Sociology Notes (Progressive)
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 11:30pm
Sociology
-provides understanding of ourselves and the people around us
-examines the social world, facts, and forces (these variables affect our socio-environment and society)
-affecting factors: new and evolving technology, employment patterns, education, health, economic services, political philosophies and policies
Exercise question: What did I think Sociology was about prior to studying the subject? I think Sociology concerns the evolution of human society and culture depending on affecting factors and variables such as physical environment, social environment, morals, social ethics, ect.
Response to Roger Scruton: His response seems to have more truth than negativity. Societies and their variables are perpetual as long as the Human exists; Societies change, either progressing or digressing in different ways, but the strange outcome of one society could produce questions to why that society had ended. Another society could strive and progress on strange and questionable ideas and matters that a different society would question.
-Why do you think some people – including
politicians and journalists – might feel threatened
by a subject which encourages the questioning of
‘human institutions and human realities’?
I think the politicians and journalists want to be the only resource for information to people so they can impose their perspectives to produce a mass perspective to which people would conform. People with individual perspectives will have potential for producing change or progression.
-What common-sense assumptions do you have
about (a) yourself; (b) your country and community;
(c) your family?
(A) You should define common-sense. I believe common-sense is a combination of common perceptions and observations adapted by people within their environment, and instincts defined by biology and genetics. What common-sense assumptions do I have? I assume from "common-sense" that I can support analysis of situations and encounters with past observations and adaptive perceptions producing an analytical comprehension (or rather, comprehensive analysis) to be able to act with a fair cognition or develop and produce perspectives (the latter goal is the perspective that is not supported by mere assumptions).
(B) I assume from certain observations in the past that many people of my country and community develop most of their perspectives with basis of the media's perspective, possibly regarding bias. The media can be defined as articles in a newspaper, journalists, television news, television shows and commercials, ect. The media shares a story and sometimes a perspective with the story. Many people will then produce their assumptions from the story that they visually perceived, and they will then produce a perspective. Many people of the latter spoken will share or impose their perspectives that are supported by assumptions from different events.
(C) I believe, or assume rather, that my family (or most) believes in the idea of human progression and prosperity. Do not perceive this prosperity in the sense concerning immoral hedonism, but rather accomplishment of self for the benefit of themselves as well as others, producing a brilliant contribution to society. My cousin Katie travels for her occupation, my brother is a prosperous business man, my other brother has fought for freedom and is still progressing, my sister has put her dedication in education and family, my father is a leader and teacher, and my mother helps and aids my path for a better future. My family pushes ideas of progression and moral values such as education and family. The matter of which I have spoken is but a few examples of assumptions supported by perceived observations.
[To be continued]
***
Who are My Enemies?
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 10:41pm
I wonder if I have enemies. I will consider those with a closed-mind, selfish perspective, and physical, mental, and violent hostility to be my enemy. You are my enemy if you cannot build any sort of respect for people and their differences, believing any antagonism that you perceive (assumptions, rumors, media, gossip) against that person. I consider this closed-minded belligerence to be hostile and immature, and if you have an adaptive mind, your ignorance will be feared.
Who is an example? The Kim Jung Family can be an example. The Wesboro cult is an example. You are my enemy if you hate others for having different beliefs without understanding those people. You may not see your cruelty or belligerence, but God and fellow people do; it is only a matter of time before your own realization.
Those of you that are immoral and anti-diplomatic will someday realize what you have done.
(Note: Do not mind the use of 'You'. I am describing my immoral enemies.)
***
***
Who is an example? The Kim Jung Family can be an example. The Wesboro cult is an example. You are my enemy if you hate others for having different beliefs without understanding those people. You may not see your cruelty or belligerence, but God and fellow people do; it is only a matter of time before your own realization.
Those of you that are immoral and anti-diplomatic will someday realize what you have done.
(Note: Do not mind the use of 'You'. I am describing my immoral enemies.)
***
Progressing Maturity
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 11:00pm
I cherish reasonable diplomacy. I despise hostility of any form. I can tolerate open-mindedness with a solid foundation; I can hardly tolerate closed-minded belligerence. I fear for the emotional and psychological dangers for others; I am an Air Force Leader and Follower. I pray for your kindness; I will express kindness and understanding toward you. I am an American Airman.
