When the thought of a Mixed Martial Arts fighter like Conor McGregor taking on a legend like Floyd Maywheather in a boxing ring for 12 rounds came up, a lot of sport enthusiasts laughed it off as if it would never happen. This is, of course, an educated opinion. A discipline like boxing is different and highly specialized than MMA, which is exactly as its acronym suggests - a mixed bag of disciplines.
But as the saying goes - "If it makes money, it makes sense." (Southpaw). This event is the ultimate display that hype over substance is king in this day and age. Both Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather realize this fact and are ready to cash in on the gullible public. Because they can't convince the public that this is going to be a viable fight, they are resorting to building a culture of hate between each other in order to draw interest.
As if taken from the playbook of WWE's Vince McMahon, they have drummed up a blockbuster promotional tour in the biggest markets where they butt heads nightly in a vitriolic mudslinging contest and epic stair-downs. In order to convince the public to shell out $100 or more for an event that technically is almost guaranteed to be a snooze-fest, you have to try to convince the public that the fight is less predictable than it appears.
It all appears to be working, as interest in the fight has skyrocketed since the promotional tour took place. But the manner in which this has occurred, should remind us of the dangerous curve we have taken in our society as of late. The public is drawn into the dynamic between these two fighters with offensive homophobic, racist and misogynist screaming contests. Few are particularly concerned that it is wrong, because most of the public has dismissed it as part of entertainment.
Entertainment crosses over into everything. It has crossed over into the presidency and it has crossed over beyond the sport's basic definition and into an area of a freak show. It makes no sense that Donald Trump was able to successfully run for president, even less that he actually won. Much the same way, it makes no sense at all that McGregor-Maywheather is a viable fight. However, it will be promoted as such, simply because people want to be entertained and are in it for the shock value, regardless of the vile nature by which we get there...
Friday, July 14, 2017
Monday, July 3, 2017
My Weight Loss Approach
This is my weight loss approach, meaning it worked for me. The basic principles are the same for everyone, so calibrate based on how you respond - nobody knows your body better than you.
A few years ago, just after New Year's celebration, I woke up and looked in the mirror. What I saw was an unwieldy version of myself that didn't seem right. I was 250 pounds with spare tire and love handles. I was often short of breath even after a short period of strenuous activity, had a vicious acid reflux following almost every meal, and could comfortably sleep only on my side in bed.
I did quite a bit of research with respect to proper nutrition and physical training required to get where I wanted to be. I devised a three phase approach that would introduce each aspect of a lifestyle change into my daily routine. I knew that for this lifestyle change to be permanent, these phases had to be reasonable enough to be performed every day, yet effective enough to keep me moving towards the target weight and shape I desired.
1) Nutrition. It doesn't matter how active you are or how much time you spend at the gym, if you are sabotaging yourself by eating unhealthy and/or overeating (even healthy food will harm you, if you eat too much). Before I revamped my daily nutrition, I was eating in excess of 3,500 calories daily. Nothing was off limits and bad habits like soda, fast food, and my favorite sin - ice cream; were near daily staples of my diet. After the adjustment, I started to keep a 2-to-1 protein-to-carbohydrates ratio. Majority of my protein is taken from low-fat and nonfat dairy, lean chicken, fish, egg whites and raw almonds. Carbohydrates are important too for daily energy and majority of my carbs are taken from fruits, vegetables and whole grains. I am now consuming between 1,975 and 2,500 calories, depending on that day's physical activity. I avoid most fried foods, full fat dairy, foods with added sugar, foods with high salt (and sodium) content, starchy carbs and limit my intake of lean red meat to twice a week.
2) Active lifestyle. Every move we make during the day burns calories and takes us closer to a healthier version of ourselves. As such, it is important to avoid laying on the couch to watch the television after work, spending the weekend at home and leading a mostly immobile lifestyle. Before I made the switch, the above statement largely described my way of life, aside from a trip to the bar or to eat. With the change, I plan my after work activity very deliberately. Whether it is going to the mall to get some steps in, the store to walk around and pick up a few items, or walking around outside listening to an audio-book; these are all net positive gains versus the couch potato lifestyle. There are other choices I make, such as taking the stairs instead of an elevator, walking short distances instead of taking the car and taking a leisurely stroll for a half hour at lunch time. The weekend and vacation are your opportunity to shine. I started going on hikes, zoos, pick your own fruit events, etc.; virtually any activity that requires me to walk for a prolonged period of time is on the table.
