The Political Pulse

Taxes and The Rich

2011-11-10T16:12:00.001-08:00

The battle of Washington and the question with our economy, is what to do about our taxes and our spending? First off, to clear the air, tax cuts on the rich do not create jobs. Every time there has been a tax cut on the rich the following decade has seen tremendous job loss and economic suffering. Every time taxes have been increased on the rich, the following decade has seen tremendous growth and prosperity for all. The rich do create the engine of the economy, no one can deny that, but just like in a car an engine does not drive itself. The rich may create the engine of the American economy, but it is the poor and middle class that drive that engine. Throughout the last 100 years there is ample evidence to suggest that a fairer and higher progressive tax system on the wealthiest Americans is what propels this country forward. When the rich are taxed less they are given less incentives to invest. I know that sounds backwards to the common perception of how to run a business, but it is true, especially to those who run a business. In the end we can fix our economy but it needs be done by implementing tax rules and breaking barriers for what we think grows the economy.

            The rich build companies and provide products for everyone to buy. This has been more true the last 100 years then at anytime in human history. How a company to makes money however is not always what is best for the country or an economy as a whole. As a country we can lower taxes on the wealthy but it is up to them to invest it. The problem with that thinking is businesses make decisions on whether to invest in growing their engine based on demand , not tax cuts. By simply taxing them less you are only giving them money to sit on. You're not incentivizing them to pay their people more, not to hire more workers, and not to grow their bottom line. Guess what? Through the tax cut, you grew their bottom line for them without needing to do any work. If you want to spur investment and stimulate the economy you need to raise taxes on the wealthy. This will encourage investment, encourage increased pay, and encourage hiring. Again, sounds backwards, right? If you own a business you see taxes as a business expense that does nothing for your company, and does nothing to grow your company. How do you avoid those taxes when tax rates are higher if you're a company? You avoid taxes by investing back into your company, you avoid taxes by hiring more people, and you avoid taxes by expanding your business. You avoid taxes by doing everything possible to get the deductions that would have otherwise gone to unproductive taxation and turned it into productive capital that is used to grow the company, pay people more, and expand the economy overall.

           Lowering taxes on the rich does not spur investment, it never has and it never will. This is propaganda that politicians have used for over a decade and have zero evidence to their claims. The very reasons why increased taxation on the rich spurs investment are the same reasons lowering taxes kills the economy. Sure the rich get that money, but the reason people are rich is because they know how to hold on to it. If they are making money from tax cuts, what'ss their incentive to grow their engines for the poor and middle class to drive them. If taxing the rich less boosted the economy then we should have never had the recession of 2008. We were at that point, head deep in the Bush tax cuts which, by Republican backers of the cuts, should have accelerated our economy. Well it did no such thing, all it did was line the pockets of the wealthy with borrowed money. This idea that lowering taxes on the rich started under the Reagan administration. Reagan was a fine President who truly cared about our country. He was a strong leader, communicator, and knew when to compromise and when to be firm. The Reagan tax cuts are generally used as evidence to show that tax cuts to the rich help boost the economy. While the economy did improve following the Reagan era tax cuts, it is false to say He cut taxes on the wealthy. The truth is that He created a flatter, fairer tax system which actually raised the overall tax burden on rich in America. While Reagan reduced the tax rate of the wealthiest Americans from 50% to 28% He eliminated most loopholes and tax deductions that only the rich benefited from. The result of the Reagan tax cuts was a net increase in what the wealthy paid in taxes, not because the economy improved, but because the rich couldn't hide their money in loopholes. Reagan did indeed lower tax rates but He did not lower taxes. In fact, the first year after the supposed tax cuts went into effect the overall tax burden to GDP on the US economy went up from 18% in 1986 to 18.8% in 1987.

              While it is false to say that lowering taxes on the rich stimulates the economy it is also false that raising taxes on the rich hurts an economy. The Reagan era is but one of several instances where taxes were actually increased on the wealthy and it netted a stronger economy. There is also many instances where the economy suffered after the tax cuts on the rich. While we are all aware of the tax cuts on the rich since the beginning of the Bush administration and the result of those cuts, many are not familiar with the host of cuts passed in the 1960's on the rich. Following many years of high taxation John F Kennedy agreed to start decreasing taxes on the wealthy and a few years later Lyndon Johnson followed suit. The economy we got, following those cuts were years of stagnate growth, high inflation, and a separation of earning power between the rich and poor, sound familiar? Now just because rising taxes on the rich does not effect the economy doesn't mean you can raise taxes on the poor and have the same affect. In the early 30's Herbert Hoover made the mistake of raising taxes, but He didn't raise them on the wealthy, but the poor and middle class. The drivers of the engine of our economy got starved by his tax policy and sunk the nation into a deeper depression.
Taxing the rich at no point in our recent history has hurt our economy, in fact, the opposite has occurred every time we have shifted the tax burden to a fairer more progressive system. In the 1940's, tax rates on the rich were boosted to 90% and stayed there well into the 1960's. Our economy flourished those 20 years after World War 2. In the 1980's Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy, followed by Bush raising them again, and followed by Clinton raising them again during his administration. By the late 1990's the rich were paying the largest portion of their income they ever had in taxes. We had the best economy we had ever seen, we had a 5 trillion-dollar projected surplus, and investment and technology were booming. Bush Jr. steps in and promptly removes most of the taxes the rich paid the previous 20 years, added expensive programs, and we were thrust into 2 wars, one of which was highly questionable.

                  The historical evidence speaks for itself, at no point over the past 100 years has taxing the rich more hurt our economy. There is little evidence over the past 100 years that tax cuts on the rich helped to jump-start our economy. From the increasing of taxes on the wealthy after World War 2, to the actual increasing of taxes on the wealthy during the Reagan years, raising taxes on the rich is exactly what we need now to jump-start our economy. If we want to incentivize companies to spur job growth, tax them more, not less. By doing so we will encourage companies to once again grow their engines and in turn create better drivers to control that engine. Right now we have a weak engine with no drives experienced enough or skilled enough to push the engine forward.

You can contact us directly at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. We are open to your opinions and welcome questions to our posts.

Path To a True Democracy

2011-10-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

This is a blog post from Changethevote.com

Democracy is a form of government that has eluded all nations in this world. When we go to school and in everyday life, schools and media talk as if we live in a democracy. Unfortunately that is not the case and never has been. The closest any country has come to an actual democracy is at the state and local level but never at the national level. There are of course some very important and complex reasons why a true democracy has never formed here in the United States or anywhere else in the World. We can however become a Democracy but it will take a lot of pain and a lot of determination and possibly even a revolution to achieve.

In our previous post, “A True Democracy”,we stated that America is indeed a republic. We are not and have never been a democracy as opposed to what many people believe. Once people understand and accept that what we have been living in is not a democracy, the easier it will be for society and the nation as a whole, to make the changes necessary to make us one.

A republic is a form of government where we vote for people to represent our interests, write our laws and debate them, and then finally vote on them to make them law. A republic inherently favors those with the most money, even more so as technology has increased. If you have the most money, you are able to get exposure, you are able to influence what gets placed into bills, and finally you have the most pull on those who vote for the laws that are passed. Without money it is impossible to buy the pull and influence needed to gain a position in politics and the law writing process. This of course favors those who have money, aka. corporations and the wealthy. This as we all know is a very clear example of what we have today in our politics. Regardless, of party affiliation, our politicians are addicted to power. The only way to hold on to that power is to increase exposure, pander to constituents, and then while in office vote the way they need to satisfy their corporate financiers. Democrat or Republican there is no point where the average person has any real say in the process. Voting Democrat gets you their version of corporate control. Voting Republican gets you their version of corporate control. There is another way.

In a democracy, you still have elected officials but they play a lessor role, which is what you want in government leadership. The power that naturally is a part of political office is too great to begin with, and a country needs to do everything to push power toward the people, not toward the top of a few elite. In a democracy our officials represent us, and they also write the bills just as in a republic. The major and most critical difference is that we vote on the bills in a democracy. This means that those politicians need to not answer to corporate financiers, but to us the voters. They would create the bills but would need to do it in a fashion that we, as a nation, could agree with. They would have to satisfy our needs, not a corporations. If they write poor ineffective legislation, we vote the legislation down and vote them out of office to get more effective leadership in place to write the appropriate bills for us, not corporations.

Many of you are thinking that a true democracy is not possible, I know I have heard that argument. Up until the past 20 years in our history, I would have agreed with you. Democracy is slow if you truly include everyone in the nation. Before technology, information and ideas flowed too slowly for a true democracy to ever be an effective form of government. Prior to a national education system, when the bottom 90% of citizens had barely a 1st grade education, a true democracy was not practical either. Both of the obstacles have been, for the most part, overtaken. 99% of our nation can read and write, and over 75% have at least a high school education. The issue with technology has only just recently been surmounted, and now is effective and efficient enough to warrant its use in our election and legislative processes.

The process would need to be analysed and written in more detail, but this is a guide to how things should work in a true democracy. We would vote in a representative and send them to Washington just as we do today. Those representatives would write and create the bills just as they do now, but need to listen and also make the details of the bills straight forward enough for an average citizen to understand. No more earmarks, no 3,000 page bills filled with legal terms only lawyers understand, no golden parachutes and back door deals from and for corporations. Because of the internet, we would be able to have everyone access the bills that are written, read them prior to voting, and then vote on them. First of all, everyone will be able to vote for their representative. A voter wanting to vote on bills would need to pass a test upon completion of high school to ensure there is some level of credibility and knowledge within the bill voting public.

