1031 exchange for stock equities

The 1031 exchange is a taxation law that applies only to real estate investors and thus permits them to exchange one property for another, within a specific time period as dictated by the applicable rules, which thereby precludes them from having to pay a capital gain on the purchase of a like-kind property, which quite obviously is beneficial because there are no immediate tax consequences, because those capital gains have been deferred, thus permitting that investor to keep all of their money in play, and not have any of such siphoned over to taxation.

 When it comes to stock equities, there is no such thing as a 1031 exchange, and the tax code specifically forbids such. Still, as in just about anything when it comes to taxes, these tax codes are subject to change, as well as being subject to review, which thereby means that if there was an effort to put forth to present a proposal for a 1031 type exchange for stock equities, that those who currently sell one stock to subsequently purchase another which means that they have to pay a capital gain on what they have sold would thereby have an avenue to defer their capital gain if a 1031 for stock equities was legislated into existence.

 Indeed, investors sell stocks for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that they prefer to put their investment into a different stock equity, of which a modified 1031 would permit them to do so without having to suffer the proximate hit from a capital gains tax.  On the other hand, some people sell their stocks because they need to scare up money to pay bills, or to purchase something else, and thus these folks would still be subject to an immediate capital gains tax.

 It just seems sensible for investors who are staying within the same domain to have the option to defer capital gains when they essentially migrate from one specific stock investment to another stock investment, and are therefore not desiring to actually cash out any capital gain profit that they have achieved.  No doubt, investors of all sorts would embrace this, being the case for stock equities, so being sold under a 1031 exchange program, which would seem to signify that our legislators should at least consider bringing this to the table for a debate and discussion.

 While it is true that with a stock equity 1031 exchange that there would be a reduction in capital gains taxes captured by the tax authorities, it needs to be recognized that those capital gains would still be available for the government to be taxed, once they are sold for cash, so that the argument could be made that these aren’t really capital gains that have been eliminated, because they haven’t been, but rather these are capital gains that have been deferred, and since this government seems to believe that investing in stock equities is good for America and thereby good for American businesses, then a 1031 exchange for stock equities would appear to be something of merit, to seriously consider.

The cost of living in America is way too high

We read at AI overview that a single person in America needs on average about $2500 monthly income to cover their cost of living expenses, as compared to around $1700 to $2200 in comparable Western European countries, which is a significant difference between the two – while also representing the basic reason why so many people in America struggle from paycheck to paycheck which also is very disappointing in consideration that America is blessed with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and superior higher-educational facilities, but somehow is not competitive when it comes to its cost of living, which is further exacerbated by the fact that the disparity between the wealthy and the classes below these elites are getting ever steeper and with no real reason to believe that this trendline will change in the near future to favor the lower classes.

 While there are a lot of things that America could concentrate its energies upon, it should probably consider first to do something about the cost of living in this nation, so as to put itself on a pathway of being more competitive with like countries – of which, America needs to take a serious look at, for instance, what can be done to make housing more affordable, as well as to reduce its energy and insurance costs, along with addressing robustly both childcare costs as well as its strikingly high healthcare costs.

 As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and the proof that the cost of living in America is too high is reflected by the fact that so many Americans struggle just to keep their heads above water in this, the richest country in aggregate in the entire world.  This would seem to strongly suggest that the benefits that the people get from their government through their mandated tax contributions needs to be seriously re-evaluated, and our supposed progressive tax system, in addition to corporate taxes doesn’t seem to work the way that it should, because there are a multitude of superrich corporations as well as wealthy individuals that somehow don’t come close to paying their full freight when it comes to taxes, and a significant portion of these, actually don’t pay any taxes, at all.

 It would seem that this nation is run in a way that the powers that be don’t have any real problems with the way that things currently are, which would seem to strongly suggest that our representative government doesn’t really represent the people at all.  Indeed, the fact that our cost of living is so high, is a significant reason why there is an estimated six million Americans that have moved abroad to take advantage of a lower cost of living and an overall higher quality of life, which this government should see as a “slap in the face” and thereby a reflection that not all is right within its borders.

 Look, the bottom line is that what really matters is the affordability and thereby the cost of living for our people in comparison to the income that those people have, and because that cost of living is unnecessarily high, this signifies that this nation needs to see this as the proximate problem to resolve, or else the American dream will turn more and more into a nightmare.

The need for stringent limits on digital searches

In order to be a free people, the people need to have full control of their digital life, so that the government, along with its policing arm are thereby not permitted to rummage through our cell phones, our computers, and our cloud storage in the search for whatever interests them so as to basically know everything about us, and thus make us vulnerable to all sorts of bad events, over and above the fact that such an unlimited search could result in our arrest and subsequent incarceration.

 The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution makes it abundantly clear that we are to be secure in our persons, which includes what would be for most people, our digital life, from unreasonable searches, and that a warrant needs to be issued under probable cause describing the particular place or items to be searched and the specific things that are being searched for and no further searching is permitted beyond that.

 The reason why those that are harassed and arrested, who thereby lose access to their cellphone or their computer, need to be protected from an unreasonable search and seizure of their cellphone or computer is the fact that we find that a cellphone has so much actionable information about the owner of such, that it is relatively easy for those that have control of that phone to build not only a very detailed itinerary of who and what that person is, but also to have pretty much all of the most important contacts from that cellphone available for the policing arm of the state to consider investigating, as well.  The bottom line is that our cellphones are sophisticated diaries of our lives that are highly accurate and, for most people, intended to be private and available only to that individual or possibly a few others trusted with such information.  So too, our computers have a record of things that we have written as well as read, our financial information, and our emails, which in short contains a significant amount of information about how we conduct our lives, so that, these items in the hands of the police, basically exposes everything that we are, and should not be something that is permitted to happen without robust guardrails protecting our inherent privacy and basic right to be left alone from the prying eyes of the government or other unauthorized entities.