3) Gym. In order for anyone to effectively lose weight and keep it off, we have to build up and maintain lean muscle mass. Up until my moment of truth, I had an on and off relationship with the gym that had limited effect because I was still doing the same old full circuit workout that I got used to my freshman year in college. That workout was strenuous and ineffective. I trained every muscle group everyday, therefore breaking down the muscle tissue and not letting it rebuild completely. It was incredibly hard, therefore I stopped doing it just after a month of starting the program every time. This all changed, when I applied the proper rotation and rest day approach. I now employ a four day rotation system. On the first day, I do 30 minutes of cardio, upper back and biceps. On the second day, I do 30 minutes of cardio, shoulders, chest and triceps. On the third day, I do abs, quads, glutes, hamstrings and calves. On the fourth day, I rest and recover. Each exercise involves 2 sets of 12 repetitions, with the first set being 85% of max weight and the second set being max weight to fail. This allows for a shorter more intense workout that is effective, while at the same time spreading it over 3 days to keep it easy enough to stick to continuously. All three days of activity are preceded with 6-7 minutes of stretches, related to the specific muscle groups that day covers.
The Result - 55 pounds lost within 6 months after starting this approach. And while I have gained back 10 of these pounds over the past few years, the weight I gained back is lean muscle mass and not fat.
P.S. This is an approach that worked specifically for me. Everyone's body and habits are different, and nobody knows you like you. I encourage everyone to educate themselves and tailor a custom plan that is specific and effective.
A few years ago, just after New Year's celebration, I woke up and looked in the mirror. What I saw was an unwieldy version of myself that didn't seem right. I was 250 pounds with spare tire and love handles. I was often short of breath even after a short period of strenuous activity, had a vicious acid reflux following almost every meal, and could comfortably sleep only on my side in bed.
I did quite a bit of research with respect to proper nutrition and physical training required to get where I wanted to be. I devised a three phase approach that would introduce each aspect of a lifestyle change into my daily routine. I knew that for this lifestyle change to be permanent, these phases had to be reasonable enough to be performed every day, yet effective enough to keep me moving towards the target weight and shape I desired.
1) Nutrition. It doesn't matter how active you are or how much time you spend at the gym, if you are sabotaging yourself by eating unhealthy and/or overeating (even healthy food will harm you, if you eat too much). Before I revamped my daily nutrition, I was eating in excess of 3,500 calories daily. Nothing was off limits and bad habits like soda, fast food, and my favorite sin - ice cream; were near daily staples of my diet. After the adjustment, I started to keep a 2-to-1 protein-to-carbohydrates ratio. Majority of my protein is taken from low-fat and nonfat dairy, lean chicken, fish, egg whites and raw almonds. Carbohydrates are important too for daily energy and majority of my carbs are taken from fruits, vegetables and whole grains. I am now consuming between 1,975 and 2,500 calories, depending on that day's physical activity. I avoid most fried foods, full fat dairy, foods with added sugar, foods with high salt (and sodium) content, starchy carbs and limit my intake of lean red meat to twice a week.
2) Active lifestyle. Every move we make during the day burns calories and takes us closer to a healthier version of ourselves. As such, it is important to avoid laying on the couch to watch the television after work, spending the weekend at home and leading a mostly immobile lifestyle. Before I made the switch, the above statement largely described my way of life, aside from a trip to the bar or to eat. With the change, I plan my after work activity very deliberately. Whether it is going to the mall to get some steps in, the store to walk around and pick up a few items, or walking around outside listening to an audio-book; these are all net positive gains versus the couch potato lifestyle. There are other choices I make, such as taking the stairs instead of an elevator, walking short distances instead of taking the car and taking a leisurely stroll for a half hour at lunch time. The weekend and vacation are your opportunity to shine. I started going on hikes, zoos, pick your own fruit events, etc.; virtually any activity that requires me to walk for a prolonged period of time is on the table.
