POLITICS :: Just checking in... some thoughts on tax reform while I am here.

 

It's about 10pm where I live... as I start my post.  Sometimes it can take awhile to get to the end of my sharing.  :-)  Not much for me to say tonight... I browsed a few posts and articles but the whole thing seems to be in limbo still.

I will say I looked at an election map, but it seems to be published by a Democrat source as they are calling everything for Biden.

I vaguely remember the Florida dispute with Gore, and something about Hilary Clinton's run, so the energy around this same issue is obvious... several election cycles now.  

I had no idea, until recently, that 15 states have tried to ratify some kind of amendment to make the popular vote the final word for the future.  I tried to share my own discovery that the popular vote doesn't reflect the actual attitudes of the nation... mostly, it reflect the urban areas, the big cities.  That is really fraud territory... lots of votes in one small space.

I think the old history of vote manipulation, in places like Chicago and New York because of the gangs that existed then, is taking on a new process because of technology.  I'm just saying that it exists, somewhere, because criminals don't just give up their territories without being killed or arrested... and I hear getting arrested doesn't stop the criminal process.

This is the world... now.

I am just one person.

Ordinary people don't have the ability to affect these kinds of things.

We are the victims of those who "want to rule the world."

America has a lot of problems to figure out if we want to continue being a strong global power.  Raising taxes is not the answer.  Getting our national debt down is part of the solution... it would give us some breathing room for the disasters that will come in the future, whether we have the funds for them or not.

I just don't know WHY God doesn't give me the money I need to get these things changed!  :-)  

It is a multi-year process to do anything related to government change.  I would love to see an amendment that would permanently LIMIT the government's ability to tax its citizens.  I have written about this before, but no one reads my stuff anyway, so I will say it again...

ONE TAX.

A permanently limited SALES TAX that would be set at 10% and distributed like this ::

• 3% for FEDERAL needs
• 3% for STATE needs
• 3% for COUNTY needs, and then 
• the final 1% dedicated to INTERNATIONAL expenses we have to contribute to, like the UN.

This would eliminate ALL other taxes... including INCOME tax, ESTATE taxes, PROPERTY taxes, CAPITAL GAINS taxes, etc.  

It would make taxing a fair responsibility because rich and poor would pay their share based on what they purchase.  I haven't figured out how to deal with wholesale and retail taxes. This might get troublesome in rental properties and things like that, but I know the legislators will have their own ideas about that!

There wouldn't be "loop holes" and tax reductions or tax credits, etc., we would all just pay that 10% when we purchased things over the course of time.

This would also eliminate a lot of government jobs associated with taxation, which means less labor costs and other expenses.  Naturally, we know the government would ease any change into place, probably over twenty years so they can keep it going a bit longer and try to find ways around it.  BUT, if we think about the PRINCIPLE of taxation, it isn't meant to be an ever-increasing part of the citizen's income.  I tried to think of what a fair tax amount would be for citizens, and 10% seemed fair to me - plus, it divided perfectly.

If we don't do something, the government will continue to "NEED" more and more of every citizen's money until the government is the owner of it all, and citizens begin working for the government.

After I realized the SALES TAX was the only tax that can be applied evenly to everyone, everywhere, I just began seeing all kinds of benefits to that being the ONLY TAX we pay.

In our technology, this would also allow the government to collect taxes immediately, and they can be adjusted as needed as well... like for refunds, etc.

All of this would force the government to focus on what is really needed, not creating more and more programs that cause new taxes and budget problems.

Really, taxes are meant to pay for the operations of government as it PROTECTS its citizens... military, mandated offices, and whatever else there is that can't be eliminated.

This would divide the responsibilities of the various levels of government, create the need for partnerships with BIG projects, and make a lot more decisions into local choices.

This is also a global option in our age, if someone decides to make it one.  

For me, that is another step toward the Antichrist, but there really is no way to stop him from happening.  We may as well see it as something that benefits us now by organizing and reducing the impact and authority of the government in our individual lives.

I have been on Welfare.  I learned that any time the government is involved in providing money to you, it requires complete access to your life.  By changing to a SALES TAX ONLY form of taxation, we change from an individual focus to a business focus.

The government will gain access to business records and oversight for sales activities...if it decides there is a problem.  That would mean an audit of a business but no audits of personal spending.

It sounds like people will be able to become better criminals in some ways, but remember, if they sell drugs or anything illegal, and don't report the taxes, it is still a crime.

For those of us who sell online, the websites will become responsible for collecting and remitting the taxes per sale, or refund.

I haven't found a really bad part of this concept yet... for us, individual people.  Businesses MIGHT not like it, but I doubt it.  They will save all that other tax income, too.

Imagine your life without all the different taxes the government spreads out and collects under different umbrellas.  That would be an economic stimulus in its own right.

More important to me is the PRINCIPLE involved.  How much tax is enough !?!  To permanently limit taxes at this point in history would be a huge change in direction and I think it would require something like a national amendment.

I would like to share one more story about our government.

When I became an official senior, my food benefits turned into a cash benefit.  I also became aware that the government would be keeping a "tab" of expenses to collect after I die.  I am trying to make an annual check on this "tab" but have only requested one so far.  They don't send you an itemized billing, with an explanation of what the charges are and why they are considered debts to be collected.  My view is that the person in charge of the estate will have no way to argue any amount that is requested.  I can't even dispute a charge because they weren't defined.  This is one reason I wonder if all my food benefits are now going to be debts on my estate.

I should also add that I once suggested the government provide "loans" to poor people, like me, who are trying to change their income futures, that can be paid back later on.  My reason was that Welfare was never enough to live on  --  it destroyed our lives every time I tried to make it better.  

The loan would have to be large enough to make a real change.  

It could also become an investment for the government if it, instead, took a small percentage of ownership if it is available.  Again, the special number is 10% because I discovered the SEC allows investors with a ten percent ownership stake to have a seat on the Board of Directors to protect their investment.  

This investment focus would also bring future income into the government if it was successful.  I'm sure the government would be protecting its money with the SBA and other involvements.  :-)

I'm out of steam now... I'll let you think on those suggestions and you can share your comments with me.  I probably forgot some details of my plan because I haven't thought of it for awhile.

I was hoping to work on these issues with my own income, but that hasn't happened.

My hope for Trump being the President was that he would find new ways for the government to create income that are not a tax.

I have a ton of my own ideas based on my life and experiences with the government.

I guess that's all,

Until next time,

In Christ,

Deborah Martin

http://work2gather.us

and more...

Campaign Issues :: Solutions 2016 :: Welfare

http://political-rehabilitation.blogspot.com
http://work2gather.us
21 JULY 2016 - about 9pm PST



This post is on the Welfare chapter in the Heritage Foundation report called Solutions2016.  The purpose of their report is to encourage reforms in government and in the next election -- it is their way of trying to save America in its financial crises and, I suspect, in the lives of those who fund it.  Below is the statement used in the report to define what Welfare is ::

Today, the federal government operates roughly 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and lower-income Americans.

There is no description of the programs included in the 80, or what makes them "means-tested" for funding purposes.  Later in the text there is a reference to food stamps and public housing, to cash grants (Called Aid to Families with Dependent Children when I entered the system, and changed to TANF in 1996 I think, when there was a welfare reform event.)  Personally, I don't know all of the aid programs that are available, only the ones I accessed or heard about.  I am aware of General Relief, WIC for pregnant women and their young children, several different housing programs that may even include homeless shelters, and community clinics for those who don't have regular state medical policies or need items not on the approved lists.  These may be some of the programs being referred to, but there is no way to know because nothing is said about them.

I am sure the reference to 80 programs is to say there are too many welfare (entitlement) programs available.  My concern is the details of those programs.  I would want to know the list content... the name and purpose of each "means-tested" program.  It could be they are a variety of programs that meet the needs of very different recipients, from infants to disabled veterans.  It could be one is for eye glasses, another for hearing aids, some for food, several for housing options, etc.  We know that all of the people who are in need are not cared for, so are these programs efforts to do as much as possible for as many as possible, or is a small group benefitting by all of them?  It is an important difference. 


Welfare is an important topic for me because it was the only survival resource we had as a single-parent family over the years.  If you read my blog bio, you will see that I entered the US welfare system in 1975.  I have been associated with it in some way for most of the years since...through a large variety of circumstance, but always trying to find a way out, suffering when I did try, and learning that poverty is a terrible pit that is not easy to escape. 

Solutions for "entitlement programs," in the eyes of conservative Republicans, always seems to be the same one ::  "...these people just need to work!"  (That's my paraphrase of their views, no one actually said that - to my knowledge.)  Work is good, but it isn't always a simple solution.  There are very complicated issues attached to poverty. 

To my knowledge, Welfare programs were started to help struggling families of soldiers who died in WWI or II.  In that time of our country's history, women were often housewives that had never worked outside of the home.  The children in these fatherless households were becoming juvenile delinquents and costing the government a lot more money than the costs of a Welfare program would.  I believe they wanted to help mothers stay home to care for their children as a preventive measure. 

That part of poverty hasn't changed.  Single-parent households are still troublesome.  It is still better to have one loving parent home with their children than to have them raise themselves while their parent works, or grow up in daycare settings.  Naturally, it would be better to have a nuclear family, with father and mother raising their children, but that hardly exists anymore.  As a nation, as a world, we are dealing with the effects of our family structures disintegrating.  Welfare may help people to survive, but it doesn't solve the real problems.


The cash amounts and other related benefits of Welfare have changed over the years, too.  When I entered the system, I think the benefits available were small amounts of cash primarily for housing and utilities and general living requirements, food stamps for groceries, and Medicaid for basic medical needs. 

It is hard to remember all the details now, after so many years, but I know I struggled to make it through every month.  What you may take for granted as normal, poverty households may have to do without.  You may have a washer and dryer, poverty households use a Laundromat, and that costs money, which they sometimes don't have. 

There were no funds for childcare back then.  No transportation (bus passes) help.  I remember there was sometimes a single emergency grant a year.  I believe that was for housing costs if you were being evicted because your money didn't make it that far, or utilities that were in jeopardy of being turned off because you let the bill go too long so you could get food, or school supplies, or clothes, or Christmas or something normal households could afford.  Eventually these "programs" were added to the Welfare formula.  Things like WIC didn't always exist.  Yearly utility programs for the high costs of winter didn't always exist.  It may be these are part of the "80 means-tested programs" that were referred to earlier.

In the early days, you had to report every penny you acquired by any means every month.  They had home visits to make sure you didn't have any saleable assets to provide for your own needs...that you lived where you said you lived...and that no one "extra" was living with you.  Monthly reports were required, signed to allow for fraud proceedings if needed.  If something happened to your report, there was no check to pay rent, which sometimes led to evictions, which led to no house to live in if there wasn't an emergency fund.  It was a difficult life.  Today you are encouraged to make money and don't have to report it until you reach a certain amount... your poverty rate I think.

I didn't mean to get into all this detail, but I hope it gives you some perspective on what the definition of Welfare programs are.  Today, with computers and internet access, receiving benefits from the government means you give them total access to your life, to any information that may exist about you.  You don't have a choice in this requirement if you need to survive with Welfare funds.  They will also have access to information about anyone on your application.

The problems of poverty are not easy to fit into a government form. Women alone often take men into their family's life that shouldn't be there.  Looking for help, for a whole family, for love, for security and safety, women seem to choose men that become financial burdens to them instead of helpers, or they become perpetrators of crimes against them or their children. 

This Heritage report asks for reforms that would not penalize families with a married and committed man and woman who seek help from the government.  I was always a single parent, so I don't really know all of the penalties for couples they are referring to, but I do know that part of the conversation was the difference in grants for single parents and married couples...  it caused some parents to split up so they could receive more Welfare resources to better care for their children.

This report also shares that most of the funding for poverty programs is mostly from federal taxes, and this creates a lack of accountability in State oversight of poverty programs.  Heritage Foundation believes the burdens of Welfare responsibility need to be transferred wholly to the States.  In our current way of doing taxes, this would give the federal government more money to spend elsewhere... the real motive I am sure.

In my mind, taxes are taxes, and there are too many taxes already.  Each government entity wants to raise their taxes or fees, create new ones, make "temporary" taxes that never go away, and continually expand their control of the domain they have.  The realization that the same citizens are paying all of these different taxes seems to elude their attention.  The burden that is crushing the government right now is not Welfare, it is the entire government structure and the way it has failed to consider those citizens by being more careful with the funds they had.  People who are poor have become the easiest target to blame, and a revolving legislature makes it hard to hold anyone in government accountable for the mess we now face.

I think I will end this with some comments on one of the "Facts and Figures" cited at the end of the chapter, as an example of misleading information that you really have to think about before becoming frightened by the "statistics" they share.

Today, the U.S. spends 16 times as much on welfare as it spent in the 1960s -- about four times the amount needed to pull every poor family out of poverty -- yet the federal poverty rate remains nearly unchanged.

I have made bold the main parts of this statement I want you to think about.  There are some variables that aren't defined in this statement, but it gives you the idea that spending has grown while poverty has not.  I tried to understand where this statement came from, and then I thought about population changes from 1960 to the present and I thought about the effects of inflation on the amounts being cited.  The number of programs that are funded might somehow affect Welfare spending, too.

One of the huge problems I noticed in my years of poverty, struggling to find a way to make it meet our daily needs and help us to get away from that kind of life, was the issue of inflation.  The grant amounts never rose to meet the inflation rates, so you got the same amount of dollars, but couldn't buy as much with it... year after year after year.  This is part of the pit of poverty and government programs that try to change its effects.

I was surprised that the poverty rate hasn't changed.  I am not sure how it is computed, but I assume it is a percentage.  If the population increased and the number of households in poverty increased during the same time period, would the poverty rate be the same?

One more point needs to be included here because it refers to food stamps as "one of the largest and fastest growing of the government welfare programs."  This growth in recipients of food stamps is another sign that the economy is in distress... serious financial distress. 

I keep trying to share that housing and food are critical to any interventions we make.  Housing and food will help a family to survive until they can find a way through their crisis.  People can survive without housing, but they cannot survive without food.  Hungry people do desperate things.  It would be a wiser thing for the government to build up the reserves for the food stamp program than to eliminate it. 

Help people to stay in their homes and help them to eat, then find the best solutions for the recovery of their lives.  It may save money in other ways, like public safety costs, court costs, jail costs, prison costs, medical costs, homeless costs, and more.

That is what I have learned in all my years of struggling with poverty and the government.

Solutions 2016 :: Social Security

http://political-rehabilitation.blogspot.com
part of Working Together Inc.
http://work2gather.us

19 July 2016
about 6:15 pm PST


It has taken me so long to get here because I wanted to read the chapter on Social Security again, to decide what were the most important things I wanted to blog about.  It's hard to know whether to focus on political jargon, confusing statistics, or budget details that are really just one person's projection (usually to make the numbers larger and more threatening).

I should include a notification that this chapter is important to me because I recently became a recipient of early retirement funds.  I only receive $381 a month because I spent a lot of time at home with my kids, trying other ways to make an income, working erratically at minimum wage jobs, and other factors.  I don't know how Social Security is figured, but it is my ONLY cash income right now, along with less than the maximum amount of food stamps (SNAP) because I receive that income (only $126/month).  Government living is not easy. 



I guess the biggest missing number was some idea of what the GDP amount was.  Many of the figures are compared to GDP levels by a percentage, but who knows what kind of amounts they are talking about, and what is included in the GDP.  An example that is nearby, in my notes, is the projected growth of Social Security from 2015 to 2040, from 4.9% of GDP to 6.2% of GDP.  What kind of money are we talking here?  What will life be like in 2040?