 Basically, the only way that the people can be assured that their digital lives are not being violated when their phone or their computer are in the possession of the policing arm of the state is only when there are representatives of the people who are given the responsibility to supervise and monitor the searching of a given phone or computer, subject to strong penalties against those that violate the Constitutional restraints of such, should they go beyond the limits as restricted by the Fourth Amendment, as well as other protections provided to the people.  Indeed, from an individual liberty perspective, it could be said that nothing is more important to our freedom than the protection as well as the confidentiality of our digital lives, and should this be routinely violated, then the people are not free.

Less secrets, more accountability

It is amazing and also very disappointing that in this land that proclaims that it represents the “home of the free”, we find that there are so many documents that are designated as Top Secret, Secret, and Classified.  Additionally, we have numerous government sites that the general public is not permitted to access because they are designated as secure facilities, requiring security clearance, and those without proper credentials are thereby treated as trespassers.

 No doubt, secrets and security has its place, but it has also got to be admitted that whenever a government, or a particular personage wants to do something that they don’t want to be exposed, because of legitimate reasons, as well as completely bogus reasons, then secrecy is the best way to accomplish that, because we often find that which is secret, is held to very little or no accountability and thus operates without any comment or feedback from the people, simply because it remains unknowable to them.

 This is supposed to be a nation of, for, and by the people, but whenever those that in government are essentially doing things that the general public are not privy to, or even worse, to have the government misdirect the people and thus basically lie to them, then this isn’t a government of, for, and by the people, at all.

 Indeed, it can be said, that the more secrets a given government has, not only the less democratic that the country is, but also it clearly is a government that is separating the wheat from the chaff, thereby essentially saying that the people have no real right to know what is going on, and further to the point, have no say, and whenever that is the case, then this is basically a government which is a law unto itself, and thus finds itself essentially to have the absolute minimum amount of accountability and transparency exposed to the people.

 When the most critical government decisions are made in secret, there seems to be little point in people exercising their vote, because in the most important matters, they have no say.  This isn’t the way it should be, and this shouldn’t be seen as acceptable, because this government is supposed to be a government formulated under the consent of the people, and when we have a hidden government instead, that makes all its decisions in secret, then the people have been cheated.

 The bottom line is that it is impossible for this to be a representative government when what is really going on is hidden behind closed doors, in which the few in the know thereby know what is going on, and those who are funding that government through their taxes are left in the dark.  This is why we need to have a much more open and a far more transparent government, so that the people can have a much better idea of what is or is not occurring in their name, as well as thereby for the people to have the ability to hold to account those that are supposed to be acting responsibly on their behalf.

Why a larger population is typically better

The United States is an industry leader in so many areas, and when it comes to its population, it ranks third in the world, of which, the size of its population is definitely a contributing factor to its success, because it has to be acknowledged that the more people that a nation has, the better the opportunity there will be to increase the collective knowledge of that country, which will often be beneficial for the people of that land.

 That is to say, that knowledge builds upon knowledge, just as iron sharpens iron, and when there is a shortage of those that are actively trying to learn more and to see things that previously were unseen for they no longer are standing on the shoulders of giants, then that nation will not be able to make the types of quantum leaps in progress, because it has not the learned people, along with the necessary infrastructure and governmental encouragement to accomplish such.

 While there are plenty of people that proclaim that our greatest resources are tangible things such as oil, clean water, agricultural knowhow and the like, the bottom line is that none of these things are going to come close to reaching their full potential without the minds and the follow-through generated from those that are able to take such resources and maximize or enhance the value of these.

 Look, humankind has been around for generations upon generations, but it is only within very recent times that we have seen the quantum leap in medicine, transportation, shelter, and the ease, as well as convenience, of having easily accessible material goods of all kinds, of which, appropriate credit should be accorded to our superior higher educational facilities, considered to be unparallel in this world, which are filled with minds that are perceptive, willing to learn, and that take their capabilities and thereby do something constructive and meaningful with such, so that we as a people, from top to bottom are able to benefit from this.

 All of the above, would seem to strongly stipulate that those that wish to see our population be stymie, through such things as the sharp reduction in immigrants permitted to reside here, or under the belief that the more people that live here, means less of the share of pie that each individual will get, are suffering from envisioning things from the perspective that people are the problem. In contrast, the correct way to view this is to see that people are the solution, and especially the fact that it is through our knowledge, collectively distributed, that improvements and breakthroughs are generated, which necessitates more, not fewer people, because when there is a shortage of collective brainpower, there will also be a corresponding shortage in progress.

 In short, our most precious resource is knowledge, but not knowledge which is restricted to just the few, as was done in previous generations, in which only the elite and the orthodox religious faith were literate, but rather is knowledge which is not just widely available but also is our top priority to encourage and augment, all done for the greater good of the people.

Even great powers need allies

To be a great global empire requires that there be meaningful alliances with allied or like-minded countries, or else it will eventually fall apart, because without those alliances, there are just too many areas that are exposed for other non-aligned nations to exploit to their own advantage and thus nibble away at that empire, all leading to the decline and probable ultimate destruction of the same.

