnostic and atheist; and further thoughts<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I by no
means am a theologian, apologist, or even moderately educated in religion,
however I do have some thoughts on this subject that have consumed by brain on occasion.
And tonight is one of those occasions so for my benefit I am attempting to write
them down. I do this because it consumed by thoughts for a bit this evening and
I want to see if I can expound on them to see if I can make sense of this
madness permeating my thoughts. Also I do feel that general comparison do not
get to the heart of the problem and also really address that if you believe
which is worse. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">So to
start some basic definitions or explanations, an agnostic according to one
source (Oxford definition) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>is a person
who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature
of God or anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith
nor disbelief in God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And I stress
it is important to note the last sentence. I will come back to this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Atheism or
atheists is in some cases broken down into various distinctions. Generally most
people will define atheism has the belief there is no God. One resource not identified
in my internet search says there is implicit atheism and explicit atheism and
goes on to identify positive and negative atheism. This might be much for my
thoughts tonight, yet I did want to mention that some identify more to atheism
than I want to travel through. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And the
definition of agnostic mentioned above is generally how I view it and so my off
and on internal ramblings and arguments have stuck with this approach. Atheism
though I have always viewed as more of an active approach to the belief in God
and that their active approach I treat differently than the viewpoint that
discusses the various distinctions mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">To me an atheist
believes in God, that person is fighting that belief. Now at what level is
where it gets murky. Or may I should phrase it an atheist is the active disbelief
in God, however to disbelieve are you not denying existence and if you are
denying existence then the act of denial is fighting against acceptance. Now
even to me this argument does appear somewhat circular, however bear with me as
an amateur writer to get to my point. I truly believe this thought and I cannot
think of a better way to phrase it at the moment. Yet to fight against something
means you are fighting it. So if you say no God exists, why does it matter to you
to vocally denounce it. Unless there is something that is driving you to deny
the existence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I think
people forget the fallen angel, Lucifer, the evil one or however you want to
identify this entity not only believes in God, but is on a campaign to destroy
God. Yet this is not the same as an atheist, but this entity may play a factor
in why an atheist is an atheist or at least for some. Some atheists just may
not want to own up to the fact that if you believe in God you must follow God.
And most people that believe in God or the Judeo Christian world knows how hard
it is to follow God. No small feat to live according to the teachings of God.
Throw in the concept of faith and mysteries and your brain is mush in no time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Let me get
back on topic. An atheist can be what is described above as an implicit atheist
or “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” (again
there is a reference here, but I don’t have it and it is referencing another
work. My apologies for the lack of thoroughness here). I do not believe though
based on this reference that there is an implicit atheist. To me an atheist may
be a person, but that person is a verb also. Their atheism is an action. They
are creating action or wanting to create an action within someone else. This
exact same argument can be made for a Christian, which tends to put an atheist
as a person trying to convince someone there is no God. And here we are again.
They are denying something, yet you have to believe it to exist to convince
others not to believe in it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">A really
bad example is saying that wonderful t bone steak you want to eat does not
exist. I take the plate away and you no longer see it so why would you think
you are going to eat it. And the way I phrased this sentence is important. To me
atheists are wanting you to not believe in God because you cannot see, feel,
touch, smell etc… God. There is no truth to a physical presence of God or none
that can be identified or ascertained. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I work backwards
here and as a teenager and long before I knew of St. Augustine I had a internal
working knowledge of something St. Augustine said: “what you understand can’t
possibly be God” As a teenager I struggled with religion, yet I believed in
God. I didn’t articulate this as St. Augustine did, however I felt there was
more to God than what I saw on TV from the tele evangelists or some of the
churches I had attended. Church to me kept trying to define something that
couldn’t be held essentially as if it could be held. And they worked hard at
it. Now honestly I wasn’t catching onto the faith based arguments, and or maybe
I couldn’t comprehend them. Which goes back to what you understand can’t possibly
be God because God is beyond our comprehension. You hear God’s word, but until
you realize where it derives or who is God is beyond our imagination. Some people
try to manipulate your imagination and in doing so fail God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And again
back to topic. So why the big to do about the difference between agnostic and
atheists tonight. For some reason I started thinking about which is worse,
being an agnostic or being an atheist and surprisingly to me at the moment, yet
the more I thought about it the more I felt I am correct. An atheist on the
surface appears to be the worse of the two if you are a believer, however,
remember I said they believe in God, they are trying to convince themselves and
you not to believe. Hence their belief is misguided and can be addressed. I am not
saying it will be easy because atheists can be true believers or in the case
true non believers, so they tend to be entrenched into their believes. Yet, the
argument is already in their brain so once past the entrenchment, another
argument can be presented.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">An
agnostic has no belief. There is no argument, there is no denial, there is no
existence or no reason to even contemplate the existence. The thought comes,
the thought goes. Outside of curiosity or moving towards atheism an agnostic
doesn’t care. And the not caring is the more dangerous aspect. Can you change a
true (non) believer, possibly? Can you motivate someone who doesn’t care? Much
harder. If the entity above is lazy then an agnostic is a best friend. An
atheist for this entity takes constant work to keep them in line. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Just what this
madness is about sometimes unsnaps a few synopsis. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And let’s move
onto another topic that drives me mad. God is not liberal or conservative. These
are man made constructs. So it irks the heck out of me when we get into the
discussion of liberalism and conservatism in the Church. Does the Pope teach
the faith, the magisterium, the sacraments, or is the Pope saying Jesus is not
divine, not the Trinity, there is no apostolic tradition or any other tradition
of the Church? That is how you tell if you the Pope is teaching and living the
faith. If you do not agree with the Pope about certain people he is trying to
reach out to and it pushes your acceptance of others, yes the Pope might be
moving socially liberal points, but the Church does not become liberal because
the Pope pushes buttons. If the Pope now says a marriage in the Church between
two people of the same sex is now a sacrament then this Pope has strayed from
the belief and should no longer be Pope. Adam and Eve defined marriage and is
now a sacrament to further your communion with God. The Pope can say certain
people need to be heard as people since it is our role as a Christian to reach
out to those that need God in their lives. It is not our role to define whether
a bishop or Pope is liberal or conservative as teachings of the Faith. Remember
as Christians we are to love, even those that insult us, step on our toes, live
a lifestyle not of our faith, and yes the proverbial enemy. We are not to judge.
