Debate Politics Forums - Blogs - Thoughts of a Conservative by ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/ Non-biased and non-partisan political forums. Debate topics may include breaking news today, media bias, abortion, warfare, conspiracy theories, economics, climate change and health care discussion. en Wed, 22 May 2013 00:44:00 GMT vBulletin 60 http://images.debatepolitics.com/misc/rss.jpg Debate Politics Forums - Blogs - Thoughts of a Conservative by ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/ The downfall of our economy http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/817-downfall-our-economy.html Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:59:30 GMT There are 1,000 different things causing our problems right now, but the biggest is the degradation of wealth. Some how, we've allowed our society to believe that the accumulation of wealth is inherently evil. That no wealth is truly earned. This is patently wrong. Wealth is, by in large, well earned. It is accumulated through the production of economic activity, whether service or product related. We've allowed the indiscretions of a few to be characterized as the whole. Not unlike racial discrimination. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/817-downfall-our-economy.html What I feel is the proper handling of marriage. http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/694-feel-proper-handling-marriage.html Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:56:30 GMT I tend to piss off both sides of the aisle with my view on this topic. I take a lot more libertarian stance than the militant left wing hate groups and the misguided social conservatives. I am going to do this a little backward. I am going to start with the ending and then give you my reasoning... I tend to piss off both sides of the aisle with my view on this topic. I take a lot more libertarian stance than the militant left wing hate groups and the misguided social conservatives. I am going to do this a little backward. I am going to start with the ending and then give you my reasoning behind my stance.

The Stance: Marriage should not be regulated by any federal, state or local government. This includes licensing to taxes.

The Reason: The big three religions all believe that God created marriage when He joined Adam and Eve. Thus, nearly everyone of religion believes marriage is the first religious ceremony and institution that God created AND performed. To force anyone of any of these religions to recognize any form of marriage outside of their beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Solution: Wipe the word marriage from all laws and regulations (including the tax code) and replace it with a legal contract that is secular in nature. Allow anyone to enter into a legally binding contract that is domestic in nature and leave the word marriage, the ceremony marriage and the institution marriage to the social constructs (read religions) that wish to adhere to them without persecution and without being forced to recognize a bastardized version of their beliefs as a valid law. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/694-feel-proper-handling-marriage.html And it is admitted http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/322-and-admitted.html Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:32:02 GMT ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/322-and-admitted.html My budget idea http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/238-my-budget-idea.html Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:49:14 GMT Before I get started, I just want to be very up front. I know this is an incredibly simplistic means of budgeting and I know it does not jive with any of the current accounting techniques employed by the government...but those don't work, so let's give me a chance here.

I like to call my idea the Piece-O-Pie budget. The idea is very simple. Assign each area a percentage of the inlays and as the tax revenues arrive every month each department gets their share. Using 2010's budget, it might look something like this:

Medicare: 23%
Social Security: 20%
Defense: 20%
Discretionary: 19%
Other: 12%
Interest: 6%

That would have netted each area ($ billions)

Medicare: 497.26
Social Security 432.40
Defense: 432.40
Discretionary: 410.78
Other: 259.44
Interest: 129.72

Mind you, I used 2010 percentages rather than what I would prefer. For starters, I would have increased the interest and national debt to 10% and cut some of the "Other", Defense, Social Security and Medicare spending. But that's the beauty of this system, it opens the door for real debate about what is important and what is not. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/238-my-budget-idea.html The Trouble With Computer Training http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/192-trouble-computer-training.html Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:25:02 GMT Part of the new methods of training is to give computer based pre-course study material. The only problem is, there is no dialogue. You can't ask questions and some times you don't even learn enough to know what to ask. Are we really ready to accept the errors that come from several layers of communication?

I should be clear by stating that I am learning about an aircraft that I have never flown. I am learning the technical aspects of the aircraft prior to class.

