More Math and a little Deconstruction

Here's a few interesting numbers.

According to this article - we paid out 2 Trillion dollars in benefits.     Let's just see how that works out.

There are 318,600,0000 people in the US - we're adding 1 ever 12 seconds.

If you divide $2T by the population you get $6,277 - Anyone send you a check for 6 grand?

Okay - let's take a look at the "real" numbers From this article

We get a nice breakdown of that $2T bucks

So let's be fair about this - Social Security is - in theory (if not in practice) simply returning money people paid in over the years - yeah we all know it doesn't work that way but at least they paid something for it.  So let's leave that out.

Then there's the Veteran's benefits - Okay - those folks EARNED that so let's take that out too.

Everything else - Entitlement.

The numbers are approximate- some rounded up a tiny bit, others rounded down a tiny bit, for example when I say 144,400,000 it's really 144,393,150  so I'm not trying to hid anything here.

So subtracting out the "earned" benefits we have $1,271,658,000,000 yeah 1.3 TRILLION bucks

Divide by the total population and we get - $3,991 - anyone get one of those checks?  I didn't.

But wait - these are BENEFITS - in theory for "Poor" people, so let's do some more math.

There are 66,000,000 households* that fall equal to or under the "Average Family Income" of about $51,000 so we going to go all the way up to 55,000 - benefit of the doubt you know.   

Those 60,831 families have a total of 144,400,000 people  so  $1.272 Trillion divided by 144,400,000 is:

$19,267  PER PERSON 

I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if people were getting checks for $20K - Since I easily fall into that under $54K range - I know for a FACT I didn't get one.

Which brings up the obvious question - who did?   Must be folks making more than $55K a year - really We need to steal transfer wealth from people so we can  give it to people making more than $55K a year?  Really?

*this data is from Wiki and is 2011.  So it's probably a bit lower than than it should be, but not much.

Let's do some math

Figures vary depending on where you get them but since I found these at politifact - which has been accused of lefty leanings - well righty leanings too - so what the heck.

The average government employee compensation in  2009 averaged $123,049  that's full benefits.   The average Median individual income for people 25 and older is $32,140 (2005)   so maybe it's a bit higher today but probably not much- same with the government numbers.   

Now,  the average tax rate across all americans has been roughly 17% for a long time - sorry don't have the source right now, I'll keep looking.  But it's the reason people were talking about a 17% flat tax - because no matter what we seem to do with the tax rates, it always works out to about the same revenue / GDP.      So for arguments sake call it 17%

Great so 17% of $32,140 = $5,464

If we divide that government employee's compensation by $5,464 we get 22.5  - so it takes on AVERAGE 22.5 people to support each and every government employee.   Everything else the government spends money on - needs to be paid for by anyone left over.    Think about that for a bit.  Let it sink in.    Are we really getting 22 peoples worth of benefit from any government employee?  - maybe the military but probably not even all of them.  

Keep in mind these are averages- and the years don't match and ....  but it's approximate  call it roughly 20 to 1.  Ask yourself - are they worth it?  When was the last time they actually did something beneficial?  When you were happy to hear from them?

ASSUMING 20 to 1 (lower than calculated)

There are approximately 153,900,000 people in the labor force.  There are approximately 2,800,000 federal employees.   Yeah, that means we have 151,100,000 people paying taxes.   - Wait Government employees pay taxes - Seriously?   Pay them with WHAT?  Oh yeah - taxes - at best it's a figging discount.  That means it takes about 56 million people to Pay for the number of federal employees we have - wait can that be right?   That's like a third of the entire workforce... No, it's even more than a third...

Yes Martha - it's that bad.   It takes over 1/3 of the work force just to pay for the people that are making our lives more difficult.   Who's bright idea was this anyway?   - Oh yeah, government employees.

Hey I found the truck I want - let's go get it.

So DHS shows up with seven vehicles, takes the homeowner's Range Rover Defender.  This is absurd on so many levels.

They claim there's a problem with the VIN numbers.   Okay - since when does  a mismatch VIN become a Homeland Security Issue?    The local cops?  Sure.  The State Patrol? Okay - the FEDS?  not.   

My bet - some DHS asshat wanted a Defender and found one, figures he'll get it at auction cheap.

Fire them all and start over.

It appears that our government has allowed the following:

Chinese Steal Plans to our newest Joint Strike Fighter, PAC-3 and lots of other highly classified military projects.

But don't worry, cause we're trading partners and they would never use that stuff against us.   Really?  we're that friggen incompetent?   They've hack our Power Grid, they steal everything we produce.