One of my favorite points in the Bible is after the people are told those that
have not sinned throw the first stone the next moment is the people leave and the
oldest are the first to leave. Yeah I ain’t young anymore so I can certainly
understand where that is coming from. More importantly we are not God, we
cannot judge. We can hold fast to our believes, our faith, our teaching, yet
being liberal or conservative is not part of the Church. We pray for each
other, not label each other. And if you ask me, if you are labeling either way,
maybe it is time you spent some time with God, not man.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Finally to
Bishop Barron. I have all the respect in the world for you and have enjoyed
what you have done to further my knowledge of our faith. However this certified
yellow check idea is horrible. How can we know the saints if we assume only
certain people know the word of God? Hope you think about it. Goes back to the
argument above, if the Pope loses it, who are we to trust unless we can
identify the Pope or a Bishop has lost their way. And I am not talking about me,
this post is definitely one man’s opinion, yet who is to say one person may
come along that knows more or more specifically taught more than all of us. Would
Moses get a yellow check?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Happy
birthday Mom<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-16159670601584551952023-10-31T15:53:00.001-05:002023-10-31T15:53:13.152-05:00Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is failing Dallas<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">First of all I do have to admit I do not have much
experience riding mass transit, however the ones I have rode are significantly
much better than what Dallas is giving us right now. Second I have always felt one
reason for rapid transit is to help get cars off the road. And if there is ever
a city that needs to get cars off the road it is Dallas. Two other cities that
could use reduced traffic that I know of are Los Angeles and Houston. I have
spent some time in both of those cities and all day long traffic just doesn’t
benefit anyone, however I live in the Dallas area so I will want to talk about
where we stand.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am going to speak most specifically about the train system,
yet I have traveled by bus in Dallas and Austin long before the DART train system
was ever built. Basically at various times in my life I have tried to do what
is right for our environment and use mass transportation. And if you live in
Texas you already know that is actually a bit of a chore. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My experiences using train or metro systems previously include
Washington DC, London and Madrid. I first used the metro in DC when I was a
teenager and outside of getting the hang of it so to speak I managed to get
around quite well. It was not a large system at that time, yet it got me to
where I wanted to go. I have used it since including recently with my youngest
daughter who lives there now. My family once visited DC in the early 2000’s and
rode it from a hotel outside of DC into downtown and it was rather nice
generally speaking. By no means I am saying it is perfect, but it is definitely
functional and has only minimal of the problems that Dallas has. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I spent a week or so in London while I was in college and
rode their system extensively. We did not rent a car so to go anywhere we had
to use their metro system. And it got us around the entire London area
including riding out to the equivalent of suburbs in the United States. I was able
to find some pretty unique things to do and had no trouble getting there. The
trains ran regularly and same as DC has little of the same problems that
plaques Dallas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We also spent a week in Madrid and pretty much the same. We
had to use the system to get around and outside of the forced marches our
daughter took us on (family joke) it was very beneficial. The phrase it is just
over there means something completely different to a college student than an
older couple.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another aspect of these other systems is that you can
connect to trains that go to places less than a hundred miles away so there are
day trip options you just don’t have from Dallas even though there are places
you could go that would be entertaining for tourists visiting Dallas. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is getting people to ride DART that normally drive.