3) Gym. In order for anyone to effectively lose weight and keep it off, we have to build up and maintain lean muscle mass. Up until my moment of truth, I had an on and off relationship with the gym that had limited effect because I was still doing the same old full circuit workout that I got used to my freshman year in college. That workout was strenuous and ineffective. I trained every muscle group everyday, therefore breaking down the muscle tissue and not letting it rebuild completely. It was incredibly hard, therefore I stopped doing it just after a month of starting the program every time. This all changed, when I applied the proper rotation and rest day approach. I now employ a four day rotation system. On the first day, I do 30 minutes of cardio, upper back and biceps. On the second day, I do 30 minutes of cardio, shoulders, chest and triceps. On the third day, I do abs, quads, glutes, hamstrings and calves. On the fourth day, I rest and recover. Each exercise involves 2 sets of 12 repetitions, with the first set being 85% of max weight and the second set being max weight to fail. This allows for a shorter more intense workout that is effective, while at the same time spreading it over 3 days to keep it easy enough to stick to continuously. All three days of activity are preceded with 6-7 minutes of stretches, related to the specific muscle groups that day covers.
The Result - 55 pounds lost within 6 months after starting this approach. And while I have gained back 10 of these pounds over the past few years, the weight I gained back is lean muscle mass and not fat.
P.S. This is an approach that worked specifically for me. Everyone's body and habits are different, and nobody knows you like you. I encourage everyone to educate themselves and tailor a custom plan that is specific and effective.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Review: Wonder Woman
I personally found this movie to be entertaining, despite certain lapses and a casserole of many different points it was trying to achieve. At times I felt like the mercenary band of Indian, Scotsman, Turk and Cowboy were a construction worker short of performing the YMCA.
This film began as a well structured origin story, which provided a great backdrop for Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. The mythology was on point during the early stages of the movie. From Wonder Woman's early childhood, the lure of belonging to the warrior culture of the island, to her training and discovery of extraordinary powers; this part was masterfully written and executed.
The plane crash entry of Chris Pine's Steve Trevor was a fitting and satisfactory transition into World War I era. The Wonder Woman's morality and commitment to justice lead her into the world of early 20th century male dominated Britain. From wardrobe, decorum, down to misogynist social interaction; the transition held true to mythology while providing enough comic relief to be entertaining.
Historical accuracy was also on point, from the invention of mustard gas and chemical warfare, to machine guns, trench warfare and uniforms. Supporting cast was not too shabby either. Danny Huston's German General Ludendorff was a charismatic competent antagonist, aided by the cold blooded phantom of the battlefield Elena Anaya's Dr. Meru.
I did not appreciate the hodgepodge team for the sake of screen diversity assembled by Steve Trevor. This film could have served the purpose of a powerful female character and highlight historic gender inequality without the gratuitous pile on of additional diversity in comic relief characters.
While Ares identification came as a twist in the end, it did not hold true to the original comics, where the Wonder Woman's principal enemy would influence humans in conflict from aside and not posing as the person. Besides, if you want to influence the greater conflict as Ares, you could occupy a more pivotal host in terms of historical significance.
The sacrifice at the end of the story provided closure to Steve Trevor's arc, while confirming Wonder Woman's belief in humanity in the end. Nevertheless, it was a bumpy, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder fueled ride to the finish.
I give this entertaining film 4 out of 5 Gummy Bears.
This film began as a well structured origin story, which provided a great backdrop for Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. The mythology was on point during the early stages of the movie. From Wonder Woman's early childhood, the lure of belonging to the warrior culture of the island, to her training and discovery of extraordinary powers; this part was masterfully written and executed.
The plane crash entry of Chris Pine's Steve Trevor was a fitting and satisfactory transition into World War I era. The Wonder Woman's morality and commitment to justice lead her into the world of early 20th century male dominated Britain. From wardrobe, decorum, down to misogynist social interaction; the transition held true to mythology while providing enough comic relief to be entertaining.
Historical accuracy was also on point, from the invention of mustard gas and chemical warfare, to machine guns, trench warfare and uniforms. Supporting cast was not too shabby either. Danny Huston's German General Ludendorff was a charismatic competent antagonist, aided by the cold blooded phantom of the battlefield Elena Anaya's Dr. Meru.
I did not appreciate the hodgepodge team for the sake of screen diversity assembled by Steve Trevor. This film could have served the purpose of a powerful female character and highlight historic gender inequality without the gratuitous pile on of additional diversity in comic relief characters.
While Ares identification came as a twist in the end, it did not hold true to the original comics, where the Wonder Woman's principal enemy would influence humans in conflict from aside and not posing as the person. Besides, if you want to influence the greater conflict as Ares, you could occupy a more pivotal host in terms of historical significance.
