Utopian States: Loves happy people

What didn’t the candidates talk about?

Police brutality, the falsely convicted, government bureaucracy that does nothing, government bureaucracy that aids and abets the greedy,  monopolies, unfair trade practices, excessive punishment for crimes that cause little harm, improvements to the structure of government, getting other professions involved in politics (honest people lose), that 5% of the people have 60% of the wealth, that the wealthy could leave the country and letting the middle class pay off the 16 trillion dollar national debt,  gun owners and manufactures subsidizing insurance for the victims of gunshot wounds, eliminating assault weapons, secession, forming utopian city states, socialism (I would prefer a graduated socialism to having 5% own 60 percent of the wealth), true conservatism (small businesses like we had from 1776 to 1900), other solutions to the economy, other solutions to government, other solutions to the law and punishment. 

Imagine a government of engineers that still use the telegraph, the Morse code and the slide rule.  So why does a government of lawyers still have backward laws, antiquated courts, inappropriate punishment, and poor evidentiary procedures (like eyewitness identification by strangers)? 

We need a coup d’état.  This election was an obamanation.  The Democratic party has increased their aristocracy of lawyers brainwashed by Harvard professors by adding Elizabeth Warren to their ranks.  The plutocracy of the Republican party wasn’t increased by adding Romney to their ranks, but that gives the people a false sense of security.   A good man Scott Brown, one of the middle class, was voted out of office by a woman that pledged to give us her heart.  I hope she keeps her campaign promise.

We need a coup d’état.  But before that, we need a revolution of thought.  We need the people to realize that this government is antiquated and needs improvement at it’s very core and structure.  The ruling class is filled with lawyers which creates problems similar to those cased by inbreeding.

From: http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/219.htm

Inbreeding is the production of offspring by the mating of closely related individuals. This practice provides a greater chance for recessive genes to be expressed phenotypically. In humans, the amount of inbreeding in a specific population is largely controlled by traditional and cultural practices.

In Europe and North America, the marriage between close relatives is strongly discouraged by social convention. However, this is not true in many parts of the world. Marriage between close relatives is common in areas of the world in which geographical or ethnic isolation make marriage to unrelated people difficult.

The majority of serious genetic disorders are recessive, which means that an individual must inherit two copies of the abnormal gene (one from each parent) for the disorder to be expressed.

There a paucity of information in a group of mainly lawyers.  They haven’t experienced the problems of farmers, teachers, doctors, businessmen, engineers, psychiatrists, policemen, parents and homeowners.  The best among the lawyers know the system is broken, but they aren’t judges or in political power.  The good ones are exasperated by the insidious stupidity of the system.  The irony is that many of the good lawyers have left the system or have been disbarred.

We need a revolution of thought to sweep across the world to precede the coup d’état.  This thought revolution should convince the people that government needs to only protect the rights of the people.  The rights of the poor, the middle class and the rich all need protection so plausibly there should be three houses representing the lower 20%, the middle 60% and the top 20%.  We  need variety of representation.  We need every profession, creed, race and sex proportionately represented.  Hence we need a lottery to select the representatives from a very large pool of eligible candidates.

No, there are no IQ tests that show that politicians, judges and other government officials have low IQs.  But what if government itself causes decisions that would otherwise be considered stupid if made by individuals?

The majority is not nearly as bright as the geniuses among us.  Russia proved this.  In the days before chess computers, a chess grandmaster would play against the most popular move of the readers.  The grandmaster inevitably trounced the majority.  The majority never won or drew.   Now, of course, the majority has access to powerful chess playing programs and can draw the grandmaster.  But who created the chess program but a few very brilliant chess playing programmers.

Unfortunately no democracy is constructed to get meaningful decisions from the population.  Where the majority would be strong would be in voting for broad policy the outcome of which wouldn’t be influenced by greed or vested interests.

The democracy gets to vote for candidates that are fed beta blockers and tons of synthasized data and propaganda.  The candidates are characterized by policy such as:

A.) “Do you want to pay more taxes or have the rich pay higher taxes with a resulting loss in the jobs created in America?”

or

B) “Do you want government to spend itself into bankruptcy and eventually only have government jobs?”

Of course both A and B are wrong answers.

I have a tiny, tiny preference for Romney because I believe it’s plausible that he knows how to balance a budget and be fiscally responsible.  I think the debates showed that Obama and his team haven’t thought through the issues.  Romney hasn’t though through every issue either, but he hasn’t been president for four years.  By a 51-49 edge, I have decided that Romney would do the best job for the economy, if he only…

Elizabeth Warren and party spend tens of millions on advertising.  One of those advertisements had the message:

“Know this, my fight is for you, always has been and I won’t back down, no matter how long the odds or how powerful the opposition,” and “if you send me to the Senate, I’ll work my heart out for you.”

