Blog type: politics on taxation  Humor: 1 out of 10

If you don’t understand much about taxes or our economy, this will help you understand a fundamental difference between conservative and liberal stances on both.  I will save most political rhetoric for another blog, because I want you guys to understand how different tax rates effect the economy at large and the philosophy has a lot to do with Vegas.  The problem is that everything in Vegas stays in Vegas, while their version of “taxation” on the people that go to Vegas should be extrapolated to our federal tax system.

I believe that logic points to the fact that we need a president to fix the budget, above ALL ELSE, or we won’t have money to keep the roads fixed, let alone pay social security and everything else. We are broke and that has to be fixed NOW.  Ask any family what gets cut when the family income drops.  You start by cutting all the “disposable income” items (the fun stuff), like going out to eat and the movies.  Then, you keep cutting if you have to.  If it gets bad enough, you cut all the way down to feeding your family, because food is the most important thing of all, even above shelter.  See Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  In simple terms, this is where we are as a country.  We are at our borrowing limit to continue our “lifestyle”.  It is time to cut, and cut deep.  But, you and I both know, that neither party is very good at making cuts.  This often creates political enemies and loses votes no matter what gets cut.  We always say we want a tough candidate that is brave enough to cut.  That is, of course, until he cuts funding for something we like (cue the political opposition to make it extremely difficult to cut anything at all).  Assuming that no politician will be able to cut enough to balance our budget, the only other method is to increase revenue.  Without getting into how dumb it is to tax the rich more than they are already taxed (see an upcoming blog), I will explain a simple theory that will increase the federal coffers without killing all of us in a tax hike.

They bash Romney because his plan counts on a recovering economy. They ask how he will “pay” for govt programs if he is cutting taxes. Obama says it is impossible to cut taxes and lower the deficit (simple math, right?). He is DEAD wrong. Yes, it sounds like magic to increase income without increasing taxes, but it can happen.  In fact, it is one of the basis behind Reaganomics.  The problem is, or so I’ve read, that it takes longer than a couple of presidential terms to see an effective outcome.  Here’s where Vegas comes in.

Vegas increases revenue every day while actually DECREASING its “taxes” (the percentage of average income it takes in on every bet made).  Vegas was built on the very principle that if you set the odds up to take a very small percentage of someone’s money that they barely notice and tend to keep circulating their money (thus providing many “small percentages” that add up to big revenue).  We all know that we are at a disadvantage, but we still choose to gamble.  I believe that Vegas exhibits roughly the same economic principles as our tax system, but they profit and we go broke. Let me break it down for you in an explanation of slot machines.

If you have ever been to the slot machine section in any casino in vegas, you will see that they compete with each other based on how much of your dollar they give back in winnings. (98% return, 99% return) For example a 99% return machine gives 99 cents back for every dollar put in. At first glance you would think they will never make money. But, take that penny they made from every dollar put into those machines in a day and you get thousands of dollars. Consider this: if they advertised a 30% return, would you put your dollar in?  I doubt it.  Fundamentally, this idea is what sets republicans and democrats apart on the matter of taxes.  Democrats ignore this philosophy, choosing to believe that increasing overall taxes (whether by increasing taxes on the rich or otherwise) is the only way to increase total revenue.  And, they are right….to a point.  We, as a population, do not get the choice NOT to play the federal government’s “30% return” slot machine.  But, we definitely get discouraged by it.  In fact, many business deals hinge on taxation.  On a personal note, how bad the local property tax is has a big determining factor on whether or not I would put a self storage facility in that town.  The discouragement that builds manifests itself in a slower economy (less dollars put in the slot machine).  This means that taxes have to keep going up in percentage to keep bringing in the money the government needs to keep funding its budget.  Simply put, if they lowered the percentage extremely low, people would spend their money much more often and the government would get a small percentage every time money changes hands.  The total amount they take in would be much larger due to the fact that money circulates many more times when consumer confidence is up than when it is down.  I personally believe that if Vegas took a huge percentage every time you placed a bet, they would quickly end up in the same boat as our federal economy and the lights would start to dim on the sunset strip.

To put it another way, if the taxes are very low, all of us will spend more money (and not just because we have more money to spend). And, the govt gets a piece every time money changes hands.  Yes, Democrats, the govt. gets a little less, but they get a little less of a hell of a lot of transactions. This will cause the govt to make less money for a while until the economy rebounds and then we reap the rewards. This is a major difference in opinion between the two candidates. That alone is enough for Romney to get my vote. Do I agree with Republicans on abortion, religion, and most of their social policies NO (and DEFINITELY not with Romney’s religion as I believe Mormonism to be a perversion of Christianity and places their founder above Christ which is blasphomy). But, I am more concerned about our fiscal well being as should we all be.  Because, if we default on our loans, there will be NO money to fund all the programs that mean so much to all of us.