***
"...Washington has been pushed to the back burner in
school systems across the country. His portrait has
disappeared from classroom walls, and history textbooks
now have as little as 10 percent of the coverage
of Washington that they possessed just 40 years ago.
That’s why author David McCullough has bemoaned
that we are “raising a generation of historically illiterate
children.”
➣ George Washington’s Birthday, once one of the most
important and successful holidays of the year, has all
but vanished. Seniors frequently tell me about the
George Washington’s Birthday parades they viewed
as children and the school assemblies that featured
skits about Washington’s honesty and goodness.
Washington was a unifying figure for American families,
not just the nation as a whole. But Presidents’
Day has allowed the grain to fall aside, leaving us
with nothing but the chaff. If our government leaders
who traded George Washington’s Birthday for
Presidents’ Day thought for a second that meaningful
discussions about presidential leadership would take
place, they were wildly off target. Instead, we have
been forced to watch ridiculous costumed versions of
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln hawking
new cars and appliance sales during a three-day
shopping extravaganza.
We should know what our founding fathers have done for us. Let us allow schools to teach the morals, values, and actions of our founding fathers. The truth should be taught.
***
This is the [written, Geoffrey Kabaservice] plot for 'Rule and Ruin', available on Amazon. The book is not anti-Republican, but it will expose the need for progressive Republicans, which also describes the 'traditional' Republican. I think there is a difference between a Republican and a conservative extremist. What is that difference? The conservative will claim 'morality' to be 'Liberal' or 'Democrat'. What do I mean? I have compassion for fellow humans, regardless of their differences. I like to research and develop a foundation for my perspectives, rather than believe what I am told or what I assume. What of the Republican? The traditional Republican is a thinker, and they will put thought and analysis into issues before making judgement. They will understand that others will have differences, whether they are Republican or not. This is why I am glad that Palin dropped out with hopes that Romney will one day run for president with his knowledge of Economics. He is not solely involved with social and religious issues just to attract specific voters.
I do not know much about M. Romney because I have yet to fully observe his views. I will vote for him if his views and actions are ethical. I will not vote for someone because of their political title because that is wrong, ignorant, and closed-minded. Any extremist can claim they are running "Republican" or "Democrat", so it would be most logical to learn of their beliefs, actions, and goals before wasting a vote.
I am not Republican. I am not Democrat. I have not fully explored the morality and ideology of either party. You should not call yourself either if you do not know the ideology. The latter is like calling yourself a goalie for an American football team, or claiming to believe in a deity as an Atheist.
I do not care if this article makes you angry. That is the point of a different perspective. You will either analyze my perspective deeply if you are somewhat open-minded, or you will fully disregard everything that I have stated, remaining ignorant in an infuriating and closed-minded manner.
http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Ruin-Moderation-Destruction-Republican/dp/0199768404/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323271677&sr=1-6
As the 2012 elections approach, the Republican Party is rocketing rightward away from the center of public opinion. Republicans in Congress threaten to shut down the government and force a U.S. debt default. Tea Party activists mount primary challenges against Republican officeholders who appear to exhibit too much pragmatism or independence. Moderation and compromise are dirty words in the Republican presidential debates. The GOP, it seems, has suddenly become a party of ideological purity.
Except this development is not new at all. In Rule and Ruin, Geoffrey Kabaservice reveals that the moderate Republicans' downfall began not with the rise of the Tea Party but about the time of President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address. Even in the 1960s, when left-wing radicalism and right-wing backlash commanded headlines, Republican moderates and progressives formed a powerful movement, supporting pro-civil rights politicians like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton, battling big-government liberals and conservative extremists alike. But the Republican civil war ended with the overthrow of the moderate ideas, heroes, and causes that had comprised the core of the GOP since its formation. In hindsight, it is today's conservatives who are "Republicans in Name Only."