And, my biggest gripe about projections, how do we really know what will happen in the future?  It's like a business plan... it's all on paper, a best guess.  Real life changes everything you plan on paper.  Many people are homeless because their plans didn't work out.  People buy things on credit based on what they make now, then something happens and they can't make the payment.  Projections are assumptions, not reality.  We also have to remember that writers, in creating an argument for their proposals, will manipulate facts and perspectives to only present what makes their view acceptable.  This is why we have to spend so much time trying to find the real Truth.

I would guess that the main concern this report has with Social Security and its related programs, called "entitlement programs" for their purposes, would be the lack of control over them.  Part of the chapter's details revealed to me that these programs are paid first, probably AFTER the interest on the debt, and leave little money right now for anything else that might fit into a legislators bartering toolbox.  As expected, the military, national security, and defense budgets are mentioned as needing funds more than these "entitlement" programs.  I am sure there are other undeclared programs in their minds to fund, but these security programs are the hot buttons for every election... for the Republicans, anyway.

As far as I can tell, these figures break down into several different conglomerations of "entitlement" programs based on Social Security Retirement Benefits, Disability Insurance, Medicare, Obamacare subsidy payments (which I think begin in earnest in 2017), and Medicaid.  Different money amounts mentioned include different parts of those programs.  It is not an easy maze to conquer.

A graph of the projected deficit growth from 2015 to 2024 shows a category called "all other federal budget deficits" over the Retirement program and the Disability program.  Most of these years are when the Boomers enter the system, which is one of the arguments about how the program is set up.  There isn't any way to know what the "other" program deficits are, and the Disability deficits seem to be constant.  It was stated that the Retirement and Disability Funds are not yet "insolvent" but that there is no real cash in them, only government IOU's.  The Boomers and the lack of real investment money in these Funds are part of the reason the deficits are happening.  The bill is coming due now, and the current Congress doesn't want to pay it.

I was rather irritated at the argument on the same page as the graph about interest outlays and non-interest outlays as a focus for the spending cap proposal.  It was suggesting a spending cap on the non-interest related parts of the budget, and specifically saying that no action on the debt interest would be possible.  I suppose I am confused about this, but it seems to me that reducing the debt would be the best way to get rid of a LOT of our financial problems, especially the huge interest payments on it.  I think there is a conflict of interest in this topic. 

Government debt securities are seen as a very safe investment and prized for their repayment value.  At least, they were until some governments started going bankrupt.  If we didn't have our debt, we wouldn't have to pay that interest money to the debt holders.  We could use it for other important programs, like the military, national security, and other defense programs.  Right? 

This report seems to say there is no opportunity to reduce our spending (increase our income) with the debt and any other interest-related budget item.  I don't know what other interest and non-interest items are in the federal budget as no details on these items are really presented.  The only focus is to create a spending cap to "encourage" entitlement reform.

For many years I have considered ways the American People could try to solve this debt problem outside of Congress.  I think we could do it, but the bigger problem is that the government would just overspend again and create another debt crisis.  The interest on the debt is so huge it would pay for many of the programs that make the budget a constant conflict, but those tax dollars are spent on interest payments to China and whoever else owns our debt. 

I think it was when Obama sold the plans for the Hummer/Humvee to China that I decided ONLY Americans should own American debt.  In the years that passed since then, crowd-funding has become big.  I guess my idea was like a national crowd-funding effort to buy back the debt and hold it until the government was able to pay the debt back.  Do you think it would work?  I don't know.  We need to think of something.

The GDP came up again in the section on debt.  I discovered there is a level of debt that is acceptable -- for nations, I think.  The report stated that less than 60% of GDP is acceptable for a debt level, and 2% of GDP is acceptable for deficit levels.  What happens when GDP changes because of conditions beyond its control?  What seems acceptable one year may be a crisis the next.  Living within our means is a better gauge.  Creating income producing programs is a better use of our funds than subsidies for agriculture and housing.  Revolving loan funds are better than loan guarantees.  There are better choices, but something keeps our legislators from making them.  What could that be???


