Enemy of the State?

A lot of outrage is now focused on the bonuses paid out to AIG executives, a company which has received over 170 billion in bailout tax-payer money. People are angry and rightfully so.

But less known is that the bonuses were previously approved by government officials whose names include Treasury secretary Geithner, Senator Dodd, and the Obama Administration, who are now making McCarthy-style inquires for the names of the executives receiving those legally contracted and government authorized bonuses .

In a move to deal with the outrage, the house has just passed a resolution bill to tax those bonuses to a tune of 90% to get that money back. Some say that is a creative use of government, some call it thuggery, but actually, according to Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution it is illegal.

What congress is passing now is called a bill of attainder which is an act or legislation that singles out a person or group of persons for punishment without the benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden. The clause was intended by our forefathers to enforce the separation of powers, a way to protect the people from basically trial by legislature.

The bill of attainder AIG executives that the house is pushing and the BO administration has verbally yet unofficially approved is an exaggerated form of Obama administration politics, to single people or groups out who are political enemies, isolate them, then attack, i.e. Milt Rosenberg, Stanley Kurtz, WGN Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and Jim Cramer. What has been whispered as unprecedented and unpresidential, has now been elevated to unconstitutional, which begs the question, who really is the enemy of the state.

Time and again the founding fathers have proven themselves to be beyond their time. The clause for the bill of attainder was written in a timeless way because they realized it would be necessary...some day. It only makes sense to look further into the thinking of the founding fathers. Here are some more interesting and still relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

1. The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

2. The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

3. It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

4. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretence of taking care of them.

5. My reading of history convinces me that most bad governments result from too much government.

6. To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which He disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

7. To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

8. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

9. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

10. The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

11. To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

And last but not least

12. The man who reads nothing at all is better than educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

It’s amazing how timeless and relevant the wisdom of those men continue to be. They’ve so far showed us what America is and what it stands for, and more importantly the enemies it stands against. And based on the founder’s test...we’re not looking so good.

Let’s hope that isn’t the change that was promised!
Close Read more >> Options >>
Visit Answers.com

The bailout-bonus-tax plan shows why the US is bad for business

The house has just passed a bill allowing a 90% tax on paid bonuses to bailed-out AIG executives. The bill is a response to “public” outcry that he insurance giant and other bailed out companies are mis-using taxpayer dollars.

But is it the right move, and what does this mean?

Here are some facts:

The contract for bonuses paid was made and signed over a year previously. It was legal.

Senator Chris Dodd included in the yet-to-be-read-but-passed Stimulus bill approval for the contracted bonuses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was previously in the room last year when these bonuses were discussed.

Much of the bonuses paid went to executives in the derivatives sections of AIG which was part of the company that failed.

Here are the results:

The US Government is sending a strong message to executives of what will and will not be tolerated. That when the Government for whatever political reason disagrees with an already signed and agreed upon legal contract, they have and will use the full power of the government to nullify that contract.

Although most would agree, the bonuses are a farce and a complete misuse of taxpayer dollars, the contract made to allow such bonuses was/is legal and binding. Therefore the message that is ultimately sent to the American people and to businesses in America is that your contracts are not solid, especially when they are not in the best interests of the federal government, for whatever reason.

Case in point, over 60 billion tax-payer dollars have been sent to support banks overseas. Yet, there is an outcry over 165 million used in bonuses. The federal government passed an 800 billion stimulus bill that was unread and most going to pork projects to stave a crisis that the president has recently claimed is “not as bad as we thought,” yet the full force of the government is used to take back 165 million in privately contracted bonuses in an effort to get the money “back for taxpayers.”

Why is this thuggery? Because there is little discussion to the public at large as to how unconstitutional it is for the US government to get involved in private contracts at this level. And have made it clear, that they will control at will. Also little press has been made about the last-minute altering of a provision in the un-read-but-passed $787 billion stimulus law by Sen. Dodd to cap executive compensation for firms receiving government bailouts.