The internet allows for fast and secure information to be passed instantly across the country for the use of voting. An example of how a sample bill approval process would go is as follows. On a Monday, a bill that passed the House and Senate would be sent electronically to all voters, a day or whatever is a reasonable time to read the bill is given to voters. Our representatives get to campaign, explaining the bill and selling the bill to us, and then on voting day we all vote. Now some people may not want to vote or some people may not understand the bill, they don’t have to vote. During the day that is given to vote on the bill, whomever votes is who votes for that bill. Whether a million people vote on the bill or 200 million people do, that is the will of the people. Voters will be able to access voting stations on phones, at home, at libraries, at work, or any other place there is a secure internet connection. Some weeks there may be 5 bills that need to be voted upon, other weeks there maybe only 1. If the bill does not pass, politicians can go back and try again, but with the knowledge that the more bills they don’t get the voting public to pass, the less likely they will be voted back into office for a second term. Their record will be graded on how well they write the bills that we ultimately approve of, not how well they filled the pockets of their corporate financiers. Making the money in politics far less important and emphasizing the importance of people and ideas.

How do we get there though? The process will be a painful one, and at times a confusing one, but we will all have direct control of the life we want and the direction of our nation. Today our lives are very much dictated by those in government, and the people with the money to put them there. We can change all of that, we can change the vote. Stay tuned to our posts to learn more about what you, me, and all of us can do to make our country a true democracy. The first step to becoming a democracy is to vote out all incumbents until term limits are put in to place in Congress. George Washington believed that the power of any political office was too great to hold for more than two terms. We as a nation must make a bold statement, we all must Change the Vote.

You can contact us directly at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. We are open to your opinions and welcome questions to our posts.

A True Democracy

2011-10-17T17:25:00.000-07:00

Here is a Post from Changethevote.com that I wanted to share.

Welcome to Change the Vote. We at Change The Vote do not back any one party, but Americans as a whole. We believe that the America our founding fathers fought so hard for over 200 hundred years ago no longer exists, and is now in the hands of a ruling elite. This elite are the same people our founding fathers fought against to gain our independence. Whether your Democrat or Republican, you are no longer represented by your elected officials. At election time they pander to all voters to get into office, and once elected vote the way of their corporate financiers.

Republicans are led by a corporate side wanting no government control, so that we are all free to do whatever we want. The Democrats are led by a side of the corporate world wanting so much control introduced that the only ones who can get ahead are those major corporations. Republicans at least are obvious and straight forward about who they are fighting for. Democrats on the other hand, make the general public feel as if they are fighting for them. The reality is they want so much control that the only ones who can get ahead are the corporations who have the money and resources to navigate through all the government regulation. Democrats fight for rights of the citizens as merely a tool for controlling them and making the general public feel that they have a voice.

The truth is that both Democrats and Republicans are financed by corporations, both are controlled by special interests. Why is this? We are a democracy, we should have the say in what goes on, right? The truth is that we don’t, whether we vote in a Democrat or a Republican, we are still just voting in a corporate sponsor, a corporate lobbyist, and a special interest, not a representative of the people. Everything going on today in our country is not a fight between Democrats and Republicans, socialism or capitalism, but a fight between us being a republic and us being a democracy, the latter which is something we are not and have never been.

The reality is that we are not a democracy at all, we are a republic. If we were in fact a democracy, we would have the control to change all of this. Electing a new official would change things for the better, but whether you vote a Democrat or Republican you are still just voting in a corporate pawn. If we were in fact a democracy we would be voting on bills, we would be the ones ultimately responsible for our well-being. We are a republic, which means money is what rules our country , not people. The most money and most influence gets you power at the highest levels and the ability to set policy to control the little people (democrats) or limit any kind of rule of law or regulation (republicans).

If you want to get the power of the country back into the hands of we the people, we must get the money out of Washington. There is a way we can do this but it will take many election cycles to accomplish, but it can be done.

First, we need to elect only the challenger into office in every congressional election until they pass term limit legislation. I know that is an extreme idea but it is just the first step in getting the corruption out of government. We continue electing the challenger in every election, whether they are Democrat or Republican ( either way remember they are not working for you, they are pandering to you to get elected and voting the way of the their corporate financiers in office) until term limits are passed. If you like your current representative, that’s fine, encourage them to run for other offices in your area. No politician should serve more than two terms in any one office. That is what our founding fathers did. Not one member of the first two congresses served more than two terms in any office. They felt it was too easy to become entrenched and corrupted by the power that office brings.

Second, once term limits are in place at every level of government then we must push for total and complete campaign finance reform. Make it illegal for corporations to donate to any campaigns. Individuals should be the ones donating to elections, not companies. To go one farther, as to get money out of the political process the government needs to set up an election fund that sets an amount that is allowed to be spent at election time that only increases with inflation. The amount in that fund should be the only money that is allowed to be used in elections. The government needs to set aside a fixed amount from our government budget for elections. No private money at all, and not the unlimited amount of money currently spent today by candidates to get elected. There should be a fixed amount that is predetermined to level the playing field for the candidates and let the ideas shine, not the deepness of the politicians pocketbooks.

Third, its time to separate those who write the bills from those who vote on the bills. Why in this country are the people who are writing the bills also voting on whether they become law or not? This process breeds corruption, breeds control, breeds unfairness in the system as a whole. Separating the two would be a crucial step in making our country a true democracy. We still need our elected representatives, but we need them to write the bills and organize our policies, but they should not be the ones deciding what gets passed. They should only be the architects of the bills and we should be the ones voting on them.

Yes, I said we should be the ones voting on major legislation. Technology and the education level of our society as a whole has created the ability for us to all be involved in the process. Of course, we would need citizens to pass a standardized test to certify that they understand the rules of government before they can vote on major legislation. We all should have the access to vote for bills that directly affect us. Our elected representatives would write and refine the bills and campaign them to us. Remember our elected officials should be working for us not against us. We would then have central voting at government buildings or simply on a secure online network when we would all have access to vote on the bills. Bills could be scheduled for a vote once a day or once a week or whatever was necessary. The details of the bill can be released the day or week before the vote, and whether a million or 200 million people vote on the bills, that is the will of the people.

That is true democracy. Only if we get to that point will we truly have an America that our founding fathers were dreaming of. Only then will we get money out of our government and let the ideas shine. We live in a great republic but the flaw of this system is not in the ideas or the people, but the money that controls all of it. By restructuring our system we can truly be the first true democracy in the world.You can contact us directly at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. We are open to your opinions and welcome questions to our posts.

The Baby Boomer Economy | Political Blog

2011-09-03T22:11:00.000-07:00

Here we are in 2011, the stock market has failed to consistently go above where it was in 2000, housing values have been dropping for 5 years, and unemployment has been increasing for 4 years. None of it seems to be improving, Why is this? Is Washington to blame for failed economic policies? In some respects, yes. Would a different approach to our economy over the last 10 years have changed how severe this downturn has been? Could it have been far worse? What can we do to help improve our economy?

These are the questions we all are facing everyday living in the US and in our stagnate economy. While housing, politics, and war are easy reasons to why our economy has failed to grow, they are not the main reason. The main reason we have the economy we do today is because of our baby boom generation. Every positive as well as every negative to our economy can be attributed to the demographic anomaly that the boomers are. That generation, along with medical advancement, and government policy have created a demographic anomaly that has dominated our country since the 1950's. The boomers are the reason for our unprecedented growth through the 80's and 90's, control our economy today, and will determine how successful our economy is for the next 30 years.

Through the boomers lifetime, you can see how they have affected economic policy, expanded our money supply, and the demand in our country, and how they affect our economy as they age.
The end of World War 2 ushered in a time of amazing prosperity for America. Soldiers came home and began having families. Our country expanded and our economy grew by leaps and bounds. From 1946 to 1964 over 80 million children were born creating enormous demand for products and housing as well as allowing the federal reserve to print more money. Currently, the federal reserve is allowed to expand the monetary supply for every child born in the US. More births equals more dollars added to the system. This leads us into the first great effect of the baby boom generation. In the 1970's and 1980's the boomers were starting to have families and came into their own. They needed products for their families, homes for their children, and they had the sheer numbers as a generation to supply all of it. However, because you had such an increase in demand our monetary system could not keep up. Inflation ran rampant and the fed was virtually helpless to stop it. The fed was able to combat the demand by raising interest rates to 15% in the early 80's to try and cool it.
Again, this demand and inflation was created by the sheer size of the boomer generation. Individually they did not consume more than anyone else, but as a group of 80 million strong they overwhelmed the system with demand. Fast forward to the 2000's, the boomers are no longer needing large houses and all the products and services that a family needs. Today in 2011, even with interest rates near zero, inflation is relatively low compared to the 6% and 7% they had at times in the 70's and 80's when they had 15% interest rates. Why would this happen? No demand. The boomers are now heading toward retirement. Some may ask, why aren't the younger generations consuming as much? As individuals they are not consuming less, but generation X is far smaller than the boomer generation.

Generation X, those born from 1964 to 1982 are much smaller than their predecessors. While 80 million people were born during the boomer years, only 60 million were born during the Generation X years. This has created a vacuum in demand that we have only really begun to see these last few years, but has been affecting our economic policy for over a decade. Generation X has had to pick up after the boomers and frankly don't have the numbers to compete in the wake of such a large demographic. One example is housing; housing expanded rapidly in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's. Early on it was demand created by the boomers having their own children, and then later in the 2000's it was demand created by loose regulation in Washington over the types of loans that were available. The general public became so use to owning homes that when prices increased everyone felt they still deserved a home. Negative amortization loans, adjustable rate loans, and interest free loans were created and allowed by the government. There was also zero overcite on whether people had income to afford the homes they were buying. This created a large false demand for housing because it was so cheap to get into a house. Had the government not originally allowed all of that to happen, housing demand still would have dropped like it has today, we just would never had seen the huge run up in prices along with the huge drop. Boomers, who are no longer having children and don't need as big of a house were replaced by generation X, who as a generation are 20 million people fewer. They don't have the numbers to fill the demand void created by the boomers. What you get is a housing collapse, partially created by government policy, but also created by lack of demand from a smaller generation of families.

