The cheat of "too big to fail"

The most basic premise of capitalism is that those that participate in it recognize that the risking of capital, in order to have the chance of making a profit, implicitly means the corresponding risk of that capital being lost or damaged, significantly.  The very first thing that should be part of the capitalistic system is that it should be fair to all those participating in it; in which no one party or parties are accorded more respect, or materially different rules, and none should be provided with an ironclad guarantee by the government, that no matter their fiscal irresponsibility, or mistakes so made, that they will not be permitted to fail.  Yet, in looking at the recent history of the biggest banks in America we find that as reported by forbes.com, that "The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars…"  Clearly, this is demonstrative proof that if a particular institution is large enough and considered to be important enough, while also apparently having an undue and unseemly influence upon government policies, for whatever reasons, than these banking institutions thereby are permitted to run their businesses in an unsound manner, demonstrated by their overleveraging of their balance sheets in their drive to make that easy money, while ignoring the risks thereof, only to thereby get bailed out by that government; of which, that government can't even successfully negotiate fair terms that would benefit the taxpayers to that government, but rather kowtows to those banking institutions so that the top executive offices are still grossly overcompensated, as well as favoring those common stockholders that did not divest from an institution that was tottering on the very brink of insolvency, if not so saved by that government.

It isn't fair, that some are saved by governmental bailouts while others, are ignored and thereby subsequently fail.  This inconsistency is proof positive that this government clearly plays favorites.  Further to the point, any institution, no matter whether or not it is vital to this country or not, should never see itself permitted to get to the point that is considered to be so large or so important of an institution that its failure would thereby result in catastrophic circumstances to the people at large.  After all, we are taught at a very early age, not to place all of our eggs into one basket, so that, one would think, that this government would understand the importance of following that same sort of sensible wisdom, but plainly does not.

In point of fact, anytime that any government of, for, and by the people, behaves in a manner in which some of those people and some of those institutions as authorized by the representatives of the people, are immune to the "creative destruction" that capitalism invariably entails, than that country will thereby suffer the ill effects of having favored certain people and specific institutions to make those few effectively above economic law, which is a bastardization of what capitalism is supposed to represent.  So then, the further that this country goes down the road of unfairly picking out economic winners and losers, and bailing out some as compared to others; the further it strays from comprehending that those that cheat the system, for the benefit of a select few, are corrupting the integrity of this great nation, and thereby sowing the seeds to thereby reap the coming whirlwind of its horrible humbling correction.

Multinational corporations and their exploitive drive for profit

America is home to a significant amount of gargantuan multinational corporations, in which, some of these behemoths, actually get the majority of their profits not from domestic consumption and by those accompanying sales, but rather from foreign markets and foreign lands.  That shouldn't be all that surprising, as the population of America is only about 4.4 percent of the world's population, and even though America is the wealthiest individual nation; in aggregate, the world has much more money than Americans do in total.  So too, when it comes to labor, multinational corporations have made the conscious decision and, in fact, have set up legislation of all types that permits them to utilize overseas labor as well as to create overseas facilities, not because there is an absolute necessity that they do so; but for the most basic of reasons, which is to increase their profit, by lowering both their labor costs as well as their infrastructure costs, and thereby seamlessly increasing their profit.

As might be expected, the battle between those that have capital, who are often also those that are doing the employment of people that thereby involves the usage of that capital, is not ever a fair battle; especially when those that need employment are non-unionized, and without a lot of viable options, while also suffering from their fundamental need for employment of some sort in order to try to make some semblance of a living.  That is the most salient reason, why labor is so cheap overseas, because those without capital and without the utilization or even the availability of the unionization of labor, are going to have to, more times than not, accept what is being offered by those that dictate those terms to them.

The attitude of so many multinationals is almost never to try to make a fair deal and to thereby pay a living wage to their overseas workers, especially in third world countries, whether they are directly employed or subcontracted to those multinationals; nor are these multinationals overly concerned about taking care of the environment in a responsible way; but rather these multinationals look at their overseas operations, as simply a numbers game, and wherever they can cut costs, or cut a favorable deal, and thereby add to their profit, that is what they often do.

Quite clearly, multinationals exploit overseas labor and legislative laws in a manner that favors them, so that they can thereby reap their profitable rewards for having done so.  While it is true, that multinationals do provide employment; the typical conditions of that employment, overseas, including safety, work hours, healthcare, as well as compensation, are in comparison to what is required from them for those that perform similar work in the United States, rather paltry.

So then, quite simply, multinationals utilize foreign labor and foreign facilities, mainly because they can pay those workers a heck of a lot less money, and further often do not have to overly worry about labor laws, environmental laws, or pretty much any law of substance, because their power within those foreign lands is supreme; for they have capital, and the promise of employment, though the end result for the average foreign worker is pretty much sheer drudgery while also having their dreams of meaningful success, crushed.

Exclusive enclaves of the rich

The United States is broken into three major wealth classes, which are known as the lower, middle, and upper classes.  Further, America is divided into other factions based upon race, creed, education, politics and other associated factors and characteristics that are of importance to people.  One might think that despite all the inherent differences between categories such as black and white, rich and poor, crime and safety, that for the most part there is just that one United States of liberty, justice and freedom; and thereby that each member of this country, is for better or worse, accorded their due respect for being a civil member of it.

In actuality, the people that make up the United States are not united, and really can't be united, because the very rich members of this country live exclusively separate lives to such an extent from all others, that the rich are really a separate category of a citizen, to the degree that all other citizens are really people of a different and distinct country.  So that, for instance, those that are poor and impoverished are limited in where they can live, the opportunities that they have, along with having to deal daily with the prejudices and obstructions that keep them stuck in their place, so that they aren't really all that free to appreciate the niceties of this country, not because it is illegal for them to avail themselves of such, but mainly because they have not the means or knowhow to get to those more desirable places. On the other hand, those that have vast riches, obviously can do just about whatever that they want to do, and therefore if they so desire they can live anywhere; but the rich deliberately congregate amongst themselves so as to protect what they have and to increase their concentration of power.