The problem, as I see it, is that the pilots that understand the aircraft aren't generally proficient as technical writers and the technical writers generally aren't proficient in aviation. The course I am currently taking was clearly written by a pilot. I estimate that, due to poor communication, 5% of the information is lost or inaccurate. That means the best I can do is to understand 95% of the aircraft if I have 100% retention.

I am not retaining the information at 100%. At best, I'm probably retaining 95% of the vital information and 75% of the minute details. What does that mean? Your pilot, because of the wonder of the computer, knows about 85 to 90% of his airplane.

Now, if I was in a class room, talking to an instructor, I could have a conversation with the instructor and work out the details that are lost with poor writing. My contention is that computer based training is not as proficient as a traditional classroom. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/192-trouble-computer-training.html What should really be done about health care? http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/160-should-really-done-health-care.html Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:35:08 GMT The first thing that people should know is that they have to much insurance. That is why the "administrative costs" are so high. There are two parts to health insurance; insurance that covers major medical issues (i.e. heart attacks, cancer, etc) and that which covers minor health issues (i.e. colds, stomach virus, etc). The former is prohibitavely expensive and generally happen to suddenly to make financial plans. The later is inexpensive in comparrison and can be easily paid by 85-90% of Americans. However, most Americans mistakenly believe that they need health insurance to cover the inexpensive care on top of the expensive care. By purchasing so much coverage, they pay another entity to pay bills that they may or may not get.

In my case, I had a job that couldn't provide health insurance so I purchased my own insurance in the open market. I had the choice of full coverage or major medical coverage. The difference in price was $210 a month. The difference in coverage was $30 copay or no coverage before $5,000. So, I could pay $2,500+ a year for doctor's visits that I may or may not use only to have a $5,000 deductible plus a 20% copay after the deductible if I had a major medical event plus copays or I could save the $2,500+ and maintain the same deductible with a 0% copay (i.e. no money out of my pocket) after the deductible.

So which is cheaper? In order for me to save money on the full coverage plan, I would have to visit the doctor an average of 1.5 times a month AND I couldn't have a major medical event. If I had a major medical event, I had better coverage with the major medical plan than with the comprehensive plan.

Imagine if we could get 200 million people to save $2,500 a year. We, as a country would save $5,000,000,000. Estimates put health care spending around $1.7 trillion. Just by eliminating full coverage for most of the country, we could reduce health care spending to $1.2 trillion.

All that to support my first step in reducing health care costs would be:

1) Ban comprehensive health insurance.

2) Set reasonable limits to medical malpractice lawsuits, with exceptions for systemic ignorance and or mallace.

3) Require insurers to accept all medical conditions when approving a new policy holder if that policy holder, within the past 90 days, held health insurance in good standing (that means they made their payments). Potentional policy holders that have not had health insurance should be subject to existing medical conditions clauses to prevent fraud.

4) Open insurance sales acrossed state lines to increase competition.

5) Bill all recepients for health care services. If they cannot pay, require public service as a form of payment. The doctors and nurses improved the recepients life, the least they can do (if they can't pay) is to improve the lives of others in return.

6) Enforce immigration laws. (This will also help with schools, jobs, housing, crime, and a whole host of other issues) ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/160-should-really-done-health-care.html They way it was intended http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/143-they-way-intended.html Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:46:17 GMT The Constitution is no mystery. It is a simple document, with straight forward wording and little room for interpretation. The primary purpose was to bring individual States together to pool resources for defense and trade. The Federal Government has three basic functions: * Facilitate... The Constitution is no mystery. It is a simple document, with straight forward wording and little room for interpretation. The primary purpose was to bring individual States together to pool resources for defense and trade.

The Federal Government has three basic functions:
  • Facilitate trade between the States and foreign governments
  • Protect the borders
  • Protect the rights held by the people
In practice, the Federal Government is more like the UN than a full fledged government. The Federal Government is supposed to organize a standing military (army and navy) to supplement the state militias. They are, in essence, a vehicle for increasing the strength of the states through greater numbers.