 History tells us that great empires cannot last unless they form alliances either on friendly terms with other countries or have those nations that have been conquered be amenable to working within the structure of that empire for the betterment of all parties.  Indeed, in a world this large and with competing interests, it is thus imperative to have solid alliances based upon the fact that in numbers and strategic planning that those that are aligned are going to be in a better place then if they were separate or structured in a way that the weaker party was forever in the subservient role, as compared to having their fair say, which plays not only better with such an alliance, but benefits their own people, as well.

 Additionally, no nation and no person of merit, appreciates being lorded over, because not only does this build resentment but it belittles the other, and makes the other to consider alternatives and options that might be better than the way that things are, which signifies that an empire needs not so much to have a puppet government in its hands, but rather requires that each party sees and feels the clear benefit of aligning with one another, or else it will come apart, sooner or later.

 Indeed, we shouldn’t expect that aligned nations that find an empire to be overbearing and a burden upon them will decide to give their best effort in defense of that alliance if they rightly believe that they aren’t getting the consideration and respect that they deserve, because for an empire to be strong and vibrant, this necessitates a true buy-in from other nations, which means that they must have a seat at the table, rather than being reduced to an irrelevancy or compelled to be obedient, which creates not only resentment but the seeds of an alignment that will sever itself from that empire, eventually.

 So too, it has to be acknowledged that other countries typically have control or access to vital resources that are beneficial to having that strong alliance, for without such, other non-aligned nations are surely going to look for vulnerabilities within any empire, and through those vulnerabilities be able to place themselves in a position in which they can weaken that empire, because when necessary vital resources are lacking, empires begin to frail at the edges.

 Those who desire to be an empire need to comprehend that might only takes an empire so far, because when there are few true allies, or those that are allied are consistently pushed about and disrespected, then it makes that empire be structured in a way and manner that it will not exist in perpetuity because it has not won over those that it needs to win over, but merely has papered over the faults that will eventually serve to erode its power and influence, over time.

Adam, Eve, and the end of the free ride

We find that in life, there are fair warnings provided to each and every one of us.  The choice that we have, therefore, is to listen and to be obedient to those warnings or to ignore them, often to our own peril, such as in overeating, under-exercising, not paying attention in school or to our parents, and so on.  Indeed, what we become has a lot to do with whether we listen to that still small voice within.  Those then who listen and are compliant to that voice are the very same who have life outcomes that are more beneficial than those who do not.

 When we read Holy Scripture, we find at the very beginning that our Creator provided us with the stern warning that we were not to eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for the consequence for doing so would be death.  The death that was generated from this ill-fated decision was that Adam and Eve, who previously were taking in the delights of this created world, and enjoying all the wonderful goodness of our Creator God, had thus fatally decided to leave that good garden, in which, there were no consequences to their thoughts and actions, and thus to “die” to that world, so as to be reborn into that world in which there were consequences for their thoughts and actions.  This signified that before eating from that tree, there was no karma whatsoever, but after the eating, the “free ride” so provided to Adam and Eve was effectively ended, and now there would be a fair accounting of what they did or did not do, going forward, recorded onto the skeins of time.  The upshot, therefore, was that each of us, as the offspring of Adam and Eve are now living in a world in which we are each fully responsible for the thoughts, actions, and consequences of what we think, do, and say. 

 So then, for all those that wonder why our Creator would permit all this hate, discrimination, violence, and other negative acts to occur in this world, have clearly failed to understand that the world that we live in and the rules that we play by, are the responsibility and thus the concern of all those that are here on this planet, and no other, because the eating from that tree, signified that we were now “free will” human beings, that subsequently had the conscious choice to uphold all the wonders and greatness of our Creator, or devolve into a bastardization of what we should and ought to be.

 Each of us is at the same crossroads as to whether or not we prefer to be “hard-headed” and thus live within this same sort of construct, again and again and again or whether we will recognize that the only way out is the only way that we got in, which is to use our free will to uphold peace, justice, fairness, sacrifice and good which when accomplished will provide us with the key to regain our lost place in the eternal kingdom of our Immaculate Creator.

Watch what they do, not what they say

There is good and bad in the fact that we can communicate with one another through the spoken as well as the written word. The reason why this is good is that it gets across well to the other what we are trying to convey to them, as well as being the general basis for having a successful communication with one another, because in order to communicate well, each party needs to be able to understand the other, thereby minimizing miscommunication and misunderstanding.  The bad that we see in our communications isn’t so much the bad things that we say, those these can indeed be bad, but the fact that our corresponding actions don’t match what we have committed to doing, which obviously creates a contradiction and in some cases, confusion, because the talk does not match the walk.

 So too, it’s important to recognize that some people have the gift of gab, whereas there are others who aren’t particularly articulate in what they are trying to say, but the general principle of what they are saying they are able to successfully get across to us.  In either case, it’s important that when we hear what we hear, we understand well that just because it’s said, even with what appears to be sincerity, doesn’t make those words true, and doesn’t even mean that words spoken will generate corresponding and consistent actions in conformance to those words.  In other words, when it comes to judging somebody’s character, we need to focus more upon their subsequent actions and probably less upon credulous belief in their words, because intentions are not the same thing as actions, and it could be said that in the end, actions not only speak louder than words, but are also more relevant.