What the rich really don't want to ever have happen to them, besides losing their money, is to have feelings of guilt, for being, rich.  This thus signifies that the rich in order to feel comfortable have to place themselves into specific positions in which they are essentially surrounded either by open space or only by like-minded people and institutions that are also equally well endowed.    This is why the richest areas of any city, do not have any of the inconvenient accouterments of what plagues lower income areas and also why the rich will not tolerate anything that has the aura of poverty or decay to be in their environment.  That way, when the rich look around, they can pretend that this really is a wonderful country, of meritocracy, and justness, because what they see and congregate with, seems to fairly reflect exactly that.

After all, for the rich, everything that they don't see, because it doesn't exist in their social environment, allows them to believe that it must either not really exist, or if it does exist, it exists at some tolerable low level, which of course, can be overcome by those that exert themselves, and thereby pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  So that, what this really means, is that the world for the rich, is very, very good; so that anything that could conceivably upset this, must be put down by strong law and order, for the barbarians always must be kept outside the gates, and better yet, kept, far, far, away.

The government has an inherent obligation to spend the people's money, wisely

Each year, the federal government puts forth a budget, of which an outrageous sum of monies is dedicated to the "defense" of this great nation.  While there is something to be said about being prepared militarily for adverse events and therefore the protection of this nation, it must be unequivocally stated that the United States is absolutely in no imminent danger of being attacked by any other nation, or consortium of nations, or even terrorists in which it or its people are truly endangered to any meaningful extent.  In fact, it would appear that a whole lot of money dedicated to defense spending, is actually directed to areas of the world which are not United States territory, of which the necessity of the United States having to be the world's policeman is not written into any document, whatsoever.  Further to the point, by definition, wars and the planning of wars, are destructive in nature, not just of infrastructure but of people, and should be avoided to the degree that they can be avoided, as an impractical and immoral way to resolve differences and disputes.

How this country spends its money most definitely matters, in which brown.edu reports via the Cost of Wars Project that it "…finds that federal spending on domestic programs creates far more American jobs and yields more broad-based benefits than military spending."  In particular, this study states that "$1 million spent on defense creates 6.9 direct and indirect jobs, the same amount spent on elementary and secondary education creates 19.2 jobs."  Additionally, out of the ten categories studied by the Cost of Wars Project, monies spent on defense spending, finished dead last in its ability to create direct and indirect jobs.  That really shouldn't be all that surprising since the defense industry is far too often, non-transparent, non-competitive, and crippled with notorious cost overruns, in which, a lot of what is being manufactured serves no useful purpose other than to kill, harm, or to destroy people and infrastructures.

The military-industrial-technological complex wants to get as many contracts as it can from the government in order to increase its power and its corresponding profits, but the spending of all these billions upon armaments and equipment of all sorts isn't often productive, because what people really need is not more sophisticated killing and destroying machines, but rather good healthcare, good education, safe neighborhoods, and good economic opportunity. The United States is the world's richest nation in aggregate, but that money has skewed more and more to those few people and corporations working in select industries, so that those that are impoverished and living in substandard conditions have not been alleviated from their trying conditions.

It must be remembered that every dollar spent to kill another human being in some foreign nation or to bomb such into oblivion, is a dollar taken from the very mouths of those domestic citizens that are trying to uplift themselves into something of merit, but find that their efforts to do so are often futile, because they live in ghettos of poverty, of which their ill education, their poor healthcare, their limited job opportunities, and the police state that they must daily contend with, precludes them from having a fair shot at any semblance of success.

The military budget of the United States absolutely dwarfs any other nation; whereas the systemic poverty in this the greatest and richest nation of the world, should be a source of real embarrassment to it, but apparently is not. It would appear that America has turned out the light of liberty and opportunity for so many of its domestic denizens, in order to, instead, destroy with armaments that which they cannot convince or win over by providing a noble exemplar worth emulating.

The Constitution--simplified

Although the Constitution to the United States is a document that can be easily read within an hour, a lot of people in this great nation have never gotten around to doing even that.  Though that reflects rather poorly about the civic state of affairs in America; all is not lost, for the most important words of that Constitution are contained within its preamble, of which that Constitution begins with these immortal words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…", which if the representatives of those people of these United States would take these sacred words to heart and thereby keep them in mind for every legislative act so initiated or so contemplated, this country would be closer to being in actuality that land of liberty, tranquility, and of justice for all.

Again, it must be stated, that the whole point of the Constitution of, by, and for the people is to unite those people into one body politic.  Unfortunately, the people of these United States, are seldom really united about much of anything, but rather have separated themselves into feuding factions and divisive parties, to the detriment of this country and what it should properly stand for.  This is especially distressing in consideration that the highest law of this land, its Constitution, is supposed to be preserved, protected and defended, in particular, by those representatives that have this hallowed responsibility in their hands, but they seem too often to consciously ignore such, in order to support agendas that are inimical to those very principles of that Constitution.

Each of us, that are fortunate enough to be citizens of this great land, must recognized that this country is only as good as the people and representatives of this country, and that many a nation, has decayed and fallen from within, rather than being vanquished by some outside entity.  This signifies that this country is in need of a new birth of freedom that recognizes the critical importance that a country united must be built upon a foundation of rock solid principles, and that such a nation so constructed will stand strong, against virtually any adversary, foreign or domestic.  On the other hand, that nation that is at war with itself, as well as having a significant portion of its population, apathetic; is a country that will not stand the test of time, nor will it be able to stand strong against unexpected and sustained violent storms.

Those that are the people of this nation need to be committed to binding themselves together upon the principles of this nation, which are to unite a diverse people of different backgrounds, talents, and creeds into being patriots of this country, so as to achieve domestic tranquility, good welfare, fair opportunity, equal justice, and a nation that sustains its egalitarian principles.  The very point of this Constitution is for that Constitution to form the focus for the expressed benefit of those people, so that each one of us are able to thereby experience liberty as it is meant to be -- as well as our incumbent responsibilities to that liberty, by our willful participation in that which makes for good and healthy societies as well as great and stable nations.