We've filled our National Defense technology with Counterfeit Chinese parts.

So  just what the hell are the following groups actually doing with their time?

Pentagon / Military Intel, FBI, NSA, CIA, Trusted Defense Contractors.   Apparently either having Sex with Chinese honeypots or Spying on U.S. Citizens because, why the hell would we want to keep people out of our National Security infrastructure? We're worried about who might want us to actually not violate our Oaths of Office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".    We don't have time to worry about the Chinese, or Islam.  We gotta protect our jobs!

Fuck!  - Fire everyone and start over.   And when I say Fire - I'm pretty sure I mean Firing Squad.   At least charges for Dereliction of Duty, Violations of National Security, Gross Malfeasance, and if I knew more about the law I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen pages of things.  

From the FBI's own Priority List

National Security Priorities:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack    FAIL

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage  EPIC FAIL
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes  EPIC FAIL

Criminal Priorities

4. Combat public corruption at all levels  EPIC FAIL

5. Protect civil rights  EPIC FAIL

6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises 

7. Combat major white-collar crime  EPIC FAIL

8. Combat significant violent crime   

It's just possible

Well perhaps the AP and Fox News scandal finally hit close enough to home for the frigging Main Stream Liberal Media to see a slight glimmer of what the rest of us have been yelling about for the last 6 years.

I don't expect this to last.

Going public with what they've already been doing

Our Civil Masters finally made public what they've been doing for a while, even though they're still not admitting to having done it.  Privacy is dead, because a bunch of idiots have been brainwashed into thinking only the government can keep them safe.   Great, the wolves are in charge of the hen house, the sheep pen.

If you think the government is not out to make you a tool of the state, your not paying attention.

It's not really about that.

There are all sorts of proposals in the wake of EPS1 attack on Aurora.   There's one by Lautenberg and McCarthy that will supposedly make it harder for ciminals to anonymously purchase ammo on-line.   Bitter over at Shall Not Be Questioned has more info.

Normally I agree with those guys 99+%

This time I'm going to take exception; minor, but and exception.

It's not about Gun Control - it's about CONTROL.  They're not trying to control guns, or ammo, they're trying to control people.  That's what governments do - if you let them.   They eventually reach a point where they control every aspect of your life.   Every law is there as a means of controlling people.  If you control the people you win.  Granted it's a long term loosing proposition, but folks like Pelosi and Obama are incapable of seeing beyond they're own desires.  Hell most politicians are incapable of even realizing they're short sighted.

At times it seems like they do it because they think we're too stupid to make our own decisions. I've got to admit having elected Obama - they may have a point - a lot of people are apparently too stupid.  On the other hand, my internal Wookie says: "It's their life to screw up, we must allow them to make their own bad decisions."  Then the Objectivist voice in my head says - but they're inflicting their stupid decisions on me!

Sad but true - it's the way we let the system evolve.  The reality is worse I think.   They know if they tell the right lies, and scare people enough, the people will beg them to take control.  And they will, every chance we give them.  Doesn't matter if it's about Guns, or Finance, or Freedom of Speech.  They want to control it.

The laws aimed at guns are really just the most insidious of the lot, the ultimate goal is to remove our ability to defend ourselves, which makes us nothing more than another dependent of the system.

Of Course They're Our Friends

So  Pakistan tribal courts just found the doctor guilty of treason.   On the upside if he were tried in Pakistan federal court, the penalty is death - this way he's just completely screwed for helping the world rid itself of Osama.   What message does that send?

Let's see:

• No charges against anyone harboring Bin Laden.
• The guy who helps locate him gets convicted of treason.   

Yeah they're fully onboard with antiterror agenda.


I really want to just walk away from them and let them reap what they sew - sadly much like our own elections this country - when the idiots get what they deserve, we rational few get to reap it too.

I think it's time to apply my standing rule on foreign governments - you NEVER get what you pay for, so stop giving them money, and we'll just have to take our lumps.

Mixed Messages

From this and this we see that in a few places - some courts are starting to see the light.   But apparently not all the Police think it includes them.

Chances are - if you have a camera and your taking pictures of government buildings, or cops - your going to get harassed.   There are a lot of cops that still haven't gotten the message - or have chosen to ignore it.  

Part of the problem may be that our rights are being treated like gas prices - take away a bunch until we scream then give some of it back - rinse and repeat.   Get people used to losing some protection of the constitution a little bit at a time, until it's all gone.   Remember - they're doing it for our own safety.

I watch the wheel of state grinding away at us, making actions illegal,  that years ago wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.   We've become a government of bureaucrats, and nannies, who tell us You Can't while they do.   The government has been dismantling the constitution, attacking bit by bit, slowly grinding away.   Every crisis an excuse to crush it just a bit more.  We still have a mostly functional first amendment - so Speak now.  Speek now or forever hold your piece.

Dumb or Dumber

We're going to get one or the other.   Why? Well there's just not enough of us to elect Ron Paul (R) or Gary Johnson (L).  The GOP lackeys are going to Vote for who ever the RNC tells them to vote for - that'll be Mitt.  And the progressives will vote for BO.   Either way we'll get what they deserve for a government - possibly what we deserve for not beating the GOP into submission 30 years ago and turning them into the Small Government Party.   I suspect we failed not so much from a lack of trying (although there was a fair amount of that) but lack of foresight as to just how screwed up the GOP would become.  In my case it was an absolute refusal to vote anything but Libertarian - knowing full well I wasn't going to win - but I could sleep at night knowing I hadn't sold out to the GOP. 


Would Ron be better?  Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress.  Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created.  He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic.  But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around.   Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious).   Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible. 


Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign of National Democratic Socialist/Communist/NWO terror that Obama supporters seem to want (of course they're not going to much like what they get but they're convinced they want it and there's no changing their minds). 


I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons).   Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot.    I don't think the Tea Party trusts  Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up. 


I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term.   The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate.  My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want.   What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light.   Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt.  If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er. 


It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit.  Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight.   It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower.  Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.  

Occupy Confusion

This feels a little bit like putting my foot in my mouth - since I'm going to say some things that I might regret later. Oh well.

I keep thinking about the Occupy movement, trying to understand the message, the goal, the idea. I'm not a lot closer to getting it than I was when it started. - Actually, I understood the concept behind Occupy Wall Street just fine - it was the execution that was completely wrong. Since then it's gotten more confused and even less effective in delivering a message - well except perhaps - Lynch the 1%!

So far the Message seems to be:
Corporations are not People
Something about immigration
National Heath Care is broken
Rich people should pay more taxes
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
I just want to destroy stuff because.

Any sales trainer or marketing person will tell you, keep your message clear and simple. Apparently there are no marketing or sales people involved in the occupy movement. If there are other messages they're so lost in the noise I'm not seeing them.

So let's take a look at these messages one at a time.

Corporations are not People - True, they are a legal fiction that management hide behind so they can blame their actions on the Share Holders. I have more than a few problems with the legal fiction of the corporation. I understand the need to sell shares to capitalize, and the benefit to investing, that's the good side of a corporation. The bad side is the way they get used. The company builds a product they know is faulty, but they do it anyway because the potential profits outweigh the potential costs of lawsuits, and there is no personal liability - so why not. Small corporations operate in a fraudulent manner, file bankruptcy, fold up, and start over with a new name and the same criminal practices.

I much prefer the Limited Liability Partnership. At least in this case the major players are actually subject to the consequences of their actions.

If you look at companies like Exon, or JPMorgan, or BofA you can see the dark side of the corporation and they are far from the only examples. In the case of BofA it's so extreme I'm sort of surprised the asshats are still alive.

Something about immigration This has gotten way too emotional - if they are illegal - send them home. If they're not - then treat them as if they were citizens of the U.S.A. It's not that hard. Sure there are lots of ramifications. If you send the illegals home, it will have an impact of prices. If you don't send them home, you basically saying - It's OK to exploit them as cheap labor. If your saying make them all citizens, I'd ask who the hell is going to pay for it? And if you say - the government I'm going to smack you upside the head with a 2x4. California tried that - they're bankrupt.

National Heath Care is broken
Yep. Broken pretty much everywhere it's been tried, with the possible exception of Denmark, maybe Sweden - but I say that out of a profound ignorance, it might be just as bad there as say in England where it's going broke, and it takes months to have critical issues treated.

I have no idea how to fix this. Perhaps if our expectations weren't quite so high... A good portion of the problem lies with our legal system - which is broken beyond repair. Part of it is the sense of entitlement. I've yet to hear any solution that I think has a chance in hell of working.

- Well actually I have some vague notions that I need to think on - they probably won't work, but...

Rich people should pay more taxes
I think I'd like to revise this. How about a corporate business tax on salaries and bonuses (including stock or stock options) in excess of say, $500,000 a year. - Say a 1000% tax, be kind of hard to sell that $10,000,000 bonus to the shareholders wouldn't it :). If you own the company, or it's a limited partnership, no extra tax - because it's YOUR company, not the shareholders. (yeah that's my anti corporate economy thing showing itself - but I really do think the thing that ruins the free market is government intervention and creating a legal fiction like the corporation is definitely interference.)

Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
Blah Blah Blah - you want it - go work for it. Greed is a basic part of human nature - yeah it can be controlled, and if you believe in enlightened self interest, you probably do control it to a major extent. But that does not entitle anyone to the fruits of your labor. We had a word for people who's labor was exploited for the benefit of others - I think it was Slave.

I just want to destroy stuff because.
Classify them as looters and shoot them on sight. (Too harsh?)

Yes, I think the economy sucks, yes I think members of the 1% profited from creating the situation that made it possible. Yes I think the 1% profited again from their influence in government. No I don't think the changes made have been very effective, why would you expect them to be? It's not in the governments best interest to piss off their biggest donors - getting reelected (the only real concern of elected officials), is mostly a money thing, voters opinions are much to fickle and easy to change with sufficient funds.

So, one of the reasons I don't like the Occupy movement is the lack of a clear message, it seems to be a case of mass whining with no articulation. The other reason I don't like it is how they behave when they get together - it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a similarly sized group of baboons.

I think a more effective approach would be to focus on one company at a time, and have everyone purchase as many shares as possible - then go VOTE at the shareholders meetings. Vote for ethical behavior, reasonable salaries, Elect a board of directors with a conscience - then move on to the next company - sooner or later they'd get the idea. (Yeah I know, takes too long, too much dedication to principle, a clear goal.....)

- Posted from the pad

I'm confused

The "demonstration" in Seattle is reported to have a group of black clad anarchist  - which seems to be a fairly standard tactic for these demonstrations - same thing happened back in 99 WTO conference.

So here's where I'm confused,   The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1%  And yet they have Anarchists?   WTF?   These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).

Is it the media that's getting this wrong?   Apparently it's happened in Cleveland -  a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits?  I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal.   It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.

My definition of Terrorist?  A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run.    So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up.  I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.

Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda).   Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek   He was there and explains it better than I do.

Constitution - we don't need no stinking Constitution

At least that's what Obama seems to think - Warning the Supreme Court - no arrogance there...    Just absolute distain for the Constitution.

I knew they were idiots but ....

Lots of bloggers have been discussing the Trayvon incident, naturally most of the pro-gun blogs have been cautious about being over critical of Zimmerman, other than perhaps tactically since NO ONE actually knows what happened, except maybe Zimmerman (and he probably doesn't remember it all correctly either).   


So now we have an elected Idiot donning the Hoodie in congress.   Here's one who's obviously made up his mind that facts are unimportant - it's the CAUSE.  
 (from the article)

Afterward, Rush told CNN he was wearing a tie, suggesting he was appropriately dressed for the House floor. He said the purpose of putting on the hoodie was to send a message to young people, "to stand their ground, stand up and don't stand down."

As for violating the House rule on wearing hats, Rush pointed to his hooded shirt and argued, "this is not a hat, this is a hoodie."

"I don't mind being out of order if it means standing up for truth and justice," Rush said.

Is he really just a big fan of the hoodie fashion, or is it that he think's it's great that there is so much public hate being generated over this.    What "truth and justice" are we talking about here?  Did Trayvon deserve what he got?  How the hell do I know I wasn't there - sadly that seems to be confusing the issue with fact.    The issue is apparently racial profiling?

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, told House members, "racial profiling has to stop."

What profiling would that be?   Since when is what a private citizen does considered profiling?  Could it have been racist - sure, but where's the evidence - you know that pesky proof stuff?

Fine, wearing a hoodie doesn't make you a criminal, only committing a crime does that.  On the other hand, the hoodie has become yet another symbol of gangsta worship.   Sure - it's style but why is it a style.   If you believe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - you have to ask: who are you imitating, and why?

Do they realize that they've made it virtually impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trail (assuming it comes to that) considering he's been convicted in the media and apparently now in Congress? 

Why not a Libertarian?

There's a pretty good discussion over at Sebastians about why we don't see a good Libertarian running.

Part of the problem is that the Libertarians spend too much time worrying about just how rigidly the doctrine should be followed (and which version of it for that matter).   So they don't want to vote for someone who's only 80% - which leaves them stuck with someone who's generally between 0% and 40% of what they want.  

The other problem, as I see it, is that by nature, libertarians don't feel the need to tell others how to run their lives.  Since government has become a tool for doing exactly that - it's sort of repulsive to even thinking about participating - even if the goal is to make it stop (or at least reduce the onslaught).

I was waxing poetic at the gun shop the other day and one of the fellows said he'd vote for me if I ran - now I don't for a minute think I'm really qualified to run, but then I don't think any of the other bozo's are either.   Anyway my immediate reactions was "No way, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job."   It has sense occurred to me that perhaps that reaction is fairly common amongst the choir.   I've all but given up calling myself a Libertarian, I used to think of myself as a conservative but I'm not - at least by todays definition (as loose as that is).

So I'm thinking what I really am is a Contitutionalist

The Corporate Market

We often talk of the free market - and people are either pro capitalism or against it.   The trouble is - we've never had a free market.

What I want is the "Perfect Market" as defined by economists - this is a market where the consumer has available all the information needed to make an informed decision, combined with the "Free Market".

What we seem to have now is the Corporate Market.   In the corporate market, corporations determine what information the consumer should have.   Take for example the Dolphin Safe Tuna labels.   We spent years and years trying to get this into place, when it finally happened, people voted with their wallets, eventually you didn't see any tuna with out that little certification.

Conservationists worked to create the Forest Stewardship Council, which certifies organizations which in turn certify wood products as coming from sustainable practices.     In some cases this wood is more expensive, but when it is - it's usually not by much.   When I'm buying wood, I try to get FSC wood, I don't always succeed but I try, because it's worth the extra cost and effort TO ME, to buy wood that is harvested in a sustainable manner.  

Choice - Give me the Information and let me CHOOSE.

Which leads us to this little gem.    Apparently some of our - what regulators? have decided that the WTO trumps the U.S. Congress .. you know the Idiots that Appointed the Regulators (which is a whole other topic).   Last time I check'd we got to decide our own laws, and could specify what was legally required on labels.   Tell the WTO to go pound sand.   To misquote and slightly paraphrase John BigBoote "It's not your goddamned country. Understand monkey boy!"*

I have issues with Giant corporations and the effect they have on what is already a screwed up and decidedly not "free" market.     The Perfect Market could probably handle giant corporations, because you'd know where it came from, which devision of what subsidiary of what corporation of what conglomerate the product came from and if you didn't like which politicians they were buying - you could vote with your wallet.   But they don't want you to know that kind of stuff.   So misinformation or no information is what they're after.   Besides what could you possibly want to know that you can't get from a 30 second commercial, written by and ad agency, who works for a marketing department that avoids talking to their engineering department as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong- I'm all in favor of business, I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money (I often wish that someone where me).   Where I have a problem is with the lies of commission and omission.  I have no problem with the rich - when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?   But I DO have a problem with them getting their money by misrepresenting the products they offer.

*From The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzi.  - The actual quote I believe was "It's not my god damned planet.  Understand monkey boy."  - but in this case it is my god damn planet, and my god damn country so...

Foreign Aid

I can't seem to find the spot in the constitution that says - tax the people and give the money to foreign governments.   Maybe because that wasn't part of the plan?  (Of course I could have just missed it).

I think given the right conditions, foreign aid fits nicely into the framework of Enlightened Self Interest (ESI).    Getting other countries to the point where they can feed them selves is good for us.  Exporting food leads to things like GMO's and non-sustainable monoculture farming.   We should be striving to get beyond that (forward into the past)  and grow food where it will be eaten for the most part.  I've got no issue with import and export of luxury crops but the basics like fruits, vegetables, and grains have to be covered locally.    Getting foreign countries (third world) clean water, sanitation, and medical helps us.   One of the biggest threats we face is disease - superbugs and pandemic,  doing things that reduce the likelihood of that happing, or being able to contain it at the source would be very beneficial.   Given that, the list of types of aid I'd like to see us involved in are geared toward making the world healthier, smarter, more sustainable, and more stable.

What I'd like to do with foreign aid is this:

Give aid to countries with the clear understanding that there are strings attached - and be really specific about what those are.   For example,  If we give you money, or arms, or food, or well - anything, then we get X amount of real estate for our use.   It's ours, it's not on loan to us, you don't get to tell us to go home - you have ceded that real estate to the U.S.A. to be used as we see fit.    If that's not agreeable - that's OK we'll keep our money, you keep your property, have a nice day.   Oh and since the world is so massively overpopulated - we only give aid to countries that establish and maintain a strict zero-population-growth system.   For over crowded countries like India, if they manage to get a voluntary negative growth rate, I'm all in favor up giving them a bonus.

All other foreign aid should be NGO.   I'm all in favor of NGO aid.   There's one general rule and only certain types of aid are allowed.   Note - missionary work of a religious nature is not considered foreign aid - it's considered missionary work and as such is outside the scope of government regulation.   Attempting to use missionaries to do other than teach religion, reading, writing, arithmetic, and the english language is stepping into the NGO role and will be treated as such.  

THE RULE:  You may not create an external dependency - anything you do has to be sustainable within the culture and economy.  If they can't sustain it when the aid disappears, you haven't given them AID, you've made it worse.

1.  Clean Water - Wells, filtration systems, irrigation.
2.  Hygiene - Septic systems, sewer treatment, etc
3.  Medical  - Clinics, supplies, personelle, training.
4.  Food -  Seeds for native crops or any crops currently being grown.  Any other seed must be cleared by council of botanists (or what ever) from universities of not less that 15 countries including any adjacent to the country in question - the goal is to avoid introducing invasive species that will adversely affect the existing ecology.  Training, Labor.  NO GMO seeds, NO fertilizers, No pesticides.  Farm equipment only if the economy currently supports the ability to manufacture.
5.  Education - Teaching basics reading, writing, math, music, history, economics, the sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.   Vocational skills.   Teacher training.  No religion, keep it separate and with the missions.
5.  Power - any power source must include ability to produce their own parts and maintain any established system, on their own, with their own existing raw materials.   If they can't build it when you leave with out importing - you can't  use it.    Types of power allowed
Wind, GeoThermal, Solar Steam, Hydroelectric.  No fossile fuel systems.

I'd want to think this through some more, there are I think issues having to do with corruption that need to be addressed, as well as security.

But that's the general outline.

What's the difference between a Republican and Democrat

The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is how they buy their votes.   Republicans lie to the wealthy, Democrats lie to the poor.

If you vote for either one and expect change - you are:
A.   Not Paying Attention
B.   Deluded
C.   Both A&B

Blaming the president for everything that goes wrong makes about as much sense as giving him credit for everything that goes right - and yet, that's what we do, over and over.

Sadly, I think the only way to fix the system (without a revolution) is to use a grass roots effort to elect individual Senators and members of Congress who understand they get one term to accomplish one simple task - Term Limits.   If they get that done, the next group get to accomplish the next simple task - All members of government at all levels get the SAME Benefits package as a private citizen; same medical, same retirement, same everything.   Exception to Military -They get a pension, education, hopefully improved medical - at least on par with what Senators get now.   No I never served in the armed forces - enlisting for Vietnam did not strike me as a wise move in 1975, and my brother who did accept a commission in the Air Force recommended that I try to avoid it all together.   I did serve as an EMT and volunteer fireman about 6 years - so I'm not a total slacker.

Now if I got to choose the limits on term limits - you'd get one.  Period, full stop, ONE.   You want to be Governor - fine one term, then back to civilian status for you - want to be President? Fine - no Senate in your future.   (Yeah I know - it'll never fly)

What else would I change?

If you have attended law school or taken (passed or otherwise) the Bar in any State, Territory, or District of the U.S. you may not run for a public office that has a responsibility for the creation of laws - Conflict of Interest.

Only one item to a Bill or Resolution - no 500 pork addendum's.   No crap to obfuscate the purpose of the law.

Miss 2 votes with out a medical or family emergency and you become ineligible for your second term (assuming we have two terms).   If your on your final term, you start losing pay.   Miss more than two and we deduct 10% for each vote missed.

If you are ever found to have voted for a bill or resolution with out reading it - you will be charged with Malfeasance of Duty and sent to prison.   (OK I have no idea how to enforce that but I still like the idea).

I've got more - oh so much more but that would be a start.   No more old boys club, no more carrear politicians, no more double standard of them and everyone else.

A Step Too Far

Was reading the SHTF blog and found this: http://www.shtfblog.com/are-we-living-in-a-police-state/

I'd put this pretty low on the probability list - somewhere between house fire, and Yellowstone erupting (that's where where between .004% and .00008%  and yet, I'm dreading the day I'm going to kill some cop who got sent to the wrong damn address, and if I were still alive I'd be feeling bad for the other cop who killed me - which is probably what would happen on a forced entry.    I need to think about more remote warning devices....

I'm not sure I understand why they do forced entry on homes (other than hostage situations) - be much safer to turn off the water and wait for the people to come out - they will sooner or later.