The government lowering interest rates on everything also created false demand for products and services across the board through out the 00's. Then there is the little known fact that if you add up our deficit spending over the last 10 years it accounts for all of our yearly GDP growth numbers. In fact, our GDP has shrunk 1.2% in total since 2001 if you take out the government's deficit spending. The government has been propping up our economy for 10 years with deficit spending and lowering interest rates. How did we get to this point of such poor growth? Medical advancement and government policy came about at the wrong time to create an anomaly in our demographics that will continue to affect us well in to the 20's and 30's.

In 1960 a new medical advancement was approved, the birth control pill. The pill allowed for people to have sex without worrying about pregnancy, far less than they ever have before. Birth rates, soon after the invention of the pill began dropping dramatically. The end of the boomer generation in 64' gave way for generation X and much fewer births. At the time no one thought anything of it, but on the heals of the baby boom it accelerated the anomaly that would have already naturally been created. Then a second event happened in 1973 that further accelerated the demographic anomaly that has affected our economy. Abortion rights were passed that year, further eliminating more potential births in the United States. Those two events, along with the boom in births naturally slowing in the 60's, lowered birth rates from 25 births per 1,000 women in 1955 to less than 15 by 1975 and created a demographic that was lopsided. Early on in the demographic cycle it would be a boom to our economy, which the 80's and 90's were. Later in the cycle, without proper numbers to replenish that early demand the economy would sink and struggle. That is what we are heading into today.

The boomers are now only just beginning to retire and the simple fact is that generation x is too small to make up for the demand hole created by the boomers. We will spend the next 20 years dealing with what is left of the baby boomer effect and it will not be fun. The boomers, when they were young created large demand and large surpluses in productivity, housing, product demand, pension accounts, and job creation. Now that the boomers are retiring and the following generation is too small to make up for those deficencies, retirement accounts have and will be sucked dry, demand for products have decreased, the need for housing has decreased, and there are fewer jobs to provide to everyone. The reason we have seen relatively low inflation is because there is no demand, yet we have seen drastic price inflation in one area, the health care industry. Now that the boomers are retiring they are inflating the price of medical care with their enormous demand for it as they get older. This is just like the inflation created in our monetary supply in the 70's and 80's, the stock market inflation of the 90's and the housing inflation of the 00's. The boomers have been the cause for all of it. They didn't intentionally do it, it is just their sheer size as a generation which has created and enormous amount of demand and now no longer demand as much as they age.

Where do we go from here? Are there solutions to this in the short-term? From here we don't really need to worry about inflation, in fact a bigger issue is deflation. With lower demand and fewer people in the prime family building years, the amount of money in the system is actually decreasing and the federal reserve has spent the last 10 years pumping money into our money supply to keep prices from deflating. If the fed had not pumped money into the system over the past 10 years through lowering rates and stimulus programs, deflation would have been rampant and collapsed our economy even harder than we have seen to this point. Without the fed in place we would have had hyperinflation in the 70's and we would have seen a complete deflationary collapse right now that would have destroyed our system already. In the 70's and 80's the fed took money out of the system to cool it, where now for the last 10 years they have pumped money into the system to keep it growing and offset the demographic deficiencies that we have. If you are an investor, the stock market may be a dangerous place for quite sometime especially as the largest generation heads into retirement and change their allocations more into safer investments such as treasuries and bonds. This is actually a good thing for government debt because it will keep the price of servicing our enormous debt cheap, for now. As far as solutions to overcome this demographic anomaly, all we have is time. The government has been doing what it can to combat the demographic anomaly by dropping interest rates, instituting deficit spending to create fictitious demand, easing monetary and regulatory systems, but it all has pretty much been exhausted. The only solutions at this point are reduced funding for our social safety nets and to encourage education so that the following millennial generation will have the tools needed to innovate our way forward. We will spend the next 20 years battling a stagnate economy as boomers retire and become even more reliant on our social structure and zap demand away from our economy. The good news is that the millennial generation is just as big as the boomer generation and will create demand once again for housing, products, and services as they age and start having families. However, this will not happen for a good 10 to 20 years. Generation X is too small to make up for the lack of demand the boomers have left, while the millennials are too young and not in a position of power yet to generate the demand needed to move our country forward. Just like Japan in the 90's and 00's, just like China will face in the 30's and 40's, the US is in a demographic anomaly that will challenge us and persist for another 10 to 20 years. All we can do is learn to live with what we have and have patience as our demographics change back to a normal cycle of equilibrium.

The Pulse: Taxes | A Political Blog

2011-08-13T20:19:00.000-07:00

What are the problems with our tax system in the United States?

People falsely assume that we are overtaxed
Currently the US is ranked 62nd in the world in taxation to GDP ( including local, state, and federal taxes)
Our system is overly complicated and taxes us from too many sources
Our system threatens to tear our country apart
The rich feel that the poor do not pay taxes
Rich pay more in federal taxes but have many deductions and tax breaks not available to lower-income citizens
Poor and middle class citizens pay more as a percentage of income than the rich in Social Security, Medicare, sales tax, etc.
Poor also pay property, gasoline taxes, vehicle registration, toll roads, etc.

What is the solution to our complicated tax system?

Institute a flat tax
Eliminates the current tax structure, social security taxes, medicare taxes, sales taxes, deductions, etc
Opponents of a flat tax say that it favors the rich but with all the taxes the poor pay it benefits them as well
Simplifies the overly complicated system we have currently
Opens up the ability for commerce to move without layers of taxation
Eases the animosity between high and low-income earners
Gets our country moving in the right direction, Forward.

Taxes, the full length post

You can contact us directly at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. We are open to your opinions and welcome questions to our posts.

Taxes | Political Blog

2011-08-13T20:16:00.000-07:00

Taxes in the United States are an issue that founded this country. From the Boston tea party to the Bush tax cuts, taxes have been at the fore front of policy in our country. It's an issue that polarizes this nation and an issue that could serve to tear us apart. We need to fix our tax system before it destroy's the United States. Is it possible to fix our tax system at this point? How do we reform a system that is so complex and so polarizing? I believe we can fix our system, but we need to get people to understand how we are taxed and that we all, rich and poor, do pay taxes.

The first issue with our tax system in the Untied States is the belief that we are all taxed too much. The reality is that we are one of the least taxed developed nations in the world. When accounting for local, state, and federal taxes the US is ranked 62nd in the world overall in taxes collected to GDP. 27% of our income is taxed on average, that is far lower than France (49%), Germany (43%), and even Great Britain(39%). The reason it feels like we are overtaxed is that we are taxed from so many sources and there are so many levels of taxation. Everywhere we turn there is a tax for this, a fee for that. When you add it all up though, we are taxed less than most other major economies.

The other problem with our tax system is the misconception that the rich pay all the taxes and the poor pay none. This too is false and the truth needs to be established before we can effectively reform our system. Yes, the rich pay higher federal income taxes and the poorer you are the less federal income taxes you pay. What is not mentioned are the enormous amounts of deductions and loopholes that are in place for the wealthy to side step needing to pay for many of their taxes. Through buying extra homes, moving their money to stocks, owning a business, to donating to a charity. The deductions are available left and right to the wealthy, many of which are not available, or are not beneficial to lower-income citizens. The poor in fact, pay many taxes and in some cases pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than wealthy people do. While lower-income citizens don't pay a large amount in federal income taxes, they do pay a very large share of many other taxes and fees the wealthy do not.

First of all the poor and middle class pay 8.8% to medicare and social security on every dollar they earn. The wealthy only pay that on their first $102,000 of income. If a person makes $1 million a year they are paying less than 1% in those taxes. Businesses also pay 8.8% for medicare and social security for their employees but that is money that could have been paid to employees, so in reality poor and middle class people pay as much as 17% in just medicare and social security taxes. A wealthy person earning $1 million a year pays only 2% for the same programs. Then the poor also pay property taxes whether they own or rent. If they own then they pay property taxes, if they rent, property taxes are most definitely part of their monthly rental charges. Then there is sales tax, which in some states can be as high as 10%. There are vehicle registration fees, gasoline taxes, local taxes, state taxes, toll road fees, utility bill fees, etc. I could really go on and on about the taxes and fees that are paid by poor and middle-income citizens. The argument that they pay no taxes is absurd and needs to leave the conversation when we are discussing tax reform.

The solution is in fact very simple once everyone, both rich and poor, understand that we are not overly taxed in this nation and that we all do in fact pay our fair share currently. The problem with our system now is that it is far too complicated when it doesn't need to be. Our tax system actually favors those who are the wealthiest and who able to afford the smartest accountants. A tax system should never be built to favor one segment or another. We have deductions for this, and credits for that, rates for this group, and rates for that group. We need a rate structure that is simple, fair, and eliminates all the needless fees and various sources of taxation.

I propose a fair and flat tax rate. One that has no deductions, one that has no tax credits, one that eliminates sales tax, one that eliminates social security and medicare taxes and one that includes everyone. Opponents of a flat tax say that it favors the rich and hurts the poor, but when you factor in all the taxes the poor and middle class pay ie. SS, medicare, sales, property, vehicle registration, etc. it works out in their favor as well. A flat tax would take away the advantage wealthy people have of being able to navigate a complex tax system with expensive accountants, and it would allow people to know exactly what they are taxed and move on with their lives. It would allow businesses and the wealthy to anticipate exactly what their tax bill will be and focus their attention on what they do best, which is create jobs and make money. It would also allow the poor to know exactly what they pay in taxes and allow them to live their lives and move the economy forward by buying products without the worry of being nickel and dimed to death by taxes and fees coming from everywhere.