Straight Cowboys for Gay Marriage

WARNING:  If you are not completely open minded, this will offend you. I find this extremely funny, but many will not.

I am a Cowboy.  Ok, I don’t ride, rope, own a horse, palpate cows, or anything of the sort.  I guess I should say I look like a Cowboy.  I did have a 3 year, injury laden, very unsuccessful bull riding career, but that doesn’t qualify me.  I was raised with Cowboy-like morals and a code of ethics.  I do believe that real Cowboys don’t much exist anymore as beef operations are starting to squeeze out the little guy and the profit is decreasing to the point of pushing Cowboys to a different career.  But, this is all info for another blog.  This blog focuses on gay marriage and my opinion there in.  No one I have met would believe that a Cowboy approves of gay marriage.  They assume that we would physically abuse a gay man if we could find one.  Our gaydar is non existent.  Our mannerisms are usually rough and lacking in open mindedness.  Furthermore, no one would believe that a staunch Republican like myself could ever be in favor of gay marriage, or women’s right to choose, or any other socially volatile subject.  I would like to juxtapose the stereotype I get accused of against an argument FOR gay marriage (which is MY argument) while intertwining them for humor’s sake.  Hold on to your hats; here we go:

I’ve never witnessed a fag suck another but pirate’s woman poker.  I don’t want to.  I’ve never been invited to.  I’ve never seen Brokeback Mountain and am embarrassed that GW did.  To comprehend the idea that a Cowboy would become a pillow biter is beyond my ability to reason.  I did however, get accosted by a turd burglar at a country bar when I was in college.  He would not quit blatantly hitting on me (to the point of offering to do what only a woman could do to turn me on).  I gave him several warnings.  I wanted to be open minded and figured the only way to achieve this was to act like a Lady would if a man were pushing too far.  After not picking up my hints, I out right told the queer to leave me alone.  He did not.  I brought a bouncer with me to witness me inform him that if he reached for my junk one more time, I would surgically convert him into a woman for no charge.  No, I am no skilled surgeon, but I do carry a pocket knife, have gutted a variety of animals, and did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.  This did not phase the pole smoking circle jerker but it did inform the bouncer and give him the motivation necessary to keep the elephant walker away from me.  That night, I realized I had no gaydar and would have to be more “on the lookout” to keep from being a target.  Luckily for my freedom and for the gay population at large, I have never been hit on since.

Fast forward to today’s world.  Pitcher wants to marry catcher.  Catcher wants to marry pitcher.  Every Republican and religious zealot wants to stop it.  I can’t comprehend it and have yet to hear any of them make a VALID point as to why they are against the union and work so hard to see it not built into our legal system.  I think it may stem from the fact that most don’t believe it’s genetic.  I think common sense says that it is.  I mean who on earth would choose to be ridiculed and quite possibly beaten to death for their sexual preferences.  I don’t even think masochists would be willing to go that far.  Talk to any child in school that has been a victim of bullying and you will find a child willing to do ANYTHING to make it stop (including suicide on some occasions).  This alone leads me to theorize that it must be built into the typical homo/lesbo genetic code.  The stereotype that colon divers desire to do so out of choice is as incorrect as the notion that all Jews are good with money and wish to dominate the world through a series of international banking takeovers.  Okay, maybe I should use a simile that is less accurate.

As an aside, I don’t believe any law should exist unless the act outlawed affects another human being in a way that would infringe upon their freedoms.  Basically, if it doesn’t hurt anyone, it shouldn’t be illegal.  Religious nuts would disagree, but have no logical proof to back up why they disagree.  Stating it bluntly, if two adult consenting peter-puffers want to trade feces via body parts, they should be allowed to do so to their limp wristed heart’s desire.  Who am I to judge?  I mean, come on, religious right, it’s not like they’re kicking down your door and trading semen in your living room in front of your kids.  This does bring up another point, though.  I don’t believe semen monkeys should be allowed to make out in public because it infringes on my right to enjoy the scenery.  But, I don’t think ANYONE should be allowed to make out in public.  Hell, I’m not even comfortable in front of animals doing it, unless, of course, I am in the privacy of my own home and have the internet cranked up.  And, the internet is really where porn of any type belongs.  I enjoy watching the occasional bad acting of a porno movie, but I don’t want to witness it while I’m going grocery shopping.

Giving ass bandits a right to marry hurts no one, and based on my above theory, should not be against the law.  If two want to wear a ring, adopt a child, take out life insurance on each other, execute each other’s will, be entitled to death benefits, or gag each other with their reproductive parts legally, I have absolutely no problem with it.  This just means more than two more fruitcakes at the Christmas office party will be legally going steady.  Of course, I still will not want to eat any of the three.

In fact, I would go so far as to say I believe that not allowing gay marriage to be legal is as discriminatory as not allowing niggers to vote.  See my next blog entitled, “Cowboys and Niggers – A Love Hate Relationship”.  I mean, at one time, women weren’t allowed to vote either and now-a-days, it is difficult to imagine a time when baby makers were considered not worthy enough to express their opinion.

Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing chutney ferret marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages….. Wow, where do I start to dissect this imbecilic statement?  Alter the definition?  Ok, call it something else and repeat the same marriage laws with the term “pillow biting butt pirate union” in place of the word marriage.  How will it weaken the “institution of marriage” and how is said institution being threatened?  I can’t even figure out what the hell they are trying to say here so I have no way to refute their point.  To me, marriage is a concept and I can’t, for the life of me, see how a concept can be threatened or weakened.  And, I don’t see some redneck approaching his favorite sheep and saying, “Hey you cute little thing, have you heard that gay marriage has been approved in 8 states?  Looks like they’re paving the way for us to tie the knot.”

In summary, not only do I approve of two brown eye bingers marrying, I actually feel sorry for the ridicule laden cum dumpsters.   I may be the first Cowboy to approve of the marriage of two cock jockeys, but I feel that getting the word out may convince other Cowboys to come out of the close minded barn and support rump rangers in their fight for equality.  Hell, even the religious right fanatics may see the light. Who knows, one day, you may be standing in church holding hands with a married couple of ass stabbers and not even notice.  I just hope they washed their hands before touching the Bible.


Go easy on me, it’s my first time…..and I BITE!

Having written a fairly successful blog on myspace for a short time, I was, quite frankly, surprised that many people found my drivel entertaining for whatever reason.  I am also quite sure that, if I knew that reason, my ego would create a mini-vacuum in how quickly it would deflate.  Que the kid from the Simpsons – ” heeeehhhhh –  heeeeehhhhh”

Surprisingly, the blog did exactly what I wanted.  It allowed me to reduce stress in my life significantly, which is important when you are “wound tighter than an eight-day clock” (George Strait or Clint Black – too much alcohol to accurately credit the quote).  Now, my reasons for writing have evolved.  Yes, stress reduction is important.  In fact, it’s huge.  Most people who know me are aware of the fact that I acquired Kidney cancer and almost died.  The whole ordeal lasted less than a month.  I now have one kidney and a recurring date for a catscan with a male nurse that has cold hands and hums show tunes while the scanner whirs (quite possibly the worst thing about my cancer and definitely the most recurring punishment).  Now, before you go lighting candles in my honor, please understand that I don’t consider myself to be a cancer survivor.  My grandfather was a cancer survivor.  Chemo, lost hair, vomiting, knowing that suicide would be less painful.  I didn’t go through any of those or any of the other things that plague cancer survivors.  And, as far as that goes, I feel like I won the cancer lottery (if of course there was one, and every participant got cancer no matter what).  See, the male anatomy has only 2 organs that come in pairs (as far as I know).  And, as any self-respecting man will tell you without a moment’s hesitation when asked which he prefers to lose, “take my kidney NOW”.  Anyway, that is too much on the subject for now.  Suffice it to say that stress reduction is necessary.

Beyond stress reduction, I want to document for myself the anger, pride, joy, confusion, etc. for me to reflect on at a later stage in life when I have forgotten these things.  Many know that my life goal (since attending Baylor University (Sic’em Bears)) is to use my God-given intellect and drive to become extremely wealthy and then use that wealth to fix those things in our great State of Texas that are wrong or unfair.  This blog will serve as a reminder of those things.

Last, and definitely not least, I enjoy the interaction with the general public.  I welcome their discussion.  Sometimes because it helps to keep my wit fresh.  Other times because I actually learn from intellectual sparring and my beliefs and moral stances adapt to a more enlightened position.  Finally, and quite possibly, most entertaining is the fact that, more likely than not, you will laugh at my rants.  I can not lie, having people who read your drivel number in the 10s of thousands is an ego boost.  But, I have a theory about most Americans.  We are intellectual sheep.  We want to go to work so we can afford to spend time with our family and we don’t want to spend every day researching where we stand on every issue.  It is much easier to watch the news or read a blog, locate an opinion you can get behind, and follow it.  Because of this intellectual laziness and our unending naivety when it comes to trusting the motives of those who would readily espouse their opinions, I, at the very least, want to put a common sense, logically based approach to forming an opinion, out there to compete with those who have a hidden agenda.  You will find that my opinion is far from hidden, and more likely than not, so “in your face” that you will find yourself wanting to change the channel.

Well, as any true Texan would say to a visitor from anywhere else, “welcome, friend”.  Please stay tuned for the blog that started it all…