The sacrifice at the end of the story provided closure to Steve Trevor's arc, while confirming Wonder Woman's belief in humanity in the end. Nevertheless, it was a bumpy, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder fueled ride to the finish.
I give this entertaining film 4 out of 5 Gummy Bears.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Absentee Congressman
We are living in an era when the leaders we elect do not uphold the rights and interest of the citizens at large. Instead, they pursue a path of self-enrichment and corruption at taxpayer expense. Nowhere is this deficiency more evident than the Congress. Here we see elected officials consistently miss votes that are inconvenient for them to participate in.
When we elect a politician, we expect that person to vote against legislation that will harm us and vote for legislation that will benefit us. However, that very politician received money from their party, private donors, corporate donors, lobbies, etc. It is those monetary contributors to their campaign (and back pocket) that they owe their Congressional votes to first, before any of us.
There is a very useful, but severely underused, tool that the government provides us with, which allows an average citizen to track the Congressional votes (or lack thereof) of their Senators and Representatives. Here is the website: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
Based on a 2015 study, our Congress was rife with Senators and Representatives that missed a significant portion of their votes. To be fair, those dutiful elected officials that cast every single vote they are called upon drive the average absenteeism down to a palatable 4%. However, there are some that reach as high as 30% absenteeism and over 20 officials consistently miss more than 10% of their expected votes. Imagine if you don't show up for work 10% of the time? That's right - the Senators and Representatives play by a different set of rules.
But absenteeism is only a part of the problem. A lot of the time, the Senators and Representatives are present for the vote, but abstain from voting on an issue that may be problematic for them.
Let's suppose you're a Senator in North Dakota and you are asked to vote on the Dakota Access Pipeline regulation. Your voting population does not want the pipeline approved for environmental reasons. But your big money donors have a financial stake in the project and want your vote for approval. You are not going to deny your sponsor, but you will also not want to upset your voters. So you chose neither - you abstain from voting, citing the legislating is lacking, incomplete or some other irrelevant excuse. That way, you remain safe with the donors and most of the voting public.
In order for us to clean up the Washington landscape, we have to turn our votes into weapons. We must fight Congressional Absenteeism and legislative vote abstinence. Your elected officials have an important job - to vote for or against legislation on your behalf.
Take a look at your elected officials' voting record here https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
And if they're not doing their job, we must fire them. Don't sit on the sidelines - weaponize your votes!
When we elect a politician, we expect that person to vote against legislation that will harm us and vote for legislation that will benefit us. However, that very politician received money from their party, private donors, corporate donors, lobbies, etc. It is those monetary contributors to their campaign (and back pocket) that they owe their Congressional votes to first, before any of us.
There is a very useful, but severely underused, tool that the government provides us with, which allows an average citizen to track the Congressional votes (or lack thereof) of their Senators and Representatives. Here is the website: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
Based on a 2015 study, our Congress was rife with Senators and Representatives that missed a significant portion of their votes. To be fair, those dutiful elected officials that cast every single vote they are called upon drive the average absenteeism down to a palatable 4%. However, there are some that reach as high as 30% absenteeism and over 20 officials consistently miss more than 10% of their expected votes. Imagine if you don't show up for work 10% of the time? That's right - the Senators and Representatives play by a different set of rules.
But absenteeism is only a part of the problem. A lot of the time, the Senators and Representatives are present for the vote, but abstain from voting on an issue that may be problematic for them.
Let's suppose you're a Senator in North Dakota and you are asked to vote on the Dakota Access Pipeline regulation. Your voting population does not want the pipeline approved for environmental reasons. But your big money donors have a financial stake in the project and want your vote for approval. You are not going to deny your sponsor, but you will also not want to upset your voters. So you chose neither - you abstain from voting, citing the legislating is lacking, incomplete or some other irrelevant excuse. That way, you remain safe with the donors and most of the voting public.
In order for us to clean up the Washington landscape, we have to turn our votes into weapons. We must fight Congressional Absenteeism and legislative vote abstinence. Your elected officials have an important job - to vote for or against legislation on your behalf.
Take a look at your elected officials' voting record here https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
And if they're not doing their job, we must fire them. Don't sit on the sidelines - weaponize your votes!
