Roger Clemens, Bud Selig and the U.S. Gov walk into a bar

I would like to congratulate Roger Clemens for the success he has had in his trial vs. the U.S. Congress.  They say you can't fight Taminey Hall...He has, and he won.

This is not an open admission for my support of the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports.  More-or-less this is a resounding, What the hell does the U.S. Congress have to do with Major League Baseball. By extension, if he in fact lied to the panel, I applaud his effort.  As someone who is completely enamored with politics, I would like to comment with haste that the individuals involved in the questioning had a high probability for un-truthiness.  Therefore, I am glad that he may have returned the favor.

In comparison, Jamie Dimon's JP Morgan Chase just lost an estimated $7 billion.  The house gave him a rough time of it, the senate held his hand, and in the end he finances a good chuck of these election funds.  Yet somehow in the midst of the entire financial collapse, it was important enough to spend over a million to question a baseball player on steroid use.

Compare even further, look at any NFL linebacker and ask yourself if that size is natural.  Hell, look at most positions within the sport and ask yourself the same question.

What is with politicians and "sanctity."  Whether it be marriage or sport, what is it the job of elected officials to decide what is accepted or not.  If the law isn't on the books, shut up and move on.  Performance enhancing drugs, and the regulations controlling them, are up to the discretion of the heads of the particular sporting leagues.  In this case, Bud Selig gets the final word and that's that.  As Mr. Vilma found out, he who controls the sport makes the rules.  All sport is bigger than the players, but most certainly not above common law.  As long as no one in sport breaks common law, then why should there be any legal recourse.

Though, don't ask David Nalbandian about that...

I'm sick of political motivations for immigration enforcement

The definition of legal or illegal has no bearing on the context contained within the immigration argument. Well, as far as I am concerned.  I imagine nations of tribes would have declared us illegal, but seeing as though they don't believe in land ownership, that renders that point moot. 

The areas where "illegal" immigration is most prevalent are areas that have always been majority Spanish/Mexican, which in our "divine authority" ( or our desire to protect ourselves via natural borders from the Spanish during the 19th century ) we saw fit to swindle and make war to obtain. "Illegal" is used to such political gain these days it's discomforting. 

I'm as staunch a patriot as there can be, and will allow the certain actions of my forefathers to stay in the past. However, to go on a political tirade about the injustices of "illegal" immigrants is to dismiss it altogether. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing its the just right of all proper Americans to duly respect the history of this country, and by decrying "illegal" your disrespecting the hardships  the natural born citizens of this land had to endure.  Love it or hate it, is a part of this nation's history.

In 2012 I fully support the removal of undocumented workers. the basis for this comes from human rights as non-citizen workers are not protected by the same workplace quality standards as standard citizen workplaces.  

I recognize the present dangers of un-checked borders. I also respect the fact that someone who is born here, is as much a citizen as my namesake fore bearers at their time of birth. The naturalization process is a joke and needs to be updated, but you don't need to police little kids around. When did we become an authoritarian state? 

All these political buffoons take great pride to go about great lengths in making us all sound like idiots. I'm sick of the lot of em. Human rights are rights blessed upon us at birth and I'm damn sick of some political motive tiptoeing its way around that in order to satisfy some extremest view. It's amazing to sit on top of the hill looking down, but i imagine if everyone would have the same views if they had to walk a mile in someone's shoes.

A discourse on tax rates, the wealthy, the 1% and everything else relating

Another FBook discourse gone awry.  Notably, on the importance of distinguishing "fair-share," who should pay what in taxes, what taxes go where and my response to those who would outright attack the rich.  It's hilarious how I come to the defense of the tax rate system and how we generate revenue.  I always land on the side of the group I'm not even part of, because this whole "Hey they have money so they should be paying more taxes" argument is so disgusting.  As a personal disclaimer: I came from very little. I worked hard to get where I'm at and I am proud of my accomplishments. For your pleasure...(Oh so that I don't break anyone's privacy rules, it's just my entries paraphrased)

Everyone gets tax breaks, from the poorest to the richest...

It is the income paradigm. Those who don't have, covet and want to have. Those who do have, will do what it takes to protect it. Just because you're poor, does not mean that someone who is rich owes you anything. Just because you are rich, does not mean you owe anyone anything. If it is unfair that the top income earners find tax loopholes, than it is equally unfair that the lowest income earners pay no income tax while a privileged minority pay the lion's share.

In the case of the ultra-rich, they don't pay less taxes, they pay a smaller rate as a common fallacy in these widespread arguments is that they somehow pay less. For the 20K in taxes that the common person pays per year some "rich" person pays 200K. Imagine if you were making 600,000 per year and the government, by force, took 200,000. That's 1/3, precisely the 30% rate they would like all those in that tax bracket paying. To me that's insane. If I made that money I would do my best to hide whatever income I could. Outside of hiding the money in offshore accounts what is equally forgotten is that the tax rate that everyone quotes, is the tax rate on investment dividends. This 15% rate is double-taxation, as the income that the dividends is based off of is already taxed to the business that generated it. Double taxation is against the law, yet somehow this is allowed to occur. In order to get rid of it altogether, they propose increasing the top rate for income earners to 28-32% of total income in order to enforce "fair share". While I totally agree that the freedoms and benefits that we enjoy require sacrifice, I also feel that forcing someone to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes makes me ill. Even for those who are lucky to consider themselves millionaires, 30% on $1M is 300K. I would shoot someone if they tried to take 300K from me.

People take what people give for granted. Tax based subsidies are forced by law, they aren't charitable handouts, yet people who are charitable find it in their hearts to give. Those less charitable are forced by law to give. If people are willing to pull themselves up, more power to them. If people go about the actions that will continue to keep them in poverty, then why should they be supported by law? By posting anti-money, you're basing arguments on those who find ways to make money, just as I am lambasting on those who wish to take it form me by force. I worked two crap jobs my whole life to eventually put myself through school. It can be done, without demanding more from anyone else.

What we feel comfortable paying in taxes, one way or another, is all perspective opinion. Besides, no one making $30K will ever know what a 30% tax rate feels like. They are incrementally taxed at the 15% rate (rough estimate, but it's not far off at all), and receive most of that back at the end of the year. This results in a net income tax rate of somewhere in the single digits. Those who have more, do pay more; much, much more. The top 1% (as is the popular reference with the kids these days) may pay particular rates on some of their income that, at times, is lower than the rates most pay on their income. However, they also account for over 40% of all the tax revenue generated. This is where it gets tricky...

Asking this limited group to pay more of that share will also place them in a position of leverage over the same services that you so pleasantly described. No one wants to talk about that, but it's true all the same. If the revenue I provided to the country was responsible for anywhere near a controlling share of that country's services, I'd want a say in how they are run. This leads me to my second point on the matter... (Although it's just an extension of this thought, and in no way contradictory to what you are saying)

Those who earn more money do not use a substantially high percentage of the services you describe. In fact, proportionally, they use quite a bit less, while providing 40% of the funding for those services. Rich folk don't cause more fires, drive on snowier roads, use public schools, more police, cause more fires..etc. They money they pay in taxes allows for those who don't pay any money at all to enjoy the services, at an exponentially higher rate. As for scientific research, this may be the only facet of the discussion where pay in equal pay out for those that do the paying. Again I will reference the controlling stake issue as well within this context of this paragraph. I imagine that most would assume that if they had a hand in paying over 50% for any particular service, they would want a say in how it's run. This applies to everything from government down. Especially so in government, where you see it in action currently...SuperPAC anyone?

Thanks for reading!