Already, companies are exploring options to leave the US in lieu of better tax-friendly locations. Many more future companies are excluding a US presence. And now, not only with the threat of greater taxes, is the added threat that government will impose themselves at political will only increases opportunity for foreign competitors.

What is offered by the competition? Examples include:

Corporate flat tax rates from 19% - 0%
Personal Income flat tax rates
Economy entry tax incentives/breaks
No world-wide taxation
No Sarbanes-Oxley tax costs
No Mark-to market
Lower capital gains
Fewer Union hurdles
Less Government interference, or at least a consistent policy

Change.

The 80/20 rule to World Peace.

Three’s Company was popular TV comedy that ran for 8 years in the early eighties about 2 women and 1 man living together to share rent. The basic plot for each show revolved around a misunderstanding, mis-communication and crazy attempts to get out of situations caused by the conflict. Phrases like, “It’s not what it looks like,” and “If only they would listen to my side of the story,” made their lives more interesting and their conflicts laughable.

But in real life, too many times, the situations that result are far from comedic. Families torn apart, relationships severed, communities uprooted, lives destroyed, even war. Imagine how much conflict could be avoided in relationships, work, politics, even international affairs, if the rush to judgment would be replaced with patient discernment? This is the basis for the 80/20 rule to World Peace.

The 80/20 rule to World Peace implies that 80% of world conflicts can be resolved if everyone accepted a 20% chance that they COULD be wrong.

Have you ever been in an inter-personal conflict and NOT think to yourself, “I’m right.” Have you ever continued conflict believing, “Maybe, I’m wrong?”

The problem with conflict is everyone is right, or everyone else is always wrong, which is, in fact, true, from their own perspectives. Everyone believes they are right because that is the basic way we know how to interact with our world. Every decision we make is a reaction to what we believe to be true. So not only are each of us right, but everyone does what they believe to be in their best self interests.

Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews all are right from each of their own perspectives. Also Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and Americans each believe likewise.

The “I’m right,” culture leads to a world of absolutes causing people to stop listening, stop learning, and refusing to look at another perspective. This, then, leads to ignorance, intolerance, and eventually conflict.

Therefore the 80/20 Rule to World Peace asks that since EVERYONE is right, in order to give peace a chance, simply adopt an attitude towards conflict that accepts a 20% chance that MAYBE you’re not. Or, for the especially proud, like myself, an adjustment to the rule would be to accept a 20% chance that MAYBE you don’t have all the information.

From a psychological perspective, people are uncomfortable with lingering questions. We prefer to live in conclusions and certainty. Therefore judgment is quickly made based on the information that is known or perceived. The information that is not known or even in conflict is then assumed to be what is the most common or logical based on our experience so that a conclusion can quickly be made. And because we are always right, those conclusions usually become beliefs. This is what causes, misconceptions, misperceptions, and miscommunication. This is then was draws out our impulsive physical and emotional reactions to events.

So by consciously acknowledging a lack of information, “Huh?” and a willingness to linger in uncertainty for a little while, we avoid the automatic judgments, “I can’t believe you did that,” which then turns on the inquisitive side of our psyche, “What the hell are you doing?”
This is called, discernment.

It is the difference between trained and untrained, mature and immature, educated and uneducated. It is, or should NOT, be the difference between primarily logical and emotional decision-makers. But it should be included in base curriculum principles within ALL formal learning.

Should everyone accept the 20%, the result is that at least 80% of the world’s conflicts could be resolved or even avoided from playground arguments to world wars.

Most conflicts occur from one of three reasons: Pride, Desire, or Resources, translated into, “I’m right,” “I want,” “I need,” or any combination thereof, and each of them driven by absolutes.
With and openness to look at other perspectives, would the uneducated Islamic fanatic still think killing innocent infidels be a good thing? By not rushing to judgment, would the jealous husband have divorced his wife because of an assumed lover? By accepting a 20% that he didn’t have all the information, would the religiously conservative father have knowingly emotionally damaged his faith-questioning daughter?