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Refreshing Congress
Get this, Donald Trump was actually right about one thing - in order to make Washington DC work for the people, those elected by the people cannot spend their careers in Washington.
The elected officials were never supposed to become career politicians according to the founding fathers of our nations. They were supposed to serve for a certain amount of time and return to their prior career afterwards. This way the government would stay connected with the people it served, because the decisions they made while in office would also affect them after they have completed their terms.
In addition, the added benefit of changing elected officials more often is that the special interest lobbies will be unable to depend on career politicians remaining in their pockets for the long term. They will need to court each and every newcomer, which won't be as easy since being bought for the short term will have potential dire consequences for their long term careers.
It is a very simple thing to say that term limits should become law, but it is incredibly difficult to make this a reality. The elected officials who enjoy unlimited benefits at taxpayer expense will not turn off their cash flow willingly. But besides Trump being right about it and promoting the idea, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ron DeSantis have introduced legislation this past January 3rd.
Unfortunately, politicians like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer want the American people to forget about this proposal. Even politicians I used to have respect for, will not return phone calls or emails about the matter. Yes, the cash flow that being a career politician is quite a powerful force over serving the people that have elected you - it is a drug addiction. Well, I say it is time for an intervention.
We need to call, email, and show up at our elected officials offices. We need to let them know that if they do not support the term limits legislation proposal that should become law, this will be the last term they will ever serve.
The elected officials were never supposed to become career politicians according to the founding fathers of our nations. They were supposed to serve for a certain amount of time and return to their prior career afterwards. This way the government would stay connected with the people it served, because the decisions they made while in office would also affect them after they have completed their terms.
In addition, the added benefit of changing elected officials more often is that the special interest lobbies will be unable to depend on career politicians remaining in their pockets for the long term. They will need to court each and every newcomer, which won't be as easy since being bought for the short term will have potential dire consequences for their long term careers.
It is a very simple thing to say that term limits should become law, but it is incredibly difficult to make this a reality. The elected officials who enjoy unlimited benefits at taxpayer expense will not turn off their cash flow willingly. But besides Trump being right about it and promoting the idea, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ron DeSantis have introduced legislation this past January 3rd.
Unfortunately, politicians like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer want the American people to forget about this proposal. Even politicians I used to have respect for, will not return phone calls or emails about the matter. Yes, the cash flow that being a career politician is quite a powerful force over serving the people that have elected you - it is a drug addiction. Well, I say it is time for an intervention.
We need to call, email, and show up at our elected officials offices. We need to let them know that if they do not support the term limits legislation proposal that should become law, this will be the last term they will ever serve.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Breaking Up Parties
Now is the time and a chance to become a more civilized functioning country with a government that more closely represents each and every one of you - American citizens.
As long we have the two-party stranglehold over the USA government, the average American citizen will never be truly represented by the politicians we elect. Let me explain this in several simple points.
1) When only two parties control the political landscape, you have polarizing black and white views on each side. This makes it nearly impossible to make a nuanced choice of whom to support and for whom to cast a vote, as neither side will ever represent the vast majority of the American population. As a result, most American citizens do not participate in the election process. The majority that do wind up voting are left with a terribly choice - which candidate do I dislike less? When the candidates for any office are not even close to representing your views and values, there is no meaningful choice even when you have the right to choose.
2) When either party has the majority of Senate and House of Representatives, while also having the Presidential seat, the opposing sides don't have to negotiate. The controlling party can simply pass legislation and push through its policy without any regard for the other side. In the majority of other democracies in the civilized world, there are multiple parties that more closely represent the differing views of their population. In these cases, a party may win an election with a 25% percent of the vote, sometimes as high as 35%. But it almost never results in a flat out majority. This means that the winning party needs to negotiate with other parties, form a coalition, discuss and amend their proposals to fit the desires of the majority of their population. It is a much more true to form representative democracy than what we currently have to endure.
3) It is incredibly easy for big money interest groups to control the political landscape. There are big money lobbyists that play a heavy hand in influencing our government's policies via monetary contributions to the two major political parties and their candidates. Pharmacy, Insurance, Banking, Tobacco, Gun and various other lobbies have our American government in their back pockets. It is really easy to do - just donate money to both parties. Whoever wins the controlling seats in our government, the big money contributors are guaranteed that their interests are protected no matter what. If there are multiple parties that have to negotiate with each other and be held accountable to the actual views of the people who elect them, the lobbyists will not have as much sway over the legislation.
I believe that we are living in an extraordinary time of unprecedented opportunity, on which we owe it to ourselves and future generations to capitalize. The 2016 election has exposed and opened up the fault lines in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats screwed up big league by internal collusion in favoring one candidate in the primaries over another, while the Republicans were fighting among themselves and rolling down the hill into disarray, until they miraculously emerged on top of the orange mountain.
As a result, the Democrats have internal battles that are pulling the party into Progressives, Traditional Democrats, and those who now identify as Independents. The Republicans have an even more fierce battle among them between Traditional Republicans, Tea Party, Evangelicals, Reformers and Hardcore Conservatives.
We, as American citizens, must force these political fault-lines to crack these parties apart into smaller more specific ones. How do we do this? Through putting pressure on our elected officials with our votes. We need to make each and every politician recognize that we will, from this point on, hold them accountable for their action (or inaction) as our representatives. After enough politicians realize that the status quo no longer suits their office, the polarizing methodologies of the two-party stranglehold will be left in the rear-view mirror of history. Make your vote count in every single election, no matter how small, from this point on.
As long we have the two-party stranglehold over the USA government, the average American citizen will never be truly represented by the politicians we elect. Let me explain this in several simple points.
1) When only two parties control the political landscape, you have polarizing black and white views on each side. This makes it nearly impossible to make a nuanced choice of whom to support and for whom to cast a vote, as neither side will ever represent the vast majority of the American population. As a result, most American citizens do not participate in the election process. The majority that do wind up voting are left with a terribly choice - which candidate do I dislike less? When the candidates for any office are not even close to representing your views and values, there is no meaningful choice even when you have the right to choose.
2) When either party has the majority of Senate and House of Representatives, while also having the Presidential seat, the opposing sides don't have to negotiate. The controlling party can simply pass legislation and push through its policy without any regard for the other side. In the majority of other democracies in the civilized world, there are multiple parties that more closely represent the differing views of their population. In these cases, a party may win an election with a 25% percent of the vote, sometimes as high as 35%. But it almost never results in a flat out majority. This means that the winning party needs to negotiate with other parties, form a coalition, discuss and amend their proposals to fit the desires of the majority of their population. It is a much more true to form representative democracy than what we currently have to endure.
3) It is incredibly easy for big money interest groups to control the political landscape. There are big money lobbyists that play a heavy hand in influencing our government's policies via monetary contributions to the two major political parties and their candidates. Pharmacy, Insurance, Banking, Tobacco, Gun and various other lobbies have our American government in their back pockets. It is really easy to do - just donate money to both parties. Whoever wins the controlling seats in our government, the big money contributors are guaranteed that their interests are protected no matter what. If there are multiple parties that have to negotiate with each other and be held accountable to the actual views of the people who elect them, the lobbyists will not have as much sway over the legislation.
I believe that we are living in an extraordinary time of unprecedented opportunity, on which we owe it to ourselves and future generations to capitalize. The 2016 election has exposed and opened up the fault lines in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats screwed up big league by internal collusion in favoring one candidate in the primaries over another, while the Republicans were fighting among themselves and rolling down the hill into disarray, until they miraculously emerged on top of the orange mountain.
As a result, the Democrats have internal battles that are pulling the party into Progressives, Traditional Democrats, and those who now identify as Independents. The Republicans have an even more fierce battle among them between Traditional Republicans, Tea Party, Evangelicals, Reformers and Hardcore Conservatives.
We, as American citizens, must force these political fault-lines to crack these parties apart into smaller more specific ones. How do we do this? Through putting pressure on our elected officials with our votes. We need to make each and every politician recognize that we will, from this point on, hold them accountable for their action (or inaction) as our representatives. After enough politicians realize that the status quo no longer suits their office, the polarizing methodologies of the two-party stranglehold will be left in the rear-view mirror of history. Make your vote count in every single election, no matter how small, from this point on.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Opportunity Blueprint
In modern times, we find ourselves a highly divided country with an alarming (and continuously growing) disparity in terms of income between the classes of our society. Incomes diverge, as expenses grow. It hasn't always been that way, but this is where we are and we have to resolve these issues before our nation collapses along the fault-lines of growing division.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)