Assault with intent to ravish

The vast majority of citizens in America are not lawyers, and further to this, that vast majority, has never taken a criminal justice course.  The thing about the law is that the pursuit of justice, finds that lawyers often desire to make it their point to purposely obfuscate to the general public what should be straightforward and understandable. The reason that this is so, is probably so that lawyers and judges can be seen to be wiser than they really are, and also as a means for justice to be more arbitrarily enforced against those that allegedly violate those suspect laws.

A case in point is statues which have been written into various State Constitutions, such as "assault with the intent to ravish", which are not only poorly constructed as law, but their actual enforcement, is usually quite selective, as well.  The most common way to define assault is as reported by law.cornell.edu is "…intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."  That definition of assault, without the incumbent battery of some sort as part of it, such as in assault and battery, makes it fairly subjective in determining whether or not an assault has occurred or not.  This is compounded by "the intent to ravish", of which ravish is an old fashion word for rape, and in order for rape to occur requires definite physical contact.  In regards to the word, "intent," unless a given person expresses themselves in an unequivocal manner, intent is something that an impartial jurisprudent body would have difficultly, fairly asserting that they indeed know a given person's intent; whereas a given action would be far more straightforward to adjudged, correctly.  So then, a statue such as "assault with the intent to ravish" is really one of those statutes set up for the express purpose to take what is probably a very minor incident and blow it up into something significantly more, with subsequently more significant penalties for those found guilty of.

To the point, southern States of the old confederacy, were noted for laws such as this, in which, the implicit point of such a law, was to keep segregated those that were black from those that were white, and especially to keep the now freed black man in his traditional place of obeisance to all that was white, and especially to keep black men fearful of coming into any sort of inappropriate contact, verbally, physically or otherwise, with white women.  Additionally, these laws were thought to be needed in order to keep, in particular, those black soldiers that served in the armed forces, consciously aware, that the southern way, had not changed, before or after their enlistment, and that the southern courts, were consequently no respecter of black men.

So then, it should be noted, that certain State laws are passed by specific legislatures in order to utilize therefore that force of law, to, in essence, circumvent Constitutional law, by having the option of using that law in a manner in which those that cross certain unwritten rules and lines, will thereby know their place; by the specific usage of that law, against even those that somehow believed that by their service to their country, that  they might expect that country to actually live up to its credo, of life, liberty, and justice for all.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves

On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves within the rebellious States.  Of course, it is one thing to make a Proclamation, and a very different thing, in a time of war, in which the south had not yet been vanquished to actually see the effect of that Proclamation.  However, in due time, the north was victorious, and those formerly enslaved were now duly freed. 

Yet, despite the union having prevailed, there were still some that were being held in bondage, for that Proclamation, freed only those slaves that were within the States that rebelled.  This thus meant that in border States such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, slavery as an institution was still legal, and although these States had the right to free those so enslaved through appropriate legislation, this still left those that were enslaved before the war, enslaved, in absence of such. While it is true, that many slaves within those States, joined the emigration exodus out of their servitude, there was, as told in the book, “Southern Subversive,” “Nearly 100,000 Americans …still enslaved in Kentucky by the end of the civil war…”

Before, Lincoln became President he was a very accomplished attorney, in which he was quite familiar with the Constitution, of which one of the concerns of Lincoln, was the burning necessity to tie up the loose ends of the freeing of slaves through that Proclamation, with a specific Constitutional Amendment addressing this very issue.  That Amendment, was presented to Congress so as to unequivocally eliminate slavery within the United States, and upon its ratification, this is exactly what it achieved.

So then, for those unfortunate people that were still legally enslaved of which their owners were not willing to free them, probably because of their monetary value and usefulness to those owners, the 13th Amendment, provided these still enslaved persons with their deserved freedom.  As for those wondering why Lincoln simply didn’t free all of the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation to begin with, regardless of their particular location within the United States; he first of all did not believe he had the legitimate power to do so, and secondly did not wish to force the hand of those border States to possibly secede from the union, and therefore was not willing to tamper with this peculiar institution.

At the conclusion of the war, Lincoln knew that his Presidential Proclamation, issued during war time, might easily be construed to no longer be valid, which is why the 13th Amendment had to come into play. This thus meant for those that had been loyal to the union, but still had held onto their slaves, that they had no choice but to adjust to the fact that the world after that civil war, was not the same world, and quite frankly they probably should have known that this day surely was to come, especially in the recognition that the President had made it very clear that he did not see how a house divided could continue to stand, and thereby America would be either all one thing or all the other.

Fortunately, for those previously enslaved, after the 13th Amendment was ratified, America became, at least on paper, all the other thing, and thereby a land of freedom, of which it has a continuing sacred obligation to truly live up to those immortal words of being that sweet land of liberty, for all.

Is this a government of, for, and by the people or something entirely else?

It is a fundamental belief that this country was created by the people, and for the benefit of those people, which is why we have elected representatives that are voted in by the people, in all our various forms of government, with the sole exception of some judicial appointments, that are made by elected officials.  In consideration, then, that those that are elected have been democratically selected by the people, one would have a tendency to believe that it so follows that the policies and laws so passed throughout governmental activities, would be a fair reflection of what the majority of the people desire, and certainly in conformance to our Constitution, with its specific delegation of powers.

In point of fact, everything about America, indicates that what the people want seems to be pretty much irrelevant, and instead, quite often the policies that are put into place, reflect not the desires of those people, but rather clearly are in close harmony with those lobbyists, corporations, and trade organizations, that have specific agendas that they desire to see passed, in which by a combination of money and their influence upon the values of representatives of all types, are able to see that again and again, the legislation that these parties desire to see passed or modified, are done in a manner that favors those elites as well as corporate interests, at the expressed expense of the people.

While, no doubt, part of the blame should be placed upon the people, themselves, in the sense that a significant portion of those people, either don't vote, or are not engaged in educating themselves in the policies of the day; the vast majority of the problem really comes down to money, and the salient fact that those with money, in conjunction with those that are masterfully gifted with the ways to use money to influence media of all types and to therefore influence people in their voting selections, carries a lot more of the blame.

Additionally, there is the motivation factor when it comes to policies of all sorts, of which the vast majority of people that actually do the voting, have other interests that engage them on a given day, so that the amount of time that they can devote to any one issue, or have a concern about with a particular issue is relatively limited, and hence these voters while having preferences on issues, aren't available to devote anything close to an unlimited amount of time or resources upon it.  On the other hand, organizations and lobbyists are specifically created to address issues that they most definitely care about, of which they address such activities in a very serious and businesslike manner, that they well-nigh do anything to see that their particular agenda is passed, because in their mindset, those issues mean everything to them and the only acceptable outcome is their winning.

Quite frankly, it isn't a fair fight between individual voters and special interests, in which the average citizen, might not even be aware of what is really happening, whereas the other side most definitely is quite aware of everything that is happening, and treats what they are trying to accomplish, as the be all and end all of their existence; so it thereby should come as no surprise, that the voters are outgunned, outmaneuvered, and marginalized, so that the end result is that this is not a government, of, for, and by the people but is instead the domain of those that have the money, position, and power, and this is the most significant reason why the rich keep getting richer and ever richer.

The wealth tax

According to the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of Americans own 32% of the wealth of America, which is astonishing amount of wealth in those very few hands.  When it comes to taxation, and in recognition, that the income tax as initially created via the Revenue Act of 1913, that such a tax was only applicable to, as reported by Wikipedia.org "approximately three percent of the population," in 1913, that it should be thereby acknowledged that at the present time, the income tax has morphed into capturing far more people, than was its original intent.  This signifies that America needs to go back to fully recognizing that the most basic reason why an income tax was created, and a progressive income tax in particular, was never to tax the middle class, but rather to apply such taxation upon those people that could well afford to be taxed, that is, the very rich; so that this country would not ever devolve into being controlled by an elite class, that would for all intents and purposes, be separate from the people by virtue of having the money to "boss" and to influence their way via legislation, tax laws, and so on.

At the present time, taxation only applies to income, but does not apply against wealth in and of itself, and in point of fact, because our present day taxation does not tax wealth, directly; the wealth discrepancy between the ultra rich and the middle class of America, is at unprecedented levels, and will not self-correct, unless something of significance is accomplished with our present day tax code, of which, the very best plan, would be to tax the wealth held specifically by the very rich.  Not only would taxing wealth, at a progressive rate, which would be applicable only to those that have $10 million or more in wealth be a sound plan in regards to the government being able to receive much needed revenue in order to balance its budget, it would also not have any real material deleterious effect upon the very rich.  In other words, having a wealth tax that would begin at .5% and would thereby be capped at 2.5% would be more than enough to bring in billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of American governance, and while, no doubt, would make the superrich, whine and complain, it would not break them, not by a long shot.

In the scheme of things, it is contradictory to have a progressive tax rate, when such a progressive tax rate, ignores the accumulated wealth of an individual or even that of a corporation.  The point of a progressive tax rate is to tax at a higher level those that have more, and it is as simple as that.  Taxation is the price that good citizens pay for good governance and a good society, of which, those that are fortunate enough to have bucket-loads of money have an inherent obligation to do their part to contribute back to that society which provided them with the opportunity to make that money in the first place.  Those that have more than enough need to be reminded, by the tax code, if nothing else, that nobody is an island, but that all are part of a greater whole.

America was formed for the express purpose of capitalism, or was it?

The word capitalism does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, nor does it appear in the United States Constitution. In fact, capitalism as defined in the modern convention is an economic system of which businesses as well as individuals own goods that they produce, manufacture, or create and thereupon sell those goods to other businesses or individuals, at a profitable price point that is agreed upon by the parties to that transaction.  That said, it wasn't until the mid 19th century, that capitalism, as a word was even utilized, and capitalism as a word didn't start to become into somewhat common usage until far into the 20th century, which signifies that clearly America was never formed for the express purpose of capitalism, whatsoever; though most Americans, today, see the United States as a de facto capitalistic society.

Now, of course, some might argue, that words both fall out of favor and into favor, and although capitalism as a word didn't exist back at the inception of this nation; nevertheless, still in principle, this country, has always been about free enterprise, free markets, and about business, above all else.  Yet, the word corporation does not appear in the Constitution, and in fact, the word business appears only just once, and this in the specific sense of the need for a quorum of congressional representatives that have to be available, in order to transact legislative "business".  So then, it appears that America wasn't founded upon capitalism, nor was it founded upon business, yet, somehow, modern day talking heads, are insistent upon the belief that the "business of America is business".

The reason that capitalists and businessmen are so obsessed about business above all, really comes down to the salient fact that they are obsessed about making money, above all; and therefore want the American public to believe that there isn't anything more important than the necessary conducting of business to make money, for money and profit apparently makes everything, better.  While, that might very well appear to be true for those that are capitalists, it isn't what this country was actually founded upon. Instead, it would be more accurate to state that rather than this being a country based primarily about business and the making of money, this country, was in fact, established upon the equality of mankind, freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights for all.

When Abraham Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, what he did not bother to mention was any word having to do with business; instead, he wished "…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…" which is exactly what this country was meant to have from its inception.  This freedom of speech, this freedom of the press, this freedom of assembly, this freedom of movement, this freedom of person, this freedom of choice, and this freedom of liberty, is the essence of America at its inestimable best.  To the degree that this country honors those freedoms, it honors what this great nation was founded upon.  So then, to the degree that capitalism contributes to that freedom, so much to the good; and to the degree that capitalism does not contribute to that freedom, this so represents the fundamental problem and enduring error with any system of enterprise that in its implementation comes to the place where it supersedes or compromises that unalienable freedom of the people, by supplanting such with the lust for money and profit, above all else.

The freedom to think and to speak our mind is our unalienable right

Before there was the Constitution of the United States, and before there was even the United States of America, there was the Declaration of Independence, signed by each of the thirteen colonies, representatives.  That Declaration of Independence, made it clear that each one of us has the unalienable right of liberty, and that implicitly part of having that liberty is our freedom to speak our mind as well as to think our thoughts without unwarranted governmental constraints.

We now live in a troubling age, in which so much of what we do in public or through social media, or by our travels, or through our credit cards, or by our phone conversations, are subject to oversight directly or indirectly by governmental forces, as well as by corporations that are able to thereby obtain detailed dossiers of virtually every citizen that is an active participant with the tools of this modern age.  The very fact, that we are now to a very large degree, being watched, and watched not only in the public streets of society, but by virtue of the devices that we utilize within our private space, also being watched there; means that the speaking of our minds, in an age and era, in which words spoken can easily be recorded, unbeknownst to us or not, puts mankind on the pathway of their speech being stymied, silenced, or modified, even without civil or criminal penalties, just by the fact that it can be listened to by outside sources. That is to say, part of the pernicious consequence of being watched, in which people know that they are being watched is that this often serves to modify behavior of those people to thereby conform to expected community standards.

Of even more concern, is that when people are subsequently afraid to think certain thoughts, because those thoughts run outside the given orthodoxy of that time, in which those people doing that thinking believe that logically most actions ultimately committed are preceded by thoughts upon such, are prone to self-censoring themselves in order to conform to the standards of the community that watches over them.   So then, in any situation in which adults are precluded from thinking certain thoughts because they fear the consequences of those thoughts actualized, they are no longer free; and when people are afraid to voice their viewpoint whether verbally or by other means, because they fear the consequences of doing so, then they are no longer free.

When any state or corporations within that state, are able to affect the free thinking, talking, and doing of citizens, what thereby occurs is that those that think outside the box, or are creative, or different, or march to the beat of a different drummer, are to a very large degree, silenced or modified in their subsequent thoughts and deeds.  To somehow believe that the future of mankind is in the conformity of mankind, in which the more conformance, the better that society, is a monstrous error; for mankind was not ever meant to be automatons, but instead have all been equally gifted by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, of which no state or corporate entity has the ethical right to subsume such, and to thereby steal their  fellow citizens' freedom of thought, or of speech, as if that state or corporate entity was their creator, and thereupon their master puppeteer.

The utter waste of America's excessive defense expenditures

On September 11, 2001, suicide missions that originated from the Middle East were surprisingly successful in hitting their targets in New York City as well as upon the Pentagon.  Since that time the United States has insisted time and time again to the public that they ostensibly serve, that the United States needs far more funding for defensive purposes for  homeland security as well as the need to pass legislative surveillance laws that though sold to the public as necessary for their safety, has been also utilized in a manner to aid and augment that government of, by, and for the people to themselves be subject to invasive surveillance at unprecedented levels, heretofore, unknown.

The defense department since 9/11 has thereupon taken upon itself an inordinate amount of self-serving praise that they are well defending this country and thereby protecting our homeland, and without such protection, who knows how many additional terrorist attacks would have successfully occurred.  The thing that is barely ever mentioned is that the United States has no contiguous enemies, along with the salient facts that the Middle East is not only quite a considerable physical distance away, but also that suicide missions, by definition, are a one and done deal.

To properly put things in perspective, we need to take a look at America's historic bogeyman, at least since the conclusion of World War II, which is Russia.  For the years 2002-2019, Russia spent on average $51 billion on its defense, whereas America, a country that is considerably smaller in physical land size, but also considerably bigger in population at about a 2.25 population ratio to Russia, has during those same years, spent on average $588 billion, yearly. Since the whole point of defense spending is to protect not so much the physical country, but the people that make up that nation-- we should thereupon multiple Russia's defense expenditure annual average of $51 billion by a 2.25 population ratio so that this would fairly reflect a population base of about the same amount of peoples, in which, that would thereby give Russia a budget of $115 billion on average for those years.  Thus, we see that the difference in expenditures between what America might spent on defense if it was only willing to match its defense expenditures at the same percentage of monies so spent on a per person basis with Russia, would represent a budget of $115 billion, and this would have saved on average through the years of 2002-2019, a yearly total of $473 billion, of which those monies could have been used for something of lasting value, such as providing the means for each American to be fairly entitled to good healthcare, good education, good lodging, as well as a living wage, instead of sacrificing all of this at the altar of the defense budget.  Further to the point, even at $115 billion a year for defense spending, this would still be on a per annual basis, more monies so spent than any other country in the world, with the sole exception of China, which is a country far behind in the development of their defense industry, as well as being a country with a population of nearly 1.4 billion peoples.

All of the unnecessary billions being spent on defense infrastructure  by this country is one of the most important factors, and possible the most important factor as to why this country has such a high percentage of systemic poverty, unfairness, inequality, suspect health quality, injustice, and why Lady Liberty weeps.

Take the profit out of war

In America, the military-industrial-technology complex is absolutely gargantuan, and continues to grow year-by-year, seemingly without end, even though in actuality there is no country, no terrorist organization, and no consortium of countries that are a real true threat to America sovereignty.   The American government seems to be enthralled to that military-industrial-technology complex in which billions upon billions of monies, could actually be utilized for something of real utility for the people of this nation, and to thereby make this the greatest country on earth, but are squandered instead upon an endless stream of armaments of all types, whose main purpose is not the creation of things of good and worth, but primarily the very opposite of this, which is the destruction of that which has value and worth, in the mistaken belief that somehow war brings peace.

The only possible way to bring the military-industrial-technology complex to heel, is to quite simply, take the profit out of the whole war and armaments business;  for nothing, absolutely nothing, entices and enchants the biggest and the most powerful corporations in America, then their lust for profit and thereby without that profit, or the means to that profit, their interest in the whole armaments industry would wan, for without profit, incentives fade, for America is above all, a country that is all about the money.

Of course, no business desires to lose revenue, or that corresponding profit, but just as industries that are not directly or even indirectly involved in the war effort, have the capacity to be geared up in wartime in order to create war armaments or components of, so too can the armaments industry to a significant extent, be restructured in a manner that they can create things of real lasting value, rather than of destructive power.  After all, those businesses which are unable to reconfigure their skill-sets into something that makes for a better world and thereby provides a real utilitarian value to their society, have no legitimate valid place in a civil society.