 As much as we might prefer to hear words that we agreed with, or that we are comfortable with, it needs to be acknowledged that it is the actions that reveal the truth or untruth of the words so spoken, in which, it follows that those that speak about how much they care for us, but their actions are anything but caring would seem to strongly suggest that their words are actually empty and aren’t even necessarily well meaning.  So too, in a fit of anger, some people are prone to saying very ugly and hurtful words that are directed at us, but once the anger wears off, they make it their point to make up to us by considerate and caring actions, because they recognize that they were wrong, and desire therefore to make amends by their subsequent good deeds towards us.

 Finally, it needs to be said that we are, in effect, what we do, and not what we say that we are going to do.  This signifies that there are indeed cheap words, and the only real way that cheap words turn into something of substance never comes from even more words, but rather comes from those good actions that reflect well those words, or even go above and beyond such for the betterment of all.

The myth of peace on earth in an all-white world

It’s disappointing to see that presently that there are those nations that are intent upon turning back the clock under the mistaken impression that if only their nation were all white, or completely controlled by the white race that all would be well, and if every other nation was the exact same way then we would have a lasting peace of earth, with all the white people loving on one another.

 This type of belief is so grossly mistaken that it’s pathetic that anyone of any sensible intelligence could possibly believe that the color of one’s skin, somehow in and of itself, would bring peace, prosperity, and justice.  Indeed, when we look at history and, in particular, the history of Europe, whites have waged war against one another, again and again.  For instance, we have the Hundred Years’ War, way back in the 14th century, followed by the Wars of the Roses, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, World War I, the Russian civil War, World War II and the Russo-Ukrainian war, which isn’t even all the wars so fought, but does represent some of the most meaningful ones, in which these wars were primarily fought by whites against other whites.

 The reason why history has so many white-on-white wars is that whites come from different ethnicities, of which, quite unfortunately, certain ethnicities are considered to be superior to others.  Then we also have different governmental structures, some of which are considered to be superior to others.  So too, there are different religious faiths, of which certain religious faiths are considered to be orthodox, whereas others are considered to be non-orthodox.  Finally, there is also class warfare in which particular whites considered themselves to be superior and all others to be inferior, and thus are meant to serve them.

 In all of those things, none of this would be comprehensively resolved in an all-white world because we find ourselves often living in a construct in which those who desire to have power and control are going to find those others that they believe must be suppressed and exploited, so that they can best maintain their power, wealth, status, and position.  This signifies therefore that when skin color appears to not be of such high importance, because so many look about the same as the other, then the division between one to the other is going to be based upon class, background, intelligence, religious faith, and so on, for there will always be a reason that those that want and believe they deserve to be served, will find justification that others are meant to serve them or else pay the price for their disobedience.

 Indeed, to believe that an all-white world would somehow resolve all differences is to forget somehow how difficult and problematic it can be to deal constructively with familial disagreements, and also to forget that those that are selfish, self-centered, greedy, egotistical and the like are the very same who are peaceful and fair, at heart, when in actuality, their character clearly shows that they are not which thereby precludes peace on earth from occurring.

White privilege will not go quietly into the silent night

When it comes to America, it needs to be recognized that this nation was founded by white Western Europeans, primarily of the Protestant faith, and the structure of this nation has always favored those from that specific background and still does.  So then, in this modern age in which whiteness has expanded to include those that have the generally accepted complexion of whiteness as well as their religious faith being based around some sect of Judeo-Christianity, we find that these people are the very same that often believe that just because of their birth into the traditional favored race of America that this should accord them privileges which they have not earned through their individual merit or effort, but are simply provided to them, free of charge, based upon their white privilege birthright.

 Indeed, as much as America has done a fairly decent job of really representing itself as a melting pot and of taking meaningful steps to judge people based upon the content of their character, we still find that there are a multitude of white people, that simply want to be recognized as being entitled to special privileges and favors simply because they are white, and are extremely resentful towards anyone that would question the legitimacy and orthodoxy of having such an attitude, which is obviously something that this government, of, for, and by the people has an inherent obligation to address comprehensively, because this is supposed to be a nation of not just equality under the law, but also to be no respecter of persons, and therefore white people should not be in a special privileged categorical class. After all, to do so represents an unfairness to all those who have been excluded from such and isn’t consistent with the high values that this country was established upon.

 So then, we must confess that regrettably, America still maintains and even augments historic hierarchies, in which, at the very top, aren’t the best, brightest and most qualified, though they should be, but rather are those who are white, as if by being white, this signifies their superiority in all things, even when it is clear and obvious that this isn’t the case and doesn’t deserve to be the case, whatsoever.  Nevertheless, a significant portion of white people just won’t let their privilege go, probably because it benefits them so significantly, as well as permitting them to have a certain pride in having been born white, and therefore, they won’t readily give that advantage up, though they need to, because there cannot be justice, equality, and fairness throughout this land until such a time as being white no longer is relevant when it comes to how we adjudge one another.

 Presently, we find that there are still indeed those social boundaries that separate one race from another, or one American from another, that need to be eradicated because they serve no good purpose and are detrimental to the unity that we should aspire to have within America, and part of that process to achieve such, is the sure recognition that white privilege has had its day, and needs to retire from such, forthwith.

“Round up” and Deuteronomy 24: 19

We read in Holy Scripture: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go again to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless, and for the widow…” (Deuteronomy 24: 19).  Nowadays, we live in a world in which very few of us have a field to harvest, which thus signifies that those that want to do their fair part to help those most in need aren’t going to be able to simply allow an impoverished person to help themselves to their field after harvest, but rather are going to have to come up with a modern way to do the same sort of thing and while it is true that Americans are quite generous when it comes to charity and the like, it just seems that having a ready path available for everyone to take advantage of has its necessary place, as well.