And I hate saying this, but DART does not manage its riders well. It is almost
like DART is taking a Christian approach and letting the homeless and mentally unstable
have carte blanche on their system. I saw an occasional problem in the above
mentioned systems, but nothing like what goes on in Dallas. Even the regular
riders that use mass transportation because they need it are frustrated. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I reread my first sentence and I guess I should clarify. I
do ride DART in Dallas to get around for many reasons from going to work, to
going to my doctor and for other various destinations. My wife and my oldest
daughter do not want me to ride. My wife has been on DART trains and buses and
she is just not comfortable with some of the clientele. And I understand why,
there are people on the system that take away from feeling safe, secure, even
healthy in fact way too many. Yes some people should be able to ride, but when
the system is bogged down so much that regular riders are uncomfortable there
is a general problem that needs to be addressed. No one wants to say it out loud
because we all want to be considerate, yet for a system to work people have to
see a benefit to riding it. That is not happening in Dallas and it is the
people who need mass transportation to get to work, shopping or other necessities
that provide the bulk of the revenue are hindered and uncomfortable and if they
could they would not ride. This would of course doom DART.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think most of the problem is a logistics problem with how
DART is set up. I do not manage nor understand the management of mass
transportation so I do not feel confident in making a complete overhaul
recommendation, but it feels that is what is needed. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To be successful DART needs paying riders and to help make
DART beneficial to Dallas many of those paying riders need to be people that
would normally drive to work at the very least. And that will not happen until DART
decides to address the problem with the people who are not just impoverished, but
significantly marginalized. It sounds cruel, but they cannot continue to allow
these people to be such a problem that other people do not want to use the
system.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I know we need to do more as a society to help the
marginalized people, but if we also want to increase ridership and help those
who need mass transportation to go about their daily lives, DART cannot be a
surrogate answer to homelessness. I have seen fights between people who could
barely understand who they are and for many average Americans they just aren’t
going to accept this while riding. It is a harsh reality, but true that most
Americans do not want these types of problems interfering with their lives or
worse subject them to conditions that make them uncomfortable to downright
scared.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would love to continue to ride DART, but am under orders
from family members not to even think about it. (I have though). It is rough
when you have seen other cities do very well with their systems and outside of
an occasional individual most riders are going about their general day and you
feel little concern. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Management of DART may need to make some hard decisions or
they will continue to struggle with limited ridership in a city that desperately
needs them to fill up those trains.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And again I know we need to do more for the marginalized,
yet those answers are even more difficult. <o:p></o:p></p><br />Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-66329705269271451022023-10-24T13:55:00.001-05:002023-10-24T13:55:20.978-05:00No Labels, exactly what are they and for me this is more of the same nonsense that isn’t going to produce anything and is a big waste of time,,,,but don’t you want new parties you ask?<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Yes I do want new parties, but from the little bit I
have read they really aren’t a new party even though they are trying to get on
ballots in states as if they are a political party. You cannot make any headway
or productive change if you just try to upset the apple cart in one election.
As of this morning they are on the ballot in 14 states and do not have a ticket
yet. Not having named candidates right now though isn’t an issue. Shoot the
Dems and Reps haven’t had one primary vote yet so No Labels does not need to be
in a hurry.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And what really irks me about all the No Labels talk
is that this is a broken record. Does anyone remember American Elect? And yes
the exact same Democrats who were against them are against No Labels because
they are afraid that they will siphon votes from the Democratic Candidate which
is presumable Joe Biden, but not guaranteed yet. Essentially the Democrats fear
any moderate candidate outside of them is not good for them. Yet if they had
done what is right for the working and middle class all along these attempts at
independent candidates would gain no head way. So first they should not be
allowed to prevent No Labels from being on the ballot anywhere because second
their failure here is their own fault. And going back to first point, it is
un-American to deny people the right to be on a ballot unless they try to shoot
themselves onto it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And going back to American Elect moment in time I wrote
a post on this blog on December 30, 2011 and a follow up on January 01, 2012.
You can go back and check me, however basically I was against the run back then
for the same reasons now. You cannot make significant change in the body
politic of our country just by electing an independent candidate to the Presidency.
Why, well you need a political party in Congress to help support your
legislative agenda. Much as the two major parties are failing with new initiatives
right now, to get legislation passed you need to have someone bring a bill to
the floor of the House and Senate. Here
is one paragraph from the previous post”<br />
<br />
<i> Now
back to the comments about the America Elect process. I am not going to get
into the splitting of the vote, CNN and others are pretty ramped up about that.
And yes it could be a concern, but lets take a look at the America Elect group
actually winning. The problem is that they have no other support. Legislation
gets passed when you have support in Congress and most of the time that comes
from your own party. American Elect is not trying to create a third party so
they run into a huge wall when dealing with Congress if they win the
Presidency. This would create a gigantic stalemate or even something more
interesting where Republicans and Democrats agree on some issues and pass what
they want and override Presidential vetos left and right (pun intended). So the
goal of America Elect is thwarted by the very group they are trying to by pass
to run this country. Basically we get more of the current situation which is
partisan arguing and no real and new policy development. And if you are a
libertarian you might be able to claim victory this way if the government
cannot do anything for four years.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">I just copied and pasted and even left the
misspelled word from the original post. Here we are almost 12 years later and
no one has figured out that to overcome the current morass in Congress you need
to bring in full scale change. Well maybe some people have figured that out,
but no one is doing anything about it. Go back to my blurb about this blog” an
editor is worth their weight in gold, too bad I have neither.” If I had the
gold I would at least try to pull something together because I obviously need
the editor to make sense of my thoughts to get people to make changes, yet again
almost 12 years ago I saw the same attempt as No Labels, explained why it would
fail if they won and yet here we go again with no change that would be successful.
Anyone wonder why I walk the thin line of madness? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Also if you do go back and read the full two
parts of the post it also contains a small history of third parties in the
United States. And if you are reading this on Tumblr or Wordpress, you will
have to go to blogger or blogspot or whatever to read the original. I basically
do the same blog on three platforms, but did not start the other two until sometime
later.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">No Labels is a waste of time and money, no
matter how sincere they may be. If we want real change, we need to do real
work. Where is the gold?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">No
cheers, this is maddening. </span>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-39587913808993702702023-10-23T15:26:00.003-05:002023-10-23T15:26:57.730-05:00Signs of a possible recession from someone not even an amateur economist and other thoughts<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">There is a company that started in Texas called Bucee’s. It has
grown pretty significantly in Texas and lately is branching out to other
states. It is not a truck stop, yet it is a place where you can stop get gas, food,
an enormous variety of souvenirs, trinkets, road trip supplies, t-shirts with
their logo, they tout their bathrooms being the cleanest and more. It isn’t a
store that sells primarily necessities. It is quite an impressive size store
that derives most of its business from people traveling. Or you might think
that based on locations, however quite a few people go to one that is close to
their house.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I use them as sort of a tongue in cheek marker for road
trips. They are positioned near large cities in Texas, but mostly about 30-40
miles away so I say if you pass one on the highway going out of town you are now
officially on a road trip according to my logic. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their target audience is basically working and
middle class families on the go. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what has this got to do with a recession. There are now
billboards where they are advertising 5% off the whole store. So this says to
me sales may be slumping a bit. Most retailers have sales, however when the
whole store goes on sale even a small amount something is usually amiss with
total sales. The billboards lean into the idea that they are inflation fighting,
but I am not buying it. I am not saying they are struggling, however, signs
like these might mean leaner times are coming for the consumer economy. This is
a very popular store where they are located and can be overwhelmed by crowds. I
have made that stop on occasion over the last few years and it can be busy. There
is always a line at the register which is a good sign for the company. I haven’t
been in a few months so seeing this billboard makes me wonder. I am not about
to make a special trip just to find out, yet if you are reading the tea leaves
this billboard isn’t screaming optimism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And as you know someone drove the House of Representatives
off a large cliff. There are many culprits and suspects, yet generally there is
a problem. I know some will say that the Democrats aren’t the problem, yet they
are part of the disease as a whole. There is an article in from Time by Lee Drutman
titled: “The only way to fix Congress”. First of all that is a bit presumptuous.
Second Mr. Drutman mainly addresses the well known problem of the two party
system is marching further and further to the right and left based House
districts being safe for the respective partly. And as you know means the real
election is in the primary for most House seats. Mr. Drutman works through this
premise for the first half of his piece and discussing a bit of the current
situation and history.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He then suggests that we should adopt a proportional
representation system to elect House members. I have seen this discussed before
and I certainly understand how it works. I am just curious about it. I think
Mr. Drutman is also in favor of expanding the number of political parties which
you know I am very in favor. The question is how do we break up the monopoly of
the two party system. Do we sue them via the Federal Trade Commission? Probably
won’t work, but at this point anything is worth a try. Going back to his
proposal I am not sure how it would get implemented. You could still have just
the two party system and maybe obtain better representation. I do not know, yet
he tends to think so. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think in some ways what he is proposing or the concept is
somewhat done in the primary elections or at least it use to be. The primary
candidates for President would receive delegates based on the percentage or
some other formula used so it wasn’t winner take all. I think that might have
changed, not sure. I do not vote for the two parties in an election, however I
treat the primaries differently and have voted in Democrat and Republican primaries,
mainly for the entertainment factor. I have been to precinct meetings and one
year ended up being the person to help with the math to determine how many
delegates each candidate received to go to the County or State totals. This was
years ago so do not remember the exact details. I do remember it was a convoluted
formula. The problem with voting in a primary is you receive inordinate amounts
of campaign solicitations from various candidates from that party. It becomes
way too much of a cost to opt out of it all just for one day of watching people
behave like crazed baboons to sway how the results are determined and especially
since it is a fixed formula. Or it was, not sure nowadays.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We do need to change processes up since the House is
definitely at the bottom of a cliff right now. The idea in Mr. Durtman’s
article won’t change our current disaster, yet it is a consideration for the present
moving into the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And for me as always, we do need new major parties and maybe
some different electoral maps.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-64954620459591419022023-10-20T12:48:00.003-05:002023-10-20T12:57:52.149-05:00Okay this time I’m not critical and other thoughts<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">So I read a story by Jay Caruso in the Washington Examiner
titled “The House Freedom Caucus Chickens have come home to roost” and it is
written before the third vote for Jordan’s attempt at being Speaker. I have to say
I like what he says. Here we have someone in the Examiner laying out exactly
what has happened. It isn’t earth shattering reporting or opinion, just some
plain facts and thoughts as to as why the Speakership is in such turmoil. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He mentions that Jordan may eventually win, but since this
was written before the third vote I do not see how that is going to happen. And
he asks even if he were to win, what kind of governing coalition will he have. Since