If she spends millions on advertisements like this, will she be frugal with our money?  Is this her best message?  Has she got nothing more important to say?  Is this an appeal to sympathy?  What does she think of the voters if she thinks this is going to make a difference?  Why is she bothering to say that she won’t be lazy, is that necessary?

Well, if you send me to the Senate, I will work my heart our for you too.

The tax plan of  Romney is Nebulus.

Obama’s plan is more of the same.   What Obama did may have been good at the time, but more of the same plan will cause America to fail.

Romney suggested that the cornerstone of his economic plan was energy independence.   That could work.  Recent oil discoveries in the USA could free the US of the need to spend large sums of money on foreign oil.  It could make gasoline and heating oil prices fall.  The trade deficit would lessen.   Coupled with the enforcement of fair trade and monetary policies with China, the USA could close the gap with exports.

That would work, somewhat.

Romney said that the top 5% pay 60 percent of the taxes.  What he didn’t say was that the top 5% own 60% of the wealth.  Because the wealth of the top 5% isn’t needed for food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation and other necessities, the top 5% can invest the vast majority.  The top 5% have it easy.  The top 5% don’t have to pay a much lower percent of their income to property taxes, social security taxes and sales taxes.  The top 5% must pay more.  The top 5% proportionately own 6o% of the 16 trillion dollar national debt.  The top 5 own ten trillion of the national debt.  They better not leave the country!

The top 5 must pay more in taxes, a lot more.   The 90% rate of past years, however, is too high.

Bill Gates has an estimated net worth of 60 billion dollars. He has 1/1000th of the 60 trillion dollar wealth of Americans. He should be responsible for 1/1000th of the debt of 16 trillion dollars. Bill Gates should be responsible for paying off 16 billion dollars. A lien of 16 billion should be placed against his assets. Bill should be given, say, 500 months to pay this off in the form of a mortgage. The principle on his mortgage would be 32 million per year. The same percentage would be paid by others in the top 25% (those with a family net worth of more than 1 million dollars). The top 1% would get a deduction of 1 million dollars; they would not be responsible for any government debt on the first 1 million dollars of their family wealth.

All Americans should be required to pay a ten percent sales tax on all things that can be imported whether made in the USA or not.  Products made in the USA are also taxed as with any sales tax.  Middle class Americans (those with a family net worth less than 1 million dollars) should not be required to pay income tax. They should, however, pay their full 15 percent social security tax.

The poorest 25% of Americans (those with a family net worth and incomes of less than $40,ooo) should consume no more government help than 7% of the GDP.  For example, it costs $300,000 a year to stay in a nursing home.  This is a potenial budget buster that is to large for American to pay.  If 25% of Americans were in nursing homes, the cost would be over $20 trillion/year – which is several times the national personal income.  The poor should not  receive more from the government than the middle class earns.  A budget, like 7%, should be made and enforced.

The government should, by attrition, cut back their expenses until they can live within their budget.

Corporations should be required only to make and provide jobs for Americans and should be taxed on the jobs not created.

The money supply should be adjusted to keep the stock market at least level.

A recent look at the poll numbers in the toss-up states suggests the election may be an electorial toss-up similar to the Gore/Bush election.  Ohio and Florida are VERY close with a slight edge to Romney in a couple of recent polls.

I would put my money on Obama to win, but I wouldn’t give odds.  It’s 50-50.

The early results of the on line polls indicate that about 70 percent of the people thought that Romney won the debates.  I don’t know how significant that a big win in the on line electronic polls are.  I remember that similar electronic polls showed that  John Kerry won his debates only to lose the election decisively.  Perhaps the polls suggest that the race will tighten up.  If the swing states move even a few percentage points towards Romney, the election might be close.

The electoral map at RCP   showed a big lead for Obama before the debates.  I would guess that Obama’s lead has narrowed slightly since the debate.

Romney came to the debate with changes to the way he is articulating his position, if not actual changes to his position.  He seemed to catch Obama off guard.  Obama kept attacking Romney positions that were no longer there.  Consequently, Romney appeared better.

Romney’s statement that the top one percent would do well regardless of whom was president and therefore there was no need to give them any help was well received as was the statement that he wanted to help the middle class.  By helping the middle class get more jobs at higher salaries, Romney reasoned, the tax base would expand and more revenue would follow.

A tighter race means that the candidates will have to sharpen their positions and re-think their policies.  A tight race is good for the country.