Writing with passionate sympathy for a bygone tradition of moderation, Kabaservice recaptures a time when fiscal restraint was matched with social engagement; when a cohort of leading Republicans opposed the Vietnam war; when George Romney--father of Mitt Romney--conducted a nationwide tour of American poverty, from Appalachia to Watts, calling on society to "listen to the voices from the ghetto." Rule and Ruin is an epic, deeply researched history that reorients our understanding of our political past and present.
Today, moderates are marginalized in the GOP and progressives are all but nonexistent. In this insightful and elegantly argued book, Kabaservice contends that their decline has left Republicans less capable of governing responsibly, with dire consequences for all Americans.
***
Dear Love,
How should I know you do not deceive me?
I could learn your eyes and speak of your heart,
but what of my heart?
My eyes burn.
I plead you to avoid the executioner should he judge you,
your guilt and sadness will be enough judgement.
Do not cry to me unless you truly love me,
even with human nature, you could have defied all deceit...
no matter how pleasing the temptation.
I feel your flames within my mind.
My eyes water.
My eyes will then steam. My mind is branded. I have reason, and I walk in the Spirit.
We have defined tragedy. Romeo and Juliet hath failed.
I cry because of your heart working against your mind. You have failed yourself.
My heart will accept you if you still love me. My mind will love you if you never deceive me since your sin.
I have not felt my Lord's pain,
but because of you...
I deserve the latter more than you.
This is a poem about the man in 'Melancholia'.
***
Washington Part One
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 12:31am
school systems across the country. His portrait has
disappeared from classroom walls, and history textbooks
now have as little as 10 percent of the coverage
of Washington that they possessed just 40 years ago.
That’s why author David McCullough has bemoaned
that we are “raising a generation of historically illiterate
children.”
➣ George Washington’s Birthday, once one of the most
important and successful holidays of the year, has all
but vanished. Seniors frequently tell me about the
George Washington’s Birthday parades they viewed
as children and the school assemblies that featured
skits about Washington’s honesty and goodness.
Washington was a unifying figure for American families,
not just the nation as a whole. But Presidents’
Day has allowed the grain to fall aside, leaving us
with nothing but the chaff. If our government leaders
who traded George Washington’s Birthday for
Presidents’ Day thought for a second that meaningful
discussions about presidential leadership would take
place, they were wildly off target. Instead, we have
been forced to watch ridiculous costumed versions of
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln hawking
new cars and appliance sales during a three-day
shopping extravaganza.
We should know what our founding fathers have done for us. Let us allow schools to teach the morals, values, and actions of our founding fathers. The truth should be taught.
***
"Morality is not Republican? Wow."
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:15am
I do not know much about M. Romney because I have yet to fully observe his views. I will vote for him if his views and actions are ethical. I will not vote for someone because of their political title because that is wrong, ignorant, and closed-minded. Any extremist can claim they are running "Republican" or "Democrat", so it would be most logical to learn of their beliefs, actions, and goals before wasting a vote.
I am not Republican. I am not Democrat. I have not fully explored the morality and ideology of either party. You should not call yourself either if you do not know the ideology. The latter is like calling yourself a goalie for an American football team, or claiming to believe in a deity as an Atheist.
I do not care if this article makes you angry. That is the point of a different perspective. You will either analyze my perspective deeply if you are somewhat open-minded, or you will fully disregard everything that I have stated, remaining ignorant in an infuriating and closed-minded manner.
http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Ruin-Moderation-Destruction-Republican/dp/0199768404/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323271677&sr=1-6
As the 2012 elections approach, the Republican Party is rocketing rightward away from the center of public opinion. Republicans in Congress threaten to shut down the government and force a U.S. debt default. Tea Party activists mount primary challenges against Republican officeholders who appear to exhibit too much pragmatism or independence. Moderation and compromise are dirty words in the Republican presidential debates. The GOP, it seems, has suddenly become a party of ideological purity.
Except this development is not new at all. In Rule and Ruin, Geoffrey Kabaservice reveals that the moderate Republicans' downfall began not with the rise of the Tea Party but about the time of President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address. Even in the 1960s, when left-wing radicalism and right-wing backlash commanded headlines, Republican moderates and progressives formed a powerful movement, supporting pro-civil rights politicians like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton, battling big-government liberals and conservative extremists alike. But the Republican civil war ended with the overthrow of the moderate ideas, heroes, and causes that had comprised the core of the GOP since its formation. In hindsight, it is today's conservatives who are "Republicans in Name Only."