it doesn’t look like he will win since he lost three more votes Friday morning,
I am feeling better about what that coalition might have looked like.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet here we are. The Freedom Caucus members do not seem like
they want to budge since they do not want to support the interim Speaker’s powers
be expanded, but they have no plan. Nothing, nada, squat, diddly squat, big bag
of nothing is the plan being put forth by them. They do not want to accept any
compromise or work with the Democrats to do anything. It boggles the mind that
they cannot just accept something to get a portion of what they want to move on
some issues. And this is pretty much the point of the article I read, that they
apparently have no idea what they can do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And unfortunately the members trying to find a way forward
with some attempt at conservative policy are attacked, berated, stymied, harassed,
and the madness goes on. Mr. Caruso goes through these points that the House
Freedom Caucus lost either the will or the ability to do the real work to get
conservative policy enacted. Now to me that seems like a lost dream. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And switching gears the legal news is not going well for one
Mr. Donald Trump. Will the New York Judge overseeing his business trial slap
consequences on him for maintaining or not taking down something from one of
his websites that was ordered two weeks ago? I haven’t seen any actual fine or
jail time perpetuated on Mr. Trump yet, but keeping an eye on the news today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second two of his attorneys in the Georgia case have now pleaded
guilty with Chesebro’s plea coming today. This could start heading further
south than the Gulf of Mexico fast.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And with Jordan’s Speakership potentially fading into a
footnote of history, Mr. Trump’s influence on everything but his supporters is
one heck of a leaky ship out there in the aforementioned Gulf.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-74496717560090700782023-10-17T14:54:00.001-05:002023-10-17T14:54:43.232-05:00Let’s open this can of worms, pro life versus pro abortion.<p></p><p class="MsoNormal">So did you catch the phrasing, some will say pro choice
versus anti abortion. The way it is phrased automatically shows which side you
fall on the debate. Or at the very least it is an interesting tell.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone has an opinion and of late I am struggling with
many others’ opinions. I recently read a piece by Amanda Marcotte titled: “Keep
her legs closed!” Republicans are mad one of them said the quiet part out loud.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Her opening is that Republicans definitely want to punish
women for having sex- but they don’t want voters to figure that out. And then
ties her argument to the Dobbs v Jackson decision overturning Roe v Wade and
then ties all this to the idea that all Republicans have a long standing dream
of using forced child birth to punish women for having sex.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I seriously struggle with this over handed reach as to why
people are against abortion. Could there be a few Republicans who fit her
description? Probably, but to lump all people who believe that life begins at
conception and many of us truly believe all life should be protected is definitely
reaching. The actual definition of pro life is the respect and dignity of life
from conception to natural death. And yes there are some politicians who are
pro life for political expediency, not because they have true understanding or
belief in what it means to be pro life. Yet for Ms. Marcotte to espouse this monstrous
definition that all of us want to punish women for having sex is absurd. And as
always I do need to say I am not a Republican, but an independent conservative,
but for her purposes I do not think she worries about that difference.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have too much extremism in this country as it is, so to
lump everybody in one category to brand everyone sex haters to me is an extreme
position. And I am being a bit short on purpose. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The pro life pro choice argument is one of the most difficult
discussions to have in this country. So her choosing the verbiage “…punish
women for having sex” or me calling her opinion monstrous does not do the debate
any favors. Yet we, as humans, all fall into this emotional trap when we try to
discuss topics we have hard opinions. And this debate is top of the list in
this country for rousing our deepest angers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I truly believe that life begins at conception so I struggle
with the concept of pro choice. Yet I am not here to say women or men cannot
have sex. I wouldn’t be here without it. And should it be considered that if we
believe in the dignity of life from conception to natural death, where do we
draw the line at natural death? Is a women suffering in child birth a reason to
have an abortion to save her life? That is a damn good and difficult question
to answer. The choice between saving one of two lives is a struggle for mankind
in general much less for one doctor that has about thirty seconds to make a
decision. So I believe we should not condemn any one for making that choice
either way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet where do the nuances become an easier choice? Well, that
depends if you say, pro life or pro choice. So that leads back to the circular
arguments that each side will make to justify their decision. And most of us
tend to be birds of a feather that flock together. The vast majority of my
friends are pro life so I would tend to use our arguments in a discussion with
someone who is pro choice. And I will say unequivocally we are right. Life
begins at conception. So how do you explain dignity of life until natural death
and for the unborn child that dignity exists and it is up to us to protect
their life since they cannot. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some will argue that since an unborn child cannot exist outside
the womb that allowing a woman to choose to make decisions regarding her body preempts
the life argument. And honestly I may have missed the exact argument there so
if you want to clarify it, please do in the comments, just be respectful to the
debate and not use emotions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And Ms. Marcotte’s article does not immediately reference a
religion argument, yet she heavily attacks the general concept that all or most
Republicans (again not the verbiage pro lifers, but Republicans, I am curious
as to why) and specifically calls out a State Senator in New Jersey, Sen. Durr
who apparently said “a women does have a choice, keep her legs closed” which seems
to have set her head on fire and inspired her to write her piece. And
apparently this State Senator had liked some other anti woman phrasing. Yet if
she really wants to make headway this anger fueled post is not going to change
any minds. And as I said earlier this national debate is one we struggle with
