Liberal America

 CONSERVATIVES, HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!!!

Things are just about to get very interesting. If you think our 46th President (Mr. "Sleepy" Joe Biden) is a hoot, just wait until you see our 47th President. Bet you can't guess who that will be, can you? Well, I can tell you.

Late in President Biden's second year or early in his third year in office, President Biden will become ill and die from that illness (natural causes related to old age, he didn't even look healthy before he took office, and I don't believe he will last long in the White House). So you all know what that chain of events means, don't you?

That means our 47th President will be, that's right, you guessed it! Ms. Kamila Harris - the most liberal politician in American politics today or ever. She's even farther left than Bernie Sanders, and that's saying something.

Here are just a few of the policies you can look forward to from our next President:

• The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 2023 - Nearly 100 years after FDR attempted to do the exact same thing to push "New Deal" liberal policies down American throats, I believe Ms. Harris will try and probably succeed (under our current political climate) in expanding the number of sitting justices. She would appoint upwards of 3 or 4 judges; naturally, these jurors would share her political opinion and allow Ms. Harris to push her ideological agenda on the whole of the country without worrying about interference from the courts. This would leave the door wide open for what comes next.
• Medicare For All - Government-run medical insurance for every and all Americans. With the Senate and House of Representatives' support and no threat from the Supreme Court, she most likely will railroad this policy right through the legislative process. This paves the way to propose even more liberal policies, such as:
• "Reimagining how we do public safety in America" as Ms. Harris stated herself - what exactly does she mean by this? Well, plain and simple (even though she won't actually verbalize it as such yet), this means defunding the police. Her record as San Francisco district attorney and California state attorney general speaks volumes about her attitude and position regarding this subject. And so continues the dismantling of America.
• What 2nd Amendment? Average everyday Americans, true patriots, don't need guns, right? Americans don't need to protect themselves against a criminal element that would run rampant through the streets of America, looting and destroying everything in their path without fear of punishment or justice for the crimes they commit or the tyranny of a corrupt government that has gone amuck, completely out of control. Nope, that could never happen, could it? Well, after defunding the police and criminalizing the ownership of guns for honest, law-abiding citizens, what do you think will happen? Criminals don't care what the law is, because they're criminals, that's fundamentally the definition of a criminal and they will escalate their criminal activities in the absence of any law enforcement authority, so get ready. Remember: Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot - and think about this "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana. I'm just saying... And these policies reaffirm Ms. Harris' overall hypocritical attitude toward the value of human life and hard-working middle-class and wealthy Americans (other than her rich self and her wealthy liberal cronies, of course) that earned every penny and possession they have. This same attitude is also reflected in the following political position examples espoused by Ms. Harris, for example:
• Government (meaning - Liberals) controlled redistribution of wealth (Tax the daylights out of the middle-class and the rich, especially middle-class & wealthy conservatives). Who knows better than a bunch of rich, elitist, liberals - who deserves to be wealthy? Who else is more qualified to determine where and to whom the wealth of America should go? Can you sense my sarcasm? Liberals, of course, right? Hard work really means nothing, liberal socialist policy mandates that even a lazy, good-for-nothing, POS (lay on the couch watching TV, let everyone else work and pay their bills) should receive the exact same money, consideration, and benefits (even-though they produce nothing of value or benefit to society - at all) as any honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizen who gets up every day - goes to work, pays their own bills, conducts themselves in a decent and compassionate human behavior, and contributes to the elevation of the human species receives. How is that fair? And then there's this:
• Unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions - a reward to those among us that live their life as irresponsibly as they possibly can and feel that human life has no value what-so-ever. If you don't value the lives of the weakest, most vulnerable, littlest, and most innocent among us then how can you value anything. What does hold value to this type of person? 
• Open borders that allow anyone to enter this country, undocumented, including criminals and terrorists. Free to travel anywhere they desire and conduct their illegal and terrorist activities anyplace they want. All-the-while Ms. Harris proposes to force us, taxpayers, to provide Taxpayer-funded healthcare for any and all those undocumented aliens including the criminals and terrorists.
• And of course, the "Green New Deal," the pentacle, the Creme Del A Creme of her warped and twisted vision of what America should look like. She will set the dogs of her administration on the fossil fuel industry, and she will use the full and unfettered might of the federal government to shut down and possibly even prosecute; YES, I SAID PROSECUTE those companies and their representatives.

If you share this vision, then you will unfortunately probably never realize just how outrageous these policies are and where they would lead this country. So many of the freedoms we enjoy, and even take for granted, are at risk of being at least eroded if not completely disappearing. Freedom to express yourself, protect yourself, and even your right to the pursuit of happiness (as so eloquently stated in the US Constitution) will very quickly be just a thing of the past. It truly will be the dawning of a new age for America and the world.

After defeating socialism around the world for more than a century and the many lives it saved and protected, recognizing all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom and democracy - how ironic it will be for the United States to fall to socialism in such a way as this - by the treachery of its own citizens (the Democratic Party), an enemy from within. The founding fathers are turning over in their graves as we speak. What a crime this will be.

Welcome the coming of socialist America.