There cannot be a truly civilized society, until mankind and societies, no matter their differences and their disputes, are able to resolve such through the auspices of civil discourse that involves fairness, and justice.  The fact that this world is to such a large extent, living in a construct in which it is still considered legitimate or appears to be considered legitimate to kill, destroy, and to attack other countries with armaments and weapons of incredible dehumanizing force, indicates that war is somehow considered to be a lawful and appropriate action.

Again, rather than having to see that the most powerful countries on this earth are subject to modern day Nuremberg trials, as they should rightfully be, it would be far better to recognize that the Nuremberg trials already have determined that present day war pretty much will initiate either directly or indirectly crimes against peace, or war crimes, or crimes against humanity.   The best way to resolve these issues of war is to take the all of the profit out of it, for once the money is gone, those shouting the loudest about the need and justification of war, will find themselves enraptured instead by whatever they have found to replaced such, with their greedy need for profit.

The rise of the imperial presidency

The United States is comprised of three branches, the executive, the judicial, and the legislative, in which these three branches provide the necessary checks and balances to assure the American people, that no one branch will run roughshod over the others, and thereby circumventing or ignoring the will of the people.  Unfortunately, what has evolved since the United States has come into existence, is that the only branch of that government, that has but a sole member to it, the executive branch, which by virtue of not having anyone else inside that branch to contradict or to preclude their desires, has in those situations, in which their will is not being enforced, or recognized, or appreciated, too often demonstrated a strong impetus to increase their power by the usage of executive orders, which are thereby treated, for the most part, as legitimate federal law; in addition to using their executive powers through the gift of patronage.

The federal government has, for instance, a budget of $4.79 trillion for FY2020, which is an astonishing amount of money and obviously has within it, plenty of areas that are susceptible to undue influence, outright corruption, deceit, and flexibility when it comes to how those monies will be allocated, where so allocated, how so allocated, and commitments so made.  This indicates that to the degree that the executive branch can impact the allocation of monies budgeted for various defense contracts, allocations for civil structure and outlays, and so on and so forth; in which whether or not these funds go to a specific congressional district, or even to a given State, is most definitely going to affect those legislative representatives in a manner in which they are effectively placed in a position to be compromised by that executive branch.

So then, the more power that is held in executive hands, in which that president, directly or indirectly, controls the outlay of federal funds, expenditures, and programs within certain areas of the United States, the more that presidency represents something akin to an imperial presidency, and becomes then a return back to that which the colonies revolted against in 1776.  While there may even be some advantages to having an imperial presidency in the sense that things so ordered by decree, will get done; that doesn't correctly represent the Constitutional structure of this government of, by, and for the people, and it isn't what this country represents or is supposed to represent.  Instead, the people's voice, which is already muted enough via poor legislative representation and lack of rectitude, will become even more of an afterthought, and thereby this country will no longer have a representative government, but an imperial one.

That said, there are still two branches of this government that can do a lot more to stop or to stymie the rise of an imperial presidency, as well as the fact that presidents, are elected, and not appointed, so that the people at the ballot box, have the opportunity every four years, to select only a candidate that represents and respects the highest law of the land, its Constitution.  If then, those people of that country will not hold accountable the president to those laws of that Constitution, their sovereignty will ultimately be subsumed into that which counts them for virtually nothing.

Effective corporate tax rates are way too low

It is a basic truism, that just about nobody likes to pay taxes, be they corporate or individual, but governments are instituted upon the consent of the people for the benefit of those people, of which, it is the appropriate duty of those people and those corporations as authorized by the people to pay taxes.  Of course, it is one thing, to pay taxes, reluctantly or not, and it is an entirely different thing, when it comes to tax fairness, of which, clearly the tax system in America, seems deliberately set up in a manner in which some are able to circumvent their appropriate tax payments, by questionable legislation, legal maneuvers, and deals that those that have money or connections with are able to exclusively avail themselves of.

A case in point, is as reported by americanfortaxfairness.org, the "Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013," which is an truly astonishing fact, and clearly reflective that corporations are able to successfully work the angles to avert the paying of their fair share of taxes at an extremely skilled level.  What is so disappointing to the general public is that taxes that are not being fairly paid by corporations are thereupon placed upon the citizens of the United States, who are typically already overburdened with paying their share of those taxes, to begin with. 

Additionally, successful corporations, of which America has the worldwide lion's share of the biggest and the most profitable, are the very vehicles that have an abundance of monies that could readily lend them to doing their fair share, but many of these corporations prefer instead, to pay as little as they can "legally" pay.  Further to the point, the unfairness of corporations continues in respect to the fact that human beings not only have a finite life, but typically have a finite amount of life that is spent gainfully employed, and ultimately when human beings die, their estate is subject to taxes, if large enough.  Whereas, corporations are artificial constructs authorized by the government, of which, some of these corporations have been in existence for over 125 years and that have not yet faced, and apparently will never face some sort of estate tax upon their company, for they are for all practical purposes, perpetual.

Also, though there are individuals that are multi-billionaires, in point of fact, the worth of corporations as defined by their market capitalization, absolutely dwarfs all those individual multi-billionaires; for corporations are behemoths, that are not only seemingly endless in their duration, but also gargantuan in their size, of which they can exceed even one trillion dollars in market capitalization, that thereupon allows them to use their capital assets as well as their implied threats of employment opportunities or continuance of, as an absolute cudgel against outmanned and outmaneuvered, or possibly compromised government officials that get in their way.

The bottom line is that those with the deepest pockets and those with the most money as well as the most influence are in fact, corporations that have seen their fair share of the federal tax revenue plummet over the last sixty years, thereby leaving the American public to handle not only their own share, but the corporate share as well.  Not too surprisingly, during this period of time, the disparity of income and assets between those that are the richest of the rich, including corporations, as compared to those of the middle class, has grown further apart at unhealthy levels, signifying that there are two ways to grow one's assets, one is by making more money and the other is by paying less in taxes.