mightily with entrenched opinions And we all know how difficult it can be to
change an opinion. I once wrote a short story to try and create a way around
the debate and to change people’s hearts. For true pro lifers we know that this
is not a debate, but an understanding of the value of life and to get people to
understand this we need to change what is in the heart. And yes we struggle
when people who call themselves pro lifers stick their foot in their mouth ie the
above referenced Senator. Yet I feel that Ms. Marcotte needs to be called out
for lumping the entire pro life debate into a false narrative to vent her anger
with one person or a few people who truly do not represent what it means to be
pro life.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know we are human and have faults. And maybe all our are
arguments aren’t perfect, but we believe that people should be engaged with
each other, believe women have the right to choose who their partners are and
to engage with them sexually. We know that saying keep your legs closed is not
the answer. We were or are young. We know we can make mistakes, yet to vilify us
for I think reasons not stated is beyond the pale. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the Gospels there is the story of the woman about to be
stoned due to accusations of adultery. Jesus steps in and calls out everyone
there, saying those who have not sinned cast the first stone. And then they all
leave and I love this part, starting with the elders. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not one of us is perfect, but that is one of the main
reasons to be pro life. We need to treat each other with dignity and respect
until our natural death. Sure our politicians could do better in helping with
adoption laws, better healthcare programs for young and old, leading by example
and not denigrating each other, and so much more, but to arbitrarily attack a
group of people using labels because a few people present a false front is not an
answer to solving this debate or more hopefully to a change of heart. Until
then as pro lifers we need to remember we are not perfect and cannot lecture or
berate especially us elders. That will do more for the change of heart for
people who call themselves pro choice than any argument. Maybe one day Ms.
Marcotte will be able to see beyond what is fueling her anger to get to the
real answer.<o:p></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-9337077275097497312023-10-11T12:49:00.003-05:002023-10-11T12:49:43.890-05:00When exactly did you say this happened? Republicans and the deficit, a brief not sure what.<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I read an opinion piece by W. James Antle, III from
the Washington Examiner who states that the Republicans that ousted McCarthy as
Speaker have valid points that we need better control over spending and
returning to regular order in the House. I am totally for this proposal,
however his claim that these Republicans, both the people who ousted McCarthy
and the conservatives in the Party are the ones to move this forward is more
than a bit outlandish. Mr. Antle goes on to state that the people that ousted
McCarthy did so because we need to pass the fourteen individual appropriation measures.
And yes I agree this would be a better way to fund the government since and he
addresses it in his piece, the measures could be read in advanced, debated, amendments
proposed and everyone knows what they are voting for or against.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">First question; the House knew they wanted this in
January when they elected McCarthy so why didn’t they start work then? Second
question, when have the Republicans ever done this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 the Republicans had the
Presidency, Senate and House, what happened those years. This was the era when
big business was ruling the roost in the Republican party so tax breaks and
heavy military spending was the main goal, yet if they really wanted to create
the appropriation measures they certainly were in a place to do such. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In 2016 and 2017 during Trump’s term the Republicans
held the House and Senate, yet did we have the appropriation measures Mr. Antle
states the Republicans were all for when they elected McCarthy as speaker. Why
didn’t they produce a full budget at that time? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And currently since Republican politicians today are remnants
of the big business era and a large band of how can I get Donald Trump to like
me it isn’t difficult to figure out why they couldn’t create the appropriation measures
in the first place. Yet, Mr. Antle is all puppy dog in love with his argument
the Republicans should listen to the people who ousted McCarthy and make sure
the new Speaker makes the appropriation measures a priority. Is he kidding us?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Neither the Democrats or Republicans have any interest
in actually producing a budget or one would have been completed years ago. They
blame each other of course. And overall both parties struggle to even come up
with constructive public policy. Well, every now and then something does get
passed that resembles an idea, but since the current Republicans prefer Donald
Trump’s one liners as public policy and the Democrats spend way too much time
trying to make everyone happy and spend money to try and do such what do we
expect. I agree there are marginalized people, disenfranchised people, rights
of certain groups are stepped on, but the Democrats never address this
constructively, yet find ways to make platitude speeches with no real concrete
improvements for these people. We get inordinate amounts of money spent with
very little actually going to poor people, but we receive platform after
platform each election telling us how bad we are that we don’t do more. Well do
more, but we have had Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress and the
Presidency and do you see significant tax breaks for the working and middle
class passed, real health care reform, not the insurance overall of Obama, Social
Security improved, and even them passing appropriation measures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Neither party has a clue as to legislating, yet both
parties are great at blaming each other for the ongoing troubles our country
faces. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Today though was a bit much. Mr. Antle appears
somewhat young via the picture I saw when I internet searched who he was after
reading his opinion piece. And yes it is only an opinion piece not someone
positing a plan to be implemented as if he was in Congress. Yet to say, the
current Republican party can actually implement this wonderous dream that the
House or even the Senate actually produce a responsible well thought out budget
that can be reviewed, addressed and voted on is beyond the pale. They had their
chance starting in January, yet spent more time waving at Mr. Trump to get his
attention than doing anything else. And then at the last minute their fearless
leader wanted them to shut the government down unless they got all they wanted.