 The thing about “round up” is the simplicity of the structure, which simply asks for those that are making a purchase or are paying a utility bill or things of this general sort, to have the opportunity for the person so making the payment to round up the bill to the next highest round number and for this small amount of money over and above the bill amount will thereby be provided to charity.  So then, the cost to the individual is always going to be minimal because it will be less than $1, and it therefore doesn’t seem to be much of a bother or a burden to them, either, while still providing a needful service.  Additionally, there is a great power in numbers, not only because by contributing even a small amount makes people feel that they have done something of merit, but also because there are so many financial transactions accomplished each and every day, that, as it is, rounding up, collects millions upon millions of dollars, yearly, that are subsequently forwarded onto worthy charities.

 While there are a multitude of ways to give, it has to be admitted, that there are lots and lots of people that procrastinate in doing so while still also meaning well, but never get around to doing most of the good deeds that they ponder and think upon, in which, round up is one of those good things that is structured with such seamlessness that it’s easy to make that donation, and to be then done with it, nor is a given individual obligated to always do this, so it isn’t as if that once they make that first round up donation, that they have to continually do so.  This is why the round up program is so brilliant in its concept, because it’s structured in a way and manner in which the giving is easy to do, and the results in aggregate are going to be beneficial, so that, at the end of the day, those that are struggling are able to obtain needful charity which makes for a better and a more caring society, all simply based upon individuals voluntarily providing a very small lift to those most in need.

This is why small towns are more religious

There seems to be a great divide between small towns in conjunction with rural areas when we compare them to our urban and suburban enclaves, especially in regard to values, conservatism, and religious faith.  A lot of that difference can be accorded to the fact that those that live in cities, typically have a lot of viable options as to what they can occupy their free time and energies towards, in addition to the fact that urban areas have a strong tendency for people not to really know their neighbor, and often don’t feel the need to do so, because they already have business and personal relationships which lie outside neighborhood friendliness.  On the other hand, when we look at small towns, they just aren’t going to have that wealth of other attractions that a big city offers, such as all the various amusements or even the general infrastructure that attracts people to large cities.  Additionally, even though we find in small towns and especially in rural areas that people are typically spread out further from one another, they do have a strong inclination to know their neighbors, not only because it’s mutually beneficial when it comes to protection and aid, but also because there is a cohesiveness generated by virtue of having done so.

 All of this basically means that it is far easier to be anonymous and to have private space in a large city, and far less common to do so in a small town, which presupposes that people that care about their image amongst their townsfolk are going to feel somewhat obligated to adhere to the norms of their community, which readily can be seen through the attendance or lack thereof at their local religious institution as thereby being in conformance to what is expected of them if they are to be considered to be good and upstanding citizens, as contested to possibly being seen, if they seldom or never attend their religious institution, as suspect or as people that don’t adhere to the orthodox conventions of that town, which will have repercussions when it comes to how these others are looked upon, or gossiped about.

 So too, it needs to be acknowledged that those that live in a small town basically realize that there isn’t going to ever be a calvary coming to their rescue should a particular adverse event come their way, so they are more reliant of knowing one another, in case they have to deal with unexpected trouble and thereby there is a real need to know thy neighbor, so that they can count upon them to do their valued part should trouble come.  Indeed, when it comes to religion, it needs to be recognized that part of the reason why so many put in the effort to be religious is the sure recognition that there is comfort and safety in numbers, and if they also receive some worthwhile religious insight and instruction to go with it, so much the better.

Immigration and the welfare state

One of those things that those who are against immigration railed upon is their mistaken belief that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, take advantage of our welfare system, and thus take money away from the general public, which is unfair and imprudent   However, what these complainers don’t seem to understand is that the vast majority of those that immigrate here are either in the prime of their working lives, or soon will be so, or are very young and have their entire working life ahead of them.  In other words, immigrants are workers, and workers are the foundation on which our welfare system depends, because they are taxed and also productive in the goods and services they help create. In fact, cato.org tells us that “… immigrants consumed about 24 percent less in welfare benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis.”

 On the other hand, when we study welfare, it becomes rather obvious that many of our senior citizens are not gainfully employed while also using a high percentage of our Social Security funds, as well as Medicare or Medicaid funds for healthcare.  This signifies that in order to right our fiscal ship that countries such as the United States, need to have a constant replenishment of young people to help carry the load of our welfare state, which because the population of America has never had so many senior citizens, signifies that without these immigrants as well as newly native born or naturalized Americans, that this government would spend even more per capita on welfare, which as structured is a budget item not easily susceptible to budgetary cuts.

 It would seem for a lot of people, especially for those that are personally struggling in making ends meet, that for them there needs to be an excuse, or a bogeyman to blame their ills and problems upon, and regrettably, immigration seems to be the scapegoat for many a person, but this is only because these underachieving citizens do not understand that young immigrants are actually beneficial to America.  Additionally, for those who are crossing the border illegally, it has to be admitted that only those who are in good physical shape are going to be the ones who are going to succeed in that dangerous endeavor, which reflects that they are often in robust health, and because healthcare is one of the biggest expenditures that this government has to deal with, signifies that they won’t, in aggregate, be a burden upon it.