The Federal Government, through the same principles above, is also tasked with using the combined resources of the States as leverage for trading with foreign governments. The combined negotiating power of 50 states is much greater than that of any individual state. Moreover, the Federal Government is also tasked with maintaining fair trade between the several States through the commerce clause.

The final, and most important, responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the rights of citizens. The thought, when the Constitution was drafted, was that the Federal Government would not be drafting laws that would apply to citizens. Therefore, the Federal Government would be the best entity to charge with protecting citizens from the government. This is the principle behind the Bill of Rights.

In practice, States politics should be the most important politics to any individual. The Governors of the States should hold the offices that are most likely to affect the daily lives of the citizens of each state. The President's primary responsibilities should be to command the military and ensure that the Congress does not pass legislation that does not meet the goals of the Constitution. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/143-they-way-intended.html Merry Christmas http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/138-merry-christmas.html Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:05:04 GMT This is the time of the year that our thoughts turn to three things: * Family * Those in need * God When thinking of your family, thank them for their love. Tell them the gift you give them this year is not a tradition of society but because you truly care about them. If you have been... This is the time of the year that our thoughts turn to three things:
  • Family
  • Those in need
  • God
When thinking of your family, thank them for their love. Tell them the gift you give them this year is not a tradition of society but because you truly care about them. If you have been having difficulties, remember that they argue with you because they care about you. Life is short and all arguments are petty. Let the next year be about forgiveness.

When thinking about those in need, do not look at their problems as an indictment of their behavior. Rather, view the situation as an opportunity, an opportunity for you to make a difference in someone's life. You cannot undo the past, but you can change the future.

When thinking of God, remember that on this day He came to Earth to save you. Remember that He created a world in which you have the choice to love your family, neighbors and fellow man or turn your back. If you chose the prior, you will be rewarded here and in heaven. If you chose the latter you suffer the loneliness that follows both in life and death. ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/138-merry-christmas.html The Commerce Clause. http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/131-commerce-clause.html Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:29:43 GMT I'm not going to pretend to write a dissertation on the Commerce Clause. I do want to point out some important information that sheds light on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and the power it grants congress.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The most often debated phrase within this article is; "regulate Commerce". I found the statistics below in a long paper written regarding the original intent of the Commerc Clause. The authors took transcripts of debates and articles written by those in the Continental Congress to determine the proper usage of the words "regualte Commerce." The following is a summation of the usage:


1. Deep-water shipping was the intended meaning 115 times or 83% of all the usage. Of that, Regulation of commerce means taxation 37 times or 27% of all usage. In addition, Retribution to open foreign ports was the inteded use in 39 instances or 28% of all usage. Finally, the Commerce Clause was used regarding deep-water shipping and Restrictions on U.S. ports in 30 instances or 22% or all usage.

2. There was one instance in which the Commerce Clause was used in reference to U.S. Border Land Issues.

3. There were 23 references to Equity between States that account for 17% of all usage. Of that, 13 referred to Interstate Commerce (9%) and 10 to Fairness of one state to another reflected in other clauses.

Sum of reference to programs 139 100%.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/cjo...ndas_thumb.pdf
This helps us to shed some light upon how the founders came to the wording they came to. With three different ideas of how commerce should be regulated, the founders agreed to include them all by regualting deep water shipping as a trade with foreign nations, land and border disputes as commerce with indian tribes and disputes between states falls under commerce between the several states.

So the end goal was to regulate what could and could not be imported, how trade with indian tribes was handled, and how states would trade within the borders of the US. What is notable is what is missing. At no point does it talk about regulating businesses or individuals. In fact, there is an argument to be made that all three entities mentioned in the Commerce clause are forms of government. From foreign governments, to domestic governments to less traditional governing bodies (tribes).

Thomas Jefferson would later affirm the limited role the Commerce clause should play when he wrote this:

You know my doubts, or rather convictions, about the unconstitutionality of the act for building piers in the Delaware, and the fears that it will lead to a bottomless expense, & to the greatest abuses. There is, however, one intention of which the act is susceptible, & which will bring it within the Constitution; and we ought always to presume that the real intention which is alone consistent with the Constitution. Altho' the power to regulate commerce does not give a power to build piers, wharves, open ports, clear the beds of rivers, dig canals, build warehouses, build manufacturing machines, set up manufactories, cultivate the earth, to all of which the power would go if it went to the first,...

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce): Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin
He would go on to state that the Constitution only allows for building infrastructure that supports the Navy (and implying infrastructure that is specifically for government use). ]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/131-commerce-clause.html Steps to fixing the economy http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/128-steps-fixing-economy.html Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:18:17 GMT
Before you can fix anything, you have to identify the problem. If you car quits running, in order to fix it you have to know if its not getting fire, heat or air. From there you can diagnose the problem and make the repairs.

With the United States, we have numerous problems. Let's start with the economy. What's wrong? We aren't growing. Why? Imports out weigh exports, enormous government debt, falling wages and an undereducated society.

Fixes:

Step 1: Slowly remove all corporate taxes. In order to counter the ridiculously low wages of 3rd world countries, we must entice businesses to bring jobs back to the US by incrementally removing all corporate taxes. With taxes eliminated, the cost of doing business in the United States shrinks, and the ability of a US based business to compete with a foreign based business increases without reducing wages for American workers. Then, instituting a national sales tax will garner taxes from foreign and domestic business that sell products in the US.

Obviously, there will be a loud chorus of "Corporate welfare" and other attacks on a plan such as this. I just want people to keep in mind that no corporation any where in the world pays taxes. In the end, the end consumer pays all of the taxes. By having a national sales tax, the consumer still pays the tax, but at least we get tax dollars for anything manufactured outside of our borders.

In addition, a small tariff must be placed on ALL imports. This should be an amount that offsets the cost of living and/or government subsidies of foreign nations. It shouldn't be so high as to be prohibitive to import goods into the US. Just high enough to make all goods (foreign and domestic) similarly competitive.

In the end, this will help to lessen the need for government debt. Since we've been importing everything and exporting nothing, we've had to find a way to sustain our economy. The only way the government could do that was to borrow foreign money and reinsert it into the economy. That isn't sustainable. With the corporate taxes eliminated and fair tariffs in place, jobs and products will return to the US and exports will climb back up to meet imports, allowing for the government's debt to be reduced.

The reason for the slow draw down in taxes is so as not to shock the system. We don't want a spike and fall. Reducing the corporate tax burden by 20% of today's rate year over year will allow the full removal of all taxes within 5 years while allowing for a steady climb in new domestic jobs and manufacturing.

Some taxes do need to remain, however. Taxes that punish excessive pollution and other undesirable activities are necessary.

Step 2: Seriously address the illegal immigration problem. Several sub steps need to be made, including serious fines for hiring or housing illegal immigrants and jail time for habitual violators as well as strong border security. In addition, we should increase the number of immigrants that are issued work and living visas so as to reduce the need for violating the laws. However, no amnesty or preference should be given to anyone living within our borders without proper documentation or citizenship.

By addressing the illegal immigration problem, we will drive up wages, reduce the cost of education and health care.

Step 3: As we build new schools, we need to place an emphasis on small. Rather than building massive, prison like schools with no sense of community (and consequently, no sense of responsibility), we should concentrate on building learning centers that encompass only a handful of children. These learning centers can be repurposed homes, abandoned strip malls, or even newly built building with similar designs. The point will be to reestablish the small classrooms that allow teachers to easily communicate with the students and their parents so that all involved feel they have a real role in education.

If you are questioning the validity of smaller classrooms, keep in mind that disadvantaged and minority students stand to benefit the most from reduced classroom sizes. See the Robinson and Wittebols cluster study of 1986. Targeting inner cities and areas with a high minority population density would be the fastest means of improving over all education.

Traditional issues of food and athletics can be solved through school coops that pool resources.
]]> ksu_aviator http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/ksu_aviator/128-steps-fixing-economy.html