My Thoughts on Universal Voting

 

Voting – Cast Your Ballot

 

The left has once again taken up the mantra of increasing the voter rolls in this country. Well, I for one would submit that I think that is a horrendously bad idea. We have far too many unqualified voters involved in the political process already. I am sorry, but I do not think every person of age should be casting votes on the candidates or issues facing America in today's political arena. Age, in and of itself, does not automatically equal either knowledge or wisdom, which are what any political system requires in order to be effective. If you are unwilling or unable to meticulously research the issues, policies, and positions at stake and make decisions based on logic and reason, you have no business voting, it is as simple as that.

 

If you are a single-issue voter, whether that issue is abortion or gay rights or whatever, regardless of how strong you feel about the issue, here again, you have no business casting votes. The issues facing society today are far too numerous, complicated, and important to be decided by simpletons and idiots (as is the vast majority of the electorate) acting on emotions or out of irrational prejudices. We should be making it more difficult, not easier to gain voting privileges.

 

But I do believe that the restrictions on voter qualifications should also be based on rational & logical policies. For example, a voter:

 

•    MUST be a legal citizen – legal citizens are the only people that have a vested interest in the success of the country and its people.

 

•    MUST be able to read, write, & speak English – it is a proven fact that a common language is crucial to the sense of unity & continuity of society. Not to mention the fact that it is also proof of education. & a shared experience.

 

•    MUST own property and/or a business – these are the people that are invested financially in the future and success of the country.

 

•    CAN NOT receive a regular assistance payment from any government entity (such as Supplemental Security or any other type of Disability Income, Welfare, Food Stamps, AFDC, or any other Income Assistance) – conflict of interest, these individuals present a self-serving interest element into the institution of government and the conduct of its business, without contributing in any constructive aspect. In other words, they are a drain on the system by receiving benefits without providing any support or contributing to the system. I know it sounds cold and unfeeling but it is the truth and in all fairness this is the burden these individuals have to shoulder as their contribution to access to the benefits they receive, everybody should expect to sacrifice something for the good of society.

 

•    CAN NOT be Government Pensioners, or any other government agency Payee, Federal, Regional, State, County, Parish, City Payee or Pensioners – conflict of interest, again these individuals also present a self-serving interest element into the institution of government and the conduct of its business, even though these individuals do contribute to the system.

 

◦   EXEMPTIONS – Social Security Recipients and Active Duty, Disabled, or Retired Military & Honorably Discharged Veterans. These individuals earned the right to vote with their service to society.

 

•    MUST possess a certain level of life experience (and I believe 18 or even 21 are still too young to be voting. What do these youths have to contribute to the discussion? Nothing yet! They don't have any real world experience, or even a vested interest in the issues, now that's not to say they don't have opinions, I'm sure they do, however, as I stated above, they have little or no real-world experiences to base their opinions on, therefore their opinions are for the most part invalid.)

 

I know many people will find this point-of-view offensive or even discriminatory but I challenge anybody to prove it unsubstantial. Which nobody can because it’s impossible to argue against this position simply based on the fact that experience can't be taught, it has to be earned, and it has to be earned through time. And for the same reason, we restrict driving to those 16 years old and older, because knowledge and physical ability are not enough to handle operating a motor vehicle safely (a 12-year-old possess the traits and physical capabilities to drive a motor vehicle, but not the mental abilities), any more than age and having an opinion are enough to effectively participate in the political process. A certain amount of maturity is also required. And maturity comes from experience, and experience only comes as a function of time.

 

Therefore, again for the same reason that our brilliant founding fathers set a minimum age of 35 years old for the Presidency, I believe the minimum voting age should be raised to 30 years old and here is why.

 

•    By the time a person has reached 30 years of age

 

◦   they have accumulated a reasonable amount of experience,

 

◦   they have gained sufficient knowledge & wisdom from their experience,

 

◦   and they have become significantly vested in the economy and society

 

So that these individuals should be infinitely better suited to making better decisions and deriving  intrinsically more elegant solutions to the problems faced by modern civilization that is based on reason & logic and is less likely to approach challenges from an irrationally emotional position as younger individuals are.

 

•    Also, by the time a person reaches 30 years of age

 

◦   they are, or have at least been, married,

 

◦   they usually have children (if they are going to have any at all),

 

◦   they own at least one vehicle (usually more than one in today's world),

 

◦   and they are buying or have bought a home.

 

They are heavily vested in the economy as well as society, and by virtue of that, have at least partially earned the right to speak an opinion and exercise the privilege to vote.

 

But all voters should also be able to demonstrate a thorough and deep understanding of the issues facing our world as-well-as present a justifiable position on those issues based on logic and reason.

 

Let us take a look at the abortion issue for example. This is, by virtue of its very nature, an issue of the youth of the world. And because, as I have previously demonstrated, of a lack of experience and wisdom in the younger populations, young people view abortion as a choice issue, not one of moral or ethical standards. They are incapable of seeing any issue from a rational standpoint because they have no experience with which to conduct a reasonable evaluation of any topic(s). They are usually so self-absorbed that they are only able to think of themselves and how things affect their own lives, they are, again, incapable of considering others or the effects their actions, even their thoughts, may have on other people and especially on society in general. They are just as incapable of even looking at something from an alternative perspective. These are skills critical to the political process, just as they are to a million other human endeavors, but as I pointed out earlier this skill can only be gained through experience. There are no shortcuts for this.

 

If a person were to evaluate this issue in its entirety, which can only be accomplished by an individual possessing extensive knowledge and impeccable wisdom. They would determine easily that this is a multifaceted issue that elicits very strong emotional responses from both sides of the argument and for that reason alone must be evaluated not from a standard of emotion but from one of reason and logic. It cannot be solved by any other means, period!

 

Ask these questions to any person who subscribes to the premise that abortion is an issue solely about the choice of a woman to manage her own body; and note the response:

 

•    What about the wishes of the father, he had just as much to do with the conception of that child as she did, right? Doesn't he have a say in the decision? What if he wants the child, shouldn't he have the right to accept responsibility for that child if he so desires?

 

•    And didn't she exercise her “right of choice” at the moment when she agreed to accept the responsibility for the possible consequences of engaging in unprotected sex in the first place? Because she did or she should have. She should have realized such a possibility existed and taken steps to facilitate the outcome she desired, and if she did not then her actions were irresponsible, and irresponsible behavior is a clear example of immaturity. Immaturity is proof she does not possess the intellectual capacity to rigorously evaluate such a complex issue that a voter may face and render a valid solution.

 

•    What about the cost? Who should pay the cost if the mother cannot afford the procedure? Should taxpayers be forced to support people who engage in irresponsible behavior, even if it violates the taxpayers' personal or religious values?

 

•    How about the risk of complications to the mother? And who should be responsible for paying the mother's medical bills or funeral expenses (in the most tragic and extreme cases)

 

These are only a few of the queries presented by this exceedingly difficult issue. As we can see this is not a simple issue and there are many diverse, divisive, and divergent aspects to consider regarding this problem. And yet, as a society, after many decades of contemplation and debate, we are still struggling to come up with a viable solution that satisfies all concerned parties. This is just one of many issues facing society today that our elected leaders are wrestling to solve. Not an undertaking for the weak or faint of heart, the lazy or unconcerned, the emotionally driven or intellectually challenged.

 

Obviously, the most reasonable solution is to not engage in such irresponsible behavior to start with and then you don't have to worry about the consequences, wanted or unwanted, but this concept seems to be completely foreign to young people and as such is irrefutable proof that they should not be involved in the political process either.

 

I fail to understand how any person who is not vested in the economy or society, in general, can think or argue that they have the right to participate at all in the political process. The right to vote, as it is in today's lexicon, is something that should be earned, like respect. It is a heavy responsibility that only the most capable of society should exercise and exercise with the greatest of attention and reverence, not to be taken lightly.

 

Instead, there seem to be many that believe that voting is something that you are entitled to do just on the basis that you are 18 years old and can use a pencil, not having any proven ability to evaluate or solve even the simplest of problems. Most of these individuals cannot even balance their own checkbooks or create and hold to a budget. And these are the people who are participating in the process of selecting the leaders of our world, how insane is that?

 

As you can see, I cite examples to justify my positions and beliefs as I discuss in the text itself, just as I also propose very reasonably and viable solutions to the issue discussed based on those justifications. That is what most modern political commentary lacks in this day in age. Most commentators, like most voters today, are particularly good at expressing their beliefs and values but have great difficulty justifying those beliefs and values. The reason they can't easily justify their positions, be it political, religious, or social, is because they're positions are based on emotional foundations supported by fear, and prejudices, and not on logic and reason like they should be, and as any responsible, intellectually adept, and socially conscious individual who casts a ballot should strive to continuously live up to.

What X-Prize?

 

The Truth

It is generally agreed by every scientific mind on this planet that humanity will never achieve any meaningful or significant exploration of space through the use of chemical propulsion as a primary form of locomotion for even local much less deep space travel. And yet we are awarding millions of dollars to billionaires in the form of prize money to achieve something our own government space agency (as-well-as at least a half-dozen or more other government space agencies across the globe) already has the capability of doing, and has done repeatedly for decades.

The truth is Space-X hadn't actually achieved anything of any real significance with regard to advancing humanity's abilities to explore space when they were awarded the X-Prize. Let's be honest, there was absolutely no new technology that resulted from the competition, especially propulsion related technology, which should have been a primary condition of the award. If the X-Prize board had wanted to make their competition have any meaning at all or have it stand for something or even have it make a significant impact on the human exploration of space - this particular condition should have been first and foremost in their protocols for awarding the prize. But it wasn't. I keep asking myself, Why? And the only reasonable answer I can come up with is either sheer incompetence or a complete lack of understanding of the situation regarding space travel. Either way, the value and the significance of the X-Prize is essentially meaningless, sadly. There was an apparent & serious lack of thought put into this endeavor, without question, and because of this, humanity missed a golden opportunity to advance our scientific knowledge and technology. Don't get me wrong, I take my hat off to Space-X for what they have recently done. It is truly remarkable, but again it is far from being out of the reach of any of the half-dozen or so governmental space agencies of this world? And I doubt that it is even beyond the capabilities of any other well funded private company on the planet either. So let's not put too much stock into it at this point. Granted, it is possible, though I seriously doubt it, that in the future this could lead to something significant by Space-X with regard to advancing the ability of humans to explore space, but for that, we will have to just wait and see, won't we?

And that being said, it leads this discussion to another profound question, should we be celebrating and praising something so insignificant and unremarkable as the current Space-X mission in which they merely launched two men into low Earth orbit to dock with the International Space Station and then two months later return them to Earth? In the whole scheme of things, is this really such a big deal? HARDLY! I mean really? What have they actually accomplished? As I have already pointed out, they have not accomplished anything meaningful or significant, or anything that a hand full of government agencies from a number of different countries around the world couldn't, and haven't already done. So where's the “historical significance” in that? Just because they're a private company doesn't mean a thing. That just means a different source of money, nothing more. And the truth be told, the US space program has always been in the hands of private companies, the only difference is the funding source – NASA is funded by tax dollars and Space-X is funded by corporate profits, Frankly, I see nothing of any real value to any of this. There has been no new technology from this endeavor that will, in the long run – or in the short term for that matter, that will ever lead to any significant and/or meaningful exploration of space my humankind. No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to this: this is a continuation of the use of chemical rocket technology for space propulsion. Which = a dead-end strategy.

The only way this will ever turn out to have any historical significance at all is if someday soon, while mining or surveying some asteroid or comet or other planetary body such as Mars, Space-X astronauts discover a new element or compound or something of the like, which ultimately shifts the paradigm of human space exploration so profoundly that it allows for the human race to finally evolve into a spacefaring civilization. Then, and only then, could humanity possibly look back at this moment in time and say “that's where it all began, that's what made all this possible”. However, if it doesn't happen in that way then history will regard these events as nothing short of meaningless, a complete and total waste of time, energy, and resources.

A Historical Perspective

In July 1969 (the first time we sent human beings to explore the Lunar surface) it took 3 days in the Apollo 11 space capsule to get there, and by December 1972 (the last time we sent human beings to land on the Moon) it still took Apollo 17 that same 3 day period to get there, and today it again will still take that same 3 day period for our astronauts to traverse the roughly 250,000 miles it takes to travel from Earth to the Moon. Nothing has changed in all this time. In just slightly over 50 years nothing has changed. There was no new propulsion technology developed during that period of time (the Apollo missions) or since, there were not even any improvements made in the propulsion systems we were using at the time to increase their velocity or shorten the time required to make the trip to the moon.

The meaningful exploration of space involves technology capable of transporting massive vessels populated with large numbers of people over vast distances in extremely brief periods of time. I'm talking about technology on the order of star-system to star-system distances in a matter of hours or days, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And that kind of technology doesn't come in the form of chemical rockets and it never will.

The science is quite simple, it's a matter of energy density. In layman's terms energy density determines how much power an atom or molecule of an element or compound possesses through its atomic and/or molecular bonds that can be made available (by whatever means possible) to efficiently perform work.

Chemical bonds just happen to be some of the simplest and weakest reactions known to our science. It should also be understood that there are several different kinds of possible reactions involving these bonds and this is because of the forces involved that maintain the structural integrity of these atoms and molecules.

The greater the bond energy and the denser the number of bonds determines the total energy available to do work, however, there is a limit to the size and number of these bonds - a physical limitation to its simple, and unassuming structure, that can't be overcome by science. These are dictated by immutable universal physical laws, governed and set by the very framework of the universe itself.

There are also limitations set by the very structure of these elements and compounds. Limitations regarding the complexity and stability of these objects dictate their ability to efficiently release their stored energy. This means that in most instances it requires more energy input than you get energy output. In other words, the amount of effort and resources required to release that stored energy is greater than the amount of usable energy you can get out of the reaction, a net energy loss (usually in the form of heat we are unable to capture, store, or use). In order for these reactions to be of any benefit to us we need them to be of a net energy gain, make sense? Sure.

Our current understanding of those physical laws (that have been discovered and explained over the last few centuries through rigorous scientific research) that determine the way these forces operate, clearly indicate that the bonding energies are much lower in molecular than in atomic configurations and therefore won't release as much energy in those molecular configurations. Explaining and/or defining these forces may make this point more clear.

The forces involved in maintaining the molecular structure of compounds are:

• Covalent bonding – the sharing of valence electrons between atoms.

• Ionic bonding – the acceptance or donation of valence electrons between atoms.

As opposed to the forces (known collectively as the “4 Fundamental Forces of Nature”) involved in maintaining the atomic structure of elements (from weakest to strongest) which are:

• Gravity – the weakest of all the atomic forces, it is most clearly defined as that intrinsic property of matter relative to its quantity of mass.

• Weak Nuclear – is the force/property exhibited through radioactive decay of elements.

• Electromagnetism – is the force/property responsible for maintaining the nucleus/electron structure of the atom.

• Strong Nuclear – is the force/property responsible for holding the atomic nucleus together (Proton-to-Proton & Proton-to-Neutron bonding).

These differences can best be seen through processes we are very familiar with these days. The first example is a standard everyday automobile or airplane or any other petroleum-based internal combustion engine. This is an example of a chemical molecular reaction related to covalent bonding. The next example would be that of rust, or the oxidation of metals (particularly iron and iron compounds) displayed by the orange discoloration and pitting of these iron-based metals after exposure to air. This is a simple example of a chemical molecular reaction related to ionic bonding.

As is abundantly clear from the definitions above, these chemical reactions hold much lower amounts of available energy in their bonds (that are able to be released through this type of reaction) because of their inherent properties.

Another way to see the inherent stored energy capacity of these molecular configurations are from the following examples: The ionic form of molecular bonding discussed here and characterized in the form of the rusting of metallic components and the energy density (or more specifically - the release of that energy) related to this process can best be seen or understood by considering the process itself. The formation of the rust (the chemical reaction we are talking about here) is a very slow and almost immeasurable process, taking a relatively long time to occur and proceed. This clearly shows just how little stored energy that can be derived from such a reaction.

In regard to the covalent bonding instance there is a much more relevant and clear example we can look at, notably - TNT (TriNitro Toluene AKA - Nitroglycerin– the active ingredient in dynamite). The quantitative measure of the inherent explosive energy (through a comparison of measured and calculated bond energy values) of this chemical is used as a standard against all other chemical & nuclear explosive reactions. And even though these reactions appear to us to be very powerful (mainly based on their relative destructive capabilities), they are characterized merely by a rapid expansion of heated gases that cause high temperatures and pressures substantive enough to consume and/or disfigure humans and most constructs of our civilization in a very small and localized area, these reactions are very weak related to the next level of reactions we will explore in the following paragraphs.

The next level of reactions takes the form of an entirely different and unique nature. This example would of course be an atomic/nuclear type of reaction, which is of a totally different type of reaction altogether and involves the forces defined above for elements.

Looking at those definitions, again we can clearly see why so much energy is released from this type of reaction. And we are all abundantly aware of the destructive capability of atomic/nuclear reactions. The most notable examples of this being the explosions over Hiroshima Japan on August 6^th, 1945 (“Little Boy” an estimated 12 to 18 kiloton atomic explosion that killed approximately 180,000 people) & Nagasaki Japan on August 9^th, 1945 (“Fat Man” an estimated 18 to 23 kiloton atomic explosion that killed upwards of 100,000 people) by the United States to finally bring an end to World War II, as-well-as the dozens of test explosion that have continued to this day and time (most recently by North Korea), along with the massive stockpiles of these weapons of mass destruction inventoried by about a dozen or so governments around the globe – even to this day. The explosive energy of the most destructive of these weapons is absolutely incredible by any standard, reaching into the mega-tonnage (of TNT) range. Able to completely level and destroy an entire city with a single weapon.

Yet, even these reactions are not capable of producing the kind of energies necessary for humanity to achieve any meaningful or significant exploration of space.

The Need for New Science

What will be required is a NEW science. A clearly different approach will have to be taken in order for there to be any real improvements in our propulsion technology. Simply regurgitating the same old tired and outdated technology will get humanity nowhere fast (if you will pardon the pun) with regard to the exploration of space.

This is a very important endeavor that humanity can ill-afford to ignore or be lackadaisical in our approach or attitude. It is literally, a matter of life or death for our civilization, for if humanity delays too long or fails altogether in this, we will become extinct just as so many other species on this planet have already. Even the dinosaurs, with all their strengths and marvelous evolutionary adaptations that allowed them to dominate this Earth for an amazing 160 million years couldn't stave off or change what was for them the inevitability of extinction. Biologist estimate that 99% of all species that have ever lived on this world have become extinct. That is a stark consideration that humanity should take very serious.

Extinction appears to be the nature of life for non-intelligent, non-self aware species, species who are incapable of evolving and developing technology, changing and controlling their environment, or even being aware of such possibilities, at least on this planet (because its the only example of life we have to make a comparison so far). But this inevitability doesn't have to be in humanity's future, or more accurately, the end of humanity's future. We have the tools, and the knowledge to use them, to prevent this from being our fate.

Granted we don't have any confirmed examples to substantiate either side of this circumstance. There are no known intelligent species that have gone extinct from lack of action any more than there are any examples of known intelligent species who avoided extinction by taking action. Yet, we can certainly use history as our basis for determining the possibilities and/or probabilities of such an outcome, and as stated above, history is replete with all the data we need showing what our future survival will be if we limit our existence of living only on this planet. Whether it takes the form of an asteroid or comet strike that levels the surface of the planet rendering it uninhabitable or the form of an incurable global pandemic resembling the viral scourge experienced by humanity in the year 2020, or be it in the form of one of a hundred other possible catastrophes that could befall the human race and extinguish humanity it seems a certainty judged by the evidence presented that if humanity fails in this endeavor it will surely spell the end of human existence forever.

Regardless of whether you believe that humanity is the sole, superior, divinely ordained, or the chosen representative of life on this planet or in the whole of the universe, or if you believe the universe is teeming with life of varying forms and species from multiple, uncountable worlds, the point is that life (all life) is very precious and sentient life may be even more unique and valuable and should be preserved at all costs.

And to that end, if humanity expects to continue on as a viable living species then we MUST extend our influence and presence beyond this world. And that can't and won't possibly ever happen if we persist with this dead-end trajectory we are on now with regard to our space exploration strategy (i.e. the use of chemical rockets in any form for propulsion into and through space). This is simply a losing strategy, no question.

The strategy we must adopt is very clear, simple, and straight forward, FASTER THAN LIGHT propulsion technology and/or wormholes (open singularities) or some other forms of yet unheard of technology capable of allowing humans to traverse huge distances of space instantaneously or at least in terms of hours or days. This technology could come in the form of single-point-energy, or riding gravitational waves or some other means or technology as-of-yet unknown to humanity. But regardless of what form this technology takes, it is imperative that we seize upon it as quickly as possible to ensure the continued survival of the human species and human civilization. We can not let ourselves be blinded by complacency or delusions of grandeur such as is the case that's occurring right now with this Space-X business. We should hold our celebrations and such for occasions and accomplishments worthy of our collective admiration and events that have strong significance to the purpose of fulfilling humanities dreams of the meaningful exploration of space and worlds beyond because that leads to the ultimate goal of the continued evolution of human society, hopefully to a higher level of existence, but also will lead us to the answers to many of our questions, and to the opening of many more questions, which is what gives humanity, and any sentient life in general, a purpose.

If Elon Musk is serious about making a historical footprint with regard to the meaningful & significant human exploration of space than perhaps he should use his vast resources to establish another 10, 50, or 100 million dollar phase of the X-Prize, this time with this expressed purpose of developing new science and technology (specifically propulsion technology) that will lead humanity to that end. By being the engine of advancement and innovation he would certainly, cement his legacy in human history as the man who made it all possible, but then again maybe not. Perhaps he isn't such a forward-thinking visionary after all, maybe this idea is just too far fetched, too pie-in-the-sky ish to even be of consideration, I don't know. But I can tell you what I know for certain – if Space-X continues doing what everybody else is doing (especially considering its common knowledge that its a failed strategy) then they will never do anything of importance, they will never be remembered for being that agent of innovation and they will never reach the level of historical significance that they could have achieved doing just this one simple thing, because without this new science and radical new propulsion technology as-well-as a number of other necessary advances (listed in a paper titled “13 Technologies an emerging species would need, to become an intergalactic space-faring race.” by Christopher K. Gibson) humanity will never reach its full potential as an advanced intellectual space-faring species/civilization.

The True Impact of the Minimum Wage on the Economy.

 

The True Impact of the Minimum Wage on the Economy

 

            You will never hear this from the liberal left because generally, they refuse to accept facts that do not fit their ideas or attitudes, but the truth is, you cannot argue with the facts and these are the facts. The minimum wage does not help the poor or middle class as the liberal left contends. It simply is not true. It does not increase their buying power or provide for an increased standard of living. As a matter of fact, it does the exact opposite. It causes a severe decrease in the buying power of the poor and middle class as well as a definite and substantial decrease in their standard of living. We can see the evidence every day in the declining affluence of the middle class in this country which started the very minute the Minimum Wage law went into effect.

 

            First implemented in 1938 by President Roosevelt (FDR), intending to “fix” something that was not even broken, for the stated purpose of ensuring that all workers, of all skill levels, could “earn a decent living” off their working wages. A very noble, if not somewhat naive sentiment (actually, it is a completely absurd and ineffective concept) meant to correct what is simply a natural, normal function of a capitalistic free-market economy.

 

            Implementation or increases of the minimum wage artificially inflates the overall wage scale, increasing costs to businesses and consumers in an inflationary way. In a free-market economy, such as ours (at least it is supposed to be), wages are a function of that market and controlled by factors inherent to that market such as the type of economy, population, level of skills and/or education of the workforce, supply & demand for goods & services, etc. Wages are driven by market conditions which are, or at least should be, unencumbered by gross legislative overreach and iron-fisted legal constraints.

 

            Increasing the minimum wage for low income wage earners cause the employers of those workers to have to increase prices of their goods & services to cover those increased payroll costs. Why do you think so many jobs have left the US? Because of the increased costs to the employee and employer are not in the form of a one-dollar employee pay increase to one-dollar employer payroll increase ratio. The increase in pay results in an additional increase to the employer above the salary increase in the form of higher government-mandated payroll taxes and higher benefits expenses and the employee experience a cost of living increase that is in excess of their wage increase. Therefore, the increased cost to the employer is more than just the increase of the wage, and the increased cost of goods & services experienced by the employee are not covered by the employee’s minimum wage rate and/or hike.

 

            Also, now that the prices have increased for the cost of those goods & services rendered to the buying public, customers (other persons and businesses) that utilize those goods & services, those customers/businesses have increased expenses themselves as a result of the higher prices and they too will increase their prices as well, but here again, this is not a dollar-for-dollar increase because of increased taxes and other metrics. This situation also gives justification to tradesmen and professionals to increase their salaries to make up for their diminished buying power due to the increased cost of goods and services. This means an overall increase in expenses & costs across the entire economy. So even high wage earners experience a negative impact in their buying power and standard of living due to increases in the cost of living that has now rippled through the entire economic spectrum. And they will compensate for that with increases in their wages and/or salaries.

 

            This wage increase also raises the employee into a higher tax bracket, so that they are now paying a higher percentage of their wages to the government in the form of their government mandated employee tax contributions and higher sales taxes (due to increased costs of goods & services). This is a great deal for the government but not so much so for the employee, the employer, or consumers in general.

 

            A $0.25/hr. increase in the minimum wage will result in an increase of only $10.00/wk. in the gross pay for a full-time employee. If we apply the employee portion payroll deductions (Federal Tax – 10.0%, Social Security – 4.2%, Medicare (FICA) – 1.45%) to this, we see that the minimum wage earners take-home pay went up by only $8.44/wk./$0.25 increase in the wage. Now, remember, that is for every quarter dollar increase in the minimum wage. In other words, if you increase the minimum wage by $1.00 then the take-home pay of the low-income wage earner increases by only $33.76/wk. However, the overall impact on the economy in general, and the low-income wage earner in specific is far more profound.

Here is why.

 

            Let us look at the employer’s side of this issue. Suppose the employer is now paying an additional $3.25/hr. to each worker in their employ and with that additional pay the employer is also required to cover any increase in their government-mandated payroll taxes as well (see table below). It looks something like this: Social Security TAX (6.2%), Medicare TAX (1.45%), Federal Unemployment TAX (FUTA) (6.0%). Now, remember these are taxes paid by an employer and are not deducted from the employee’s pay. These are DIRECT BUSINESS TAXES ONLY PAID BY THE BUSINESS. The same would also apply to state taxes as well. For example, State Unemployment Taxes and Workman’s Compensation are calculated based on gross payroll, the greater the payroll – the more the business pays in State Unemployment Taxes & Worker’s Compensation rates, so the employer would experience additional expenditures from these as well. Anyone who believes that a business (any business) can or will just absorb these increases in expenses really does not understand how business and the economy work. It is completely naive to think that the impact on businesses or the economy is negligible or insignificant or even positive in any way, shape, or form. Look at it like this, if you break down the numbers to a more manageable form it becomes truly clear what is happening.

 

            So, let us compare the employer ends of this issue side-by-side.

Table 1 - Standard 40-hour workweek pay checks.

Before Minimum Wage Increase (MW = $7.25) ($ 290.00/wk gross)				After Minimum Wage Increase (MW=$10.50) ($ 420.00/wk gross)
FICA (6.2%)	Medicare (1.45%)	FUTA (6.0%)		FICA (6.2%)	Medicare (1.45%)		FUTA (6.0%)
$ 17.98	$ 4.21	$ 17.40		$ 26.04	$ 6.09	$ 25.20
				+ $ 8.06	+ $ 1.88	+ $ 7.80
	TOTAL	$ 39.59			TOTAL	$ 57.33
						+ $ 17.74
		That is a 45% increase in the employer’s Federal payroll tax burden/employee.
	SUT (0.01 %)[1]	ST. WC ($ 5.06/$ 100.00 in payroll)[2]			SUT  2.75%)[3]	ST. WC ($ 5.06/$ 100.00 in payroll)
	$ 2.90	$ 14.67			$ 11.55	$ 21.25
					+ $8.65	+ $ 6.58
	TOTAL	$ 17.57			TOTAL	$ 32.80
						+$ 15.23
		That is an 87% increase in the employer’s State payroll tax burden/employee.
	INCREASE	IN SALARY		IN FEDERAL TAXES	IN STATE TAXES
INCREASE	TO EMPLOYER	$ 130.00		$ 17.74	$ 32.80	$180.54
		That is a 52% overall increase in the employer’s payroll burden/employee.

 

 

GOVERNMENT MANDATED PAYROLL TAXES PAID BY BUSINESSES ONLY

FICA – Social Security Tax

Medicare – Additional Social Security Tax

FUTA – Federal Unemployment Tax

SUT – State Unemployment Tax

ST. WC – State Workman Compensation Insurance

 

            As you can clearly see from the table above, this is NOT an insignificant burden placed on the employer and they certainly could not afford to just ignore it or absorb such a massive increase in their business operating expenses. This kind of expansion of expenses to employers will undoubtedly result in huge increases in the cost of goods and services to consumers (including those receiving the payroll increases) that will completely erode and exceed those worker’s gains in take-home pay. It should also be noted that there is not and could never be a situation where the increase in wages would be sufficient to overcome the increases in the cost of living…it is impossible. The numbers are impossible to argue with – these are facts, not opinions or high-brow idealistic mumbo-jumbo, just stone-cold hard facts.

 

FORBES magazine stated in an article dated 10/25/2018: “The nature of business is synonymous with risk.” Owning and/or running, or investing in a business is a risky endeavor, especially considering that over 50% of all new businesses fail within their first five years of opening. Businesses & business owners, as-well-as, stockholders & investors expect to make a profit, and rightfully so, otherwise why bother or take the risk? Therefore, the business will just pass on any increased costs to the market (“the market” means the consumer – for anybody who did not already know what that meant).

 

Absolutely, the government supports this kind of economic policy because the government is really the only true benefactor from this strategy. It moves both workers and businesses up into higher tax brackets or higher tax obligations, increasing workers' and businesses' tax burden. This means increased revenue for all government entities from the local level up to the federal level. From increased sales tax to local and state governments resulting from the increases in the cost of goods and services, as-well-as increases in state payroll taxes as the table above indicates, increases in the federal income taxes every working American pays, yes governments on all levels whole-heartedly support this policy and there is no reason why they would not (except, of course, for those individuals who understand and support what constitutes sound economic doctrine) and they possess the courage to follow that doctrine.

 

So, let us compare the employee ends of this issue side-by-side.

Table 2 - Standard 40-hour workweek pay checks.

Before Minimum Wage Increase (MW = $7.25) ($ 290.00/wk gross)				After Minimum Wage Increase (MW=$10.50) ($ 420.00/wk gross)
Federal Tax (10.0%)	FICA (4.2%)	Medicare (1.45%)		Federal Tax (10.0%)	FICA (4.2%)		Medicare (1.45%)
$ 29.00	$ 12.18	$ 4.21		$ 42.00	$ 17.64	$ 6.09
				+ $ 13.00	+ $ 5.46	+ $ 1.88
	TOTAL	$ 45.39			TOTAL	$ 65.73
						+ $ 20.34
		This is a 45% increase in the employee’s Federal payroll tax burden.
	State Tax (5.0 %)[4]				State Tax (5.0%)[5]
	$ 14.50				$ 21.00
					+ $ 6.50
	TOTAL	$ 14.50			TOTAL
						+$ 6.50
		This is a 45% increase in the employee’s State payroll tax burden.
	INCREASE	IN SALARY		IN FEDERAL TAXES	IN STATE TAXES
INCREASE	TO EMPLOYEE	$ 130.00		$ 20.34	$ 6.50	$103.16
		This is a 45% overall increase in the employee’s take-home pay.

 

 

Looking at the employee side of this equation is a little bit more complicated. The effects are far more diverse and far less defined. For example, it is difficult to gauge or measure the full impact the payroll cost increases will have on any and every business. Therefore, it is going to be harder to quantify this factor, profit margins are not typical across all industries.

 

However, as is evidently clear from a comparison of the two tables above, as table one, shows a 52% increase seen by businesses as a result of the mandated minimum wage increase and if only that increase alone were passed on directly to the consumer (which is rarely the case because by the time the mandated wage increase effects ripple completely through the economy it will show even more increases in the wage structure and cost to consumers) and if as seen in table two, the workers' take-home pay increase was only 45%, you do not have to be a mathematical wizard to see the negative 7% difference, which equates to a definite decrease in buying power that this situation has created. The result experienced by low-income workers and businesses is an artificial expansion of the economy and an overall significantly decreased standard of living (especially in the poor & middle-class communities).

 

Wages are a function of the market! When the government or labor unions artificially tamper with those market factors such are wages & benefits, they are damaging the economy not helping workers. The only way the government can better the situation of the common working under class is to better the business environment through increased competition, lower corporate tax rates, decreased government regulation & over-site, ease trade restrictions create policies that give individuals greater access to financial resources, lowering government spending (decreasing both the number & size of government programs & personnel) and implementing more incentives & protection, lowering the cost for innovation.

 

And the best thing labor unions can do is support their members by offering more opportunities for advanced education, training, & skills improvement, along with promoting an entrepreneurial attitude among its members to help them become business owners too, as-well-as monitoring and reporting safety & health issues of concern to their members, and working with (not against) local, state, & federal governments to do those thing listed above that actually, improve their member’s economic wellbeing.

 

Implementing or raising the minimum wage is a horrible idea - as proven above. A MINIMUM WAGE DOES NOT BETTER THE PLIGHT OF THE POOR OR LOW WAGE WORKING CLASS. PERIOD, NO MATTER HOW YOU WRAP OR PACKAGE IT. Having a minimum wage is the worst idea to address the problem of low working-class wages ever conceived.

 

Now I am not an economist, but you do not have to be one to understand how the economy and business work. All I have presented here is simple common-sense ideas & concepts and FACTS, and anybody who tries to say otherwise is simply ignorant or has some other (and most probably devious and self-serving) agenda.

 

Too many people today do not understand the way our economy works or the functions of government or of any other institution of society, for that matter, unfortunately, our school systems are only exacerbating the problem by refusing to teach civics in high school. But I will leave that discussion regarding our failed education system for another time, and guess what? It has nothing to do with funding either! What a surprise, huh? I will just leave it at that for the moment.

---

[1] Because this tax is calculated on a per payroll basis the lowest rate (for the State of Oklahoma) was used to calculate this figure.

[2] Because this tax is considered and structured as insurance, the rate used was an average of all the classification codes and then an average of those two low & high rate calculations (for the State of Oklahoma)

[3] Because this tax is calculated on a per payroll basis & there was an increase in the total payroll the highest rate was used to calculate this figure (again, for the State of Oklahoma).

[4] This tax is calculated on a single/no dependent rate the highest rate (for the State of Oklahoma) because those are the workers most likely to be working at minimum wage positions.

[5] This tax is calculated on a single/no dependent rate the highest rate (for the State of Oklahoma) because those are the workers most likely to be working at a minimum wage positions.