Credit card float

The thing about credit cards, unlike let's say a debit card, or a check, or even cash, is a credit card when utilized is literally extending credit to the user of that card.  This means, that while a debit card, or a check, or cash pretty much are an immediate expenditure of money of which when used, the money basically leaves from the associated account or wallet, a credit card is truly a different proposition.  That is to say, when a credit card is used, those transactions are duly recorded, then, at the end of the billing cycle period, of usually about 30 days, a bill is created, and thereby the charges made during that billing period, are due back to the issuer of that credit card, usually in about 20-25 days from the issuance of the bill.  However, unlike cash that is immediately debited from a checking account or similar, those that have credit cards, actually do not have to pay off their credit card bill in full, in fact, as long as the credit card payer meets the minimal payment required by the date so required, they are thereby extended credit, of which, for having that credit extended, an interest rate is both accrued and charged.

Now, when it comes to credit card float, this essentially works for those that enough capital in their banking account in a manner in which by the user knowing when their billing date closes on a particular credit card, such as June 1, that come June 2 they can start charging on that credit card, recognizing that those charges starting from June 2, aren't actually going to come due until perhaps July 24.  This so indicates that those that use their credit cards in a manner in which they purposely make the charges on their credit cards immediately after the previous billing cycle ended, they then do not have to pay off in full those charges, until 50-55 days later, and therefore have effectively had credit "floated" at no interest cost for them over those 50-55 days, which is known as credit card float.

This signifies that the savvy credit consumer, utilizes the credit card float system in a manner in which this can benefit them, and can do so, with even more than one credit card, so that there is always a considerable distance in time between a charge and the necessity of paying off in full that charge.  That is to say, in matters large and small, those that get free loans floated to them, whether that is through a credit card, or through a promotion, or the equivalency, are using their financial acumen to essentially get interest free loans of short duration again and again and again.  In addition, those that play the credit card float game correctly, are able therefore to not be stuck having to wait to make their expenditures until they receive their paycheck but can organize their expenditures around the free credit card float that they have properly set up for that very purpose.

They say there is no such thing as free money, but actually there is.  Today's credit card companies issue many credit cards with no annual fees, often with come-on bonuses to sign up for that credit card, as well as generous credit card rewards for using their credit cards, with consumers also having the ability to use credit card float to their advantage.  Of course, in order for all of this to work, consumers must know their credit card billing cycles, and must also maintain a proper budget so that they are not stuck paying high interest rates on the credit that has been extended to them, but those that do, surely benefit from that knowledge well applied.

The dangerous concentration of wealth and the slowing of the United States economy

The United States has proven that it cannot grow at even 3% on a per annum basis, and this despite a decade of economic expansion.  While there are many reasons for this, one of the most obvious ones is that the concentration of wealth held in the hands of the very richest of the richest Americans is such a staggering amount of money that if just the three richest Americans, of which according to Forbes magazine of February 2019, those three Americans are worth $310.4 billion, were somehow to magically have their money appear, instead, in the hands of all those that are currently living in poverty in America, which is estimated at 39.7 million peoples, than each of those persons would have in their hands $7819.  Not too surprisingly, if that money was to show up in the hands of those suffering from the most debilitating poverty, those people would make it their point to primarily spend that money on consumer goods, paying back bills, on their transportation, dental, medical, and so on and so forth, of which all of this money so spent would help boost the economy.

The fundamental problem with all the wealth in America being concentrated into so very few hands, is that those that have that wealth, are not going to spend much of it, and often do not invest that money in any meaningful way that would definitively impact employment in a positive way or increase the consumption of consumer goods, because rich people only have so many mouths to feed and only so many houses that they can buy, before really they have pretty much everything that they need or might desire.  On the other hand, poor people lack just about everything, so that, factories and manufacturers in America are never going to be running at true full capacity because those that have the money, don't have any reason to overbuy what they are producing and manufacturing, so these factories and manufacturers produce less than they could or ought to.

The current mindset of dealing with this overconcentration of wealth appears basically to do a whole lot of nothing.  This means that those that lack ready money are forced to borrow through their credit cards, through their student loans, through their homes, and through payday lenders, in order to achieve some sort of semblance of a proper American life, but all of this borrowing for those that really do not have the ready means to pay back that money is just kicking the can down the road, and isn't helping to fundamentally alleviate the poverty problem.

If America really cared about the poor as well as the impoverished, they would spend a lot less time exploiting and incarcerating them, and a lot more time creating the conditions that would allow at least future generations to have a fair shot at being successful.   That would necessitate wholesale changes in addressing the insane concentration of wealth in America, which only benefits those that are superrich at the expense of the very poor and most vulnerable; as well as unfairly overburdening the middle class so that they pay more than their fair share in taxes and services, as well as unjustly pinning future generations with staggering loads of federal debt because this government will not properly tax the very people that have the money to get our fiscal house in order.

It's always about that status

The reason that so many people feel a need to keep up with the Joneses in life is that they do not want to see themselves as being essentially the "losers" in what so often is seen as a zero-sum world.  That is to say, if one's neighbor has a better car, a better job, a better yard, and a better this and a better that, this often is perceived as lessening one's own self not only in the eyes of others, but more importantly in our own eyes, and in the eyes of our closest family members, for our status vis-à-vis those neighbors indicates that we are the lesser, and they are therefore the greater.

While philosophers can try to assuage people's egos by encouraging us to get a good perspective so as to appreciate many other things that should be considered as a blessing, such as good health, a safe environment, a loving family, as well as perceiving the actuality of how rich we are in comparison to other people and other cultures, with also the understanding that it isn't really the toys that we do or do not have, but the character that we are that truly defines us.  All of this, though, is some small consolation, for those that measure things by the obvious and the material, and do not care about what may be happening in some other community, city, state, or principality.  For what matters for these folks, is the here and now, of what one has in comparison to their neighbors and to their peers, and therefore second best or even worse, is not acceptable, and thereby one sees their neighbor that is more successful often with outright bitterness and debilitating envy.

When we are not successful in the manner that we are able to project it unequivocally to others, then we are not going to be happy; no matter how it might actually seem to be, to objective outsiders.  This means, that our status matters, and it matters most particularly to those that are our true competitors in the sense that they live in the same neighborhood or the same milieu, or went to the same school, or of the same age, or basically are what most people would consider to be a fair and apt comparison to us, all fair things considered.  So that, when those people outclass us, and have greater success and a higher status, then we have failed; we have not only failed ourselves but we have failed our family and have failed our truest friends, and we thereby wear our failure by the shame we feel for having failed everyone.