That which is changeless and eternal is the only ultimate reality

Anybody that believes in a god that changes, evolves, or is affected somehow by anything that occurs at anytime or at anywhere, fundamentally are believing in either a lesser god, or do not understand the true nature of the only God.  This is but one true God, and that God is timeless, eternal, changeless, omnipotent, omniscience, and immutable.  While the concept of a perfect changeless God that has always been in existence and always will be in existence may seem like a difficult concept for some people to grasp as well as to comprehend, that does not invalidate the inviolable truth that this is indeed so.

Far too many people want to desperately believe that which is real, is only those things or sights that can be seen or touched; yet, all around us, we find that we deal with everyday things that are unseen and are untouchable such as gravity or the wind, of these we cannot see or hold, yet they are very real.  Still, as interesting, as enchanting, or as frustrating, that our earthly experience can be, the end result for all those that born into this world, is that the physical body being finite in its creation, will ultimately pass away, for our physical bodies and even this planet, are impermanent.

In fact, there is nothing tangible that any of us interact with daily that is not, ultimately, impermanent.  This doesn't mean that we are not real, but rather what it means is that just as we are subject to change, all that we deal with, are also subject to change.  This signifies that the world that we currently exist in, is transitory in nature, and always will be transitory, for that which is created into existence, has both a beginning as well as an end.

On the other hand, all that which is changeless, immutable, and eternal, by definition, has no beginning and has no end; and hence only this substance can be the ultimate reality, because its constitution can never be amended or changed.  So then, to the degree that we concentrate our efforts on transitory things is the degree that we often get out of sync with what really matters.  That which is eternal is never going to be physical, but instead has to be beyond physicality, as well as being beyond time and space.  So that, it behooves us not to limit our thinking and our mindset, by defining ourselves as just some physical body, but rather the better viewpoint is to see ourselves as spiritual beings temporarily housed within a physical body, which thus allows us to know that we are all part of a greater whole.

There is, in the scheme of things, just that one ultimate reality, and all that which is transitory, should be seen for what it really is, which is no more than space and time created for us as a proving ground, that all must ultimately answer to, for false gods lead to false paths, whereas the one true reality is that which never changes, and is forever lasting and enduring.

A life without purpose is seldom going to be a good life to live

In modern society, and especially in western nations, things such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare are to a large extent, taken care of, for those that need such assistance, in a competent manner by governmental and charitable organizations. The fact that in western societies that food, shelter, air, and water are typically abundantly available for most everyone, signifies that one of the driving forces of life, that is, survival, is for the most part, handled well by the modern welfare state.

So then, it must be recognized that one of the most motivating forces that creates purpose in a given person's life, mankind's survival, is to a large extent, not really the driving force that it once was, because the structure of modern society has done a good job of addressing that in a manner in which, the fight for survival, has already been fought and has been won on behalf of the people.  However, as in most everything, there is a good and bad side to such an equation, in which the good is that it frees each of us up to have therefore the fair opportunity to pursue something of merit or of interest; whereas, on the other hand, for those that are not motivated, or come from poor circumstances, the choices are not only a lot worse, but the purpose often needed to create a positive life, can be sorely lacking.

This thus creates a real dichotomy in which some people are going to have a life with a real purpose and by having that purpose and pursuing it, often find fruitful satisfaction; but, others are going to lack direction, lack focus, and ultimately lack the life skills so needed, that their life lacks a good purpose, in which often that life doesn't have much of a purpose or even direction at all.  If, those without purpose, were simply passive people that sort of faded into the background, that would be one thing; but rather, in many cases, those without a good purpose, gravitate strongly to antisocial and misanthropic behavior that breeds retribution and violence directed against some of those that they come across.

After all, in a material society, in which some have a heck of a lot, and others have just barely enough; and of which some are on a pathway to material success and others know for a certainty that they are not on such a pathway, this is going to create some serious conflict, especially when one party, can't think of a real good reason why they shouldn't get what they want by any means, necessary.

A life without purpose, or a dead-end life, often signifies a mindset that is going to want to strike out against the futility of life, and thereby at what that life so represents to them.  That is to say, when life offers little or nothing to live for, then the value of another person's life or their property is going to be valued at a very discounted rate, and bad things are consequently going to occur at a stubbornly high frequency, in which the only viable solution to such, is by fundamentally addressing that mindset so as to find a good purpose or direction in that life, and then maintain good accordance to that good purpose.

Who benefits from massive governmental deficits?

The United States government can't seem to manage a balance budget, and quite frankly, doesn't seem to care, or to even make an honest effort to do so.  This thus makes one think, that perhaps there are powerful forces that purposely do not want the United States to balance its budget, and would prefer that it continue its indebtedness.  So then, the best way to ponder this question is to determine, what parties most greatly benefit from this current state of affairs.

First, the United States government, in order to create money, must sell treasury instruments, bonds, and other financial instruments to outside entities, such as foreign entities, as well as to domestic investors.  Additionally, the United States government receives monetary funding from the Federal Reserve System, which is a consortium of banks that are actually independent of the federal government.   All of these are necessary in order for the government to print money and to take care of its fiduciary duties, but as in all debts so created, that debt must be paid back and there is a time cost to that money so borrowed, of which that cost is expressed by the interest rate so charged, of which, as reported by thebalance.com, for fiscal year 2020, "The interest on the debt is $479 billion."  To understand this better, recognize that the United States government, on behalf of its citizens, is so indebted that it must pay $479 billion just in interest on that debt; or in other words, this is the cost of purchasing things without having the ready money to pay for it at the time of that purchase, of which a fiscally sound government would not therefore have to budget $479 billion just to service the debt, without actually receiving any material goods or services in return.

So then, those that lend money to the United States government, benefit greatly from essentially following the very basic principle, that those that have money and then loan out that money at a particular interest rate, are essentially making money from money, without having to do anything of merit, to earn such. Further to the point, in principle, that which is the borrower is in hock to that which is the lender; signifying that the entity with the money, has an immense amount of influence over the other party that needs that money or access to money in order to sustain itself, and therefore can thereby exert a great deal of influence over governmental policies.