What this is NOT is an abolishment to faith. Rather it is a willingness to accept an attitude of humility that MAYBE I don’t know everything and an openness to seek further information, to gain a broader perspective, to make more informed decisions. Basically, don’t rush to judgment.

The truth is, conflict will always exist. But reducing it would be a huge help. With discernment comes a life where conflict, like a comedy, can be a lot more laughable. But, don’t take my word for it, there is a 20% chance I could be wrong…

The fall of Rahm and the political destruction of a world power

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste….meaning to do things that you think you could not do before.” Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

In taking advantage of the crisis to push an agenda instead of dealing with it, the current administration has allowed the economy to fall further, the currency to be destabilized, and put the United States at greater threat than the cold war.

The economic battle with China which pushed the value of the dollar to new lows and the current economic crisis were bad enough to weaken the strongest economy in the world. Now, the new administration continues to ignore those threats to national security by piling on incredible and unnecessary debt, simply to push an agenda of ideology instead of strengthening the economy.

Irresponsible is ignoring the grumblings of those who continue to finance the US, exploiting what is naively assumed to provide unlimited debt, as well as to dismiss those who seek and can obtain the demise of our political and economical power.

Calls for a new world currency are not new, however those calls have now gained a voice in the world economy and with the continued fiscal irresponsibility of the US government now have a legitimate case to bring against further use of the dollar as the world standard.

Despite the possibility of economic Armageddon and a threat to national security, the Obama administration only furthers its agenda with requests for more unnecessary federal funding of which is not only unsustainable, but will force inflation to historic heights.

Change can be a good and necessary thing. However, smart leadership would recognize not only when it is needed, but also when it is appropriate. Maybe continually charging the American people the largest debts in history amidst one of the most difficult economic times in recent history isn’t the best play. The US voted for an undefined, un-vetted change. Hopefully, unlike the last great empire, we’ll get a chance to not do it again.

Stealing Charity

President Obama is now attacking the Charitable giving of Americans. His new federal budget, if passed, will greatly affect tax-deductions on giving in lieu of greater tax revenues for the federal government.

In questioning the wisdom of this among other tax hikes proposed while dealing with a world-wide economic crisis, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shared that the reductions are insignificant and only affect a small amount of giving.

Insignificant, maybe, but with huge ramifications.

The US is the LARGEST donor to charity in the world including both domestic and foreign giving. Among domestic programs include universities, churches, private schools, sports programs, the arts, medical and technical research, social programming, public service such as ambulances, even police and firemen have charitable fundraisers, and the list goes on and on.

What the administration fails to understand is that charity for Americans isn’t just something that “WEALTHY people do, ” it is one of the biggest international distinctions about who we are.
The biggest influencers of our lives outside of family probably isn’t school or government programs, but things like summer camps, sports clubs, churches/religious communities, big brother/big sister type programs, even education development and political movements, ALL are made possible through Charity.

Jimmy Carter’s group eradicated things like the guinea worm which killed many in Africa, made possible through charity.

The fight against racism, cancer, organizations promoting women’s rights, Green peace, political groups, even my peewee football league; charity.

America has established an atmosphere of charity unparalleled in the world that is not only rewarded by the government but established as a part of our culture because of its support.
Those who give as altruists are rewarded, encouraged and thanked.

Those who give who aren’t altruists are rewarded, encouraged and thanked.

This has created the most holistic programs/organizations/institutions in the world – religion, education, sports, arts, social development, aid, recovery programs, etc.

And as most in the charity industry understand, giving isn’t just about collecting money, it is an exercise in faith and community involvement.

In attacking this, the administration is now saying that what these things are no longer important to American society. Instead of the people deciding what to support, they are taking your money and putting it where they think it should go.

We have an idea of what will be supported, by simply reading the stimulus and omnibus packages. If you’re not happy with what Washington is doing with your money, imagine what they will do with your charity.