Great way to manage our country there Mr. I want to be President again. How
does this make me trust anything the Republican Party does.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I am an independent conservative and have been for
decades and it is articles like this that just reinforce my desire to stay
such.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3148937027355649460.post-56904903213451607342023-10-05T10:51:00.002-05:002023-10-05T10:51:33.562-05:00Here it is, your 23/24 US Government Shut down budget<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Okay this
is just a rough draft/guideline of some budgetary ideas since our illustrious Congress
doesn’t seem up to the task.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">As regular
readers know I am an independent conservative so this is reflected in how this
budget proposal shapes out. You can also take into account though that a
government still has functions to perform and ongoing initiatives just cannot
be cut or dropped at the drop of a hat. And since we live in a winner take all
society which is morally wrong and economically unsustainable over time, this
budget proposal will reflect that the government does need to protect the
populace from individuals and groups that try to use the government to their advantage
such as tax cuts and circumventing the needs of the general populace.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Knowing
the government cannot do everything though and that contrary to some people’s
beliefs cannot borrow incessantly we do need to reign in the budget to spend
less and start reducing the debt. It amazes me that people believe we can keep
borrowing and expect us to make all the payments to keep up our credit ratings.
Sooner or later you cannot produce enough revenue to pay the interest and
borrowing to pay interest is just ridiculous.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Finally
this is an outline or guide to some changes that need to be made. Our
government should be taking a multi year deep dive into repairing our budget.
There are other factors to consider and I will touch on those a bit as I write.
Yet to obtain a better handle on what is in front of us, we need to start
somewhere. And it needs to be flexible, both in immediate needs and as a plan
to move forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">So with the
above as a brief guideline, let’s get started.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The first
statement is a general lets just cut 2.5 percent from the whole budget. Now we aren’t
talking about cutting services or benefits by 2.5 percent, but operational
budget. Another words each department etc. will need to reduce spending on how
their budget operates without effecting the output that that department is
required to meet via previous legislation. And each department etc. will need
to work from the top down to help the various groups within it to find ways to
cut. And this is for the first year so there probably is going to be some redundancies,
some normal attrition, better efficiencies in tasks found and combining some
operational tasks to make this goal of 2.5 percent. And it does not have to be
a blanket 2.5 percent, the executive branch will be responsible to mediate
costs in case maybe one department can cut 3 percent and another may only cut a
bit over 2 percent. This coordination will be coming from the White House staff
and Congressional committees that overlook the various tasks our government
performs from National Parks to the military.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I do want
to make a few exceptions. We can probably find 3 percent in the military since
it is so large. One thing we do not want to cut is battle ready troops and
supplies such as ammunition. Yet with the largesse of the military there will
be opportunities for budget cuts by reduction of bureaucracy and better use of
working with vendors to obtain better costs on what is needed. The military may
not want to admit this, but they could do a better job of working with vendors
and reducing redundancy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And
another aspect of the military budget we need to address is and this will take
a few years to work into the budget, but is to have a fund to handle situations
like Ukraine that can be kept year over year if not needed, but ready when
needed. Right now we do need to fund Ukraine temporarily until their war is
resolved. Many do not like this expense, but it is necessary. Yet for future planning
depending on how the world is playing out, we should keep a budget for flash
points that is above the normal military budget. This way we are not increasing
spending ad hoc in a budget year, but can tap resources already built in, whether
it be weapons or supplies or money. Again part of the military budget, but over
and above what is needed for ourselves. This is somewhat like the petroleum
surplus reserves that can be used when needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">For now
though we need to bake in some funding for Ukraine as we work towards the
larger goal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Second
exception is the budget for immigration which needs a complete overhaul,
however it cannot be overhauled until we develop a new immigration policy. Legislation
needs to be written to address the changing world and our changing needs. I am
not going to make immigration policy suggestions here, but they are needed and
until we develop the new policies the budget will need to be scrutinized to
find some cuts without hurting our immigration staff, border patrol, and
handling in a humane way a crisis such as what is happening at the border. This
is definitely something that will need multiple years of work both on budget
and policy until completed and needs to be made a priority by the appropriate Congressional
committees. Yelling and screaming there is a problem is just another problem in
and of itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">A third
exception for cuts is to start paying ahead our debt. We need to make extra
payments towards reducing our debt especially if we can cut out any high
interest debt. I know that most of our borrowing is issuing bonds so we may
have to change the strategy around issuing new bonds or making them callable
during these high interest rate times. There are probably some other ways to
retire some of our debt and need to be explored. We have to reign in how much
of our budget is dedicated to paying interest so we can truly make a long term
dent in the budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And for change
of course, we also need to increase revenue. And yes this is not everyone’s
favorite topic. I am going to touch on a couple of items though and this is by
no means an overhaul of the tax code, but some changes to help change an
attitude about who should be the priority of our government and here is a hint,
it is not the ultra-wealthy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The tax
brackets are interesting if you look at them in general and is hard to explain
in the written word. It is better to see a chart, yet copying and pasting them
in this post would take up a bit of space. You can internet search yourselves
how it works, yet generally there are 7 tax brackets and 4 categories or filers.