 Those that want to complain about the sheer amount of money being spent on the welfare state, may indeed have their point, but their issue should not be about immigrants, but rather should be about the efficiency, as well as the allocation of how those monies are expended, for it has to be acknowledged that there are a fair amount of Americans that receive benefits, that are probably underserving of such, and in many a case, could contribute something of merit or labor to do their fair part for this benefit.  This thus means that the citizens of America need to concentrate their complaints on what the true source of their troubles consists of, which probably has little to do with immigration at all.

The rise of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

The very first thing to know about ICE is that it wasn’t even a governmental agency until 2003, because, until then, the government did not feel the need for it, and thus its present-day functions were previously handled by other agencies.  We find that the budget for ICE as of fiscal year 2025 was around $10 billion, or essentially around the same amount as the budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which came into existence in 1908.  However, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” which was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, determined that the FBI’s budget should be reduced by about $545 million, thereby providing the FBI with a fiscal year 2026 budget of $10,1 billion; whereas the budget for ICE put into effect a four year supplement of $75 billion, which basically tripled its budget for the next four years, from $10 to around $29 billion per year.

 Perhaps this nation is inundated with all sorts of illegal immigrants, of which, these immigrants are a present danger to the safety of American citizens, and thereby it is necessary to put American boots upon their necks so that they will thereby know their place, and as a sure warning to all those considering to immigrate here through illicit means, that America means business.  The problem with this sort of mindset, though, is that illegal immigration has been around for decades upon decades, and further to the point, the reason why so many people desire to immigrate here, despite the risks, sacrifices, and money involved, is that America is seen by these people as being a beacon of freedom and opportunity.  Additionally, the bottom line is that the millions of those who have immigrated here through illicit means would not be here if there weren’t needed, desired, protected, and welcomed by certain powerful interests in America.  In other words, immigrants come here because they know that there is work and money to be made. After all, there are numerous jobs in America, that native born Americans aren’t going to do, because it’s “sweat labor”, it’s dangerous, it’s tiring, and it doesn’t compensate well, but illegal immigrants will do it, because they know that by working hard that they will not only get a firm toehold into America, but will also set the table for future generations to benefit from their hard labor.

 To believe, somehow, that all this money being allocated to ICE is going to make for a better and safer America is to get it all wrong, of which the biggest mistake being made is selling to the general public the impression that there are cartels of illegal immigrants who are drug traffickers and are committing wanton violence against American citizens.  Look, no doubt, there are bad immigrants, just like there are bad native born Americans, but the bottom line is that the utilization of ICE as the avenging agency against those that are perceived to be the proximate problem in America is fundamentally flawed, because most immigrants keep their heads down and just get necessary work done. Additionally, we find that since American actions abroad do not seem to support democracy, liberty, and opportunity it seems only sensible that those with little or nothing will therefore come to this land because the choices that they have within their own homeland are so limited, and therefore we ought to be fair to them, because their work ethic and desire to succeed should be welcomed, but also sensibly dealt with, as contrasted to using the big stick most mercilessly.

Is Sunday the first day of the week, or is it part of the weekend?

There are those types of things that are conflicting, and the way that we typically view Sunday is one of those conflicting things, because the calendars that we have, whether printed, online, or on our phone, consistently show that Sunday is the first day of the week.  Yet, somewhat puzzling, everyone agrees that the weekend consists of Saturday and Sunday.  So there appears to be a real conflict between what Sunday actually represents -- for it does not appear possible that it can simultaneously be the first day of the week as well as representing the last day of the week, which is thereby best answered by looking at history.

 When it comes to the Judeo-Christian religion, we find that those of the Christian faith believe that Sunday is the first day of the week, because Sunday was the day that Christ arose, and therefore Sunday represents the resurrection of Christ, and thus the new beginning of humankind.  In regard to Judaism, their sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and ends about an hour after sunset on Saturday, which thus means that Sunday represents the first day of the week for those of the Jewish faith.

 When it comes to those that labor for a living it is important to recognize that the traditional forty hour workweek, which typically is from Monday to Friday, has only been the norm for a relatively brief period of time, of about one hundred years, in which, previously the standard workweek including working on Saturday, so that Sunday was thereby seen as a day of rest, recovery and worship, which basically signified that the week effectively ended upon the end of the workweek, and thus the new week began on Sunday.

 Nowadays, since the forty hour workweek of five days is the standard in America, of which the business world partakes of a Monday through Friday schedule, this signifies that Saturday is no longer a workday, and because Sunday never was a workday, this would seem to suggest that the combination of Saturday and Sunday as non-workdays thus represents the weekend, which logically makes sense, but nevertheless the calendar still shows Sunday as the first day of the week, which probably is an accommodation to the importance of religion and the tradition of religious faith in our lives, and also as a reminder to us, that life shouldn’t necessarily be in conformance to what the workweek represents, but rather should be in conformance to that which is beyond work.

 So then, we find that in all probability the way that our calendar is presented is not going to change anytime soon, and further to the point, most people probably don’t pay any real attention to the fact that the week appears to begin on Sunday, because it isn’t something that changes the fact that for most people the weekend is represented by Saturday and Sunday, and what tradition dictates about the beginning day of the week they pay no real mind to.

OPEC and the price of oil

We read at AI Overview that the price of oil before the embargo by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) of 1973-1974 was stable -- of which a barrel of oil was priced in the range of $2.50 to $3.00. So then, if we were to take the inflation rate from 1973 to 2026, that would put the pre-embargo midpoint rate of a barrel of oil in the range of $20 to $21. Yet we find that a barrel of oil is currently priced around $66 to $70, which is way above the inflation rate of that period.  This would seem to suggest that the price of oil is still affected by OPEC, but we need to take into fair account the fact that OPEC isn’t what it once was, because the biggest producer of oil is currently the United States of America, and the current leader by a good distance for OPEC, is Saudi Arabia, which is a country that is basically in conformance with United States wishes, and at a minimum is a country that is in tune with America on a quid pro quo basis.  In other words, while OPEC still exists and has a degree of power, it is not in the position though to dictate the price of oil, or even the availability of such, but rather the price of oil would seem to be in conformance of those that are in the oil business in which an argument could be made, that the price of oil in relationship to the costs to extract oil is significantly higher than what it should be.

 The thing about oil is that it is an exceedingly important product because oil is what is utilized for transportation, petrochemicals, and electricity.  So too, in the United States, the biggest producers of oil are not subject to governmental sanction but are major private-enterprise companies with an abiding interest in making a profit above all.  This would seem to suggest that having a bogeyman, such as OPEC, to sell the illusion that it is OPEC that essentially creates or controls or heavily influences the oil pricing market, through the availability of oil, is actually beneficial for domestic oil companies as well as oil companies throughout the world, governmentally or privately owned, because it gives the excuse for the higher market price for that barrel of oil. 

 When it comes to the price of oil, the losers in this game are the consumers of that oil, in which it could be said that the price of oil to those consumers is a form of regression taxation, since those that can least afford a higher price of gasoline have little or no choice but to pay what the going rate is, or else their lives will be worse off.  This would seem to indicate that the oil market as currently structured most definitely does not have two prices to a barrel of oil, in which the non-OPEC price is lower than the OPEC price, but rather there is just one basic price, which is in its form, quite beneficial and lucrative for the oil producers and it could be argued and should be argued, an overall price that is unfair to those that are dependent upon oil because that price does not accurately reflect the actual costs to extract the product, in which, it has to be said, that the ability to extract oil today is far superior and more efficient to what it was back in 1973, and therefore the profits so being made seem to reflect a global oil cartel.

Millions of Americans do not submit their taxes

The way that the United States tax system is set up, it is the responsibility of the individual to file their taxes, and surprisingly, a significant portion of Americans, estimated to be 10 to 12 million individuals, as reported by AI overview, do not submit their taxes each calendar year, even though they are required by law to submit such.  Additionally, plenty of people don’t submit their taxes, even though they would be entitled to a refund, probably because they don’t know how to do their taxes or just never get around to it.  That said, obviously, from a governmental perspective, it is of much higher importance to see that those who deliberately do not turn in their taxes because they owe tax money to the government are identified and thereby compelled to pay their appropriate taxes.

 One would think that finding and discovering those who owe taxes would not be a daunting task, because everyone who is employed is going to have a W-2 issued to them, in addition to those who are self-employed having a 1099 issued to them.  As for those with brokerage accounts, those accounts are subject to various 1099 forms, which the IRS is copied on.  In consideration therefore that all citizens are issued a unique Social Security number, which is utilized for employment, self-employment, and for brokerage accounts, it thereby means that the government has records of these transactions, and when the numbers are high, yet no tax return can be found, it would behoove that government of, for, and by the people to see that those who appear to owe money to the government, file their taxes.

 In this age in which certain governmental agencies are being reduced in staff, such as the IRS, one way to still go after tax scofflaws is to set up a system in which the governmental employee, on their own time, receives a commission from finding and thereby addressing those individuals who apparently are tax delinquent.  This would be a win-win for the government, because those who owe would be compelled by law to pay what they owe, and providing a commission to the IRS agent for accomplishing this would be fair.  In the absence of that occurring, the budget to specifically go after delinquent taxpayers should be increased so that, in fairness to all those who play by the rules and thus pay their appropriate taxes, the government would thereby make it its priority to see that those trying to escape paying what they owe would no longer be able to get away with it.

 When it comes to governmental revenue, the individual income tax brings in approximately $2.5 trillion, yearly, so quite obviously this should be a very high priority of the government, which should consider all avenues when it comes to the filing and collection of such, including even setting up a system in which the government determines a given taxpayer’s obligation or refund and in absence of that taxpayer disputing such, this is what they owe or will receive a refund of.  In sum, if there really are 10 to 12 million people who do not file their tax return each year, this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive and thorough manner, as this government’s inherent obligation to those who properly file each year.

The not-so-free counsel

It’s bad enough to be impoverished and indigent, especially while also facing criminal charges. Still, it becomes even worse when the belief that those that cannot afford an attorney find out that even the most overworked defense attorney, somehow isn’t going to be free, but rather at the end of the day, no matter how they slice it, the accused will have to pay a bill for having that attorney assigned to them, through charges designated as an application fee or similar.  This signifies that for some defendants, because the assigned attorney will not be free of charge, they will waive their Constitutional right to an attorney, as they don’t want to be stuck paying a bill that they cannot afford, which would, if they accepted such, just essentially add insult to injury.

 Look, the way the court system works in America is that those who have a wealth of money and/or connections are going to get the best counsel that money can buy, and the result for these people is often going to be quite satisfactory.  Unfortunately, a significant percentage of those facing criminal charges are the very same who have little or no assets, and therefore not a whole heck of a lot of maneuverability to properly deal with the charges against them, unless aided by a competent attorney.

 Additionally, there is the salient fact that the defendant’s knowledge of criminal codes and how the justice system works is typically minimal or flawed.  This thus fairly signifies that these are the very type of people that are most in need of competent defense counsel, and yet the majority of the States of this nation have determined that the way that the 6th Amendment should be interpreted is simply that indigent defendants have the right to an attorney to be assigned to them, but not that the attorney need be free of charge.

 Indeed, there is no point in having the right to an attorney if that said attorney isn’t free, for those who have no money and no assets are therefore not going to be able to afford one because they don’t have the money to pay.  Further, to the point, from their perspective, they have the feeling that if they were to get an attorney, that, because of that attorney’s heavy workload, they wouldn’t be able to do all that much for them, anyway.  Hence, the apparent better choice when an attorney bill is mandated is to skip that representation and just suffer whatever the court dictates should be their punishment in what is probably going to be a plea bargain, anyway.

 In sum, to believe that the richest nation in the world, believes it is fair to make the pursuit of justice, simply to come down to a money game, is fundamentally wrong, and should be seen for what it is, more of the same, in which the justice system of this nation is most definitely a respecter of persons, and those that have nothing, get nothing.  This is a disgrace, because it isn’t justice, whatsoever, but rather it represents a system in which apparently those so arrested shouldn’t have free counsel, because the object of the game is a conviction, and justice be damned.

Corporate America

Most people just can’t get their heads around how much business that American corporations do in a given year, for in actuality, in fiscal year 2025, Amazon, as well as Walmart, had yearly revenue of approximately $700 billion, which is a sum so great it’s hard to fathom.  Perhaps that is a very good thing, but when it comes down to the fact that this country is supposed to be of, for, and by the people and in which we recognize that corporations are artificial constructs of the state, the fact that corporations do so much business and have market caps that are now over $1 trillion, in addition to profits that are in the billions, it feels that providing corporations with unlimited access to democratic elections and legislation through their donations, both seen and unseen, is not going to be good or healthy for a democracy.

 Justice Stevens stated that “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.”  Yet, because money makes an incredible difference into what does or does not get passed into legislation, and who does and who does not get elected, in addition to the fact that corporate interests basically control the media, it becomes more or less a foregone conclusion that corporations have the ability which they utilize to, in essence, put their thumb upon our democratic scales, so that the result of elections and legislative acts are often in conformance to their desires, which is unfortunate, not only because corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the vote, but also because those that are in the upper echelons of corporations may or may not have the best interests of America, in mind, but rather they are often driven by their lust for lucre or profit, above all.

 To believe, somehow, that what is good for Amazon or Walmart is always going to be good for America is to read the tea leaves wrong, because corporations primarily answer only to their Board of Directors and to the stockholders who as a class are basically only interested in seeing ever increasing revenue and profit, and often care not how it is accomplished, as long as it is accomplished.  On the other hand, those who are citizens of this nation may have priorities and interests that are in opposition to what a given corporation wants, and when the citizens are essentially outgunned, then the result is not going to be democratic or fair, and is, in the end, not beneficial for this nation.

 The bottom line is that unlimited contributions from corporations into our elections and legislative bills basically signify that votes will have been bought, and that the result thereof is going to often favor those who have made those large contributions, and that therefore the vote, as tabulated, does not reflect a true reading of what the people would actually desire if the playing field were level.  This is not good for any democracy, because in actuality, the people have no say, they have no agency, and they have been manipulated not for the greater good or benefit of this nation, but rather to further feather the nest of big corporate interests.

Home ownership is important

The thing about ownership, whether it is a home, a car, or some other material object, is that how we treat it, really comes down to whether we value it or not, and that which we have a stronger tendency to value is that which we believe is wholly ours.  So then, in consideration that all of us need to live in a place that provides us with shelter, heat, electricity, and all the other basic accouterments that we pretty much take for granted, it isn’t too surprising that those that live in a home that they own are going to be not only more stable by virtue of having that ownership, but are the same that are going to take better care and to value that home at a higher level, then somebody that has no ownership, as in a renter.  This is therefore a very important reason why home ownership is significant: because it provides those with that ownership a stake in their community, for most people who own their homes are the same people who are determined to see that their neighborhood is safe, sound, and comfortable to live in.

 The thing about those that rent isn’t necessarily that they are irresponsible, though some are, but really comes down to the fact that they know that they don’t own that home, and therefore these are the same people who are going to have a strong tendency, in things both small and big, to not pay any real mind to that which needs some proper care, maintenance, or repair, because at the end of the day, it isn’t theirs.  So too, those who are renters are going to tend to be rougher on things within a home than they would if they own it, because it isn’t theirs, so they don’t have the same type of concern that they would have if it were theirs.

 Additionally, in absence of some sort of stringent rent control or its equivalency, renters are subject to monthly or yearly lease agreements with an increase in rent being a quite common occurrence, which permits them though to exercise their right to move out, and oftentimes they do that very thing, when their personal situation changes for the better or for the worse, and also because they have found an alternative that they believe suits them better or is their preference.  Indeed, just the knowledge that renters have that they have only signed up for a finite amount of time, changes the mindset of how they look upon things, and makes them to be far more hesitant to do anything constructive about the conditions of the home or the neighborhood when they already know that they aren’t going to stick around.

 It's human nature to care more for that which we have ownership of as compared to that which isn’t ours.  So, when it comes to home ownership, neighborhoods that have a high percentage of owner occupied homes are typically going to be neighborhoods that not only look better than those that are made up of a higher percentage of renters, but also the people that live there are going to be more engaged, because not only do homes cost a lot of money, but also because people treat that which they own better and care more for it, because it is, in a lot of respects, a reflection of who they are.