"Prove you aren't on drugs, or we won't help you."
Conservatives are filled with good intentions that are put forth with ill-conceived notions that have not been fully thought out, and that lack any foundation in fact. Thinking that you can save money by eliminating drug users from the welfare rolls is a great talking point, when addressing republicans. However, following through with such a plan requires you to ignore what happens when such a plan is actually implemented. It also requires you to ignore why we provide aid to begin with.
First, it is important to understand why aid is so important. When we give someone food stamps or welfare, we aren't paying them to do nothing. We are providing minimal assistance to those who can't afford basic life sustaining resources, to keep them from stealing what they need. We provide minimal sustenance so that we can be safe from them. Believe it or not, people won't just sit around and wait to starve to death. They can and will take part in some criminal action, to see to it that their basic needs are met. Those on welfare or other aid packages are there because they lack options. Oftentimes they are felons who can't find a job, single mothers without viable transportation or accessible childcare, or they are mentally or physically challenged. Removing aid from them, simply because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices, isn't going to magically make them employable. It will simply send them into criminal enterprises.
Second, it is of the utmost importance to see actual results of implementing such measures, like the state of Florida did. Since the beginning of July, Florida has been testing welfare recipients with a $30 test, wherein, a whopping 2% came back positive. So 98% of Florida welfare recipients received a test, that there was ZERO reason to administer. Over 40 million Americans receive welfare or food stamps. Drug testing each one would cost $1.2 billion, and at a 2% failure rate, such a program would COST the nation money, not save it.
Lastly, these tests are not fool-proof. Passing a drug test is as easy as drinking a cleansing tea, and failing one is as easy as eating a poppy seed muffin. Imagine now being a single mother of three, who's husband was killed without life insurance, who relies solely on welfare and food stamps to feed her kids and keep a roof over their head, who's just been told that she won't receive any government aid for 12 months...all because she ate a lemon poppy seed muffin and tested positive for opiate consumption? How much of an appeal process is she entitled to? How much will that cost?
The only conclusion that a rational person can reach is that stunts like this are a waste of time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, with money we don't have, all to save money that we won't. Slogan-isms make lousy legislation.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
"The President hasn't presented a jobs plan."
Constitutionally speaking, it is not the executive's job to write laws that would stimulate the economy. If such a job exists, I would argue that the power to regulate the economy rests with the Legislature. They would be responsible for writing or presenting a jobs initiative, and the President would then sign it into law or veto it.
Job growth has slowed and a GOP led Congress is blaming the President? When last I checked, our Constitution laid out a system of checks and balances, wherein no one body was given complete control over anything. For anyone to point the finger at the executive and claim specifically that jobs are not being created fast enough to keep up with market growth, is giving far too much credit to the office. If a President alone did take steps to personally fix what ails the economy, he'd be a dictator.
That said, there is no jobs plan. The President has not stated one, the Senate has not put one forward, and the Congress has also failed to produce any jobs legislation. Wall Street too, although reaping huge profits in this time of want and woe, are also firmly seated on the bench in this jobs creation game. No one has or is doing anything to create more jobs in America.
If any group is responsible for the lack of jobs being created, it's business owners, large and small. The second group responsible is our legislators, those actually responsible for writing laws that run our country. The President would only be responsible, if he were to veto a jobs bill that was passed by both houses.
All this said, our country lacks a cohesive goal for the future of humanity and the marketplace of tomorrow. Jobs would be plentiful, if we just decided become a progressive people.
Constitutionally speaking, it is not the executive's job to write laws that would stimulate the economy. If such a job exists, I would argue that the power to regulate the economy rests with the Legislature. They would be responsible for writing or presenting a jobs initiative, and the President would then sign it into law or veto it.
Job growth has slowed and a GOP led Congress is blaming the President? When last I checked, our Constitution laid out a system of checks and balances, wherein no one body was given complete control over anything. For anyone to point the finger at the executive and claim specifically that jobs are not being created fast enough to keep up with market growth, is giving far too much credit to the office. If a President alone did take steps to personally fix what ails the economy, he'd be a dictator.
That said, there is no jobs plan. The President has not stated one, the Senate has not put one forward, and the Congress has also failed to produce any jobs legislation. Wall Street too, although reaping huge profits in this time of want and woe, are also firmly seated on the bench in this jobs creation game. No one has or is doing anything to create more jobs in America.
If any group is responsible for the lack of jobs being created, it's business owners, large and small. The second group responsible is our legislators, those actually responsible for writing laws that run our country. The President would only be responsible, if he were to veto a jobs bill that was passed by both houses.
All this said, our country lacks a cohesive goal for the future of humanity and the marketplace of tomorrow. Jobs would be plentiful, if we just decided become a progressive people.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Fire Consumes 146 Young Women, 7 Remain Unidentified
On March 25th, in the year 1911 a fire consumed 3 floors of a New York sewing factory in a mere 30 minutes. Even though fire rescue arrived within minutes, limited resources, elevators, and minimal fire escapes insured nothing could be done to keep scores of girls from leaping to their death to fall some 80 feet, attempting to escape the fire.
One onlooker describes the scene in utterly unimaginable phrases, "thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead...the first 10 shocking, but to look up and see scores more that too must somehow come down...the sound a body makes upon striking the concrete before becoming a pile of lifeless bone, flesh and clothes..." Worse still is the fact that some of them didn't even make it to the ground, and were instead impaled upon the metal fence that surrounded the building. All this because of cramped unsafe working conditions, and doors locked to keep union organizers out of the factory.
I only just learned of this event in a Human Rights class I am taking, and would like to begin a movement or process to possibly identify those 7 girls that yet remain unidentified. This incident is more commonly known as the "Triangle Waist Factory Fire":
This event was the beginning of of labor standards we have today. It would seem that enlightenment comes only from death and suffering.
One onlooker describes the scene in utterly unimaginable phrases, "thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead, thud, dead...the first 10 shocking, but to look up and see scores more that too must somehow come down...the sound a body makes upon striking the concrete before becoming a pile of lifeless bone, flesh and clothes..." Worse still is the fact that some of them didn't even make it to the ground, and were instead impaled upon the metal fence that surrounded the building. All this because of cramped unsafe working conditions, and doors locked to keep union organizers out of the factory.
I only just learned of this event in a Human Rights class I am taking, and would like to begin a movement or process to possibly identify those 7 girls that yet remain unidentified. This incident is more commonly known as the "Triangle Waist Factory Fire":
This event was the beginning of of labor standards we have today. It would seem that enlightenment comes only from death and suffering.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Texas Water Wrongs
"We decide in this case whether land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place that cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation guaranteed by article I, section 17(a) of the Texas Constitution. We hold that it does."
The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association hailed the ruling, saying it means property owners will have a reliable source of water, ignoring the fact that ground water can at times be a finite resource, and that wells can and do get pumped dry. This decision literally turned water into oil, making it a private land owner's property, rather than a communal good. The problem with the decision as the conservationist in me sees it, is that water doesn't exist in pockets section off in relation to barbed-wire fencing. The water table exists at different levels in different areas, but is most often one large overlapping entity, called aquifers.
This ruling basically said that you get to use as much water as you always have, and that you can't be denied water directly under your land without proper compensation. The problem as I see it, is that the decision doesn't assist newly created water districts in 'conserving' the amount of water that can be captured in Texas. In fact, the decision exacerbates the problem Texas has now that you are allowed to capture as much water as you can get to the surface. Shallow wells have been going dry, as the recent droughts have forced farmers and ranchers to dig deep and drill more wells, just to keep water tanks from drying up.
Compound the problem with what corporations like Eron Oil and Gas are allowed to do with dozens of industrial depth wells within a few acres that supply their frack sand mining operations. The last operational numbers I saw for a single plant were 3,700 gallons per minute or about 2 billion gallons per year. That's about an average sized swimming pool every 7 seconds.
This decision was made by conservatives, for conservatives, who have no wish what so ever to 'conserve' anything. There are two truths herein that need to be addressed. One, we are using more water than wells can produce, forcing us to dig deeper, and two, Texas lawmakers seem bent on sending us even deeper, abandoning all notion of conserving our most valuable natural resource. Who knew the establishment of water rights could turn out so wrong.
The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association hailed the ruling, saying it means property owners will have a reliable source of water, ignoring the fact that ground water can at times be a finite resource, and that wells can and do get pumped dry. This decision literally turned water into oil, making it a private land owner's property, rather than a communal good. The problem with the decision as the conservationist in me sees it, is that water doesn't exist in pockets section off in relation to barbed-wire fencing. The water table exists at different levels in different areas, but is most often one large overlapping entity, called aquifers.
This ruling basically said that you get to use as much water as you always have, and that you can't be denied water directly under your land without proper compensation. The problem as I see it, is that the decision doesn't assist newly created water districts in 'conserving' the amount of water that can be captured in Texas. In fact, the decision exacerbates the problem Texas has now that you are allowed to capture as much water as you can get to the surface. Shallow wells have been going dry, as the recent droughts have forced farmers and ranchers to dig deep and drill more wells, just to keep water tanks from drying up.
Compound the problem with what corporations like Eron Oil and Gas are allowed to do with dozens of industrial depth wells within a few acres that supply their frack sand mining operations. The last operational numbers I saw for a single plant were 3,700 gallons per minute or about 2 billion gallons per year. That's about an average sized swimming pool every 7 seconds.
This decision was made by conservatives, for conservatives, who have no wish what so ever to 'conserve' anything. There are two truths herein that need to be addressed. One, we are using more water than wells can produce, forcing us to dig deeper, and two, Texas lawmakers seem bent on sending us even deeper, abandoning all notion of conserving our most valuable natural resource. Who knew the establishment of water rights could turn out so wrong.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Days of Gold
"When there's trouble in the economy I know I can put my trust in gold."
I think gold is great. It is pretty, it never rusts, it's a great conductor, it's easy to meld, weld, and solder. In fact, it's only drawback- its weight, I find appealing. If you don't believe me, find a gold bar, or stack of gold coins to hold, and bounce it up and down in your hand to feel its weight. The super heavy result still surprises me, even though I have handled gold on many occasions. However, the geologist in me fully appreciates a wide range of what scientists call rare Earth metals, and their properties. So it isn't "Gold", to me, it's just gold.
Recent market trends have the price of gold climbing, and as a result, there's a new gold rush on. I can think of at least two television programs based on the process of sluicing. There are literally thousands of groups of people sifting gold out of the Earth as often and for as long as weather will permit, right now. They risk life, limb, friends, and family for the shiny sparkly sand.
What happens when mankind takes to space, where you can find a single asteroid, with one hundred times more gold than has been mined to date, and brings it back here? People are paying over $1500 for something that there is more of every day, and it doesn't deteriorate. If the law of supply and demand applies, the price of gold can not continue to rise indefinitely.
Personally, I like silver. Because it oxidizes, you have to polish it, to keep its luster. So, every day there's a little less of it, and some day in the far far future, it may become very rare or be all gone. Its price also makes it easily attainable. One ounce of gold. would purchase over two pounds of silver. Silver coins also have a familiar ring, when handled together.
Silver or gold, it makes no matter, because these metals aren't really rare, at the moment, at all. With gold, people are hard at work trying to flood the market with it. Every day, there is more gold in the marketplace, yet its price continues to rise. I think there's a market correction coming.
I think gold is great. It is pretty, it never rusts, it's a great conductor, it's easy to meld, weld, and solder. In fact, it's only drawback- its weight, I find appealing. If you don't believe me, find a gold bar, or stack of gold coins to hold, and bounce it up and down in your hand to feel its weight. The super heavy result still surprises me, even though I have handled gold on many occasions. However, the geologist in me fully appreciates a wide range of what scientists call rare Earth metals, and their properties. So it isn't "Gold", to me, it's just gold.
Recent market trends have the price of gold climbing, and as a result, there's a new gold rush on. I can think of at least two television programs based on the process of sluicing. There are literally thousands of groups of people sifting gold out of the Earth as often and for as long as weather will permit, right now. They risk life, limb, friends, and family for the shiny sparkly sand.
What happens when mankind takes to space, where you can find a single asteroid, with one hundred times more gold than has been mined to date, and brings it back here? People are paying over $1500 for something that there is more of every day, and it doesn't deteriorate. If the law of supply and demand applies, the price of gold can not continue to rise indefinitely.
Personally, I like silver. Because it oxidizes, you have to polish it, to keep its luster. So, every day there's a little less of it, and some day in the far far future, it may become very rare or be all gone. Its price also makes it easily attainable. One ounce of gold. would purchase over two pounds of silver. Silver coins also have a familiar ring, when handled together.
Silver or gold, it makes no matter, because these metals aren't really rare, at the moment, at all. With gold, people are hard at work trying to flood the market with it. Every day, there is more gold in the marketplace, yet its price continues to rise. I think there's a market correction coming.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Illegal Tuition
"I am sick of illegals getting all the benefits, and not paying their fair share."
I was told it takes five years residence to qualify for food stamps. The notion that supports this, is that within that time, the individual would have paid any number of taxes, through sales transactions and property rental or ownership payments to have earned such coverage. The term "illegal" is not descriptive in characterizing what specific social services one has earned.
Taxes are not interchangeable, nor are they collectively part of one big pot. Driver's license fees, inspection, and registration fees go to pay for roads, bridges, and other transportation needs. Hospital and educational programs are funded mainly through property taxes. So paying your fair share of any government service is or should be based on how long you have utilized those sorts of services. Whether or not one paid in-district rates, or in-state rates would have nothing to do with one's status as a citizen, but rather if you were a resident of that district or state, and for how long.
While all of this is true, "illegals" are still missing out on paying the all important income tax. Which is why amnesty is so important, and the part of the conservative stance that makes no sense to me. Clearly there are people in America who don't have a social security number. They failed to wait in line and now find themselves here, not paying their fair share. In my head, the right thing to do is fine them, give them a social security number, and force them to begin paying income tax. Keeping them from becoming legal citizens keeps them from paying only income taxes.
The point here is that illegals pay taxes, and they'd pay more if conservatives allowed them to.
I was told it takes five years residence to qualify for food stamps. The notion that supports this, is that within that time, the individual would have paid any number of taxes, through sales transactions and property rental or ownership payments to have earned such coverage. The term "illegal" is not descriptive in characterizing what specific social services one has earned.
Taxes are not interchangeable, nor are they collectively part of one big pot. Driver's license fees, inspection, and registration fees go to pay for roads, bridges, and other transportation needs. Hospital and educational programs are funded mainly through property taxes. So paying your fair share of any government service is or should be based on how long you have utilized those sorts of services. Whether or not one paid in-district rates, or in-state rates would have nothing to do with one's status as a citizen, but rather if you were a resident of that district or state, and for how long.
While all of this is true, "illegals" are still missing out on paying the all important income tax. Which is why amnesty is so important, and the part of the conservative stance that makes no sense to me. Clearly there are people in America who don't have a social security number. They failed to wait in line and now find themselves here, not paying their fair share. In my head, the right thing to do is fine them, give them a social security number, and force them to begin paying income tax. Keeping them from becoming legal citizens keeps them from paying only income taxes.
The point here is that illegals pay taxes, and they'd pay more if conservatives allowed them to.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Catholic Health Care
"We (Catholics) should not be forced to pay for procedures we don't morally believe in."
Was there ever a time when religious people opposed organ, tissue, or blood transplants? Was there ever a time when the church forbid heart transplants, believing that putting one man's heart into another would be akin to a physical possession? I am almost certain that the church was opposed to blood transfusions, at the onset of this scientific miracle. Religions' job is or has been, to stand in the way of scientific progress, based on faith-based belief and tradition.
The problem of course, is that the medical profession is not a belief based system. It is a scientific based world, that demands results, verifiable tests, and careful observation. When something saves lives, then that is what is practiced. In some cases, birth control, or reproductive medicine is indeed a life saving necessity. For any church or religious institution to deny someone medical care, because they personally feel morally conflicted about the procedure is them 'playing God' over someone else's life. Hopefully, society would laugh at someone who would attempt to deny a heart transplant to a patient, because he or she thought it would make the person become someone else. Hearts are organs, not the spirit, or soul of a person, and to deny someone a life saving procedure is the embodiment of "wrong".
Making a medical insurance premium payment does not make you the arbiter of what medical procedures someone else is entitled to. Medical decisions should be made between doctors and patients, not 3rd party peanut gallery attendees dressed in red robes and pointy hats. If an organization is going to offer health insurance, then unless they are members of the American Medical Association, what they believe should not come between health care providers and recipients.
Churchs and religions have been wrong about medicine in every case for the entire history of mankind, so why are democrats still giving way to traditional faith based beliefs, within medical decisions? What was evil yesterday, and an unthinkable act, is now today a common practice that saves lives.
Democrats, for the love of life saving medicine, stop letting religions set health care policy!
Was there ever a time when religious people opposed organ, tissue, or blood transplants? Was there ever a time when the church forbid heart transplants, believing that putting one man's heart into another would be akin to a physical possession? I am almost certain that the church was opposed to blood transfusions, at the onset of this scientific miracle. Religions' job is or has been, to stand in the way of scientific progress, based on faith-based belief and tradition.
The problem of course, is that the medical profession is not a belief based system. It is a scientific based world, that demands results, verifiable tests, and careful observation. When something saves lives, then that is what is practiced. In some cases, birth control, or reproductive medicine is indeed a life saving necessity. For any church or religious institution to deny someone medical care, because they personally feel morally conflicted about the procedure is them 'playing God' over someone else's life. Hopefully, society would laugh at someone who would attempt to deny a heart transplant to a patient, because he or she thought it would make the person become someone else. Hearts are organs, not the spirit, or soul of a person, and to deny someone a life saving procedure is the embodiment of "wrong".
Making a medical insurance premium payment does not make you the arbiter of what medical procedures someone else is entitled to. Medical decisions should be made between doctors and patients, not 3rd party peanut gallery attendees dressed in red robes and pointy hats. If an organization is going to offer health insurance, then unless they are members of the American Medical Association, what they believe should not come between health care providers and recipients.
Churchs and religions have been wrong about medicine in every case for the entire history of mankind, so why are democrats still giving way to traditional faith based beliefs, within medical decisions? What was evil yesterday, and an unthinkable act, is now today a common practice that saves lives.
Democrats, for the love of life saving medicine, stop letting religions set health care policy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)