This is the very reason why so many people go to great lengths to "keep up appearances" because they refuse to place themselves in the unenviable position of having failed to maintain their status and therefore having lost the respect of their peers.  So then, to alleviate that shame of failure or of losing face, people will push the envelope to regain the status that they need to project, of which some, will do so by any means necessary, and those nosey folks that make the mistake of "outing" those that have failed to faithfully maintain their good status, have opened the door to the unexpected and sometimes violent retribution of those that will not easily accept being publically shamed.

Overcome your problems

Though there are many people that in their weaker moments, wished that they lived lives in which never a problem or challenge would occur in their personal experiences, in actuality, a life without challenges or problems to overcome, is a life that would after a while appear to be rather dull.  That is to say, it is the challenges and problems that life presents, that truly provides the good opportunity for a given individual to test their real mantle against those situations, and thereby helps to clarify and to define that person as to who and what they really are in actuality.

Unfortunately, far too many people when faced with challenges and problems have a strong tendency to wish to avoid such, often, by any means available.  For some, they do so because they do not believe that they have the wherewithal or the character to confront and to overcome a particular problem; whereas for others, they wish to avoid these problems because they feel that they are not prepared to deal with them at that particular time and place.  Then there are others, that simply believe to run from, or to escape from a good challenge or problem is the best way to react, especially when they find out that doing so, basically seems to work out for them in more cases than not, so that, for them, that evasion or escape, seems to be a viable answer, even if by doing so, they have sacrificed something of value, in order to effect that escape.

Somewhat regrettably, the mere running away or escaping somehow, from a particular challenge or problem is not going to resolve that problem or challenge, but rather, will simply put off until tomorrow that problem or challenge that either must yet be faced, or conceded to.  The thing is most people do not give themselves enough credit in their ability to confront as well as to overcome a particular problem or challenge, perhaps, because they lack the character or faith to believe that they are quite capable of overcoming such.

In point of fact, the challenges and problems that each of us face, are there as the opportunity to prove in action and reaction, our real worth and grit, and to thereby to simply run away from, or to ignore such, is not only a rather poor and somewhat cowardly response, but clearly also can be seen as character weakness.  This means that each of us needs to show the courage to face what must be faced, sooner or later, for to believe that half-hearted people are somehow going to be accorded full respect and emulation by others, is a falsehood.

This signifies, that while challenges and problems need not be welcomed in our life, that they should, however, and must be seen, as the very basis of who and what we are fairly defined by; especially in regards to our ability or inability to overcome them in one way or one form or another.  So then, rise up and face those challenges and those problems, of which, often one will find that by doing so, they weren't really quite the bogeyman so imagined, but even when they do seem intractable, keep on keeping on, for nothing really worthwhile does not come without the expenditure of the truest blood, sweat, and tears.

When transitory becomes permanent

We live in an age in which every conversation, even when someone is just talking to themselves, is capable of being recorded, unwittingly or not.  Nowadays, smart phones are ubiquitous, which can audio or video record anyone at a simple touch of a button. In addition, smart personal assistants such as Alexa, or Siri, can listen in to everything that we say and are always-on.  In so many ways, we are surrounded by devices that can record all of our auditory activities, and often too by devices that can record our video motions as well.

Human beings are by nature social creatures that have a need to interact with other human beings, in which, not everything that is said or done by those people is something that should or needs to be recorded for posterity.  Additionally, people do all sorts of embarrassing things, regretful things, and stupid things, whether in a fit of anger, or disappointment, or by virtue of just having one of those days, of which, it isn't fair or right for those people involved in such, that they should be recorded having done so, without their express knowledge, beforehand.

The answer to all of these devices that can record and often do record so many things, appropriate or not, isn't necessarily the issuance of full disclosure that these happenings are being recorded in real time, for that in itself, would have a strong tendency to stifle open dialog, spontaneity, and the ability to openly engage with other people in a manner in which people can be their real selves, as well as it would likely have a strong tendency to get more people to conform to social norms, and to censor themselves, at least, in those areas in which such recordings are prevalent.

The answer, instead, is the recognition that when any and everything is allowed to be recorded, then essentially what use to be transitory, has for all intents and purposes, has become permanent, and that permanence is destructive towards the good relationships that people need to have with one another.  That is to say, when anything that is recorded, can be taken out of context, can be edited, and can be displayed in social media or similar, without the party in question, having their own say in the matter, then the end result is that real personalities of people are going to be stifled and suppressed, and they will only be able to be their real self, if that, when they are away from being recorded.

Not everything that is said is meant to be recorded, and not everything that is done, is meant to be recorded.  Human beings are fallible, and because they are fallible, they should be accorded the courtesy of being able to say and to do things that are relevant for that time and place, but are not relevant for all time and for all places.  For everything there is a season, and just because technology presents mankind the opportunity to record, collate, analyze, and post just about everything that occurs, meaningful or not, does not mean it is right to do it, and that it should be done.  Instead, it must be recognized that some things, perhaps most things, are meant to be impermanent and fleeting, and thereby to take what is transitory and brand it as permanent, is a grand disservice to all.

Be good

Mankind wishes to make life far more complicated and stressful then it really needs to be, for in the scheme of things, a good life really comes down to being good and doing good deeds for others.  That is to say, if doing the right thing was foremost in everybody's mind to begin with, and thereby one really lived their life in a manner in which the right and good things were done on a consistent as well as a daily basis, then this world would be a far more pleasant place for far more people to be an integral part of.

Far too many people get caught up into dogma, and find themselves enslaved to the concept of the letter of the law, while forgetting that what supersedes all good laws, spiritual or manmade, is not the letter of it, but the spirit of the law, all in accordance with God's good law.  For instance, when it comes to mankind's law, there are all sorts of clever lawyers that are able to twist and turn a given law and to manipulate such, so that what is crystal clear now devolves into shades of gray, all for the purpose of circumventing that law, as if fairness should somehow bow to cleverness, which it should not.  As for spiritual laws, these are meant for the benefit of mankind, and should not be blindly obeyed or adhered to, without forethought, as well as having each individual take the time to achieve a good understanding of the principles of that law, in which, too often those that interpret that law, as if they are that law, do so in a manner that bestows upon them, certain privileges and immunities, as if they are the law originators, whereas they are themselves subject to that same law, properly interpreted, with a clear understanding that it is the spirit of the law, that trumps over a given literal translation of the law, for the scripture itself, is filled with parables and analogies.

The doing of good often comes down to seeing yourself in the other person's shoes, and in recognition that every human life has value and it is our sacred responsibility therefore to uphold that value, by being forgiving, by being understanding, by being generous, and by caring.  That is to say, an eye for an eye is never going to be the good response, for that truly is a zero-sum game, in which neither party advances, though perhaps things could be looked upon as evening up by doing so.  On the other hand, those that are able to take their enemies and haters, and through their consideration, love, and respect, have those enemies and haters, eventually become their friends, have taken what once was a negative and turned it around for the good and benefit of both parties.

It's easy to hate, it's easy to destroy, and it's easy to be selfish, for all of that originates from frustrated desires, and frustrated egos.  Whereas, to love takes patience, kindness, and empathy; to create takes multiple hands working together as one; and to be unselfish necessitates the quieting down of the ego and recognition that all have inherent value that should be embraced and recognized.  Those that when they are given a choice, do good for others, are themselves good; and those that do not, are not.  Therefore, be good.

The surveillance state of Facebook masking as social media

Not only is Facebook the most pervasive and far reaching "social media "site in the history of the internet, but its profitability, was over $22 billion in fiscal year 2018, and its market capitalization was of May 3, 2019, $558 billion; of which those gaudy numbers emit from the fact that Facebook states that 2.7 billion people use the Facebook family of services, which makes Facebook a truly gargantuan, ubiquitous, and awesome site.  But is Facebook, and its family of services, of Instagram, Whatsapp, and Messenger, in which all of these formats are provided free to the user, actually a social media site, especially in consideration that its sales were $55.8 billion in 2018, or is Facebook masquerading as a social media site, but is actually in effect, a surveillance site?

Facebook makes almost all of its money, and accounts for almost all of its revenue from advertising.  The main reason why Facebook can garner in all of this advertising money is that Facebook, in the structure of its format, knows its clients, better than those client's friends or even their spouses.  That is to say, as reported by the nytimes.com, researchers discovered that simply "... using nothing but the subject’s Facebook activity," that their algorithm was more accurate in predicting that person's personality traits than any of the human participants, needing "… just 10 likes to beat a work colleague, 70 to beat a roommate, 150 to beat a parent or sibling, and 300 to beat a spouse."  That is to say, without even using the information that Facebook has aggrandized, correlated, and processed in regards to a client's entire Facebook page, but by merely reading in the likes of that client, the algorithm was better at predicting the true personality traits of that client, simply from those Facebook likes.

Additionally, and the reason why advertisers spend so much money with Facebook, is the fact that Facebook remembers and keeps virtually everything ever posted about each of its clients and their activity.  For instance, Facebook facial recognition software is so good, it knows to properly tag their clients in photos.  Also, every ad that has ever been click on in a client's Facebook page, is noted, dated, and stored at Facebook, which is of tremendous value to advertisers.  Facebook knows your geo-location, it knows every single contact that has been made at some point with other people on Facebook, and it also knows every single social event ever attended by its clients when that is done through using Facebook.  It knows every friend, that has ever been befriended on Facebook, including the specific date when the client became friends, those that have been unfriended, and the time, date, and IP address of every log-in to Facebook.  Facebook has a copy of every message sent or received while on Facebook, as well as every photo ever pasted onto Facebook. Basically, everything that is posted by its clients, Facebook keeps, as well as keeping the time, date, and geo-location of those postings, in addition to knowing the exact age and likes of the clients that use the Facebook website.

While Facebook will decry that all these postings and the usage of Facebook are voluntarily done, what they will not readily admit to is the fact that virtually all of this information is fundamentally used to sell salient portions of it to advertisers.  The reason that Facebook keeps, collates, and processes everything about a given Facebook page is to monetize that information for its own enormous financial benefit.  So then, rather than being a social media site, which helps connect and keep connected friends and family with one another, Facebook is actually a pervasive and relentless surveillance site which knows everything about you, so as to better exploit you.

The land in where justice is denied and where poverty is enforced

In 1886, the great abolitionist and statesmen Frederick Douglass said, "The American people have this lesson to learn: That where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."  Now, here it is, 135 years later, and has anything really and fundamentally changed?

For instance, justice is denied each and every day, in so many ways, large and small, especially for all those that are not the favored people of those that are the rulers of such.  That is to say, those that lack money and do not have consistent, nor have sustainable, nor have adequate compensation to make a fair living, are at the mercy of those that set and apply the rules against them.   So that, in America, there are laws upon laws, that effectively criminalize those that are poor, ill-educated and typically cordoned off into the most undesirable and unsafe living conditions, so that they can be more easily monitored, controlled, arrested, and incarcerated.  So too, in the richest nation of the world, there remains as reported by povertyusa.org as of 2016, a staggering "40.6 million people" living in poverty as defined by federal guidelines of that poverty threshold, which signifies that 12.7% of Americans live below that poverty threshold. Those that live in poverty seldom choose to do so, but are trapped within a construct in which their lack of opportunity,  their ill-education, their disabilities, and the lack of decent infrastructure for them makes it a foregone conclusion that such poverty is inescapable for so many.  So too, despite the Supreme Court decision of 1954, of Brown v. Board of Education, those that live in desirable areas, have schools that are safe, as well as teachers and curriculum that educate students, whereas those of the underclass while being permitted to attend schools, find that far too often those schools, are unsafe, and are institutions that do not provide a good or even fair environment for the proper education of those students.  While, America prides itself on having a progressive income tax system which theoretically is structured in a manner in which those that earn more are taxed more; in actuality, the very richest of individuals as well as corporate entities, do not come close to ever being progressive taxed at a fair rate, but instead are gifted at finding loopholes, foundations, subsidies, and special as well as favorable tax breaks and tax treatments, so that, even Warren Buffet, one of the top three richest Americans ,recognizes this unfairness, by stating  in 2011 that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income…"

Quite clearly, America is unequal, unfair, and illiberal in its policies which is proven by the fact that America, is the industry leader in incarceration in comparison to all other western nations, in which, as reported by Wikipedia.com, the incarceration rate in America is 655 per 100,000 peoples, for a total prison population of 2,121,600.   All of this leads us inexorably to the point that Frederick Douglass inveighed upon 135 years ago, which is that when a country makes it their principle to deny justice, to enforce poverty, as well as to ill-educate a significant portion of its population, and further demonstrates in its institutions that this is a country primarily of the very rich, by the very rich, and for the very rich, then those that are oppressed and exploited, are quite obviously going to act out in ways that are inimical to those that effectively run this country, and those impoverished people will be dealt with in a manner that resolves nothing, ameliorates nothing, but does it best to silence, and to effectively ignore them.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people

The primary purpose of good governance is for the people to join together in a body politic, so that this community of people can therefore come together to accomplish tasks, duties, and obligations that would not be done as well or even could be done in their separate or individual capacities.  That is to say, people voluntarily join together so as to create societies meant for the greater good of those people, so that those people can prosper, be protected, establish justice, and to ensure domestic tranquility, for all of those people so gathered together as one.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence were written with the best of intent to ensure that this would be a country of, by, and for the people, the actual results do not indicate that this is the case.  For instance, when governmental rules and regulations, protections, taxation, and favoritism are acted upon and created in particular to specifically favor one corporate interest or a conglomeration of certain corporate interests at the expense of the people and/or undesired competition then this is a misuse of governmental influence.  So too, when that government which is sworn to the highest duty to protect its homeland, creates departments of defense and institutions of secrecy that the people as well as their representatives appear to have little salient impact or knowledge upon, and have not provided to those people true transparency and a fair accounting of what is occurring, of which the people are lacking in the ability to be involved in any meaningful decision making, then that defense department and its subsidiaries have become a law onto its own.   Additionally, a justice department that is truly fair and ethically valid, can only occur when that justice is rendered in a manner that all applicable laws are equally applied to all citizens in which that law can never be bought, circumvented, ignored, or countermanded, but is instead, upheld by the upmost integrity of those that are part and parcel of that institution.  Finally, a country that is founded on egalitarian principles, of which that country is no respecter of persons, recognizes that unequal and effectively segregated communities and institutions, are an anathema towards domestic tranquility, fairness, opportunity, and liberty, so that an legitimate government  would not ever countenance such.

So that, when that government makes it their point to play favorites in which some will prosper at the expense of the many, as well as to protect the rights of some at the expense of the many, in addition to often selling their purported fair justice to the highest bidder, and also deliberately creating rules and regulations that ensures that there will never be domestic tranquility because of the exploitation by the few against the many, then such a country as that, with a government behaving as that, is no country of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, but rather it is its very opposite.

There is no greater force than government, for it is government and its institutions that either directly or indirectly control what isn't or is allowed, and how things will or will not work, because that government is effectively the military muscle and the might, the legislature, the justice department, and the executive branch, combined; so that when that government is not actually made up of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it is a false government and illegitimate, because it is not the government of, by, and for the people.

Our most precious national resource

If one was to ask the average American what would be the most precious natural resource that America has, a significant amount of people would mention that it is oil, which is lifeblood of our energy needs, of which America is self-sufficient in; as well as there would be those that would answer that it is the great hi-technology companies that America has, in addition to those that would state various other miscellaneous things in which America is a known industry leader.  But though each of these answers may be a reasonable answer, and justifiable to some degree, the real most precious resource that America has, is actually its children.

The bottom line is that each generation of Americans, must pass the baton onto the next generation and onto the next, and so and so forth.  So that, of those that founded this great nation, there is not a single one of these great visionaries and courageous characters that still lives today, though their ideas and ideals, contained within our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution live on; but these only live on based upon the foundations that America still maintains, in which, should those foundations be corrupted or circumvented, so then does this nation and its people thereof, suffer for that.

This does mean that it is critical to bring up all of the children in America in a manner in which they are prepared to take hold of the mantles of leadership, innovation, morality, respect, and diligence in seeing that America continues to be the best hope of mankind, as well as that bright beacon of freedom, liberty, and happiness.  Yet, when it comes to the education of those of our youngest generation, America is falling further and further behind other nations, in its overall educational achievements in aggregate, despite the fact that America is the richest nation that the world has ever known.

This lack of general educational achievements is not for the lack of spending money on that education, for no country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spends more; but the end result is a gross and disturbing disparity between high achievers as opposed to a multitude of persistent low achievers, of which these low achievers are in so many ways, often functionally illiterate.  While America has the strongest university and collegiate system in the world that thereupon recruits in the best students throughout the world for that first class higher education; it is disturbing to note that the mass of students domestically are so ill-educated that it has been estimated by americanprogress.org, that "40 percent to 60 percent of first-year college students require remediation in English, math, or both."

While pundits can point to the fact that our high school graduation rates are trending higher and higher, and that those that are attending collegiate institutions are also utilizing a higher and higher percentage of eligible students, both young and old, the bottom line is that it is the results that matter, in which, far too often primary and secondary educational learning for far too many students is abysmal, and that far too many "colleges" that students attend aren't really successfully educating those students for relevant gainful employment, but are merely playing a shell game with federal student loan guarantees to exploit those students.

This most precious natural resource, our children, must be nurtured from day one, and must be inclusive of all Americans, in which, continual failure to see that all are soundly educated as well as being knowledgeable of what it means to be a true American, and thereby becoming a productive and meaningful member of this society, will invariably lead to the state of disunion from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Autonomous vehicles and the greater good

Autonomous vehicles already exist in the United States and the continued advancement and growth of these vehicles being on the road with other drivers seems a certainty.  While there isn't any doubt that the sophistication of these vehicles and their "vision" is superior in most every way, in comparison to humans who are prone to error, fatigue, impairment, as well as distractions; these autonomous vehicles ultimately have to be programmed in such a way, that difficult and rare decisions, in which, somebody will get hurt or even killed, are made.

That is to say, not all accidents and collisions happen, simply because of human error, but are in some instances, inevitable, based on weather, failure of equipment to brake or tires to hold the road, or pedestrians that just jut out into the street, or blind spots on roads because of curves or abrupt inclines, and so on and so forth.  Of which, because of the speed that vehicles travel at, it is not possible in every instance to actually stop that vehicle on the dime, because the time to do so before there is impact, is not enough.

Therefore, this does mean, that driverless cars will crash into not only other driverless cars, but also cars with drivers, as well as into pedestrians.  The thing about human drivers, when all this is happening, is that in most instances, they are going to make a decision, of which, such a decision could be construed as being both reasonable as well as selfish, whereas others could be construed as being both reasonable as well as unselfish, as well as many other decisions that could be construed as being unreasonable and ill-advised.  Basically, with human drivers, just about any possibility when it comes to decision making or the ignoring of such is possible.  On the other hand, autonomous vehicles are programmed to do exactly what that programmed has instructed it to do.  So that, it is fair to assume that autonomous vehicles have been programmed in such a manner that decisions about crashing into a light pole, instead of running into a stream of pedestrians has already been weighed and determined.

All of this assumes that autonomous vehicles are programmed for the greater good in which, one question is whether the programming of what is considered to be the greater good is actually the greater good.  Additionally, most people have a firm opinion about their own self, in regards to their value, of which, that value is reasonably determined by that person's status, not only within their own family and friends, but also of their value to society at large.  So that, within the value of those that are traveling within an autonomous vehicle, it is clear that not every passenger within the confines of an autonomous vehicle, would or should have the same value.  For instance, the CEO of a major technology firm would probably be considered to be of far more value to society, than an old man, that has but six more months to live, yet an autonomous vehicle would not know this, unless such was somehow taken into account.

This thus means, that it is conceivable, that autonomous vehicles, in the future, if not already being done so today, will be programmed in a manner, that those of "high value" are always protected over those of "low or unknown value".  That is to say, society is very unequal today, but at least those that are considered to be "lesser" still have a conscious choice as to what they would do under very trying circumstances in regards to an imminent vehicle collision; whereas, in a world in which the passengers of autonomous vehicles are valued at different rates, those automated decisions will protect foremost those more valued at the expense of those less valued.

Global power and the Panama Canal

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson, made the Louisiana Purchase, which the United States bought from France, for a mere $15 million dollars, all for an area of 827,000 square miles.  In 1867, Seward negotiated the terms of the Alaskan purchase from Russia for $7.2 million dollars, for an area of nearly 600,000 square miles.  In 1904, the United States purchased what would be known as the Panama Canal from Panama for $10 million dollars, as well as paying France $40 million dollars for the work that they had initiated in the building of the Panama Canal but never finished, for an area of just 435 square miles.

What made the Panama Canal of vital interest to the United States, was the ability of that canal to connect the Atlantic ocean from its great ports such as those in New York City and New Orleans with its great and upcoming ports on the Pacific coast, and onward then to Asian markets as well as to better command those two oceans for the security and the power of the United States, which allowed America thereby to bypass having to sail around South America and therefore saving in distance some 8,000 miles of sea travel.  This was of upmost importance in the early 20th century, because aerial power was not yet known, and the great global powers of that age, were all those that controlled the seas, and being able to travel seamlessly from the Pacific to the Atlantic and vice versa, gave America that power, along with increasing its reach and strength in global trade.

When the Panama Canal was successfully completed, at a great cost in both men's lives lost as well as in monies spent, it indisputably help solidify America's status as the greatest economic power in the world, as well as establishing America as the most dominant military force, if not immediately in armaments and in ships, then certainly in its capacity and strategic positioning to be so, which is why when America entered into World War I, the tide of that war immediately changed to the Allies of that cause.

France's failure to successfully complete the massive engineering and manpower needed to create the Panama Canal, was the opportunity for America to take over and thereby to control the Panama Canal for primarily its own purposes, of which, Panama as a country, would best be seen, at that time, as a vassal state to America.  However, eventually Panama would assert its sovereignty, through American acquiescence over the Panama Canal, and thereby a new treaty would be signed transferring the canal over to Panama at the end of 1999, with the important provision that America would maintain the right to defend the canal.

America would not be America as we know it today, if it was not for the strategic purchases as well as the taking of lands from other nations, in addition to having the vision and foresight to recognize that the building of the Panama Canal would not only be vital for trade within America, but also for trade with other countries, as well as making America the international powerhouse, second to none.

Protein and good health

Whenever one is shopping at a grocery store or when eating in many restaurants, there often is listed the estimated calorie amount per a given food item.  Additionally, food labels will often break down the amount of total fat, total carbohydrates, as well as other substances, in addition to the protein, if any, that the food is estimated to contain.  The most important thing to take away from food and nutritional labels in general, is to recognize that simply making it a point to consume, for instance, 3000 calories a day is not necessarily going to help keep a given body, healthy.  That is to say, those concentrating solely upon calories, but aren't paying much attention to what those calories consist of, are making an error in judgment, in which, their only saving grace, would be somehow maintaining a very balanced diet.

In point of fact, between fat consumption, carbohydrate consumption, and protein consumption, the most important of these, by far, is protein.  What makes protein so vital is the fact that it is necessary in order to properly maintain good bodily health, because of proteins' critical role in helping to maintain muscle as well as to repair tissue, in addition to it being the required component that aids in the development of amino acids, which are needed in order to maintain the well-being of the body.

Another very vital attribute of protein consumption, is that a consistent and sustained consumption of protein does a markedly better job of reducing hunger, and therefore the additional snacking of foods, created by the body still feeling that it is still hungry is reduced.  So that as reported by healthline.com, "One study in overweight men showed that increasing protein to 25% of calories reduced cravings by 60%, and reduced the desire to snack at night by half (Gunnars, 2016)."

Protein is a part of foods such as meat, milk, fish, poultry, lamb, eggs, nuts, and beans, in which a diet that makes sure to consume an adequate amount of those proteins will allow that body to maintain the appropriate amount of protein in the body tissue which is essential for good health.  While the United States has a food pyramid chart, as well as having recommended foods to be consumed in a given day, in addition to recommendations of appropriate amounts of those foods to be eaten; what has happened though instead, because of such a strong emphasis upon caloric content in the minds of consumers, as well as the sheer abundance of cheap foods that are both heavily processed and are containing a multitude of empty calories, is that far too many people either concentrate on the calories being consumed to the exclusion of all else, or eat items that they believe are wholesome or good to consume, not recognizing that the nutritional content of those items are suspect.

It is only in very recent times, that we have seen that in western nations, that the fattest people are also the poorest people; whereas, the incidence of being overweight in poor people, historically, was extremely low, mainly because most poor people did not take in enough calories to ever become fat.   Nowadays, however, certain calories of certain foods can be incredibly cheap to buy, so cheap, that those on limited budgets are able to consume not only way more calories than their body really needs, but these are often the type of calories that are not good for the body.   So that, those that do take in enough protein day-in and day-out, have a strong preponderance of being overweight, in addition to the fact that because of the lack of protein in their diet, they are physically in much worse shape.

Face the music and quit vilifying tobacco and nicotine

In America, the smoking of cigarettes is considered to be epidemiologically harmful to the body of the person that is smoking, and for some organizations, the very smoke that is exhaled from smokers (second hand smoke) is considered to be harmful as well as a pollutant.  The thing about cigarettes in America and especially those from "big tobacco," is that cigarettes consist of not just tobacco, in conjunction with the natural amount of nicotine contained within tobacco leaves, but also the chemicals and additives added to cigarettes for taste, smoothness, consistency, and anesthetics.

That is to say, tobacco has been grown and harvested for millenniums, of which tobacco naturally has nicotine contained within it, which acts as a stimulant as well as indirectly releasing dopamine to the brain.  While most people today think of tobacco as solely being smoked, in fact, as a leafy product, it can also be chewed, sucked, as well as being burned and then being inhaled through the nostril passages, in addition to its most common form of consumption which is being smoked through the mouth.  While medical science, as we know it, is a fairly modern construct, it would be surprising to most people that as reported by cnn.com, "In Egypt, out of hundreds of mummies, only one case of cancer has been confirmed."  This, doesn't mean definitively that there wasn't any cancer in ancient times, but it does serve to augment the theory that history as well as epidemiological research does not support that the smoking of tobacco always has lead to a very high incidence of lung cancer.  For instance, only in very recent times has it been discovered that in the United States  that "… lung cancer in male smokers vs. non-smokers was 40.1," as reported by verywellhealth.com, and quite obviously a ratio of such a staggering size means that to presume that smoking does not cause or contribute greatly to lung cancer would be a grave fallacy.

However, within that same report by verywellhealth.com, they state that, "in Korea were 4.0 to 4.6 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers. The relative risk in Japan in this study was 3.7 to 5.1, and that in China was 2.4 to 6.5."  While, racists might jump to the conclusion that the significantly lower rates of cancer in Korea, Japan, and China, must be because Asian people have an inborn immunity to such at a much higher level than Americans of all types; the fact of the matter is that the best selling cigarette in these countries, in order, are as reported by chartsbin.com:  Esse, Mild Seven, and Chunghwa, whereas in America it is Marlboro.

The fact is that chemicals of all sorts are typically added to cigarettes, of which, some of these chemicals as reported by lung.org are: acetone, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and tar, to name just a few.  Further, lung.org states that: "When burned, cigarettes create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are toxic."  This thus signifies that in all likelihood, those that deliberately smoke substances that contain toxic chemicals, are going to place themselves into the position of probably having a significantly higher amount of cancer risk, of which, those that smoke cigarettes in America are at risk of getting lung cancer 40 times higher than those that do not smoke.  On the other hand, it is implicit within worldwide studies of smoking, and in particular, involving different brands being so smoked, that smoking cigarettes could impact the risk of lung cancer to as low as just 2.4 times higher than the non-smoker, and perhaps even less depending upon the chemicals and additives added to those cigarettes.

America has a strong tendency to simplify things that should not be so simplified, so that the smoking of cigarettes is one of those things which have mandated a health warning that states, "Smoking causes lung cancer…"In point of fact, the smoking of tobacco leaves, and in particular the smoking of tobacco leaves containing nicotine, without any chemical or additive additions, in all probability, does not cause lung cancer and never has.On the other hand, the smoking of chemicals, and in particular those chemicals that are added to and are part of the actual cigarette packs so sold, especially those chemicals which are known to be cancer agents, in and of themselves, implicitly must and do cause lung cancer.

The logical reason why there is so much unauthorized Mexican immigration to America

According to the Pew Research Center there were "In 2016, 5.4 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico lived in the U.S.," whereas according to the Pew Research Center it was estimated "that 100,000 Canadians were in the U.S. without authorization in 2014." While it is true, that Mexico has a greater population amount than Canada, which represents a ratio of 3.35 times more people between Mexico then Canada; the ratio of unauthorized immigrants between Mexico and Canada is on the order of an incredible 54 times more unauthorized Mexicans than Canadians, yet both of these countries are contiguous to the United States, in addition to the fact that it is far easier to cross the border from Canada into America, then it is to cross from Mexico into America.

Stanford historian, David Kennedy, states that “The income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world,” which is probably the most prevailing reason why so many Mexicans want to get into America. That is to say, when you are a resident of a country in which, opportunity for economic success, not to mention rule of law, good education, and solid infrastructure is literally right across a border that stretches for 1,954 miles, it makes eminent sense to seriously consider crossing that border, especially when that country, has all the accouterments of one's home country in the sense of language and culture, because there are already so many Mexicans living within America.

In the scheme of things, most people want the same basic things for themselves as well as for their family, of which these basically consist of having a decent home, a good education, fair employment, safety, and freedom. Not only does America represent those attributes much better than Mexico, it has by far, a significantly higher amount of all those things, and these are far more readily available for its population. So then, in a country in which there are a plentitude of jobs that native Americans aren't really interested in doing, there are still plenty of immigrants that are willing to do that work, not necessarily because the jobs pay all that well, and not because the conditions of the job are even that good, but mainly because the pay for that work in comparison to what they could make in Mexico, permits them to make a living, as well as there still being the opportunity to find something of even more worth, somewhere in their future.

The fact of the matter is, when the income differential is so great between contiguous countries, as in Mexico v. USA, then those that have any sense of ambition and a desire to improve their material welfare are going to seriously look at immigrating to America, irrespective as to whether it is legally accomplished or not, because they know, that with 5.4 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in America, amongst all the other unauthorized immigrants also here, that there are powerful forces within America, that clearly see the need and have the desire for these immigrants being here, or there simply would not be so many unauthorized immigrants residing within this country.

Mexicans come into this country because this indeed is the land of opportunity, whether they themselves are exploited or not, and whether they are unauthorized or not, because at least in America the dream is both real and alive, and even if the dream isn't quite all that, the hope is that if it doesn't actually happen for the present generation, then at least for the next generation, born within these borders, it will. lived in the U.S.," whereas according to the Pew Research Center it was estimated "that 100,000 Canadians were in the U.S. without authorization in 2014."  While it is true, that Mexico has a greater population amount than Canada, which represents a ratio of 3.35 times more people between Mexico then Canada; the ratio of unauthorized immigrants between Mexico and Canada is on the order of an incredible 54 times more unauthorized Mexicans than Canadians, yet both of these countries are contiguous to the United States, in addition to the fact that it is far easier to cross the border from Canada into America, then it is to cross from Mexico into America.

Stanford historian, David Kennedy, states that “The income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world,” which is probably the most prevailing reason why so many Mexicans want to get into America.  That is to say, when you are a resident of a country in which, opportunity for economic success, not to mention rule of law, good education, and solid infrastructure is literally right across a border that stretches for 1,954 miles, it makes eminent sense to seriously consider crossing that border, especially when that country, has all the accouterments of one's home country in the sense of language and culture, because there are already so many Mexicans living within America.

In the scheme of things, most people want the same basic things for themselves as well as for their family, of which these basically consist of having a decent home, a good education, fair employment, safety, and freedom.  Not only does America represent those attributes much better than Mexico, it has by far, a significantly higher amount of all those things, and these are far more readily available for its population.  So then, in a country in which there are a plentitude of jobs that native Americans aren't really interested in doing, there are still plenty of immigrants that are willing to do that work, not necessarily because the jobs pay all that well, and not because the conditions of the job are even that good, but mainly because the pay for that work in comparison to what they could make in Mexico, permits them to make a living, as well as there still being the opportunity to find something of even more worth, somewhere in their future.

The fact of the matter is, when the income differential is so great between contiguous countries,   as in Mexico v. USA, then those that have any sense of ambition and a desire to improve their material welfare are going to seriously look at immigrating to America, irrespective as to whether it is legally accomplished or not, because they know, that with 5.4 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in America, amongst all the other unauthorized immigrants also here, that there are powerful forces within America, that clearly see the need and have the desire for these immigrants being here, or there simply would not be so many unauthorized immigrants residing within this country.

Mexicans come into this country because this indeed is the land of opportunity, whether they themselves are exploited or not, and whether they are unauthorized or not, because at least in America the dream is both real and alive, and even if the dream isn't quite all that, the hope is that if it doesn't actually happen for the present generation, then at least for the next generation, born within these borders, it will.

The progressive sales tax

There are five States of the Union, that do not have a State sales tax, though even some of those States have a local sales tax, of which, the vast majority of the States do have a sales tax, and those States that do have a sales tax, have in almost every case, inexorably risen that sales tax rate over the years.  For instance, in California, when the sales tax was first introduced that rate was just 2.5%, but as of 2019, a combination of the State and local sales tax in some jurisdictions are as high as 10.25%.  The other thing about the sales tax which is especially annoying, is that the price of goods of those subject to the sales tax, do not have the sales tax price embedded into it, so that an item that sells for $10 in California, doesn't actually cost the consumer $10, but rather in a State such as California could cost the consumer $11.03, and those consumers that don't pay much attention to the sales tax or really don't even understand it, must pay that price at the cash register.

Additionally, the sales tax is a regressive tax, because regardless of income, all must pay the exact same rate of that tax, which quite obviously means that those that are poor will pay or have allocated from their income a higher percentage of their money that must be utilized in the paying of that sales tax.  While it is true, that unlike the progressive income tax, which takes into account, the income of the taxpayer, that there isn't any way for the seller of the goods, to know or to apply a sales tax rate based on that income, there isn't any good reason why the structure of the sales tax could not be amended to charge a higher sales tax rate on certain items and a lower sales tax on other items and do so in a progressive manner.  For instance, when it comes to vehicles, the first $20,000 of that vehicle could be charged at the rate of just 75% of the normal sales tax rate, the next $10,000 could be charged at the normal sales tax rate, and any and all amounts above $30,000 could be charged at double the normal sales tax rate.  So too, State legislatures could look more carefully at the items that are subject to sales tax rates, and those items that are considered to be essentials, could have their sales tax removed or reduced, whereas those items that could be considered to be luxuries, could have their rates adjusted to a progressive scale and increased.

The fact that currently sales taxes are setup as one size fits all, is not an innovative way to actually apply sales taxes, especially considering that all States have an implicit obligation to do a better job in accommodating those that are the least and the most vulnerable, while at the same time, charging more for those that can easily afford to pay such.  After all, a sales tax is a consumption tax, so that those that have the wherewithal to purchase goods that are expensive, optional, and/or are considered to be luxuries, should pay a higher progressive sales tax rate for doing so.  

In point of fact, the income tax is progressive, in which, there are tiers constructed at increasing tax rates based on that income, in which, the basic thought is that those that make more should pay more.  At the same time when it comes to spending that money on material goods, those that have more and are willing to spend their money, should pay a higher sales tax rate on a progressive scale.

Privacy is an unalienable right

While it is true that the Constitution does not contain the word privacy, so too, does it not contain many other words, including the words slave or slavery, until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in which slavery was legally legislated out of existence.  However, a careful reading of the Constitution and its amendments clearly indicates that citizens of this country do have the right to privacy, as demonstrated most particularly by the Fourth Amendment, "…to be secure in their persons," as well as in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," in addition to other Amendments that allude to privacy, and the Constitution itself, which as the prevailing written document, is the Supreme Law of this land, which was specifically written to "…secure the Blessings of Liberty," of which one of the blessings of liberty, is the right to be secure in one's own thoughts as well as to be secure in one's own private possessions, and not to be subject to a government that violates those sacrosanct rights, without due process of the law.

The very people and governmental agencies that disparage the rights of the people of their privacy and to be secure in their possessions are almost always the very same people and governmental agencies that lack integrity, honesty, and transparency in their own affairs; and further bring both the worn-out shibboleth that the government needs to know everything about its people in order to protect those people, in which the sacrificing of their privacy is considered to be a fair trade.  For all those that voluntarily relinquish their right to privacy, that is their prerogative, but when that privacy is unjustly taken from them, it is a violation of the Supreme Law of this land.

In regards to a world in which so much of what a given person does online or through their conversations and movement is now duly recorded, stored, collated, and utilized by high tech corporations of all types, this is, despite the terms and conditions of usage by the people of those high tech devices and their conduits, a direct affront to the privacy of the individual, whenever those individuals do not have the real power and the real choice to control or to own their  private being in a manner in which they are the masters of their own persona, as opposed to having little or no control over their image, their postings, their movements, and their interactions with others.

Those that do not have control over their privacy in their person, have for all intents and purposes, morphed into something that is now public, and the more public that one's thoughts and images are, in which these formerly were private, the easier it is to be marketed to, to be propagandized to, to be manipulated by, and to be controlled.  That is the case, whenever a given individual no longer has a sacred place to be in solitude, therefore having no sanctuary; and hence those without a sanctuary are no longer free or liberated, but are instead, bounded into a form of servitude.

Search and seizure in the era of big data

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution makes it clear that the policing agencies of the governmental state are not permitted to engage in "fishing expeditions" when it comes to the searching and the seizure of goods or items from possible suspects; but rather are restricted to first getting a warrant, issued forthwith under probable cause or exigent circumstances, and specifically relating to what is to be searched for.  Never has the Fourth Amendment been of more vital importance than in this current era, in which seemingly every activity done over the internet or through one's smart phone is collected, collated, and stored, under the aegis of being for the benefit of the users of such or for the marketing of goods or services to those users.

The problem with companies such as Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, Verizon, as well as other similar high technology companies really comes down to whether or not they are corporations that ultimately protect the users of their products and their privacy in regards to the integrity of their communications and activities, or whether these companies wittingly or unwittingly provide that cogent information to governmental agencies, for those government agencies own perusal, which essentially then allows those governmental agencies to monitor all those that live in a digital world, in a way, in which those governmental agencies have real actionable information, considered by those citizens to be in most instances to be their own business or their own private communications.

In point of fact, communications and posting of all sorts by its citizens, are routinely seized and searched by governmental agencies without a warrant, and specifically are done in a manner in which the privacy of the bulk of those citizens are violated by those governmental agencies, which is not reasonable, and is in constant violation of those citizen rights, all of which is done without probable cause.  This is akin to a fisherman that knows the law in regards to not being permitted to catch certain species of fish, or species such as dolphins, simply deciding to collect any and everything that is swimming in the ocean, because that fisherman has the tools to do so, and does not want to go through the trouble and expense of actually following the law, but rather prefers to ignore the law for his own purposes.

While the government can issue all sorts of Executive Orders, or spurious laws, or have court decisions manufactured to support their misinterpretations of Constitutional law; what the government has not done is actually overturned the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but has effectively perverted such, and has instead added its own coda to the Fourth Amendment, which appears to state, that the government and its agencies are permitted to search and seize whatever that they so desire, without end, for the ostensible safety of its population, whereas the reality of the situation is that they want all of that information so as to get over on its population and to manipulate that population for governmental control of them.

If none of these high technology companies will proactively protect the consumer of their products, from unwarranted governmental intrusion of their person and the security of their personal affairs, then the citizens of this country have essentially little protection of their comings and their goings, for what has occurred for all intents and purposes, is that high technology companies and the government are united as one.

How far above and below your land is yours?

Property ownership is one of those seminal things that most people see as finally being able to state as well as to know that they are now the king and queen of their own castle, no matter how grand or how modest that castle may be.  Unfortunately, what a given owner owns in regards to that land is dependent upon Federal law, State law, local law, and the court of law.  Back before modern times, it was common to believe that one owned their land “to the heavens and to hell.”  However, nowadays, with the prevalence of underground utilities, as well as mineral and water rights, one's ownership of the land underneath their property typically comes with caveats, and it is those property restrictions that limit how much land underneath the property is actually owned by the owner of the land above ground.  In regards to air rights, in the age of airplanes, the general rule is that the owner of property owns, depending upon the height of their building, and air traffic around such a building, 80 - 500 feet above the property, as their own private airspace, but as with most everything, it depends upon the circumstances so involved.  That is to say, a helicopter or a drone for that matter, do not have the uninhibited right to specifically hover above your property for purposes of an invasion of your privacy or surveillance, even if they are above the airspace so defined, whereas airplanes and similar that are passing through are permitted to do so.

When it comes to the land below the property, the legal ownership documents so created upon the purchase of the home, usually specify what is or is not owned beneath the property, with any and all exceptions to mineral rights or similar, being so noted.  Of course, when it comes to governments and their needs, in most instances within land ownership, their right of eminent domain trumps the owner's right to be the master of what is allowed to occur underneath that land.  On the other hand, while most owners intuitively understand that the air directly above their property is not something tangible that they really can own, as well as acknowledging the typical restrictions as to how high one can build their property per the local zoning laws; so too, they understand that aircraft of all sorts have an imminent need to utilize airspace to travel to and fro.  However, now that drones have  come down significantly in price, so that, even the next door neighbor can own one, and further that drones can be outfitted with recording devices; there obviously is a potential issue with any neighbor that flies a drone over private property and records such, especially when that has been done, deliberately.  While certain States have passed legislation, outlining the rights of property owners and providing such with redress for grievances of this sort, even without new laws being written, each owner is entitled to privacy on their own property, and the flying of a drone, that is taking pictures or video of another person's property could easily be seen by a court of law as an invasion of the privacy of the owner of that property.

The old days of owning “to the heavens and to hell,” are long gone, if they ever really existed, and it is up to individual property owners in conjunction with their legislators to see that those that own property are properly protected in this era in which search, seizure, and privacy are all seemingly ceding more and more ground to governmental and institutional agents of all sorts.

Made in USA discount on sales tax as well as on income tax

Certain products bought have federal taxes associated with them, such as fuel, alcohol, and cigarettes.  So too, virtually every State of the Union, have sales tax applied to certain items that are sold, of which, such a sales tax, is typically structured to cover State as well as local budgets.   As reported by reuters.com, when it comes to buying United States manufactured products they "…found 70 percent of Americans think it is “very important” or “somewhat important” to buy U.S.-made products," indicating that a substantial amount of Americans believe in the importance of buying American.  Additionally, as reported by time.com, they "…found that twice the money stayed in the community when folks bought locally," which obviously is beneficial for those communities, as opposed to dollars being spent here but being repatriated back to foreign consortiums or foreign governments. 

One way to make the decision to buy goods that are manufactured in America, which helps to sustain jobs and industries within this country, even more germane, is to provide consumers with real incentives to do so, and one of those ways would be to provide income tax deductions specifically for sales taxes spent on American made and produced goods, as well as providing a lower sales tax rate for American made goods.  While to do this, would necessitate, a comprehensive agreement between Federal and State governments, one of the easiest ways to do so, would be to compensate those States through federal benefits on a one-to-one basis for their reduction of sales tax revenue through those State's amendment of sales tax rates for American manufactured goods.

So too, in an era of electronic transactions, the ability to seamlessly charged different sales tax rates on goods, would come down to the tagging and bar coding of those goods, which would designate such as being domestically manufactured as opposed to being foreign manufactured or goods that have not so been designated as either domestic or foreign, therefore being defaulted to the higher tax rate.  That is to say, those goods that would have the reduced tax rate would be clearly demarcated as such, and consumers would be aware of the difference in total price between the domestically produced products as compared to the foreign based products.

In the everyday world, people are accorded the opportunity to vote with their dollars, so that those that consciously want to buy American, would more clearly be able to see designated those products that are American, and therefore could buy them or not, per their desire.  The least that America should do as a country, is to make it their point and principle that all products produced and manufactured within this country, should be accorded some sort of designation and accommodation indicating such, so that American consumers are therefore able to make an informed choice.

If, Americans truly believe that they should be able to buy whatever product that they so desire to buy, without taking into consideration the country of origin, that will not change; what would change, however, is that those that comprehend that they have an obligation to the country of their residence to support better that country by buying domestically manufactured products, they should receive a reduction in their sales tax rate as well as being provided an income tax deduction, as a courtesy and as a thank you for helping to support the people that represent the greatest country on earth.