Generally though the more money you earn the higher of a tax bracket you fall
into. And there is the problem that if you make enough money you can higher tax
professionals to reduce your tax burden so long term there needs to be quite significant
changes in the tax code. Yet for now though outside of working on reducing some
of the extravagant tax loopholes, we split up the tax percentages based on
income so that the lower four brackets see a reduction and the fifth bracket
sees no change or slight increase and the top two brackets see increases up to
38 and 41 percents from 35 and 37. Yet you have to be careful because if you
lower the tax bracket for the first three levels by the incremental way taxes
are calculated (you have to see the charts) the higher brackets see their
increase not increase as much as you would think. Each bracket only uses the higher
percentage above the previous levels income bracket. It is difficult to explain
in words, but everyone is taxed at 10 percent for the first level, then 12
percent from the first level to the second level, 22 percent on the amount from
the second level to the top of the third level and so forth. So adding 41% to
the top bracket does not mean by any stretch that all their income is taxed at
41%. Their total is drawn down by the lower brackets that are calculated. You don’t
want to be caught up in higher earners saying their taxes are going up too much,
it is not as much as they would make it out to be by saying their taxes are
going up 4 percent. In totality, it isn’t. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Another
benefit of changing the tax code and lowering the amount to the first three
brackets is you can switch some of this reduction to social security. This will
not solve the social security shortfall by itself. Also we do not include the
increase to the employers contribution. Many small businesses do not need extra
expenses right now, but if someone is making $50,000 and we reduce the tax
level from 22 percent to 18 percent for the third level and 12 percent to 10
percent for the second level which actually increases the first level overall since
the first level is taxed at ten percent then their total tax bill drops
actually from $6617 to 5658.00. This example is derived from the current first
two brackets being turned into one and taxed at 10 percent and the third
bracket becoming the second bracket and taxed at 18 percent and the numbers are
based on single filer status. So over the course of a year the single filer
$50,000.00 income saves about a thousand dollars in taxes and based on my
social security change approximately 50 percent or $479.50 goes to the tax
payer and $479.50 goes to social security taxes. These are not astronomical changes,
but do reduce the tax burden who may be struggling to pay for everything right
now and helps to increase social security revenue for the future. This alone
will not save social security, but with some other enhancements not added here it
will definitely help alleviate the upcoming shortfall.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">To recap, this
year we are making soft cuts of 2.5 percent to the total budget, forcing a deep
dive on the military to reshape their thinking on the budget so we can increase
immediate help to Ukraine, but long term bake in a fund to have for these types
of situations, forcing an overhaul of immigration policy so we can work with
what we have to create a realistic budget for border security. Quite frankly building
a wall that is going to be breached constantly, subsequently will need repairs
and will not prevent the infamous problems at the border is a waste of money.
We need some serious reflection as to what we expect from policy, where the
true problems lie and yes some of it is the masses at the border, but what else
is happening such as illegal immigrants being able to work cheap and
corporations turning a blind eye to save on labor costs are some examples of
why we cannot expect to solve problems without spending the time to create a
comprehensive policy to better manage the issue. Throwing money at the border
is not a sustainable immigration budget or policy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">And minor
changes in the tax code to switch who should be receiving better policy by our
government. And from here we take the deeper dive to remove the frivolous tax
breaks that allow the headline grabbing billionaires paying very little in taxes.
Some business breaks such as paying employees and investing in future products
are reasonable tax breaks, but this needs to be addressed in a constructive way
to better understand where unnecessary breaks are given. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">We also
need to start paying down the debt so more money can go to the actual services
the government provides which will eventually mean we have to raise less money
to have these very same services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">This is
just a start. Our Congress needs to start working on each year’s budget in
February so they can bring proposals to the floor by July to be reviewed, discussed,
debated and voted on long before September, or at least voted on in September. And
flexibility needs to be accepted. Each year brings us new obstacles to overcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Oh and a
final point, we may need to increase the amount allocated for disaster relief.
Some of these disasters are budget busters apparently so planning ahead is
needed. And if we do not use all of it one year, we should rollover it over in
its own fund until the disasters aren’t as expensive or be prepared for years
that are more than anticipated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The madness
must end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Dallasareaopinionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07819006689855915733noreply@blogger.com0