There are two basic ways for the government to balance its budget, of which these are not mutually exclusive; of which one is to raise the taxes upon the population, its corporations, as well as upon the duties of imports and the like, and the second is to reduce governmental expenditures for the military and other assorted budget items that are funded by the government.  What is occurring at the present time is neither the budget is being reduced, nor are taxes being raised, but instead, powerful vested interests see that these are unaffected.  This thus means that the richest of the rich, and the most powerful of the powerful, are beneficiaries on both sides of the equation, in which by virtue of the government having to borrow from them directly, or indirectly, they make that easy money; in addition, by not being fairly and appropriately taxed via our progressive tax system or through higher corporate taxes, or through higher capital gains taxes, they not only keep more of their money but are able to continue to augment and to grow that money.

So then, the primary beneficiaries of governmental deficits are the richest and most powerful, and the losers are the general population that are stuck carrying the weight of that debt, not only for the present generation, but of generations still to come.

The Freedom of Information Act and private contractors engaged in military actions

The United States Freedom of Information Act, is applicable against public authorities, in which that government of, by, and for the people, has the right to access such pertinent information as held by those authorities on behalf of the people, so that the people will have appropriate knowledge of that which it government does, good or bad, right or wrong.  One of those things, that the people have the rightful need to know, is information about military engagements that this country engages in with a myriad of opponents, all over the globe.  The problem that occurs at the present time, in regards to that needful information, is that despite the fact that the military personnel of America has an abundance of both soldiers and military resources of all sorts, it also, far more often then it should, outsources a great deal of its military adventures or misadventures to private contractors and even more chilling, subcontractors to those private contractors.

The reason that private contractors engaging in military adventures is especially of concern to these citizens of the United States, is that unlike federal actions and federal activities, those that are private contractors to those federal departments, are not susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act by the public, through the subterfuge of availing themselves of the excuse that such that they are doing is proprietary information or other questionable excuses.  While there may well be legitimate reasons why private contractors would not want to release information in regards to what they are doing overseas in support of our military affairs; it must be said that military activities that are hidden from the public view, of which the military-industrial-technology complex for a certainty knows that they cannot be compelled by law to release this information about those private contractors are going to be prone to abuses of all sorts, and lend itself to activities that the military-industrial-technology complex would not want to directly participate in -- which thereby really says it all.

There should not be two different military-industrial-technology complexes within America; of which one is ultimately held accountable to the people, whereas the other, lead by private contractors and subcontractors to those private contractors, is not.  What has occurred in the present situation is that the dirtiest deeds, the deeds that those in the know do not wish to voluntarily divulge are outsourced to those private contractors, so that all sorts of questionable activities are done in the shadows, never to be fully disclosed to American citizens.

The Freedom of Information Act was passed in order to provide more transparency to the American public, for the government of this country is not set above the people, but is part and parcel of the people.  Not too surprisingly, governmental institutions, and especially military ones, find it much easier to conduct activities of questionable nature, or even an illegal nature, when they are able to find an avenue in which what they are doing is controlled by that institution and what is known, is only provided on a "need to know" basis.  The bottom line is that because private contractors are the way for the military-industrial-technology complex to avert transparency, then the law either needs to be amended to preclude this, or private contractors should be eliminated from the military-industrial-technology complex; especially in consideration that each year, more and more "work" gets outsourced, to those private contractors, of which American citizens are not provided a fair vetting of what they are actually doing in their name, while representing the red, white, and blue.

College costs are way, way too high

As reported by forbes.com, "There are 45 million borrowers who collectively owe nearly $1.6 trillion in student loan debt in the U.S," which is an absolutely staggering figure and incredibly debilitating to those that are indebted to those higher educational institutions.  In a time in which, colleges are able to be more virtual in providing learning as a viable option to its students, and of which, the cost of computing power, networking, and communicating has never been more cost efficient; rather than the costs of college becoming lower  as well as more competitive in aggregate, or at least providing more bang for the buck in total, we have seen the costs of college education skyrocket at rates far exceeding the inflation rate, and placing thereupon this extra burden upon the students'  shoulders and their wallets, instead.

Further to the point, in this new world, in which achieving a college degree seems to be a prerequisite in order to have a fair opportunity to earn a good salary; that educational requirement essentially places what has to be looked upon as a huge tax burden upon those that haven't even begun to earn their own keep, as of yet.  Additionally, colleges of all types, but especially those pernicious online "for profit" colleges of questionable merit, have high percentages of dropouts that therefore do not earn that college degree but are unfortunately stuck with the burden of paying for something that was never completed.  Also, there are those that go through the whole rigmarole in getting their college degree only to find out that in the real world, their degree accounts them nothing, except some begrudging credit that they at least, stayed the course, and got a graduate degree, but apparently not one of any real value in finding gainful employment of fair compensation in their study subject of choice.

The fact that college costs have soared over the last few decades is a clear reflection that at the highest levels of those involved in the cost structure of these colleges, that there is an implicit collusion between these institutions to drive those costs ever higher and to burden therefore students as well as those guaranteeing those loans to the students; of which those doing the guaranteeing, ultimately remains the taxpayers in whole.  That is to say, many college institutions are all about extracting as much money as possible from the students attending their college, in the recognition that they will be fully paid by the government in a timely manner, or its equivalency, and thereby are blithely unconcerned how those students personally deal with that debt.  This thus makes colleges, very motivated, as a collective unit, to simply push up their prices, year by year, because, quite obviously, the higher the price, the better the reward and the better the growth for those colleges, which clearly benefits the vested interests behind those colleges, at the direct expense of those students so attending, as well as those taxpayers guaranteeing the payment of.

The only possible solution to this current conundrum is really as straightforward, as it being mandated by law, that each State of this union, be required to provide a reasonably price college of higher learning to all those students meeting a certain certified standard, of which those college tuition costs would be forever tied to inflation, so as to remain a direct benefit to those students and for the express benefit of this country.