I found it interesting that they want to make Social Security and its related programs into a "real insurance model." I thought it already was...  a low-cost, shared, forced government insurance program.  My view is they need to include all citizens, not just those receiving paychecks... to make it voluntary and devise a payment rate based on when it is collected on.  One of the biggest problems with the system has been the family members that aren't included -- spouses, children, anyone who wants to have an account. 

Creating a government version of Retirement insurance focused on low-income households would change the way we think of government programs, allow more people to pay in, and create both cash benefits and medical care in one program.  If it is well defined, people can build up their accounts like a Health Savings Account, deciding how much they want as a final payment when they start to collect.  It won't be modified by your later income, just a planned income amount paid by the future government at the start of each month.  Medicaid and Medicare would become one part of that insurance plan, again focused on the poor, who are the only ones who really need government help anyway.  Wealthy people can buy other forms of insurance in a free market, but every citizen would be eligible to purchase it as a back-up plan.  The Obamacare focus on forced submission of every citizen is a faulty one.  I hope they will create something more reasonable for poverty households when they repeal Obamacare.

I have also found it interesting that the government wants to raise the minimum age you can begin to collect on your Social Security benefits.  It is going up to 67 by 2027 it says.  With all the expected problems in the job markets because of technology taking over many of them, I think the recent "recession" is a clear indication that the age needs to be 50, not 65, 67, or 70.  The benefit options can change by the age you choose to collect them, but the account holder is the one who needs to make the decision of when they need to start receiving their benefits... not the government.  Every life is different, people need the flexibility to choose how to survive their situations. 

In a crisis economy, business downsizes its labor expense, which often means that the older, more highly paid, employees are let go and replaced with younger, cheaper staff.  In our near future, the jobs for older people may not be as plentiful or as well-paid as they are now.  Technology is swiftly replacing real humans with robotics and other automated tasks.  None of these pay taxes.  Our current economy is still recovering... we are a global financial network now...  there is no way to know what will happen in the future.  The assumptions presented in this report are based on tax revenues that may not exist in ten years.

For me, these kinds of reports are like media presentations and the legislation Washington and other government agencies create.  It is jargon that ordinary people cannot understand.  Sometimes it is purposely so confusing so you will think it is good for everyone but it is really killing the common man it is suppose to help.  Text, statistics, and graphs, look impressive, but when you have the time to really explore them, the story isn't right.
 
In the larger section about the Disability program, I had a hard time deciphering how the reforms would help people with disabilities survive their everyday existence.  Legislators seem to make thousands of dollars a year in salaries and benefits and operating funds, but someone who has no other alternatives is seen as a burden on the government for needing a reasonable amount for shelter, food, and ordinary living expenses.  The poor, including the disabled, are always attacked when a budget crisis occurs... they are the easiest targets and few know how difficult it can be to live on government "benefits."

In the sections about "flat rate" payments for disabled people, I found it questionable that future recipients would "eventually generate savings in excess of SSDI's shortfalls" and linking this flat rate to anti-poverty benefit amounts and the "poverty level."  To me, that is government-speak for very low living amounts.  I know what low government life can be like.  Depending on where you live, it can be very, very bad. 

This flat-rate payment was also linked to encouraging recipients to purchase supplemental disability insurance.  This is a strange problem in our current government.  We have mandated insurance now.  Low-income recipients of government insurance (Medicaid) can't afford any other insurance.  Their lives are mandated by the limits of the government's insurance policies.  How is someone who is disabled and living on government assistance suppose to spend some of their few dollars on supplemental insurance?

The concept of linking the flat payment to the "poverty level" is also very questionable.  As an applicant to many different government programs over my lifetime, poverty changes every year and with every program.  Then there is the qualifying percentage of the poverty level that applies. This is a vague reference to something people know about, sounds good, and is very deceptive when applied.


It was also interesting how the savings that these proposals would create could be used by recipients to increase their own retirement savings plans and supplemental insurance.  When I hear reports from various sources, most people in America are a paycheck away from ruin.  This gap between those who have lots of money who create plans to make the poor into better citizens is really visible in moments like this.  It is totally unrealistic.