Are we an overtaxed nation? NO. Are we taxed by too many different sources and is our system far too complex? YES. Do the rich pay taxes? YES. More importantly, do the poor pay taxes? YES. We all are in this together and we all pay into this system, a simplified tax system would allow us all to see that we pay our fair share and eliminate some of the animosity between various income groups of our population. A simplified tax system is in everyone's best interest, except for maybe accountants, but the rest of us would be able to focus on what we all need to do to improve our lives, build our families, and ultimately move this country forward.

You can contact us directly at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. We are open to your opinions and welcome questions to our posts.

The Pulse: Fixing Social Security

2011-07-23T16:15:00.000-07:00

What is Social Security’s purpose?

Provide a safety net for the elderly and poor
Started in 1935 by FDR during the great depression
Now provides disability and unemployment benefits
Intended to help people in retirement, not be their sole funding for retirement

What are the problems with Social Security?

It will go bankrupt if not reformed
Recipients making it their sole form of retirement
When started it provided full benefits at age 65, now they provide fill benefits at age 67
When started, Life expectancy was 62, today it is 78
The program does not allow enough productive years to fund retired years
There are too many baby boomers and too few workers to fund the program in the future
The program was never indexed to life expectancy
People will keep on living longer as technology advances requiring retirement ages to rise as well.

These are the solutions to Social Security’s problems

Move the full retirement age to 71, where it would be today if it had been originally indexed to life expectancy
Index the system to life expectancy the way it should have been from the start of the program
As people age, move them into mentoring, counseling, managerial roles for easier working years as they age to not lose their knowledge and expertise.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Fixing Social Security

2011-07-23T13:11:00.000-07:00

         Social Security was started in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt when America was still reeling from the great depression. The program itself has kept millions of elderly citizens from living in poverty at a time when they are unable to earn money that would pull them out of poverty. Today though, Social Security needs to be fixed, or it won't be in place for our future generations. As a country we need to understand what Social Security's original purpose was, understand the problems, and come up with the solutions to fix it.

         Social Security never was intended to fund a persons full retirement. It was there as a safety net to ensure older Americans would not starve or become homeless in old age. However, as the years have gone on, more and more people use the program as their sole form of income in retirement. The government never intended the program to be used in this way. Over the years the government has added provisions to Social Security; providing disability, unemployment, and benefits for needy families. All of these additions have gradually added strain to the program and led us to the point that we now will have funding issues in the future.

         There are many reasons why Social Security needs to be reformed for it to survive, However opponents of any reform to the system argue that it has run a surplus for the entire length of the program. While this is correct, their points apply only to the program in the past, and will no longer apply in the future. When the program was enacted, life expectancy was 62 years of age in 1935, and the age to receive full benefits was 65. At that time the program supported a small number of people for a small amount of time. You had people working 40 years and paying into a system that provided benefits for only the final few years of life. Today the picture is far different, Congress has since raised the retirement age to 67 for those born after 1960, but life expectancy has risen to 78 years old. The average American is working only 2 years longer, yet living an extra 16 years. That extra cost falls upon the workers who are supporting the retirees. In productivity terms people are working 5% longer in life, yet expecting 25% more benefits, something in the long run has to give. This is the same problem that state pension programs are having going bankrupt all over the country.

           Another issue that is presenting itself is the baby boom generation. The reason Social Security was in a surplus for so many years was because our population was young. We had a very large working age population and a relatively small elderly population. We were able to collect all those extra taxes , pay our retirees, and have plenty left over. In 1950 there were 6 workers for every retiree, In 2010 there were 3 workers for every retiree, and in 2025 there will only be 2 workers for every retiree. The reason for this shift is that the generation after the baby boom is far smaller. A major policy change and a medical advancement are the reasons for the generation being far smaller. In 1973 abortion rights were passed allowing for legal abortions to be performed, as well in 1960 the birth control pill was introduced. Those two events are not only directly responsible for the problems we will face with Social Security, but with the problems in state pensions and Medicare as well. For the next 30 years we won't have enough workers to fund our retirees. There are solutions however, but the average person doesn't want to hear what needs to be done.

          First of all, we would have never been in this position had the government written a life expectancy clause into the program. Currently Congress is adjusting the age for social security to 67 gradually. What congress first needs to do is continue that gradual rise in retirement age for those born in 1980 until we have reached 71 as the full retirment age. From that point on we need to attach Social Security, Medicare, and our state run pension systems to life expectancy increases. For every 2 years in life expectancy increase we gradually raise the retirement age 1 year. A 2 for 1 increase is all we would have ever needed. If they had put that into place when the program began, the retirement age today would be 71 and Social Security would be solvent indefinitely. It would allow more productivity to be received from the workforce while still funding gradually more people and for more years in retirement. Remember, in the 1930's Life expectancy was 62 and many were lucky to live to 70, today the average person lives until they are 78. Many today live into their 90's while still in very good health.

               As for those working as they get older. The first problem is that the old rules
of working will and are changing drastically. Because of technology and the
basic nature of the corporate world, people need to learn to adapt. The age of a
person working for one company or even two for their whole lives is over. The
age of people generating an income solely from a corporation is also over.
People will need to adapt and beable to start their own consulting or contract
business that will allow them to be flexible for corporations to use. Today
there is a huge need for contracting work from companys not wanting to pay
people benefits but still need the expertise of those in a specific trade or
profession. The bottom line for workers in the future is adaptability.

               Opponents of raising the retirement age say people can't work into their 70's, but with today's jobs people can. 90 years ago jobs were very strenuous and hard on the human body. Through technology in the work place, nutritional advancements, and medical breakthroughs a person who is 70 today is far more capable and alive then a person who was 70 years old in 1930.

               We need to attach life expectancy to the retirement age otherwise we will face this issue again in the future. As we become more technologically advanced, develop even better nutrition, and better our medical system our life expectancies will continue to rise. Because of this we will have to address the productivity issue of a person only working 40 years of a lifetime, while living ever-increasing years of a non working unproductive lifetime. To fix this we can move people from a working environment into a mentor or counseling role for companies and governments. By doing this, we not only will keep people in the work place longer, but also not lose the valuable knowledge they have acquired from their time as employees. The older worker gets to continue to work in a productive manner while easing the physical and mental strains on the body as we age.

                Social Security is an important and vital program that was created at a time of great distress in our nation's history. With the proper reform, we can ensure that it will be sustainable forever. For us to make sure of its solvency, we need to understand its limitations and intended purpose. Once we all understand that Social Security is merely a safety net, we can make the proper changes that will keep this valuable program around for generations of Americans.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Come Check Out Our New Page !!!!!!!

2011-06-24T08:10:00.000-07:00

Click here to get to the new Political Pulse!!!

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Are Unions Really A Good Thing?

2011-02-21T15:36:00.000-08:00

With all of the unrest going on in Wisconsin this week I thought of a question that many of these union protesters probably have not thought of. Are they truly better off being in a union? The purpose of a union is to work for its members to get them the best benefits and wages that are possible for their members. The question is, are they actually doing that and is it really beneficial to the members to be trapped by whatever the union decides?

When you are a member of a union you are expected to pay yearly dues. Some of these dues can range in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars per year per member. Right out of the gate the members are paying a large some of money for an implied service. With this money, unions provide various services and negotiate contracts for the whole as a union. Of course most unions, like big corporations have a board of directors or council, of which men of great power get their share off the top. Many also get kick backs just like politicians to pull for one set of benefits and not others. The men who run unions can be just as corrupt as anyone in a corporation or in government.

Being in a union is often forced upon workers depending on what line of work you go into. Right off the bat you are limiting your right as a worker by not being able to decide if you want to join the union or not. Then as part of a union you do get to vote on changes the union makes, but what if you don't agree with what the union is doing? OH well, you have no say if you're in the minority of that union. What may be good for the union may not always be good for you or your family individually in the union.

The rights that union members speak so highly about are not rights for them as individuals but for the union as a whole. If the heads of the union decide or are paid to push one initiative or another then the members of the union have to follow what the union decides, regardless if they agree with them or not. Yes, the members of the union do have a say by voting for what the union does, but just like voting in government or as a shareholder of a corporation you have limited pull as to the outcome as an individual.

What many members of unions don't realize as an individual you can negotiate your wage and benefits just like a union, and if the company, school district, etc. don't agree then you can take your services elsewhere. Competition and negotiating your own terms keeps your salary higher and benefits higher while also giving you the ability to decide for yourself and your family what is best, not some union heads who have their own agenda in mind.

Unions came about at a time when workers rights did not exist. Now many workers today who are not in unions have better rights than those who are in unions today. Being in a union means you are limited to whatever that union deems to be right for the union not right for you as an individual. The perception is that unions give you rights that are not available outside of unions, and that is completely false. You as an individual have even more rights to control how, where, and for how much you work than even in a union. Before you go fighting hard for the union that your in, make sure that the union you have is best for you and your family, and not for some fat cat union heads out to maintain power at the expense of its members.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Why Do Public Employees Need A Union?

2011-02-18T15:22:00.000-08:00

With all the protests going on in Wisconsin I started thinking of a more interesting question. Why do public employees need to have a union? It makes no sense. The government is the people, is it not? Public unions were formed to fight against ourselves to get more from ourselves? If that sounded funny, I couldn't agree with you more, and is exactly why I bring up this topic.

Unions have been around for over 100 years and make total sense for employees of private companies. Each private company has different rules that they enforce on their employees and unions are needed in that case to ensure that those employees are paid a fair wage and not being taken advantage of. What unions did was make sure the employees were taken care of at a time when no rights were given to them working for a company. Companies took advantage of people to get max profits, and there was no recourse for doing this until the government allowed unions to form. As a result, rights for workers increased for many. I have no problem with that.

Public sector employees forming unions however makes no sense. Unions for them fight the government for better wages and better benefits. The thing is that government is the people. We are fighting against ourselves as opposed to private industry where employees are fighting against an entity (corporation). If something unjust is happening to public employees we as citizens have the ability to vote and to decide when these employees get raises and more benefits, and to also keep them from suffering too much as well.

Unions in the public sector have created a situation where far too much has been given to public employees at the expense of the US taxpayer. Public employees enjoy far more benefits than their neighbor who is paying their salaries. There is no need and no reason for public employees to be fighting to get a decent wage, it makes no sense. If they truly did need wage increases, benefit increases, rule changes, or anything else, the people will decide that at the proper time. To have a union to fight against ourselves looks like we are fighting each other. Again it sounds ridiculous to read, but that is essentially what is happening.

I am not against unions, I believe unions are very important in providing certain protections for employees from companies. What unions have done is make sure companies provide decent wages to employees of all industries in the private sector, even those who don't deal in union workers. All unions are doing in the public sector is driving tax rates up and unfairly providing those workers with benefits that most Americans will never see.

Why do public employees need unions? The answer is that they don't. They have gone far too long with too many privileges and power against their fellow Americans. Its time to dissolve public unions and stop fighting ourselves before we bankrupt our states and tax each other to death.

Hey Protesters in Wisconsin, There is No Money!!!

2011-02-18T12:32:00.000-08:00

Watching the news these past few weeks you will have seen a country liberated, many others trying to be, and now in our own back yard public employees protesting in Wisconsin to keep their benefits and their bargaining power. All of these events are being brought about in one way or another by economic turmoil in our world. No one is immune from the changes that need to be made, and what is happening in Wisconsin and many other states are our public employees now joining the party of being hurt by this terrible new economy. One woman even compared the events in Egypt to the protests in Wisconsin. This is completely absurd. The people in Egypt are fighting to earn livable wages and to stop being oppressed by there government. The protests in Wisconsin are people fighting to keep benefits which most Americans do not have in a country that is the wealthiest in the world. To compare the two is wreck less and completely irresponsible.

Public employees have been for the most part shielded from the turmoil of this recession. The lack of raises, major layoffs, and cutting of benefits are just some of the things that most private industry employees have been subject to for years now with the declining economy. While I want to say that I feel bad for those protesting in Wisconsin, I frankly just don't. Teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. have enjoyed amazing benefits for years. Those benefits include full pensions after 25 years of service, amazing health benefits, near automatic wage increases every year, and far more vacation and sick days then most private sector employees could ever dream of. Too much has been promised to these employees and it is time to reign in this spending and exceptionally nice benefits.

The full pensions these employees receive is absurd. A firefighter can retire after 25 years with a full pension and then live for another 35 years. What kind of sense does that make? Who do they think these pensions are paid by? The taxpayers. Many people struggle to save for retirement when these employees don't have to worry at all. These pensions are far too generous at a time when many may never retire because of tax increases to cover whom, the public sector employees. It time for them to see their enormously gracious pensions are hurting many people.

The health benefits that many of the state employees receive is not even in the same ballpark of what many private sector employees get. Many public employees don't pay a health insurance premium and if they do it is very low. Along with that, their out of pocket co-pays are exceptionally low. These employees really have no idea just how good they have it with these health benefits. While many have seen their health premiums increase every year, the state employees don't see it. Those increases get passed on to the government, aka the tax payers. Again, millions struggle on a monthly basis just to pay their premiums while these employees don't need to worry and while taxpayers foot the bill.

Then there are the wage increases many of these employees get. Many of these people receive 3% wage increases no matter what. Whether things are going good or bad they know they are getting an increase. Many of these increases are not performance based, something many private employees don't get. To get a raise in the private sector when times are bad an employee many times needs to show improvement every year to justify an increase. Many have not received raises in a year or two or more while doing the same job. Not because they aren't working hard enough, but because the money is just not there.

Finally, there is the time off many of these employees get. We don't even need to explain teachers in this. They get a full years salary and all the excellent benefits for working 9 months. With them, other public employees receive far more time off then the average worker. Not only starting off at two weeks off a year, but receiving sick days as well. Then for many those vacation days go up to three, four, and 5 weeks depending on service. These amounts are insane, especially considering that tax payers are the ones who foot the bill.

I'm not against our public service employees making a good living but they need to realize who is in fact paying for all of their wonderful benefits, the rest of the taxpayers. They need to realize that too much was promise to them and no longer can states afford to provide full pensions at age 50, no out of pocket premiums, endless raises, and large chunks of time off. Something needs to give and finally it is their turn to feel the effects of this terrible economy we are in. They have been protected til now but the simple truth is there is not enough money to pay everything that has been promised to them. With everything going on in this world the truth hurts, there simply is no money.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

High Speed Rail, No Thank You

2011-02-10T13:08:00.000-08:00

News has broken that President Obama wants to ask Congress for 53 billion dollars for high-speed rail lines across the US. This money would be spent over the course of the next 5 years on projects across the country to get a start on the infrastructure of a high-speed rail system. Not only is this a huge waste of money, but the US is not built for a system like this the way China and Europe are.

High-speed rail in China and Europe are highly successful for a reason. The reason it is successful in those places and would be a complete waste of money here, is the same reason why public transportation systems such as subways, buses, etc. are highly successful there and are not here in the US. That reason is population density. The population of China is 4 times that the amount of the US with the same amount of land. China also has 160 cities with a population of over 1 million people, the US has a total of 9. Europe has 200 million more people then the US in a land area half the size. High-speed rail works in those regions because people are closely packed in together. Not only that, and especially in Europe, their public transportation systems are so developed that having high-speed rail only enhances their transportation infrastructure.

The problem in the US is that we are far to spread out for a public transportation to work effectively, and too spread out for a high-speed rail system. It is precisely why Americans drive cars more than any other country in the world. Not because we have more money, but the places we need to go are too far from public transportation hubs. Without major densely populated areas to feed people into, basic public transportation is rendered fairly useless.

Building A high-speed rail system here would be a large drain on the US taxpayers for all the initial costs, but also for the long term maintenance costs as well. All while not improving our transportation needs. Now I know many critics of projects like this that are said to cost too much just have reasons why they won't work or why they are no good without offering any alternative solutions. I am not one of those people. I love to offer what would be a more effective use of our tax dollars that would actually improve our transportation and infrastructure issues.

The thing that has separated America from the rest of the world regarding transportation is the amount of space we have. We are vastly more spread out in our country then anywhere else. We enjoy the freedoms of being able to travel everywhere within our country and over 50 years ago we came up with a solution that was uniquely American, the interstate highway system. It has allowed our country to expand in ways we could not even dream of before it was built. We should not lose hope in that system.

We need to invest the money in smarter roads that flow traffic in and out of our cities more fluidly, we need to invest in smart car technology that allows cars to travel at high rates of speed and communicate with each other, and we need to invest in more technology in regular rail to move more cargo by train. By investing in our freight lines we can pull trucks off the roads and limit congestion created by them. The time has come to get as many of the cargo trucks off our roads as possible. By investing in technology that improves the flow of traffic on our interstate system we will improve efficiency of our commerce, decrease the carbon footprint of our vast system, and increase productivity of our workers because they won't be sitting in traffic for hours wasted every year.

All of these things can be accomplished with the money we would put to high-speed rail, frankly a project that won't be guaranteed to be used effectively enough throughout the country to benefit most Americans. Do I think high-speed rail could work one day in America? Of course, when we have far more densely populated cities. In fact, on a limited basis I think the one place we could use a high-speed rail line is from Boston to Washington DC. That is the one corridor of our country where there are 5 or 6 densely populated cities within range of each other where it would be beneficial to have a line. Have a major hub in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and finally in DC, that makes sense. The problem is that we don't have many population centers close to enough together like that for a the system to be effective.

When proposing policy for our country it needs to make sense for us as Americans. We can't assume because something works in other parts of the world that it will automatically work here. We need to do what is best for us as a nation. Investing in better technology for our roads, our cars, and our heavy rail is the best solution for us as Americans. It may not work for China, but we are not them and they are not us. Should we want high-speed rail? I say no thank you.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Super Bowl Sunday, National Holiday?

2011-02-06T17:38:00.000-08:00

Here we are once again On Super Bowl Sunday celebrating what has now become an unofficial American holiday. There are those that say the Super Bowl is a glorified day of football for those who tailgate and obssess over their teams. I don't see the Super Bowl as that at all anymore and would not be opposed to declaring it a national holiday.

Super Bowl Sunday has become about bringing friends and families together all across the country for one day to experience something as one. No longer are there TV shows that are events that bring people together. In today's world of 500 channels and entertainment options everywhere, it is hard to get everyone together unless it is a major holiday, accept the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is the only program which still brings people of all ages to share a wonderful time together. There are people who watch the game to see the commercials, there are those who watch it to see the crazy halftime shows, there are obviously those who watch to see the game, but many watch just to be with those they love and to celebrate something that is uniquely American. Aside From Independence day and Thanksgiving there are few holidays that are truly American and created here.

Regardless of who you root for or if you even like the game of football we can all agree that it is a time to be with family and friends and enjoy something that us as Americans can all relate too in one way or another. So enjoy our American holiday of football, friends, family, commercials, and just plain fun. The is the 21st century and this is the new holiday, one I will look forward to for years to come. Game On!!!!!!!!

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Egypt Needs Change Now, Not In September!!!

2011-02-03T15:39:00.000-08:00

Here we are, more than a week into this Egyptian crisis and I fear it will only get worse as it has now become more violent and two clear sides are starting to form. A couple days ago When President Mubarak of Egypt went on TV to say He would not run for President in September, I thought to myself that would be enough to easy the crisis. I thought this because watching the protesters and hearing them, it felt like while they did not trust or follow the government in place, they were not desperate as so many countries become at the start of a revolution. Their protests had been peaceful, orderly, and for the most part controlled.

After Mubaraks speech on Tuesday I felt that the sails of the anti-government movement would sink and over a period of weeks and months the intensity of the protests would subside. Maybe not go away entirely, but would not be to the level they were earlier in the week. Then comes Wednesday and the Pro Mubarak supporters introduce violence to the equation. Protesters fighting and yelling in defense of their President. Riding in on horses and camels beating and throwing rocks at those who are part of the anti-government movement. At the same time going after foreign journalists and attacking them as if they were provoking the anti-government movement. Whether they are truly just citizens coming to the defense of their President or were forced to protest is a matter of opinion and can be debated later.

Introducing this violence has now created a new stage to this crisis. Before the violence occurred I feel that Mubarak could have withstood the crisis and stayed in office. Now however, I don't see that to be a possibility. Clear lines have now been drawn and bloodshed is occurring. If Mubarak does in fact love his country like He says he does he needs to step down before this gets out of control and escalates beyond his borders. By staying in power He will only anger those further who want him out, and they in turn will anger his supports even further to act more violently against the anti government movement.

Friday in Egypt is being called by protesters as "The Day of Departure". With this situation becoming ever more volatile this could be a very bloody day in Egypt's history. I pray for those in Egypt and to President Mubarak that everyone practices calm and does the right thing.

Mubarak needs to step down gracefully and calmly and start this transition now, not in 8 months. If He waits til then, there may not be much of a country left to transition. The US needs for Him to step down because there are demonstrations happening all over the middle east and if this continues, Egypt may not be the only country in the region to face problems. Mubarak, for the safety of his own people, and for the safety of people in the region needs to see that he is part of the problem not part of the solution. Just him being there at this point is fueling all of this. Change needs to come, and it needs to come now.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Revolution In Egypt

2011-01-31T18:39:00.000-08:00

If you have been paying attention to the news this past week you will know that there is a movement in Egypt to over throw their President Hosni Mubarak. Citizens have taken to the streets in protest, the military has issued curfews, and world leaders are calling for Mubarak to step down or at least come to the table and discuss solutions.

Mubarak has been president for 30 years in a country that does not hold free elections for their leader. Well they do but it is similar to what Iraqis free elections were like under Saddam Hussein, full of corruption and not free at all. The People of Egypt are protesting because of the high inflation on food prices, high unemployment, corruption in government, and lack of civil rights for their people. Eygpts military in turn has kept things peaceful as possible but has also shut down internet and cell phone networks to help control the spread of information. The military has also called for President Mubarak to listen to the people before things get out of hand.

All of this has placed The United States in a bit of a tight position in who to support. The US backing the protesters and free elections could bring a rise to power the Muslim Brotherhood which has imposed its power and will throughout country's in the arab world. This in turn could make the situation worse for our friends in Israel. Of course backing the President Mubarak would go against all of our ideals as a nation.

The risk to our interests in Israel needs to take a back seat to a bigger issue of a country and strong US Allie that is in turmoil. When we set out to free the people of Iraq and start a democratic government there, it was our hope that democracy would rise throughout the region. In Egypt it has come time now for that to happen and the people want change and the freedom to have their voices heard. The United States needs to makes sure that we do everything we can to support a smooth transition to a democracy because what we have been doing in the region these past 10 years has helped lead to this outcome.

As I write this now it seems President Mubarak is getting the message that He can not just live with the status quot and needs real and long lasting reform to occur in his country. I will be watching along with the rest of the world in seeing what happens. Hopefully it will be resolved before things become out of control and spill over to other nations in the region. Opening up free elections, improving civil liberties, and in the end Mubarak stepping down as President will be the only way this will be resolved without major bloodshed.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Health Care Reform? Part 2

2011-01-29T16:09:00.000-08:00

Already touching on this ridiculous health care bill that Obama has put forth, its time to dive even more into it. If you read part 1 already of why I feel this bill is toxic you will already know that it will do nothing to actually lower costs at all. In fact this bill insures that costs will continue to increase for years to come. We have already talked about the added strain on the health care system that this bill creates. How about now seeing what it will do to medicare and looking at some solutions.

Part of this bill which President Obama has failed to say to anyone is that payments to doctors for their medicare and medicaid patients will go down. Doctors have already come out and started dropping their elderly patients because frankly they cant afford them. Doctors need to make a living too and the cost of medical malpractice insurance keeps those ridiculous salaries moving even higher. Doctors dropping their patients places a false demand on the doctors who do still accept them or are government paid doctors, increasing the costs even further. On top of that at a time when the baby boom generation is aging and will be flooding hospital rooms and doctors offices with their medicare backed insurance. This will create a false demand and in turn increase costs and increase mistakes as well. Sounds like a recipe for a disaster if you ask me.

One thing this bill completely and utterly fails to do is address one of the largest issues with our skyrocketing health care costs. This one issue being taken care of could eliminate half of our problems in health care. Place limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. Patients assume they go to a doctor and they should be able to fix everything. In this day in age the patient assumes no responsibility when they go into a surgery, and this is wrong. Every person is different and many of the procedures doctors perform today were not even available 50 years ago. Millions of more people would be dead today if doctor had not advanced medicine the way they have this century. Yet the patients again assume no responsibility. Doctors salaries are so high because it is common place for them to pay 100,000 dollars per year out of their own pocket just for this insurance, even if they have never had an issue.

Patients sue because a doctor didn't do enough to keep their 75 year old father from dying from heart failure or failing to keep his lungs clear of fluid. Guess what people? old people die. Guess what, young people die too and no matter what the doctor does they are just human. Doctors do extraordinary things everyday to keep us alive. Things that they do today many of us would have died 100 years ago. I'm not saying we shouldn't hold doctors accountable but there needs to be accountability on both sides. If a fat 300 pound woman goes to a doctor for liposuction and dies from an infection, that's not the doctors fault. If that woman had not gorged herself she would not have been there in the first place. If a Doctor is found to intentionally hurt or killed someone then that is a different matter. Many malpractice lawsuits are patients who died and the doctor unintentionally made a wrong move, or made his first error of his 20 year career. That doesn't entitle a person to millions upon millions of dollars.

Patients need to assume some risk as well. If they were to cap lawsuits at a reasonable amount, say half a million dollars, this would lower insurance for doctors tremendously. This in turn would lower the need to keep raising what we pay doctors, but not only that lower the need to administer the same test to a patient 3 and 4 times to cover their butt in case they get sued. Hospitals and doctors run test after unnecessary test just to cover themselves in case they were to get sued. All these extra tests cost money, lots of money. This would all be saved if you cap malpractice lawsuits. I repeat, if it is found that the doctor intentionally was out to hurt people this would be a different matter. If there is criminal wrong doing, which a majority of the time there is not in these lawsuits, then you should throw the book at these doctors. A doctor didn't become one to kill people but to help. If one makes a mistake, yes it is tragic, but it should not end his career and it should not cost all of us.

One more item that could be included in this bill. Allow people to shop around to other states for insurance. Insurance rates are artificially high in many areas of the country because there is little or no competition. If you live in Illinois you are limited to only a few insurance companys. If you dont like what they offer, to bad. You don't have a choice. If they allowed people to buy insurance from companies elsewhere who have better plans for them, this would increase competition and lower costs.

These are changes that can be made to actually lower costs for us as consumers of these insurance plans, and in the end make them more affordable so more of us can buy them. If you want to save money on health care you need to go at what is actually causing the increased costs. Medical malpractice, open up competition, and pay Doctors what they need to treat medicare patients. All of these in the end will drive costs lower and save you, me, and all of us as US taxpayers money, money we could be spend to improve our economy and improve our lives.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Health Care Reform? Part 1

2011-01-27T16:05:00.000-08:00

I actually wrote this post last year and never posted it. The facts I stated are even more true now then when I wrote this in September. My health insurance went up 15% this year. Their number one reason the health care bill. They had to raise rates because now there is no cap in lifetime coverage and also they are now having to accept everyone with preexisting conditions. Enjoy, pray that Obama starts seeing that this bill is toxic

Well, here we are in the year 2010. We now will have health care for anyone one who wants it. Actually if you don't have it you will be fined if you don't get it, but that's beside the point. There are those who believe this is a great thing for America, there are others who say this will save America hundreds of billions of dollars. Now I wanted to get this all in one post, but there is just to much wrong with this bill to get all the information and opinions written just here.

This health care bill is suppose to better all of our lives and make health care accessible and affordable for all. I'm sorry I simply just don't agree, and if you read the bill you won't either. In fact the only people who like this bill are those in politics who will get funds from insurance companies to be re-elected, companies who will benefit from this bill, and individuals who have not actually read this bill. This bill is not universal health care, it is forced health care by government.

First of all this bill benefits the health insurance companies, period. This bill was 100% written by them and they spent dearly to get it pushed through. You don't agree? You think that the Democrats were just out to protect the poor Americans who don't have health insurance? Think Again. The health insurance industry lobbied an estimated $576 million dollars in 2009 alone, much of it geared toward influencing what got in the final bill.

Why do you think this bill is good for all Americans? Yes, those who didn't have insurance before will be able to get, those with pre-existing conditions will be able to get it. Everything should be great, right? First of all the government is forcing you to get health care or pay a fine. The fine is 1% of your income or $695 a year, and then the percentage goes up to 2% a year by 2014. If you can't afford insurance you can get government subsidies to cover the rest of your premiums from a private insurance provider. This is a violation of your basic rights. The United States citizens are being forced to pay for something whether they want it or not. This is the first time in our history that the government is forcing us to purchase something. We are not even forced to pay taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes don't earn any money, it's your choice. You may say we are forced to pay auto insurance, but we have the choice to not buy a car to have to get insurance. If you refuse to get medical insurance you will get fined.

There are those who say that now we have a bigger pool paying into the industry that premiums should go down. The problem is that when you look at who is being added to the pool of those paying, as well as the infrastructure in place to support the added 50 million people that will be added to an already overwhelmed system, you realize premiums will rise dramatically. Now that you are adding preexisting patients, their health care costs are dramatically higher than the average person. That's is why they weren't able to get insurance before. Now, because the insurance companies are forced to accept those patients as well as the bill not capping premiums, guess who will be paying for all those added costs? You guessed it, we are. The insurance companies love this, because before this meant that less people would be able to afford insurance. Now if the patients can't afford their premiums the insurance companies still get their money. With the government subsidizing peoples health premiums the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. Who is left with the bill then? The US government, aka the US taxpayers.

This is one of the reasons the health insurance industry pushed so hard for this bill. These companies know that their future is very bright because until now they had to rely on people affording health care or not. They also had to worry about the skyrocketing cost to provide medical care. Now, with this bill the health insurance industry doesn't have to worry about getting paid, it is now the US governments problem.

That leads now to the other reason why premiums will increase. The current system is strained under the need to support 200 million plus people. Now, with an added 50 to 80 million more people added to the mix there will be considerably more strain, wait, construction of new facilities, more demand on doctors, and inevitably more mistakes. To account for all the added patients the system will need to add many more hospitals and medical buildings that cost money. Doctors will have to treat more patients and will be in even more demand than they already are. Doctors cost a lot of money and will demand even more with more patients. Doctors are already strained and are leaving the industry because of this. With the added strain will come increased mistakes which will increase malpractice lawsuits. All of which will cost the system even more money. Since the insurance companies pay the doctors, and we pay the insurance, and now the government will pay what we can't afford, the final bill for this will come to the US taxpayer.

This is just part one of how bad this bill actually is. We haven't even gotten into what this bill means for doctors treating Medicare patients, the cost increases on younger people, and malpractice lawsuits. The latter being the one issue that is responsible for the majority of our sky rocketing medical costs. We will get to those next time. If you are a republican you hate this bill, if you are a Democrat and like this bill you probably don't know how to read, and if you are just an American you lost a bit of your freedoms the day Barack Obama signed that bill.

Some might say I am a republican, but I honestly can't stand them. I know I dislike Democrats, which is weird because when I was younger I thought the ideals of the party were great. Then as I got older I realized someone has to pay for all their grand ideas and we would be the ones paying for them. I am definitely a 3rd party guy. Which one? Not sure yet, but the country was never meant to have two parties, and the two we have right now are going to destroy this country, starting with this bill.

Related Articles

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

The Tea Party, The Third Party?

2011-01-26T22:17:00.000-08:00

Here I am once again starting my political blog up. Its been over a year since I posted because frankly I got tired of it. I loved expressing my ideas, but creating links and adding pictures to each post was very time consuming and made the process of posting very cumbersome. So, I will write my posts but I won't do anything to add links or pictures. This will just be my ideas and thoughts about what is going on in our country and our world. I may post once a week or once a month. When I get an idea I will share it.

That being said, I watched the State of the Union as I'm sure many of you did. For the most part it was very typical of a State of the Union. It was filled with ideas about the future as always, but President Obama was also very humble in his speech. After losing control of the House in the elections He had to give on many issues and started speaking about that in his speech to the nation.

Nothing Obama said or anyone said for that matter really did anything that WOWed me. Obama gave his speech, and the opposition spoke about what was said or wasn't said like every other State of The Union. However, probably one of the most important things to have happened in American politics in a very long time happened after the speech.

The tea party, which to this point has been much of a joke and a gimmick, for the first time made me feel like they were legitimate. After the State of the Union Michele Bachmann a Congresswoman from Minnesota gave the tea party response to Obamas speech. Now what she said was of no real consequence and frankly I don't agree with some of what was said, but that is not the point. For the first time I felt like we truly are beginning to form into a three party system of government. Sure the tea party as of right now is just an off shoot of the right wing of the Republican party, but there are clear differences emerging between the two.

Our country was founded on a three party system and was never supposed to go to a two party system. The two party system has created nothing but stalemates and the inability for Washington to ever get anything done. With a three party system far more will get done because there is more likely to always be a majority when it comes to passing bills as opposed to stalemates.

Now Republicans say that because the tea party is an off shoot of their party that the two will cancel each other out and the democrats will take over, not so fast. Part of what is so interesting about the three parties is that with the introduction of the far right tea party the republican party gets rid of their ultra conservative base. Whats left over is a more moderate Republican party which I feel can pull support from more moderate Democrats. In the end you have a far left Democrat party, a far right tea party, and a moderate but right leaning Republican party.

I for one am pulling for the tea party. I don't agree with all their ideals but I do agree that by introducing a new party that is successful we will also allow room for more ideas and things to be accomplished in our government. Our great nation was a Republic that was founded and run as a three party system when it was first born. Why not go back to that system and see what can get done? It really can't get much worse in Washington than what they have turned it into.

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Check out the translator!!!

2009-11-25T12:42:00.000-08:00

Through my travels of trying to get this blog system figured out, I discovered Google has a translator for your web pages. It was pretty easy to install, and my posts are now available to all the major languages of the world. I placed it in the top right hand corner of the blog right underneath the header.

If you are Chinese, you can read my blog in Mandarin. If you are a fluent reader in Italian, then you can read it in the language you are most comfortable with.

Come check it out. I want this blog to reach all people from every corner of the world. I think communicating throughout the world is an important part in moving forward together and having a prosperous future.

Related Articles
Get the Translator for yourself

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

What If? Part 1

2009-11-24T13:14:00.000-08:00

Being a history buff I always like to go back and think about what life would have been like if certain events didn't take place. What if Christopher Columbus had not gotten funding to sail west, Hilter's father and brother not dying when He was young, or if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated. What would our world be like if some of these key events never took place.

This post will be the first of many in a series looking back at key events in history that completely altered our lives. Being able to trace back in history the very reasons why we do something or who we are is, in my opinion, extremely fascinating. I have written a post, Does History Have To Be Boring, that linking historical events to present day would be the best way to teach history. By linking past events people get a direct connection to those events, and in turn can relate to the people who were there at the time those events were occurring.

Today, even as I write this, the seeds of future events are being laid down to change our world forever. The best way for us to tell what might happen in the future is to look into the past, put ourselves in the place of people who lived through these events, and figure out why they responded the way they did. By doing this we can figure out if they made the right choice or not, but also if they had chosen differently, would it in fact have made the course of history a better one. That is at the heart of this and future posts, What If?

We can say it would have been better to get rid of Hitler before He came to power, but how do we know that by do that, that there would not have been a far worse outcome than even the one that did actually occur.
I am going to take an event that occurred in History and look at what caused it, if anything different could have happened, and if changing it could have made this world a better place.

This post is just a teaser for what I hope will be an interesting and engaging set of topics. The first one I plan to do is on an event that I believe changed the course of American politics more than any other event in our nations history. The assassination of JFK was such a profound moment because it was at a crucial time in the Cold War and also was at the dawning of a new generation(the baby boomers). This generation would learn about their government and realize that it was more corrupt than anyone could imagine. The assassination started the avalanche of mistrust with our government that still exists today and may never go away.

I hope everyone who reads these will think about how different things could be in our world had events occurred differently. Also, to make people realize that the smallest things can change the entire world.
I'll leave you with this. Hitler, as a boy was a very happy outgoing child that was full of life. When He was 11 his brother died of measles which changed him into a boy who was close off and angry at the world. When his father died 3 years later, Hitler blamed the Jews who his father owed money to, for forcing him to work as hard as he did. These 2 events possibly changed the course of history for millions of people. So, think about the next time a child has a tough up bringing what they might become, and the hatred that could be fueled inside. What if that never occurred, What if?

Related Articles
Check out the What If books by Robert Cowley
What if Hitler was never born?
What if America lost the revolution

84FYS3ZCKB7MIf you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Making Home Affordable?

2009-11-22T21:21:00.000-08:00

As you all know we are in the middle of the deepest recession our country has seen since the 1930's. Yes I said in the middle of, because we are not out of the recession yet. The 3.5 % growth that the Fed says we experienced in the 3rd quarter was all because of Government money. From September 08' to September 09' the Government loaned or funded 3 trillion dollars worth of projects into our economy. When the fed figures GDP, they figure these funds as well as everything else.

One of the programs put into place by our Government was the Making Home Affordable Program. Since it was the housing market that got us into this mess the Government felt that a program like this could help to improve the market and help pull us out of this mess. The program had two parts to it and President Obama promoted it as being a program that could help as many as 9 million households lower their mortgage payment and even help them stay in their homes.

The first part of the program would allow those who were caught with dropping home values who wanted to refinance actually do so. When your house value gets to close to the loan amount or even drops below it then the mortgage companies won't take the risk to refinance your house. The governments program would insure these companies losses on these riskier transactions. For example your home could be worth 250,000 dollars and your loan could be $275,000 and your you would be able to refinance. Before you would have been refused.

The second part of the program deals with modifying the loans people made. It is mainly to be used for those who had gotten into terrible adjustable and negative ammortization loans or loans that were far beyond the normal 31% debt to earnings ratio typically required for home loans. Those who need this program have no other way out and would foreclose if they did not take this program.

This program was set up to help people, but looking at the fine print of the program shows that it is just as toxic as the loans that were originally given to these people. This program reduces the interest rate of a persons home loan to 2% or gets their debt to income ratio down to 31%. The problem with this however is that instead of helping these people, the Government is taking these reduction and placing them on the back end of the loan. So whatever savings these people will get now to stay in their homes will get placed on the back end with interest. Not only that, but the reductions are fixed for only 5 years. The program is at best an infected band aid. After the 5 years the rate goes up to whatever the current interest rates are at that time. which could be far higher by then. Then their loan becomes adjustable every year after that for the life of the loan. How is this any better than the toxic loans that were allowed during the boom years of the housing market? This program sounds like it was setup to make the rich get richer in the long run and keep people in their home a few extra years before they have to go through the process again of going into foreclosure.

The refinance section of the program was put into place to help those who had done all the right things but got caught under the avalanche of home prices and were unable to do so. President Obama touted this measure as a way to help these people get into a lower monthly payment. Again however, I think this was just another way to get more money for the banks. Sure, this program allowed you to get a refinance, but of course you would have to pay all of the closing costs and fees to do so. After all is said and done you could end up paying $5000 for only a small reduction in your monthly payment. Had the government helped with the closing costs for this program it would have been far more effective.

To date only 200,000 people have been helped by these programs because most see that they are not a fix, but programs that may help them in the short term, but long term could put them in a far worse position. Obama's program, which was meant to help people through this very difficult time, and make home affordable for them has turned into a program full of as many toxic parts as the loans that got us here in the first place.

When I was younger I was all for Government intervention all the time. They are the government, they must have our best interest at heart, right? As I get older I realize that Government is the last group that you want taking over things in our lives. The Government does things very inefficiently and has only one thing in mind, power. The government should focus on 2 things, dealing with foreign policy and keeping a strong military to keep us safe. Everything else they touch turns into a bureaucratic mess of men battling for power which leads to control over its citizens and nothing ever getting done.

Related Articles
What the government has spent so far during the recession
Governments making home affordable website
Home prices still may head south from here

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Politics Around The World

2009-11-19T11:43:00.000-08:00

In today's edition of Around The World we will look at events that happened this week regarding the new mammogram ruling by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. They stated that women should no longer get the screening before 50 unless they are in a high risk group. If you are in a high risk group then women are advised to continue to get the screening after 40.

These new guidelines are very suspect and women should be very wary of following these. In fact, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius came out Wednesday stating that she disagrees with the findings and that the Federal Government will not be advising women to follow these new guidelines.

Elsewhere in the world, Iran continues to be defiant with their nuclear program and the world is applying more pressure for them to cooperate. President Obama is meeting with leaders of other nations to discuss further sanctions. The problem with this is Iran will just pass on these sanctions to their people and not stop their activities of nuclear production. They have shown for years that they are willing to deny their country goods and continue to focus on building a nuclear program. This is without a doubt geared toward bomb production, not energy like they continue to claim.

Finally, the Senate released their version of the new health care bill. Their plan is claimed to cost 848 billion dollars over the next 10 years and actually reduce the deficit during that time. We all have to take this with a grain of salt, since when does government actually stay under budget and stay true to estimated costs. Plus, knowing the basics of this plan I find it hard to believe that we will be better off the way it is currently constructed. The system adds more people to cover without addressing the fact that the system can not support the amount of people it needs to care for already. Stay tuned over the next couple of years. I have learned that if something doesn't make sense it probably isn't, and this health care bill reeks of issues that will plague us for years.

Politics

Angry backlash over mammogram guidelines....

Secretary Sebelius advises against new mammogram recommendations....

Hamid Karzai is sworn in after a fraud filled election....

US and allies are considering even more sanctions against Iran...

Compare the House and Senate versions of health care bill......

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

Obama Visits China

2009-11-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

This week President Obama made a trip to Asia and His most important stop was in China. Considering China is a communist country, the relationship with the United States has never been warm and inviting. The US knows that we need China for their work force and their ability to buy our debt, and they know that the US has the thirst for the products they produce. It is a relationship of need rather then one of want or respect.

Obama met with Chinese President Hu Jintao to discuss economic policy, climate change, and to establish joint cooperation in meeting these challenges. Both men know that when one country is not fairing well the other is affected. Working together is in the best interests of both countries and they are willing to do so to benefit each others interests.

Not much was actually agreed upon during the two day meeting other than they agreed to work together and be partners going forward regarding the major issues the world faces. Some analysis' will say that this was a failed trip because nothing was signed and there was no firm agreement on any of these major issues Obama came to discuss. If you look at it from a historical perspective however, keeping close contact with our once and potentially future enemy is always a smart move.

Take a look at 1933 for example, Adolf Hitler was elected Head Chancellor of Germany. This is a full 6 years before World War 2 started. Did you know that Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and even Joseph Stalin never met Hitler in person? 3 of the most powerful heads of state in the world never actually sat down with Hitler to settle their differences. Now Churchill was not Prime Minister of Great Britian until 1940, but his predecessor Neville Chamberlain met him twice, but only right before the war to prevent it from occurring. Roosevelt and Stalin were in their position the entire time Hilter was in power.

Part of the reason WW2 occurred was that the relations with Germany were non-existent. Hitler was able to build up an army (which was forbidden by The Treaty of Versailles after World War 1) for 5 years and built an infrastructure that would surpass every other country in the world. Along with doing this, Germany was allowed to spread the word of hate for years with very little international pressure.

The United States and China keeping close contact even if they don't accomplish anything is a good. This allows the lines of communication to stay open for the times that our countries do disagree, there will be a dialogue first. Unfortunately long term there is almost no getting around the fact the the US and China will butt heads. As China becomes more and more powerful economically and militarily, it may cause major problems down the road. Keeping that open dialogue may prevent future wars, something that obviously was not done in the 1930's. Even when the Soviet Union was in power our leaders kept in contact because even though we were enemies, we did not want war.

Obama is showing that we have learned from the mistakes that caused WW2. Keeping our friends close and our enemies closer. For as long as we are on this earth China will never be a friend, but at best an acquaintance. Our two countries will lead this world for the next 100 years together, and the worlds ability to survive during that time and into the future may very well depend on how well we get along.

Related Articles

US China Relations called the Most important in The World

Hypothetical attack plans by China in US

Leaders of US and China agree to Climate Change cooperation

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.

World War 2 in HD

2009-11-16T12:46:00.000-08:00

WWII in HD on HISTORY – Coming November 15th (promo) - The funniest movie is here. Find it

Last night the History Channel had on the first of their week long series WW 2 in HD. They have taken old footage shot during the war and colored the film and cleaned it up to create a detailed look at the war. For those who are not old enough to have experienced anything from WW2,(which is most of us at this point) this is the best documentary I have seen. It captures the feelings the soldiers and American citizens had during the war.

Up until now, films of the war were either in black and white or very poor film quality which did not capture the power and enormity of the situation. This new series changes all of that. Some of the old video is still not very good, but there are other clips that look as though they were filmed yesterday. The newly refurbished videos look so cleaned up that it puts you in the place of those soldiers the same way live CNN or Fox news does today.

Last nights episode started with video taken during the beginning of the war when Germany started to invade all of eastern Europe in 1939 and western Europe in 1940. The videos showed life in Germany with Nazi soldiers every where as well as talked about the laws that had been put into place against Jews. This WW2 story is one I have read about hundreds of times but the quality of the videos really helps to place you in that time period and get an understanding of what it must have been like.

From there the story follows an Austrian immigrant who escaped Nazi imprisonment and came to the United States. The show spends sometime following him in the US in 1940. They show how much the United States was disconnected to what was going on over in Europe, and showed many home videos of people just having great times while Germany was taking over the world. These videos were all given great color and really put a lot of personality on a time period that was mainly in black and white. Black and white video really does not capture the power of an event like color does.

As the show moves forward they show battle plans of the Germans and footage of Germany in Paris and many other places. Until December 1941 it seemed like Germany would take over the entire world. Plans for Germany to come to South America and conquer the continent and then invade North America are shown in great detail. Then Pearl Harbor happens and all of that starts to change.

What they show however is that for the first year after Pearl Harbor it was not a guarantee that The US would have any measurable effect on the war. They explain that at the time of Pearl Harbor the US Military was only the 17th largest in the world and was not considered to be very formidable at all. None of our men had any real training and our equipment was old and no where near as good as the Germans. There were videos of boot camp training that showed how ill prepared we were in the quality of men and supplies.

Again, the power of the show is not in the information but the quality of the film that was cleaned up. Hearing these stories of the war with great looking films really places you during that time period and just how desperate and scary of a time it must have been. Hitler running crazy taking over the world and seemingly to be unstoppable while not having the confidence in our Military that we have today.

I think people today forget how important having a good military is. Think about all the things we don't have to worry about because we no we are safe because of our great solders. That feeling of protection was not there once we were hit on December 7th. The American public knew we didn't have a strong military, and throughout 1942 there is video showing some of the unease and panic of this first year. Many people volunteered to join our military during that first year but the outcome was never guaranteed. With half our Navy destroyed at Pearl we were very limited in our response in 42'. The battles we did have against the Japanese were very one sided at first. Americans were ill prepared for the scale that this war would be.

The first night of this series was very powerful and I am eagerly awaiting the rest of the episodes. The first night also covered the battle at Guadalcanal and our pushing the Germans out of North Africa in 1943. These videos make all the difference in showing what it felt like during this time period. Some of the cleaned up shots make it seem like it was filmed in 2008 not 1942. This is a show every American should watch, so that they understand how lucky we are to still be Americans. In 1942, it was not a forgone conclusion that we were going to beat the Japanese and Germans. At that point we were young and untested while they were conquering the world. Some of these videos are very graphic but at the same time they are the most powerful videos I have seen of any war, including those taken during our current conflicts. Today's wars we know the United States is so powerful that it would have to be close to the end of the world for our country to fall, but during WW2 the United States could have collapsed if we lost.

Watch this series and thank a solder next time you see them, because they are the difference between feeling safe and being afraid and unsettled while you live your life.

History Channel website
History of World War 2
WW2 Timline

If you would like to contribute your own posts to this blog you can contact me at politicalpulsesite@gmail.com. I am open to creative ideas and welcome them.