Writing with passionate sympathy for a bygone tradition of moderation, Kabaservice recaptures a time when fiscal restraint was matched with social engagement; when a cohort of leading Republicans opposed the Vietnam war; when George Romney--father of Mitt Romney--conducted a nationwide tour of American poverty, from Appalachia to Watts, calling on society to "listen to the voices from the ghetto." Rule and Ruin is an epic, deeply researched history that reorients our understanding of our political past and present.
Today, moderates are marginalized in the GOP and progressives are all but nonexistent. In this insightful and elegantly argued book, Kabaservice contends that their decline has left Republicans less capable of governing responsibly, with dire consequences for all Americans.
***
Dear, Love
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 10:14pm
How should I know you do not deceive me?
I could learn your eyes and speak of your heart,
but what of my heart?
My eyes burn.
I plead you to avoid the executioner should he judge you,
your guilt and sadness will be enough judgement.
Do not cry to me unless you truly love me,
even with human nature, you could have defied all deceit...
no matter how pleasing the temptation.
I feel your flames within my mind.
My eyes water.
My eyes will then steam. My mind is branded. I have reason, and I walk in the Spirit.
We have defined tragedy. Romeo and Juliet hath failed.
I cry because of your heart working against your mind. You have failed yourself.
My heart will accept you if you still love me. My mind will love you if you never deceive me since your sin.
I have not felt my Lord's pain,
but because of you...
I deserve the latter more than you.
This is a poem about the man in 'Melancholia'.
***
The Biblical Definition of the Mind
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 4:57pm
This note does not define the whole mind. This note should make an impact for Christians.
Read this sequence: Romans 12: 2 -> John 8: 32 -> Romans 1: 32 -> Gal 5 -> Romans 2: 14-16 -> Romans 13: 8-14
Do not believe God to be a spontaneous, magical, and a simple being. I plead you, as a Christian, to think of God as complex, omnipotent, and the highest intelligence, and creator thereof.
***
Read this sequence: Romans 12: 2 -> John 8: 32 -> Romans 1: 32 -> Gal 5 -> Romans 2: 14-16 -> Romans 13: 8-14
Do not believe God to be a spontaneous, magical, and a simple being. I plead you, as a Christian, to think of God as complex, omnipotent, and the highest intelligence, and creator thereof.
***
Rick Perry Positions
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 4:00pm
"Perry also wants to grant work visas to undocumented immigrants."
-Is this a good thing? This seems to be a good thing. I hope it helps people.
"Perry is opposed to the DREAM Act"
-Is this a bad thing? I think it is a bad thing, but I have not seen the DREAM Act in work; therefore, I do not know the good vs bad effects of the DREAM Act.
"Perry opposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, and supported the 2005 ballot proposition which amended the Texas constitution by defining marriage as "only a union between a man and a woman" and prohibiting the state from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage".[15] In 2011, after New York legalized same-sex marriage, Perry stated that it was their right to do so under the principle of states' rights delineated in the 10th Amendment.[16] A spokesman later reiterated Perry's support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying that position was not inconsistent since an amendment would require approval by three-fourths of the states.[17]
In his first book, On My Honor, published in 2008, Perry drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism, writing that he is “no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate,” but that gays should simply choose abstinence.[18] In 2002, Perry described the Texas same-sex anti-sodomy law as "appropriate".[19] The United States Supreme Court's landmark civil rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the statute Perry referred to the following year for violating the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."
-I am slightly neutral. I have not studied marriage. The prejudice Perry has for homosexuals is disgusting. The prejudice shown for gays serving in the military by Perry [Refer to his campaign ad] is intolerable.
"In October 2011, Perry put forwards a flat tax proposal that would allow taxpayers to choose either their tax rate under existing law or a flat 20% rate. The plan would also eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and inheritances. Asked if his tax plan would help wealthy taxpayers, Perry said he was not concerned about that because a lower tax rate would encourage greater investment and job creation by the wealthy"
I theorize that this trend among powerful Republicans, keeping the "rich richer", is either unseen from Conservative eyes, or rather averted.