When people are trying to survive, they spend everything, including their credit card balances if they have them, and borrowing from everyone they know when they don't have a credit card.  That leads to its own problems.  The government has done the same thing... it has "MAX'd" out its credit cards, and overspent it income.  Now it is facing its own budget crisis and people who are dependent on its promises, like me, will suffer for what it has done.

Often I hear reports on TV about the state of our economy and they include credit card spending as if it is a worthy part of life, directly responsible for the improving economy.  Credit card spending can also be survival spending.  It doesn't seem like a good measuring tool to me.

America, Then and Now

I just finished reading the Imprimis issue I received today (May/June 2016), which contains the Commencement Address of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the 2016 graduates of Hillsdale College. The title was :: Freedom and Obligation.  I was so impressed with several great sections of the text that I decided to share them here.  I hope you will find them as moving as I did.

Justice Thomas was comparing the America of his youth to the America of today.  The first statement that I noticed is below.  I think it explains the premise of his youth.

"If there was to be independence, self-sufficiency, or freedom, then we first had to understand, accept, and discharge our responsibilities."

Life was very different in those years.  He lived in the South, so his life was even more different than what is considered normal today.  Justice Thomas tries to explain what life was like for his family in those years, despite the hardships of prejudice and discrimination.  Their faith is foundational in that response, in the attitudes that were shared from one generation to another.  This description from another part of the speech might not be the same without the faith that guided their lives.

"They were law-abiding, hardworking, and disciplined.  They discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could.  They taught us that despite unfair treatment, we were to be good citizens and good people."

Another great statement that goes along with the quote above is this one :: 

"Being wronged by others did not justify reciprocal conduct."

More than these thoughts, I found two passages that I felt were exceptional.  I will share them here.  the first is about the purpose behind establishing America ::

"To establish a government based on the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, they gave up only that portion of their rights necessary to create a limited government of the kind needed to secure all of their rights."

Justice Thomas goes on to share examples of his life to make his views more understandable, and he challenges the graduates about their future choices and how they will affect others.  We don't know what will happen to us in our lifetime, and we don't always know how deeply our lives affect others.  I liked the way he talked about these "lessons" in life, calling them an "unplanned syllabus," and binding them to the survival of our country...

"These small lessons become the unplanned syllabus for learning citizenship, and your efforts to live them will help to form the fabric of a civil society and a free and prosperous nation where inherent equality and liberty are inviolable."

Your can find the whole speech online at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/freedom-obligation-2016-commencement-address/

I have heard it said many times in Christian circles that each generation MUST preserve the faith for it to continue... that we are one generation away from its demise.  This is true of everything important, including our freedoms and our country.

I will end with this quote, about the danger we face in this generation.  I hope you will read the entire speech to discover more.

"Today there is much more focus on our rights and on what we are owed, and much less on our obligations and duties..."

8 APR 2015 :: First Post

I am trying to secure names for blog topics I would like to comment on in the future... this is the name I was able to get for my political topics.  I hope it become a source of a lot of "political rehabilitation" in many areas... government, prisons, income, shelter, food, and more.  There is so much to talk about, so much to keep track of...I don't know how much I would be able to do, but I am always trying to share my opinions on all these topics.

As you may know, this is part of my effort on behalf of Working Together (work2gather.us), which is about saving as many Christians as possible while the End Times head toward the Antichrist. My past experiences with poverty have shown me that the American church is not prepared for what the Bible tells us is coming, and I hoped to find a way to change that.  It hasn't become what I hoped for, but I know that GOD has been using my efforts to accomplish something.

America is beginning to struggle with many severe problems, and the political arena is where a lot of the forced changes will come...and are already in progress.  We can't change what GOD has decreed, but we can do our best to fight against what we can.

I also have disagreements with the prison systems, the tax systems, and other government directions. This may be the place to share them.  I will have to find out.

As long as GOD allows me to live, I look forward to continuing my efforts on behalf of Working Together (WT), Christians, and the poor.  Everything depends on what GOD provides...