More to come later...
***
-Is this a good thing? This seems to be a good thing. I hope it helps people.
"Perry is opposed to the DREAM Act"
-Is this a bad thing? I think it is a bad thing, but I have not seen the DREAM Act in work; therefore, I do not know the good vs bad effects of the DREAM Act.
"Perry opposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, and supported the 2005 ballot proposition which amended the Texas constitution by defining marriage as "only a union between a man and a woman" and prohibiting the state from creating or recognizing "any legal status identical or similar to marriage".[15] In 2011, after New York legalized same-sex marriage, Perry stated that it was their right to do so under the principle of states' rights delineated in the 10th Amendment.[16] A spokesman later reiterated Perry's support for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying that position was not inconsistent since an amendment would require approval by three-fourths of the states.[17]
In his first book, On My Honor, published in 2008, Perry drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism, writing that he is “no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate,” but that gays should simply choose abstinence.[18] In 2002, Perry described the Texas same-sex anti-sodomy law as "appropriate".[19] The United States Supreme Court's landmark civil rights decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the statute Perry referred to the following year for violating the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."
-I am slightly neutral. I have not studied marriage. The prejudice Perry has for homosexuals is disgusting. The prejudice shown for gays serving in the military by Perry [Refer to his campaign ad] is intolerable.
"In October 2011, Perry put forwards a flat tax proposal that would allow taxpayers to choose either their tax rate under existing law or a flat 20% rate. The plan would also eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and inheritances. Asked if his tax plan would help wealthy taxpayers, Perry said he was not concerned about that because a lower tax rate would encourage greater investment and job creation by the wealthy"
I theorize that this trend among powerful Republicans, keeping the "rich richer", is either unseen from Conservative eyes, or rather averted.
More to come later...
***
Ron Paul Research
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 4:00pm
I hear, from my surroundings, support for Ron Paul, from my fellow co-workers. I have decided to do some research.
Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part One
He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.
What is income tax; how is income tax defined
An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or businesses (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive. When the tax is levied on the income of companies, it is often called a corporate tax, corporate income tax, or profit tax. Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted), while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs). Various systems define income differently, and often allow notional reductions of income (such as a reduction based on number of children supported
MORE TO COME...
A small income tax history
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belongs. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
The Sixteenth Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2011 Update, Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part Two
Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[84] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[97] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.
Economics: Principle and Policy [5th Edition]
Progressive, Proportional, and Regressive Taxes
Economists classify taxes as progressive, proportional, or regressive. Under a progressive tax, the fraction of income paid in taxes rises as a person's income increases...proportional tax, this fraction is constant... regressive tax, fraction of income paid to the tax collector declines as income rises. Since the fraction of income paid in taxes is called the average tax rate, these definitions can be reformulated as in the margin...the average tax rate is less interesting than the margical tax rate, which is the fraction of each additional dollar that is paid to the tax collector. The reason, as we will see, is that the marginal tax rate, not the average tax rate, most directly affects economic incentives.
How do you perceive this information? Does Ron Paul seem to desire to increase personal and payroll tax, while decreaseing CORPORATE TAX? I say, "..not necessarily." I think if he wants to support even a smaller government on excise taxes, he must be in imagination isle, which is probably why he is reconsidering this idea, and adopting a flat rate income tax. The GOP would most likely disagree in a heartbeat, but I think that it would not hurt to increase corporate tax and decrease personal and payroll taxes until there is a balanced support for both the government and the people. I need to further my research on the damage RON PAUL will do to this country ECONOMICALLY, and how he will manipulate the TAX SYSTEM.
MORE TO COME
***
one corporation works at 'X' number of buildings
it's 20xx, and the CEO head wants 'Y' number of custodians for each building
custodians are the lowest paid to maintain the corporate budget
20xx, and 'Y' custodians has been satisfied for every building
"Z", which is the number of other positions, has been satisfied or exceeded
Question: Can the government force that corporation (and others) to create jobs?
***
Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part One
He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.
What is income tax; how is income tax defined
An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or businesses (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive. When the tax is levied on the income of companies, it is often called a corporate tax, corporate income tax, or profit tax. Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted), while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs). Various systems define income differently, and often allow notional reductions of income (such as a reduction based on number of children supported
MORE TO COME...
A small income tax history
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belongs. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
The Sixteenth Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2011 Update, Ron Paul on Income Tax, Part Two
Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[84] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[97] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.
Economics: Principle and Policy [5th Edition]
Progressive, Proportional, and Regressive Taxes
Economists classify taxes as progressive, proportional, or regressive. Under a progressive tax, the fraction of income paid in taxes rises as a person's income increases...proportional tax, this fraction is constant... regressive tax, fraction of income paid to the tax collector declines as income rises. Since the fraction of income paid in taxes is called the average tax rate, these definitions can be reformulated as in the margin...the average tax rate is less interesting than the margical tax rate, which is the fraction of each additional dollar that is paid to the tax collector. The reason, as we will see, is that the marginal tax rate, not the average tax rate, most directly affects economic incentives.
How do you perceive this information? Does Ron Paul seem to desire to increase personal and payroll tax, while decreaseing CORPORATE TAX? I say, "..not necessarily." I think if he wants to support even a smaller government on excise taxes, he must be in imagination isle, which is probably why he is reconsidering this idea, and adopting a flat rate income tax. The GOP would most likely disagree in a heartbeat, but I think that it would not hurt to increase corporate tax and decrease personal and payroll taxes until there is a balanced support for both the government and the people. I need to further my research on the damage RON PAUL will do to this country ECONOMICALLY, and how he will manipulate the TAX SYSTEM.
MORE TO COME
***
My Riddle
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 5:20pm
one corporation works at 'X' number of buildings
it's 20xx, and the CEO head wants 'Y' number of custodians for each building
custodians are the lowest paid to maintain the corporate budget
20xx, and 'Y' custodians has been satisfied for every building
"Z", which is the number of other positions, has been satisfied or exceeded
Question: Can the government force that corporation (and others) to create jobs?
***
Calvinism Analysis
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Friday, December 30, 2011 at 5:29pm
I am analyzing articles for and against Calvinist ideas. Here is the first-http://www.thomastaylorministries.org/article_calvinism_total_depravity.htm
My words in BOLD
I do not know Thomas Taylor's methods of ministry, but his article makes some interesting points.
(http://www.reformed.org/calvinism) [Total Depravity]
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
*"in his sin" compared to "by sin"= two contrasted meanings
Mark 4: 10-12
10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
*"blind and deaf to the message of the gospel" compared to Mark 4: 11-12 = two contrasting perspectives
Ephesians 2
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
*Ephesians 2: 1-5 compared to "The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ..." = How did you come up with that conclusion through those verses?
More to come
***
My words in BOLD
I do not know Thomas Taylor's methods of ministry, but his article makes some interesting points.
(http://www.reformed.org/calvinism) [Total Depravity]
"Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.Romans 5: 11-13
The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the ral man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). "
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
*"in his sin" compared to "by sin"= two contrasted meanings
Mark 4: 10-12
10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
*"blind and deaf to the message of the gospel" compared to Mark 4: 11-12 = two contrasting perspectives
Ephesians 2
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
*Ephesians 2: 1-5 compared to "The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ..." = How did you come up with that conclusion through those verses?
More to come
***
Somewhat of a Romance Poem
by SteffanAyreon MikelKoivisto Wuori on Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 6:52pm
Dear lady, you may wonder,
why do I not stare or gaze.
I have modest eyes;
I have more respect for women than many.
I would feel rather uncomfortable,
finding myself lost in a perpetual space of admiration for modest beauty.
Do not fret or falter;
your beauty is a mere reminder for the hope I contain for the future,
whether tomorrow, next week, or next month,
romance, or love,
my future and will is good.
why do I not stare or gaze.
I have modest eyes;
I have more respect for women than many.
I would feel rather uncomfortable,
finding myself lost in a perpetual space of admiration for modest beauty.
Do not fret or falter;
your beauty is a mere reminder for the hope I contain for the future,
whether tomorrow, next week, or next month,
romance, or love,
my future and will is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment