In the end all that matters it what you leave behind. The memory of a deed or two. The council of a solace few the story of a smile. Labor is only worth the experience, not the fruits. Smile
Author Archives: atoole
About atoole
Redefining Succes$- Demonetizing the Concept
I recently wrote an article titled “Flutes and Fiddlers” (take a minute to read it if you have not) and in it I stated that I would not call myself a successful person, and it got me thinking. Why would I say that? What is success?
The very definition is this:
“The accomplishment of an aim or purpose”
Success is not something you can physically possess but a soluble emotion that is reachable by all no matter the stature of the pursuer! Americans tend to define success by money, and by what money can buy. We are known around the world as a rather materialistic country, always striving after things and defining success by the accoutrements that money can buy – such as our snazzy cars, the size of our homes and designer clothes. And that’s just what we get – more things. This doesn’t mean more fulfillments or contributing to make the world better in some way. It simply means more things. Life is not about “things” it’s about fulfillment of task or living for something.
Most people in America walk into a large, beautiful home and immediately become envious of the person that holds such wonderful tangible things, but it is time we step back and look at the larger factors of life. What has that person given up to obtain such “success”? It comes to the fact, success is purveyed in many ways in America and all forms of success come with pros and cons.-O.K. lets move on.
Other countries define success more in terms of whether their work supports their family life. If they enjoy their work, and if it gives them an opportunity to spend time with their family and have a balanced life, they’d consider themselves successful. I would say this is a holistically better perspective on what success truly is. Living a life for the betterment of your family and impacting the lives of others; a far more rewarding success story than a stake of faith-based currency that can be demoralized overnight leaving the rich significantly less wealthy- to me fulfillment has more value; this is more evident now, with jobs scarce and money tight. A majority of Americans are now seeking more satisfying work—and giving up material goods to get it.
There truly are many different perspectives of what success is throughout mankind. Most possess qualitative traits that I myself relate to far better than the American way of “success”
Making a Difference
I myself have found that success is defined by how my life will be summed up at my funeral- call it legacy. I constantly as myself “will they be talking about my contributions to their lives and how blessed they feel to have known me as a friend or co-worker? Or “how big of a waste of flesh I was”?
For most, success is ultimately defined by the Good that has been contributed, and by what is remembered about someone who has finished the work.
Success and Joy
Some define success by whether their job suits them and by how much joy they have as a result of their work. They define it by the joy they feel when they do the work; the joy they feel when they’ve finished the work; and by the joy that others feel as a result of their work.
Success and Balance
Some define success by the sense of balance they have between their work lives and the rest of their lives. For them, work is not what success is about. They believe that life needs to be balanced, and that work is not meant to be the only thing in our lives.
John Woolman, an early American abolitionist, cut back on his successful work as a tailor because he wanted to be “free of cumber.” When his work was getting so cumbersome it was controlling him and left him no time for other things of value in his life, he did not consider himself successful.
If a job is driving someone, demanding all their time, and giving them no balance between their work, physical exercise, time with their family and other relationships, and time for spiritual growth, then the balance is off and many would consider this is not living a successful life. This can lead to a frenetic lifestyle, as well as illness, family problems, and not paying attention to the values that make a good life.
With that said I would say any person that lives a life with goals and meets them is a successful person. To simply measure success on how much money and stuff we have is naïve and empty. If you pay your bills, live within your means, and have a life with or without children and you are happy; then to me, I would say that you are successful.
In my lifetime I have, accomplished many of my goals ranging from Service to this Nation, fighting in a war, running a triathlon, attending college, and starting a family. Milestones such as these perpetuate success far more than cash and home value. Living a life with purpose is far more warranting of success; than living one without: I am not trying to say people with money are without purpose, but there are those that have flopped and have not got back up. A successful person has goals set and is actively working to achieve them. I want to stop and say that I by no means rank within what many would deem the judge and jury of success, but I think that for to long we have gauged success with fame and fortune in America. That is not the case- fame to me is something I would never want, and I have never strived for it, and to possess a fortune and hold on to it; would be against my character and my belief that too much is too much. I enjoy aiding others far too much to be a millionaire, and a fancy home with large amounts of square footages seems fleeting to me and cumbersome. Success is applicable to all, and based on the will of the chaser.
In closing, success is not a monetary sum, and it has never been! We idolize the rich and famous as if they are vastly more successful than us-that is not true- we are just as successful if not more- fulfillment remember? The sooner we look past the quantitative factors of “success” than I truly believe our outlook on life will be far better than what it currently is. I am not saying be content with what you have; that will never happen- we are human, but instead be ambitious for what you want and know that every step of the way you are successful!
Other Articles to read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-besaw/redefining-success_b_4118779.html
Artic Turf War- Its all about location!
This is a compiling of information that is available and source information is displayed below.
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a national strategy document for the Arctic region.
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.
The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—are in the process of preparing Arctic territorial claims for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Russian claim to the enormous underwater Lomonosov Ridge, if accepted, would reportedly grant Russia nearly one-half of the Arctic area. There are also four other unresolved Arctic territorial disputes.
A number of Arctic nations have tried to stake claims outside of their Exclusive Economic Zone.
-On Dec. 20, 2001, Russia submitted its claim to The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf, requesting an additional 1.2 million sq km (over 460,000 sq miles) of marine economic control.
-The Canadian government has begun programs mapping its continental shelf, and as of 2006 it has committed $51 million to the project.
-During 2008, the US government spent $5.6 million to prove that the US continental shelf off the coast of Alaska extends beyond the 200-mile EEZ limit.
-Denmark spent around $42 million between 2004 and 2010 to improve its claims for outer continental shelf territory. As discussed below, other Arctic nations have also been scrambling to stake claims because resources are becoming available due to the melting of the ice.
Russia’s Stake:
Russia is the most important player in the Arctic, with significant economic, security and governance interests in the region. This is primarily because of natural resources. Over 20% of undiscovered global hydrocarbon reserves are located in the Arctic area and most of them in the Russian Arctic. These natu¬ral resources are vital to Russian national security and economy; oil and gas alone account for roughly 20-25% of Russian GDP. Russia’s domestic social programs, infrastructure investments, and mili¬tary modernization are all critically dependent on revenues from natural resource export.
Similarly, hydrocarbons provide important leverage for Russian foreign influence. This is especially the case with energy-dependent Europe, where a third of the natural gas consumed is imported from Russia. The Arctic plays an increasing role in this equa¬tion as a strategically vital resource base for Russia. So far, the Russian Arctic has been responsible for about 10-15% of Russian GDP and 25% of its foreign exports and there are systematic efforts to increase these figures.
Russia’s increasing northward focus is also due to the fact that Russia’s mature hydrocarbon sources in Western Siberia are slowly drying up. Recent hydrocarbon activities in the Russian Arctic have taken place primarily through onshore projects in key locations such as the Yamal Peninsula and in nascent offshore projects on the Arctic sea bed in the Barents, Pechora and Kara Seas. These offshore projects have often taken the form of joint ventures between Russian and international energy corpora¬tions. This signals Russia’s need to seek investments and technological know-how through international cooperation.
However, key offshore projects – such as the Shtokhman gas field and Prirazlomnoye oil field – have turned out to be extremely challenging and have been suffering from continuous delays and shuffling of foreign partners up until today. Russia has also set its sights on resource bases outside its territorial borders and submitted a claim for the extension of its continental shelf to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) process as early as 2001.
In order to access, exploit and deliver Arctic natu¬ral resources to global markets, Russia also aims to develop critical infrastructure in the Northern Sea Route (NSR), including ports, search-and-rescue (SAR) centres, route administration, ice-breaking capability, and oil spill response capabilities. In addition, non-maritime parts of the Arctic trans¬port system – pipelines, aviation routes, railways, and roads – and the overall socio-economic con¬ditions of the region require development and modernization.
Russia also has security interests in the Arctic. Russia seeks to project its sovereign authority in its wide Arctic region through improved border control (FSB), to provide safety and security espe¬cially in the NSR, and to maintain credible forces to secure critical infrastructures. Russia also seeks to maintain, develop and project a credible military force – primarily naval, aerial and missile assets – in the region in order to be able to react in various politico-military scenarios, as well as to deter the expansion of unwanted foreign military presence into the (Russian) Arctic.
China’s Stake:
China approaches the Arctic as a global power and an “Arctic stakeholder” affected by Arctic develop¬ments. China’s interests towards the Arctic have been growing steadily and it has become a part of Chinese strategic discourse. Overall, however, the Arctic remains a relatively minor aspect of China’s official foreign policy China’s growing Arctic interest must thus be understood primarily as future-oriented, reflecting its aspiration to be pre¬pared for the Arctic opening and its consequences.
The primary motive for China’s gradually increas¬ing Arctic interest is the economy. As a growing economy and a non-littoral Arctic stakeholder, China aims to secure access to opening Arctic ship¬ping routes, which could offer substantial savings in maritime transport and diversify Chinese security of supply. China also seeks to strengthen its ability to access Arctic resource bases, including rich fishing waters in the Arctic Ocean, rare mineral deposits in Greenland, and hydrocarbons in Russia
The United States stake:
The US has traditionally been a “reluctant Arctic power” that has paid a limited amount of policy attention to the region, and only primarily to its own Arctic backyard, Alaska. Lack of public aware¬ness, long distances, the low-threat environment, budgetary concerns, and more pressing global issues have all ensured that the Arctic has remained in the background of policy-making.
While the Arctic continues to be a relatively minor topic on the overall US foreign policy agenda today, the US has started to pay closer attention to the region with the publication of key strategic documents and high-profile participation in Arctic affairs. In short, the Arctic has gradually emerged as a “new” foreign policy frontier in the US.
The exploitation of natural resources – gas, oil, and minerals – is the primary driver of contemporary US policy in the Arctic. To enhance US energy security and the economy, the Obama administration has encouraged the responsible development of domes¬tic oil and gas production. In recent years, due to a declining trend in production in existing oil fields on the Alaskan North Slope coupled with a lack of new onshore sites, there has been domestic pressure to explore offshore oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Major energy corporations from the US and abroad have acquired licenses for offshore produc¬tion blocks. These efforts, however, have been chal¬lenging and beset with delays due to US administration pressure after recent environmental accidents. In addition, advances in unconventional gas and oil production have reduced the urgency to go Arctic.
Secondly, the US also has a range of security inter¬ests in the Arctic. Importantly, parts of US strategic deterrence, global missile defense and early warn¬ing architecture are situated or operational in the Arctic region. The issue of freedom of navigation in the Arctic is another important security interest for the US. This is because accessible and open inter¬national maritime routes are arteries of the global and US economy and key enablers of flexible power projection by the US military
Section 112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984)4 defines the Arctic as follows:
As used in this title, the term “Arctic” means all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers [in Alaska]; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.
The European Union Stake:
The European Union has started to show increas¬ing interest in Arctic affairs. The EU is intimately connected to the Arctic region through its Arctic Member States as well as various EU competences, policies and regulations with a direct bearing on the Arctic in areas such as the environment, climate change, trade, energy, research, transport, and fishery. That said, the EU has never been a forerun¬ner in Arctic governance, nor has it been accepted as a legitimate “stakeholder” by all Arctic states. This was mostly because of the EU’s politically insensi¬tive stance towards sealing and whaling and because of the European Parliament’s politically unfeasible initial position, which suggested a comprehensive international treaty to govern the Arctic region on the basis of the Antarctic Treaty.
Over time, however, the EU has come to adopt a more politically aware and conciliatory tone in its Arctic policy. Today, the EU’s Arctic policy maintains that Arctic governance should be built on existing multilateral frameworks – the UNCLOS, the Arctic Council, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – instead of a new Arctic treaty, while simultaneously bearing in mind and respect¬ing the sovereignty and national interests of Arctic states themselves. Due to the influence of various member states with divergent interests, the EU continues to lack a coherent Arctic strategy and moves forward at the level of policy statements. While the EU has sought a greater role in the Arctic, it has come to recognize that the Arctic states are the primary actors in the region and that the EU should focus its growing engagement on support¬ing existing successful co-operation and providing assistance in meeting new challenges in the region.
The first EU Arctic interest relates to global climate change, which has various environmental, social, economic and geopolitical implications for the Arc¬tic region as well as for Europe. While the EU has tackled climate change at the global level, its emerg¬ing Arctic climate policy has started to emphasize up-to-date knowledge of regional climate dynamics and the need to invest in Arctic environmental research. These efforts are identified as requiring coordination between the EU, Arctic states and Arctic stakeholders.
Secondly, the EU also has significant economic interests in the Arctic. Europe is a major destination for Arctic resources. Around 25% of Arctic oil and gas output is destined for Europe, and 80% of the fish caught in Iceland and 60% in Norway are sold in the EU.
Consequently, the EU seeks to secure access to Arctic resource bases in the context of intensifying global competition, and to influence policy development in the Arctic states towards favorable resource exploitation and management.
Motivated in part by a desire to exercise sovereign control over the Arctic region’s increasingly accessible oil and gas reserves (see “Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration”), the four Arctic coastal states other than the United States—Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—are in the process of preparing territorial claims in the Arctic, including claims for expanded Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. (As mentioned earlier—see “U.S. Activities as a Non-Party to UNCLOS”—the United States, as a non-party to UNCLOS, cannot participate as a member of the commission; it cannot submit a claim under Article 76. Over the years, however, it has submitted observations on submissions made by other states, requesting that those observations be made available online and to the commission. In addition, since 2001, the United States has gathered and analyzed data to determine the outer limits of its extended continental shelf.) Russia has been attempting to chart the Arctic Ocean’s enormous underwater Lomonosov Ridge in an attempt to show that it is an extension of Russia’s continental margin. The Russian claim to this ridge, if accepted, would reportedly grant Russia nearly one-half of the Arctic area; a 2001 claim submitted by Russia was rejected as insufficiently documented. Canada also claims a portion of the Lomonosov Ridge as part of its own underwater continental shelf.45 In August 2007, a Russian submersible on a research expedition deposited an encased Russian Federation flag on the seabed of the presumed site of the North Pole. The action captured worldwide attention, but analysts note that it did not constitute an official claim to the territory and was therefore a purely symbolic act.
At a May 2008 meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland, the five Arctic coastal states reaffirmed their commitment to the UNCLOS legal framework for the establishment of extended continental shelf limits in the Arctic.
In addition to this process, there are four unresolved Arctic territorial disputes:
• Scientists have forecast that in coming decades, global warming will reduce the ice pack in Canada’s northern archipelago sufficiently to permit ships to use the trans-Arctic shipping route known as the Northwest Passage during the summer months (see “Commercial Sea Transportation”). The prospect of such traffic raises a major jurisdictional question. Ottawa maintains that such a passage would be an inland waterway, and would therefore be sovereign Canadian territory subject to Ottawa’s surveillance, regulation, and control. The United States, the European Union, and others assert that the passage would constitute an international strait between two high seas.
• The United States and Canada are negotiating over a bi-national boundary in the Beaufort Sea.
• The United States and Russia in 1990 signed an agreement regarding a disputed area of the Bering Sea; the U.S. Senate ratified the pact the following year, but the Russian Duma has yet to approve the accord.
• Denmark and Canada disagree over which country has the territorial right to Hans Island, a tiny, barren piece of rock between Greenland and Canada’s Ellesmere Island. Some analysts believe the two countries are vying for control over a future sea lane that might be created if the Arctic ice were to melt sufficiently to create a Northwest Passage. Others claim that the governments are staking out territorial claims in the event that future natural resource discoveries make the region economically valuable.
The USGS asserted that the “extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth. In the report, the USGS estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to be discovered in the Arctic. An article published in Science magazine indicated that 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil may be found north of the Arctic Circle
It all comes down to who can get their way first, and seize control of the natural resources to the north, and these territorial tensions have a high probability of causing addtional global stress. what are your thoughts
Flute and Fiddlers- Why supplying your own motivation is important!
‘Do not go chasing waterfalls: as the rivers and lakes are most common to your correlative life pattern.”
“Do not go around the muhlberry bush; as you are not a monkey, and the weasel does not posses pursuable traits.”
“Do not be like Mother Goose and get caught in others agendas: as you will find a person on your back slows your progression to the Moon”
These are some of the witty quotes I made up and put on a Facebook to see, if someone would share my “scriptures of motivation.” Why did I do this? It has come to my attention that people increasingly seem to follow those that have a metaphorical “Flute and Fiddle”.
-What I am saying?
Well I see a growing number of people that have grasped the breast of a sweet-mouthed figure that really just recites the words of others and gets praised as if they birthed the concept- you can call it repeating. People should realize that these figures are making money off of their masses-Large amounts of it! By writing books and putting on conferences. These individuals are only successful because they tell others they are not- in a positive and enlightening tone. Let’s look at Joel Osteen a predominant figure I see pass recycled quotes on social media. Joel Osteen is an American preacher, televangelist, author who has a net worth of $40 million dollars! For those that do not know Joel Osteen is the pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. Some may argue he is gifted by God, but we all know the real reason is because his words of hope cost money. I hope that you all get my point as I am not trying to offend but inform.
People from all walks of life, are losing the ability to find self-perpetuated drive based on their own actions. Has it come to a point where we are null of self discovery or self proliferation? Or is it that we cannot conceptualize our own journey without the aid of a consensually descript individual beating the drum that provides the tempo of just how far we will go? I say that everyone has the ability to drive their own direction and to mantle a “flute and fiddle” type person as your life guide, strongly hinders ones ability to be the purveyor of their own success. I understand that as humans we stagnate and need to be realigned and accepted and our actions acknowledged- I know this- but if all we do is look to another for a push, every time we are faced with adversity, than what precedents are we setting for our own success. As it will be owned by the person you turned to-as they always seem to seek credit for their actions. (Think about it)
Positive quotes and motivational speeches are great to read, but if you do not put action into what you’re reading and sharing than all you are doing is revving your figurative engine and causing yourself more stress. Instead, you should be creating action on the needs and wills of yourself as you are capable of anything as long as you are willing to go about it alone, and when needed, ask for advice and act on it.
You do not need the words of others to propel you to a successful life initiative or change; you just need FREE will that is unencumbered by influence and perpetuated by self-invoked emotion. As where you are in life thus far is based on decisions and actions you made (I am sure we all know this); actions and decisions that you can change with just one choice. To be your own guide.
I will stop the rant now, but leave you with a brief insertion on how this way of thought plays out in my life.
I would not say I am a successful person by any means BUT I created my own mantra of success “If you think great, you will do great” and I have lived on that saying for many years and it has kept me going in my journey. It is a self-prescribed mindset of “Do great things” and has allowed me to pursue feets that I find “GREAT”. The feets I describe range from participating in a war to achieving academic statutes that are prolific in America. It is this mantra that allows me to pursue life not chase after it.
It comes down to this. Successful people did not become successive by listening to others; they did so by listening to themselves and pursuing precisive actions that produced desired greatness. We are our strongest critic in life and action, and by relying on consensually accepted verses of direction we will only continue to clout our true direction. So live through your own words and drive your actions based on free will!
…And yes I just motivated you..feel free to give me some MONEY!!
The Decline of American Currency and the rise of Crypto-Currency!
As America’s dollar continues to lose its value in the global markets, it seems to me the pursuance of a new international currency is inevitable, and already underway. The American dollar was once a zero inflation currency that was backed by precious metals, but overtime we have distanced ourselves from tangible assets backing the USD, and instead embraced a “Faith” value system known as a Fiat money or currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith and has caused a declination in value of the U.S. Greenback.
Another well known contributor to the devaluation of the greenback is inflation, which is found everywhere in our economy, except in the government’s statistics. Take for instance corn; the most important food crop in America, is up 75% since 2008. Gasoline is up from $2.25 a gallon to more than $4 a gallon – an increase of more than 40%. The nationwide minimum wage is up by 19%- based on the increase from $5.15 and hour to $7.25. Lastly, the cost of monthly rent is up by 25% nationwide and up 40% in most urban markets, as more Americans seek renting over homeownership due to the 2008 real estate crisis which caused many to lose their home and others to have their homes drop in value.
One last example is, the base price of a Ford F-150, the best-selling passenger vehicle in America, has gone from $18,225 to $36,590 – a 33% increase. This is an arguably domestically sourced and manufactured product. Its price is completely dominated by the value of the U.S. dollar. I know many would say that these examples are not of inflation but instead the rise of Corporate creed and cost of innovative new technology – I would say you have some ground there, but the largest attributor is that our dollar is so far stretched that it no longer holds the value it once did and I will explain why in this article I hope you enjoy the read.
When did we lose control of the US Dollar?
Well it started in 1913.What changed in 1913? That was the year America adopted the Federal Reserve Banking (FRB) system and the nation took its first steps toward abolishing the gold standard and replacing it with a banking system that allowed for unlimited paper money to be created.
In 1966 Alan Greenspan described the new system as a regional Federal Reserve Bank that is nominally owned by private bankers, but more so owned in fact by the government.
Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. … But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (‘paper reserves’) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.”
In other words, the dollar would only be partially backed by gold, and banks could create money by lending out money secured by credit from the Federal Reserve banks (even though the reserve banks did not necessarily have gold on deposit themselves). Thus the seeds of America’s first fiat (currency not backed by gold) dollar system were sown.
At that time, however, there were still restraints upon money-supply growth because the dollar was still convertible to gold upon demand. Anyone cashing in paper dollars was still legally entitled to its value in gold, so the money supply did not balloon completely out of control.
Yet by 1934, the paper money supply had expanded faster than the nation’s gold supply, so in order to prevent the nation’s gold supply from being drained, the U.S. decided to devalue the dollar—by 41 percent. Prior to 1934, an ounce of gold could be redeemed for just US$20.67, however after the revision; the U.S. government would only part with an ounce of gold in exchange for $35. In gold terms, anyone who had a U.S. savings account lost 41 percent of its value—overnight.
Even though the 1934 U.S. currency devaluation rocked people’s confidence in the dollar, World War II thrust the U.S. dollar into a new status: the world’s reserve currency. Toward the end of the war, representatives of most of the world’s leading nations met to create a new international monetary system, later known as the Bretton Woods agreement. At this meeting, the war-torn and virtually bankrupt nations of the world decided that since the U.S. economy had come to dominate the globe, and because it held 80 percent of the world’s gold due to the war, they would tie their currencies to the dollar, which, in turn, could be converted into gold at $35 per ounce.
Yet under the Bretton Woods system there were still limits on how much paper money a country could create. Each country had to police its own currency or be forced into embarrassing devaluations. The U.S. itself was constrained from overprinting money because the dollar remained fully convertible into gold.
However, by 1971, America had again printed vastly more paper money than was backed by precious metal. According to some estimates, so many paper dollars had been created that the nation’s gold supply only backed 22 percent of them. At the same time, French President Charles de Gaulle, recognizing that the dollar was losing value, had been exchanging his nation’s collection of U.S. dollars for American gold reserves. Seeing other nations following suit, U.S. President Richard Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971, no longer allowing foreigners to exchange their U.S. dollars for gold and thus ending the Bretton Woods agreement.
From that point on, America’s dollar became fiat, not backed by tangible assets. As the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis says, the U.S. dollar is fiat and is valuable only as long as “people are willing to accept fiat money in exchange for the goods and services they sell”—and only as long as “they are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”
Since people were already in the habit of accepting paper backed by gold, Americans hardly noticed when the U.S. greenback became backed by nothing more than faith—until it started affecting their pocketbooks. Loss of the dollar’s gold backing resulted in a U.S. dollar sell-off in which foreign nations dumped dollars on the open market. This in turn caused roaring inflation and gold to spike up into the $800-per-ounce range. After the FRB jacked interest rates into the high teens, both Americans and foreigners decided they would trust the government and continued using the U.S. dollar.
The U.S. now operates on what many refer to as the Bretton Woods 2 system. Although there is no formal central bank agreement (as was the case with Bretton Woods 1), many countries, especially those in Asia, have more or less informally pegged their currencies to the dollar.
This system is inherently more unstable than the previous precious-metal-based non-fiat system. Since the U.S. dollar is no longer convertible to gold, there is no theoretical limit to how much the U.S. money base can expand—and the U.S. has been taking full advantage of this situation to increase its money supply.
The Dollar’s Decline
During Alan Greenspan’s term at the FRB alone, America’s monetary base tripled and more new money came into being than under all previous Fed chairmen combined. As the government has massively increased the money supply—doubling it in the last seven years alone—those dollars have become less valuable.
So many dollars have been created that only the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, along with the kindness of America’s trade partners, has prevented a complete dollar meltdown. Unfortunately, these dollar supporters seem to be crumbling.
At one point, 86 percent of the globe’s transactions were denominated in dollars. Whether it was Russians and Saudis selling oil to the world, or Chinese purchasing wheat from Canada, the dollar was the primary means of payment. Thus, foreign nations needed to keep huge dollar reserves on hand. This was a gigantic plus for the dollar. Had foreign nations not needed to increase their holdings of dollars as world trade grew, there would have been a massive wave of homeless dollars roaming the world looking to be spent, and as the supply of dollars increased, the dollar’s value would have plummeted. Instead, over the years, America has been able to get away with creating the money needed to pay its bills and finance an otherwise unaffordable standard of living.
However, the dollar’s status as a reserve currency is now being challenged. In 2005, the percentage of dollar-denominated reserves held by foreign nations was 76 percent, not two years later; it is down to 65 percent. “There is a gentle and osmotic process underway,” says economics analyst Julian D.W. Phillips: “a lessening of the role of the U.S. dollar in the global reserves” (Financial Sense Online, Nov. 6, 2006).
Although an all-out revolt against the dollar hasn’t yet occurred, clear signals are emerging that the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency of choice could be ending. Several international banks have announced intentions to diversify their reserves away from the greenback: Russia’s central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar Central Bank and the Central Bank of Syria. Stop and think about this- we no longer have tangible assets backing our dollar.
America’s massive monetary expansion could be about to boomerang on itself, as it did in 1934 and 1971—only this time, the number of dollars involved absolutely dwarfs all previous currency crises. As the U.S. persistently destroys the value of the dollar by overprinting (or, more correctly, over-creating, since most money created is now digital), foreign nations are losing confidence in the dollar and its role as a reserve currency. Foreign central bank sales are the first waves of a coming dollar storm. The more those central banks dump dollars, the greater the loss of investor confidence.
The rise of crypto-currency!
Many may be thinking by this point- WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!? As I write this article hearings are being held on Capitol Hill to discuss the validity of a digital currency that has been on the rise for sometime but has not poised a threat until recent increases in crypto-currency worth. This crypto-currency has many forms but it seems that there is one that is making enough waves to get congressional attention this week and it is known as Bitcoin, and as I write this article its current value is 1 bitcoin= $544.57, and is recognized almost globally as a relevant currency. I strongly believe that this form of currency has a phenomenal foundation and will not seize to exist, but instead grow in popularity as the virtues of this fiat system values anonymity and translates well in worth globally.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a consensus network that enables a new payment system and completely digital money. It is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. From a user perspective, Bitcoin is pretty much like cash for the Internet. Bitcoin can also be seen as the most prominent triple entry bookkeeping system in existence.
From a user perspective, Bitcoin is nothing more than a mobile app or computer program that provides a personal Bitcoin wallet and allows a user to send and receive bitcoins with them. This is how Bitcoin works for most users.
Behind the scenes, the Bitcoin network is sharing a public ledger called the “block chain”. This ledger contains every transaction ever processed, allowing a user’s computer to verify the validity of each transaction. The authenticity of each transaction is protected by digital signatures corresponding to the sending addresses, allowing all users to have full control over sending bitcoins from their own Bitcoin addresses. In addition, anyone can process transactions using the computing power of specialized hardware and earn a reward in bitcoins for this service. This is often called “mining”. To learn more about Bitcoin, you can consult the dedicated page and the original paper.
Won’t loss of wallets and the finite amount of Bitcoins create excessive deflation, destroying Bitcoin?
Worries about Bitcoin being destroyed by deflation are not entirely unfounded. Unlike most currencies, which experience inflation as their founding institutions create more and more units, Bitcoin will likely experience gradual deflation with the passage of time. Bitcoin is unique in that only a small amount of units will ever be produced (twenty-one million to be exact), this number has been known since the project’s inception, and the units are created at a predictable rate.
Also, Bitcoin users are faced with a danger that doesn’t threaten users of any other currency: if a Bitcoin user loses his wallet, his money is gone forever, unless he finds it again. And not just to him; it’s gone completely out of circulation, rendered utterly inaccessible to anyone. As people will lose their wallets, the total number of Bitcoins will slowly decrease.
Therefore, Bitcoin seems to be faced with a unique problem. Whereas most currencies inflate over time, Bitcoin will mostly likely do just the opposite. Time will see the irretrievable loss of an ever-increasing number of Bitcoins. An already small number will be permanently whittled down further and further. And as there become fewer and fewer Bitcoins, the laws of supply and demand suggest that their value will probably continually rise.
Thus, Bitcoin is bound to once again stray into mysterious territory, because no one exactly knows what happens to a currency that grows continually more valuable. Many economists claim that a low level of inflation is a good thing for a currency, but nobody is quite sure about what might happens to one that continually deflates. Although deflation could hardly be called a rare phenomenon, steady, constant deflation is unheard of. There may be a lot of speculation, no one has any hard data to back up their claims.
That being said, there is a mechanism in place to combat the obvious consequences. Extreme deflation would render most currencies highly impractical: if a single Canadian dollar could suddenly buy the holder a car, how would one go about buying bread or candy? Even pennies would fetch more than a person could carry. Bitcoin, however, offers a simple and stylish solution: infinite divisibility. Bitcoins can be divided up and trade into as small of pieces as one wants, so no matter how valuable Bitcoins become, one can trade them in practical quantities.
In fact, infinite divisibility should allow Bitcoins to function in cases of extreme wallet loss. Even if, in the far future, so many people have lost their wallets that only a single Bitcoin, or a fraction of one, remains, Bitcoin should continue to function just fine. No one can claim to be sure what is going to happen, but deflation may prove to present a smaller threat than many expect.
Can Crypto-Currency be a danger to world economies?
Electronic payments aren’t new. Bitcoin’s only innovations are its status as an independent currency and its decentralized network design. But those differences might make Bitcoin — or rather, crypto-currency in general — an existential threat to the modern liberal state. If widely adopted, crypto-currencies would cripple government in three central functions: taxation, police and macroeconomic stabilization. That is exactly what Bitcoin’s biggest fans are hoping.
1. Taxation: How do governments collect taxes on transactions in Bitcoin? The answer is they don’t, and they can’t. Crypto-currency’s strong protections on anonymity make it impossible for any state to know who is buying what, who is paying whom, who earns what, and who has what in savings. That poses a direct challenge to the power of states to levy taxes.
The problem is that Bitcoin makes tax evasion easier. States could enforce reporting of Bitcoin income for individuals and businesses, as they try to do for cash, which is also hard to track. But encryption and the peer-to-peer network structure make Bitcoin even harder to follow than physical cash, and digital cash is much better than the physical kind for storage and transactions, so the scale of the challenge could end up being much bigger.
2. Police: It would be almost impossible for states to detect certain crimes. One of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin — though, of course, one can never truly know — is buying illicit drugs. Bitcoin’s cryptography makes it uniquely able to facilitate money laundering, insider trading, fraud, and bribery. The transactions would be untraceable, and the money doesn’t ever have to return to the bank, where the financial crime might have been detected.
3. Macroeconomic policy: A Bitcoin economy would undermine the power of real-world central banks to make monetary policy. Yes, governments can influence the demand for national currencies by requiring taxes to be paid in them. But the monetary lever on private transactions and lending would be gone if such commerce was denominated in Bitcoin. And by displacing governments as currency issuers, Bitcoin also threatens their ability to finance public debt. In a world where many transactions are anonymous, it’s unclear how governments could even compile accurate economic data, without which macroeconomic policy is impossible. Economic depression in a Bitcoin regime could be an insoluble problem.
Only time will tell if what I discussed in this article is relevant to future practices in the global marketplace, but it is evident that the USD will not play a part in global commerce as it has for decades in the future. We no longer hold the industrial prowess to maintain the standards that made America great we have sold those rights away so that a chosen few can make a big payday. What America does now to combat these rising issues will set the precedent on whether we can one day reclaim our title as a civil industrial nation.
Our Voice. Our Action. Our Nation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3630951
Shift From U.S. Dollar As World Reserve Currency Underway (+93K Views)
War without Boundaries- Swatting the Bee hive!
The pervasive and ever evolving nature of which we find ourselves fighting “The War on Terror” currently is an interestingly perplexing situation. We are now using “Cloth and Dagger” techniques that metaphorically swat at the global “bee hives” of International terrorist organization. Effectively, causing more and more attention to our Nation; America finds itself the exposed face of the offensive against the anti-western movement.
To me we are dehumanizing the way we fight our battles, and turning over the American death-dealing to a remote-control wielding specialist. That lacks the skills to be an impressive grunt but has the innate ability to command a screen and push the correct button when commanded. America has thousands of operatives throughout the world that are inserting and extracting in hostile theaters throughout the globe sweeping up “high value’ targets or H.V.T’s. We are now acting in a “War without Borders”, and that is truly a scary thought to me- as I always found solace in the fact my loved ones were far from “the action” while a volunteering few impressed into the protection of our sovereignty. War is a malevolent action that mankind has partaken in for centuries and it has always involved some form of “sword to flesh” man-to-man action that creates a boundary between the innocent and the vengeful commissioners of the opposing perspective. The question I have started to ask myself is “what if others Countries start to act like America?
You know the whole Golden Rule mantra of “do onto others; as you would want done on to you”. We are sending drones on strikes almost weekly and it seems we do not levy the thought that technology is wide-spreading and Terrorism is well-funded. I truly believe that it is only a matter of time before the drone strike offensive is going to turn against us (this is not an apocalyptic rant), and we have not vested enough thought on this very fact! The boundaries of war are quickly diminishing and the conversation of this admonishment is not being discussed, because the internal calamity that is known as the modern United States of America does not allow the time for broad open discussion about this fact. What defenses does America have against CONUS attacks from abroad? Well it seems that the best way I can put it is how other Nations are handling our drones’ strikes. Snipe it, hack it, and jam it. This is what Al-Jazeera is stating as rational ways to defend against this American birthed offensive. We are unaware of the temperature of the attitudes that our drone strikes create as Citizens because we are more focused on what the Media is blasting and marketing to us as prevalent news, than to focus on how unsafe it is becoming to live in America do to the actions of Our Government.
Let’s look at it this way. We all remember the tough guy in our childhood that enjoyed fighting and was good at it and boasted about his triumphs in the metaphorical “arena” of street fighting (at least I remember that guy!). It seemed that person always found himself up against a crowd of fed-up individuals reaping the rewards of opportunity(this is in the get pushed, and you push back era of course). Now, ponder on that scenario and think big picture. We cannot maintain the mantle of biggest tough guy on the block, without the support of allies, financing, and of course civility. Over the last decade we have progressively malingered our global allies into a corner, and now they are slowly reproaching themselves away from us. I am sure we all have witnessed a train wreck of a person pursue something to the point where we are left with no choice but to leave them to fight their own battle- it is human nature- we see an overwhelming and or life threatening situation and we break away from it. Look at the global climate; it is all about the actions of America!
We find ourselves improperly financed, internally divided, and legislatively confused on the correct path of America. It is a volatile time to live in America. I support this by saying; Americans are disengaged and nestled up to the idea that our interests both domestically and internationally are being minded in the House and Senate, which we have clearly seen are not! With that I also point out that most Americans are not seeking accurate information on non-partisan politics they are simply leaning “left” or “right” and that is the stance on prevalent events and a large colluder of the sovereign unity that has made America an enviable global presence.
In my opinion, I feel War is a necessary destructive beast! That has for centuries maintained prominent boundaries but we are seeing those global boundaries that caged the metaphorical beast being washed away, and I feel we will one day find that the current borderless context of our current offensive plan is only increasing the threat to Our Nation and unifying our enemys!
The last subject of our current offensive plan is the interestingly perplexing internal issue of the current administrations, firing of many of the great Generals that have protected America for the last decade; men that I served under in my time as a Marine Infantryman that have unwavering commitment to the cause of America. Some of the Top Officers listed below totaling 197 officers in all relieved of duty.
America has found its self in a war with many fronts with a diminishing presence of experienced Generals, and the absense of a ferocious presence of perplexed constituents…I am sure we all have played chess at one point in our lives, does this seem like we are protecting our interest?
Gen. Carter Ham, Army
Served as head of the United States African Command during the bloodshed in Benghazi, Libya when four American citizens, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two retired Navy Seals, were murdered by militants on Sept. 11, 2012. Senior military officials told TheBlaze Hamm was extremely critical of the Obama administration, including when reinforcements were not sent to help the U.S. citizens under attack in Benghazi. Hamm “resigned and retired” in April 2013.
Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Navy
Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. He recently served as deputy commander of the U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of the Benghazi assault on Sept. 11, 2012. Under testimony, he told Congress there may not have been time to get the flight crews to Benghazi, but left the door open when he told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) under cross-examination that he could have launched aircraft to the destination. He was later accused of using profanity in a public setting and making at least two racially insensitive comments. While he was cleared of any criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he still faced administrative penalties that have ended his career.
Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, Army
Major General Baker served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. According to several military officials who spoke to TheBlaze, he was also involved in some aspect with the Benghazi incident Sept. 11, 2012. He was relieved of command and fired for allegedly groping a civilian, but no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges were filed with military JAG officials.
Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, Army
General Roberts took command of Fort Jackson in 2011. He was considered a rising star in his field and served in Iraq during his service as the commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was the deputy commanding general of the United States Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky. He was relieved of duty and fired for adultery — still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice but rarely since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.
Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, Marine Corps
Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. He was a highly-decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals, as well as the Air Medal with a gold star. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure to use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters attacked Camp Bastion on Sept. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of Lt. Col. Christopher K. Raible, 40, and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27.
Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus, Marine Corps
Regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. According to several military officials, Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols alongside American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines.
Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr, Army
Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to the Department of Defense. Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, Navy
Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals and ribbons. He is under criminal investigation for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips, while playing a poker game at a western Iowa casino.
Major Gen. Michael Carey, Air Force
Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Carry was fired October 11, 2013, for “personal misbehavior,” according to ABC News. Pentagon and Air Force senior officials have remained relatively tight-lipped about Carry’s firing.
Our Voice. Our Action. Our Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/166124/brief-history-drones# http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/201376122240540295.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/military-sources-obama-administration-purging-commanders/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102913-677116-197-military-officers-purged-by-obama.htm
Social Capital and Civic Engagement- Are they Important In America?
If you are interested in a more personal read please stop here and enjoy my article on “Life on High Alert”, As this is for those that want to discuss politics and America. Enjoy
The US once had an enviable society, but over the last two or three decades this civic society has shrunk, and more people are watching TV rather than engage with others, and venture out to enjoy life in the outdoors. Possible explanations for this trend include more women in the workplace, increased mobility of families and changing demographics. Many students of the new democracies that have emerged over the past decade and a half have emphasized the importance of a strong and active civil society to the consolidation of democracy. Especially with regard to the post communist Countries, scholars and democratic activists alike have lamented the absence or obliteration of traditions of independent civic engagement and a widespread tendency toward passive reliance on the state. To those concerned with the weakness of civil societies in the developing or post communist world, the Advanced Western democracies and above all the United States have typically been taken as models to be emulated.
There is striking evidence, however, that the vibrancy of American civil society has notably declined over the past several decades. Ever since the publication of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the United States has played a central role in systematic studies of the links between democracy and civil society. Although this is in part because trends in American life are often regarded as harbingers of social modernization, it is also because America has traditionally been considered unusually “civic”. When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans’ propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition:’ he observed, “Are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types–religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute…. Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.”
Recently, American social scientists of a neo Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, and unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities.
The norms and networks of civic engagement also powerfully affect the performance of representative government. Although all these regional governments seemed identical, their levels of effectiveness varied dramatically. An inquiry into this issue showed that the quality of governance was determined by longstanding traditions of civic engagement (or its absence). Voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and football clubs-these were the hallmarks of a successful region. In fact, historical analysis suggested that these networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being an epiphenomenon of socioeconomic modernization, were a precondition for it. No doubt the mechanisms through which civic engagement and social connectedness produce such results–better schools, faster economic development, lower crime, and more effective government–are multiple and complex. While these briefly recounted findings require further confirmation and perhaps qualification, the parallels across hundreds of empirical studies in a dozen disparate disciplines and subfields are striking.
When economic and political negotiation or conversation is embedded into our dense networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism are reduced. At the same time, networks of civic engagement embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a cultural template for future collaboration. Finally, dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants’ sense of self, developing the “I” into the “we,” or (in the language of rational-choice theorists) enhancing the participants’ “taste” for collective benefits. I do not attribute the development of the theory of social capital. Instead, I use the central premise of that rapidly growing body of work-that social connections and civic engagement pervasively influence in our public life, as well as our private prospects-as the starting point for an empirical survey of trends in social capital in contemporary America. I concentrate here entirely on the American case, although the developments I portray may in some measure characterize many contemporary societies.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT?
We begin with familiar evidence on changing patterns of political participation, not least because it is immediately relevant to issues of democracy in the narrow sense. Consider the well-known decline in turnout in national elections over the last three decades. From a relative high point in the early 1960s, voter turnout had by 1990 declined by nearly a quarter; tens of millions of Americans had forsaken their parents’ habitual readiness to engage in the simplest act of citizenship. Broadly similar trends also characterize participation in state and local elections. It is not just the voting booth that has been increasingly deserted by Americans. A series of identical questions posed by the Roper Organization to national samples ten times each year over the last two decades reveals that since 1973 the number of Americans who report that “in the past year” they have “attended a public meeting on town or school affairs” has fallen by more than a third (from 22 percent in 1973 to 13 percent in 1993). Similar (or even greater) relative declines are evident in responses to questions about attending a political rally or speech, serving on a committee of some local organization, and working for a political party. By almost every measure, Americans’ direct engagement in politics and government has fallen steadily and sharply over the last generation, despite the fact that average levels of education-the best individual-level predictor of political participation-have raised sharply throughout this period. Every year over the last decade or two, millions more have withdrawn from the affairs of their communities. Not coincidentally, Americans have also disengaged psychologically from politics and government over this era. The proportion of Americans who reply that they “trust the government in Washington” only “some of the time” or “almost never” has risen steadily from 30 percent in 1966 to 75 percent in 1992. These trends are well known, of course, and taken by themselves would seem amenable to a strictly political explanation. Perhaps the long litany of political tragedies and scandals since the 1960s (assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, Irangate, and so on) has triggered an understandable disgust of politics and government among Americans, and that in turn has motivated their withdrawal. I do not doubt that this common interpretation has some merit, but its limitations become plain when we examine trends in civic engagement of a wider sort. Our survey of organizational membership among Americans can usefully begin with a glance at the aggregate results of the General Social Survey, a scientifically conducted, national-sample survey that has been repeated 14 times over the last two decades. Church-related groups constitute the most common type of organization joined by Americans; they are especially popular with women. Other types of organizations frequently joined by women include School-service groups (mostly parent-teacher associations), sports groups, professional societies, and literary societies. Among men, sports clubs, labor unions, professional societies, fraternal groups, veterans’ groups, and service clubs are all relatively popular. Religious affiliation is by far the most common associational membership among Americans. Indeed, by many measures America continues to be (even more than in Tocqueville’s time) an astonishingly “churched” society. For example, the United States has more houses of worship per capita than any other nation on Earth. Yet religious sentiment in America seems to be becoming somewhat less tied to institutions and more self-defined. How have these complex crosscurrents played out over the last three or four decades in terms of Americans’ engagement with organized religion? The general pattern is clear: The 1960s witnessed a significant drop in reported weekly churchgoing-from roughly 48 percent in the late 1950s to roughly 41 percent in the early 1970s. Since then, it has stagnated or (according to some surveys) declined still further. Meanwhile, data from the General Social Survey show a modest decline in membership in all “church-related groups” over the last 20 years. It would seem, then, that net participation by Americans, both in religious services and in church-related groups, has declined modestly (by perhaps a sixth) since the 1960s. For many years, labor unions provided one of the most common organizational affiliations among American workers. Yet union membership has been falling for nearly four decades, with the steepest decline occurring between 1975 and 1985. Since the mid-1950s, when union membership peaked, the unionized portion of the nonagricultural work force in America has dropped by more than half, falling from 32.5 percent in 1953 to 15.8 percent in 1992. By now, virtually all of the explosive growth in union membership that was associated with the New Deal has been erased. The solidarity of union halls is now mostly a fading memory of aging men.
The parent-teacher association (PTA) has been an especially important form of civic engagement in twentieth-century America because parental involvement in the educational process represents a particularly productive form of social capital.
It is, therefore, dismaying to discover that participation in parent-teacher organizations has dropped drastically over the last generation, from more than 12 million in 1964 to barely 5 million in 1982 before recovering to approximately 7 million now. Next, we turn to evidence on membership in (and volunteering for) civic and fraternal organizations. These data show some striking patterns. First, membership in traditional women’s groups has declined more or less steadily since the mid-1960s. For example, membership in the national Federation of 5 Women’s Clubs is down by more than half (59 percent) since 1964, while membership in the League of Women Voters (LWV) is off 42 percent since 1969. Similar reductions are apparent in the numbers of volunteers for mainline civic organizations, such as the Boy Scouts (off by 26 percent since 1970) and the Red Cross (off by 61 percent since 1970). But what about the possibility that volunteers have simply switched their loyalties to other organizations? Evidence on “regular” (as opposed to occasional or “drop-by”) volunteering is available from the Labor Department’s Current Population Surveys of 1974 and 1989. These estimates suggest that serious volunteering declined by roughly one-sixth over these 15 years, from 24 percent of adults in 1974 to 20 percent in 1989. The multitudes of Red Cross aides and Boy Scout troop leaders now missing in action have apparently not been offset by equal numbers of new recruits elsewhere. Fraternal organizations have also witnessed a substantial drop in membership during the 1980s and 1990s. Membership is down significantly in such groups as the Lions (off 12 percent since 1983), the Elks (off 18 percent since 1979), the Shriners (off 27 percent since 1979), the Jaycees (off 44 percent since 1979), and the Masons (down 39 percent since 1959). In sum, after expanding steadily throughout most of this century, many major civic organizations have experienced a sudden, substantial, and nearly simultaneous decline in membership over the last decade or two. The most whimsical yet discomfiting bit of evidence of social disengagement in contemporary America that I have discovered is this: more Americans are bowling today than ever before, but bowling in organized leagues has plummeted in the last decade or so. Between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bowlers in America increased by 10 percent, while league bowling decreased by 40 percent. (Lest this be thought a wholly trivial example, I should note that nearly 80 million Americans went bowling at least once during 1993, nearly a third more than voted in the 1994 congressional elections and roughly the same number as claim to attend church regularly. Even after the 1980s’ plunge in league bowling, nearly 3 percent of American adults regularly bowl in leagues.) The rise of solo bowling threatens the livelihood of bowling-lane proprietors because those who bowl as members of leagues consume three times as much beer and pizza as solo bowlers, and the money in bowling is in the beer and pizza, not the balls and shoes. The broader social significance, however, lies in the social interaction and even occasionally civic conversations over beer and pizza that solo bowlers forgo. Whether or not bowling beats balloting in the eyes of most Americans, bowling teams illustrate yet another vanishing form of social capital.
GOOD NEIGHBORLINESS AND SOCIAL TRUST
I noted earlier that most readily available quantitative evidence on trends in social connectedness involves formal settings, such as the voting booth, the union hall, or the PTA. One glaring exception is so widely discussed as to require little comment here: the most fundamental form of social capital is the family, and the massive evidence of the loosening of bonds within the family (both extended and nuclear) is well known. This trend, of course, is quite consistent with–and may help to explain–our theme of social de-capitalization. A second aspect of informal social capital on which we happen to have reasonably reliable time-series data involves neighborliness. In each General Social Survey since 1974 respondents have been asked, “How often do you spend a social evening with a neighbor?” The proportion of Americans who socialize with their neighbors more than once a year has slowly but steadily declined over the last two decades, from 72 percent in 1974 to 61 percent in 1993. (On the other hand, socializing with “friends who do not live in your neighborhood” appears to be on the increase, a trend that may reflect the growth of workplace-based social connections.) Americans are also less trusting. The proportion of Americans saying that most people can be trusted fell by more than a third between 1960, when 58 percent chose that alternative, and 1993, when only 37 percent did. The same trend is apparent in all educational groups; indeed, because social trust is also correlated with education and because educational levels have risen sharply, the overall decrease in social trust is even more apparent if we control for education. Our discussion of trends in social connectedness and civic engagement has tacitly assumed that all the forms of social capital that we have discussed are themselves coherently correlated across individuals. This is in fact true. Members of associations are much more likely than nonmembers to participate in politics, to spend time with neighbors, to express social trust, and so on. The close correlation between social trust and associational membership is true not only across time and across individuals, but also across countries.
Evidence from the 1991 World Values Survey demonstrates the following:
1) Across the 35 countries in this survey, social trust and civic engagement are strongly correlated; the greater the density of associational membership in a society, the more trusting its citizens. Trust and engagement are two facets of the same underlying factor–social capital.
2) America still ranks relatively high by cross national standards on both these dimensions of social capital. Even in the 1990s, after several decades’ erosion, Americans are more trusting and more engaged than people in most other countries of the world.
3) The trends of the past quarter-century, however, have apparently moved the United States significantly lower in the international rankings of social capital. The recent deterioration in American social capital has been sufficiently great that (if no other country changed its position in the meantime) another quarter-century of change at the same rate would bring the United States, roughly speaking, to the midpoint among all these countries, roughly equivalent to South Korea, Belgium, or Estonia today. Two generations’ decline at the same rate would leave the United States at the level of today’s Chile, Portugal, and Slovenia.
WHY IS U.S. SOCIAL CAPITAL ERODING?
As we have seen, something has happened in America in the last two or three decades to diminish civic engagement and social connectedness. What could that “something” be? Here are several possible explanations, along with some initial evidence on each. The movement of women into the labor force. Over these same two or three decades, many millions of American women have moved out of the home into paid employment. This is the primary, though not the sole, reason why the weekly working hours of the average American have increased significantly during these years. It seems highly plausible that this social revolution should have reduced the time and energy available for building social capital. For certain organizations, such as the PTA, the League of Women Voters, the Federation of Women’s Clubs, and the Red Cross, this is almost certainly an important part of the story. The sharpest decline in women’s civic participation seems to have come in the 1970s; membership in such “women’s” organizations as these has been virtually halved since the late 1960s. By contrast, most of the decline in participation in men’s organizations occurred about ten years later; the total decline to date has been approximately 25 percent for the typical organization. On the other hand, the survey data imply that the aggregate declines for men are virtually as great as those for women. It is logically possible, of course, that the male declines might represent the knock-on effect of women’s liberation, as dishwashing crowded out the lodge, but time-budget studies suggest that most husbands of working wives have assumed only a minor part of
the housework. In short, something besides the women’s revolution seems to lie behind the erosion of social capital. Mobility: The “re-potting” hypothesis. Numerous studies of organizational involvement have shown that residential stability and such related phenomena as homeownership are clearly associated with greater civic engagement. Mobility, like frequent re-potting of plants, tends to disrupt root systems, and it takes time for an uprooted individual to put down new roots. It seems plausible that the automobile, suburbanization, and the movement to the Sun Belt have reduced the social rootedness of the average American, but one fundamental difficulty with this hypothesis is apparent: the best evidence shows that residential stability and homeownership in America have risen modestly since 1965, and are surely higher now than during the 1950s, when civic engagement and social connectedness by our measures was definitely higher.
A range of additional changes have transformed the American family since the 1960s–fewer marriages, more divorces, fewer children, lower real wages, and so on. Each of these changes might account for some of the slackening of civic engagement, since married, middle-class parents are generally more socially involved than other people. Moreover, the changes in scale that have swept over the American economy in these years–illustrated by the replacement of the corner grocery by the supermarket and now perhaps of the supermarket by electronic shopping at home, or the replacement of community-based enterprises by outposts of distant multinational firms–may perhaps have undermined the material and even physical basis for civic engagement. The technological transformation of leisure. There is reason to believe that deep-seated technological trends are radically “privatizing” or “individualizing” our use of leisure time and thus disrupting many opportunities for social-capital formation. The most obvious and probably the most powerful instrument of this revolution is television. Time-budget studies in the 1960s showed that the growth in time spent watching television dwarfed all other changes in the way Americans passed their days and nights. Television has made our communities (or, rather, what we experience as our communities) wider and shallower. In the language of economics, electronic technology enables individual tastes to be satisfied more fully, but at the cost of the positive social externalities associated with more primitive forms of entertainment. The same logic applies to the replacement of vaudeville by the movies and now of movies by the VCR. The new “virtual reality” helmets that we will soon don to be entertained in total isolation are merely the latest extension of this trend. Is technology thus driving a wedge between our individual interests and our collective interests?
Our Voice, Our Action, Our Nation
Living Life on High Alert
Earlier this year, I was walking out of my Management Policies class which is a night course, where I have been attending college for the last three and a half years and walked into a “high threat area” what is that exactly? It is an area in which presents an environment that produces the highest probability of a volatile situation. As I walked to my car I immediately realized that my surroundings were not “ideal”. I was alone where it is usually very busy (as where I park it is a bus transit station, and always has people milling about…but not this night), the lights were out, and an alley is adjacent to where I park. So I took this all into account; maintained an aggressive posture and continued walking to my car at an external site from my school approximately 500 meters from the university. As I crossed the four way intersection I began to walk towards where I was parked maintaining a patrol like vigilance scanning the area around me, and out of the corner of my eye I picked up a “possible threat” it was a single male, white with a slim build and a hoody, so I made note and continue walking, but reached in my pocket to locate the knife I have at all times, gripped it, and began playing out how I was going to play this scenario out if it came down to getting gritty! So with my decision made and the “threat” within my “imminent personal bubble” and about a hands length from my most vulnerable position (which would be entering my car) I made my stand! Which was to garner my pocket knife and turn and face my aggressor, and stare him in his eye displaying that I was a “take no shit kind of person” but at the same time I was in the rear of my Ford Five Hundred, and did not realize that another element was coming to my aid – my license plate which states that I am a Iraq Veteran. So I stood facing a tall, slim, white male with no words spoken by either side just pure malicious intent! He stared at me and then my knife and then my license plate about three times trying to rationalize the scenario. All the while I was postured up, and staring him in the face ready for him to make a move, but after what seemed like 5 minutes, but was really about 60 seconds he choose the flight option in a “fight or flight” situation and disembarked in the direction of the dark alley in which he started his offensive agenda. (I know many are saying why did you not chase him! It crossed my mind but I know the strategies and beginnings of an ambush and I did not posses the assets to pursue a victorious counter offensive) I made a police report the following day(I waited as it was late and I wanted to go home). As I lingered on the thought of my situation happening to someone else that may not be as well equipped to handle that type of situation, and as any tale of felonious larceny and assault in the Ypsilanti, MI area the person was never found nor a wide scale investigation completed.
Why did I start this post named “Living life on High Alert” with this particular story because I wanted you to see that what I am about to explain plays out well for my life. If you have not read my article on “Victory over Adversity” I would recommend taking a moment to read it so that you can get the full intention of this article.
I wake up everyday with a sense of high alert and internal rage, and this is something that carries with me everyday of my life, and never really holsters itself. At any moment I feel capable of reaching out and “crushing someone’s skull” as the Marine Corps so delicately taught me, or to put it as General “Mad Dog” Mattis told it “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” I am not saying that I want to kill everyone, but simply using a reference for my current “high alert” posture, and give you another perspective outside how I was raised as to why I am the way I am. 
I maintain a defensive strategy in my home at all times and without giving away all of my defensive strategies to a ill willed individual I will tell you some of my strategy of “Life on High Alert” so that you can get a glimpse of how it plays out in my daily life. It starts with locked doors at all times as a first line of defense while in home and out of it. Locked doors are supported with various weapons of “opportunity” throughout my home, so that I do not get backed into a scenario if it were to arise that I would not have the means to defend my home and family from. The locations of those items- well I will leave that to an intruder to find out, when I have to use them!(as they say to each there own) I know many probably cannot connect with me at this point, but stay with me. The Marine Corps Infantry taught me many things that translated well into my personal life, but one lesson clung to me the quickest-that in order to have a great defense, one needs a superior offense- (no, I did not divulge some secret military stratagem, but more military common sense-if it exist). I know what you are thinking what does the mean? So let me explain; in order to have superior defense you must have a sizable ferocious offense, so that no one will ever find your line of defense and want to try their hand at compromising it-makes sense right? I live this out in my daily life, as I always keep my head up and ears open in public while my eyes continually look around to analyze my environment. My posture and voice always remain firm enough to portray confidence, but also to void any suspicions that I am not able to “carry the sword I am wielding!”- A kind of …”if you jump, I can jump higher! I guarantee it” (many are probably hearing the Men’s Warehouse commercial in their head). This is my daily perspective of walking this blissful Earth, many may think I am crazy, but it has saved me many times over the course of my life. It is not tiring to operate the way I do; it is just not easy to explain to people that A.) Have not been in the Military, and B.) Have never been a victim in a scenario that did not have the tools to control. 
Another scenario of “life on high alert” happened to me yesterday. I was confronted with a scenario that many would have probably played down, but I played it out. I was walking to my office and exiting an ally way in which I use from time to time to vary my routes to and from work (terrorism 101…Marines know) when I was bombarded with a series of incoherent babblings to which I quickly found out originated from a short Indian girl with a cellular phone in her hand, frantically looking for someone to help her in a low traffic area. So I took an aggressive posture preparing for bait and attack type ambush; told her to slow down, and began assessing the situation which i quickly decided was controllable and after doing a quick 360 degree scan of the area I took a position with my back about an arms distance to a all Window wall behind me, so that I would only have to control 180 degrees of the environment around me, and at this point I allowed her to come closer to me and explain herself. It turned out she had just came to America from India and she was making her way to Chicago but a relative who drove her from the Airport mistakenly took her bus pass for the last stretch of her trip. So I gave her my phone and after about six conversations on my phone (that I could not understand) she had received that information to obtain a new pass from the bus transit office. So in the words of George W. Bush “Mission Accomplished” and crisis adverted. I know many of you would not have taken the amount of precautionary measures but that is how I handle any scenario in my life of high alert. I committed myself to never becoming a victim again and I always tell people when they ask “if you do not prepare to be a victim; you will be one!” Simply meaning that if you do not have a plan or safeties in place there is a higher probability you will find yourself in a bad situation without the means to achieve a positive outcome.
So what is the point of this article? Protect yourselves, Life has a precarious way of developing and I always try to be proactive in preparation when it comes to mitigating risk, seeking positive opportunity, exposing volatile scenarios, and never going backwards in life accomplishments. I have a solemn vow to be great, and I intend to be just that and I think everyone has this ability to do the same. I live my life on high alert by choice and by the exposure of past actions in my life. I strive to live my life surrounded by positive, well directed people that want only the best for my life and theirs. I think we are drawn to negative people and they enjoy maintaining “hostages” in their life or people that cannot close with and destroy a poor influencer from their life as they do not posses the skills to do so. I want to call these influencers succubus’s of success as these types of people have to have active audiences to tell their tales of hate and discontent or they lose there power to condemn and slow lives of others. I have found that as I raised my level of “personal” security my life reaped the benefits of a better outlook and a more productive tempo. I am not championing a alert level like myself, but I want others to analyze their greatest fears and see that they can overcome them, and be better then what stops them from pursuing “life outside the wire” or life after fear. We are the purveyors of our future, and the protectors of our sanctity as human beings. I live my life on high alert as a choice and I have overcome hurdle after hurdle with this mindset. Life is not easy, but it gets easier with the right mindset and great company.
Affordable Healthcare by the numbers.
We all hear a lot of talk in regards to the Affordable Care Act or ACA or ObamaCare in the news and to me it is always so vague on details it leaves me scratching my head asking ”what is ACA really doing for Americans- holistically?” I know I am not alone in this thought as even politicians are scratching their heads wondering what they signed off on without really reading. So I did a little research based on of course the numbers and attached a graphic from the Heritage foundation on the current fiscal budget to reference as you read (if you chose to). Enjoy!
So first let’s take a look at the full scenario in America based on surveys conducted by various agencies in which I will list at the end of the article for your review.
• Based on a 2012 Census report there are 48 million uninsured Americans or 15.4%
• In 2012, about three-fourths of working-age adults with low incomes (less than $14,856 a year for an individual or $30,657 for a family of four)—an estimated 40 million people—were uninsured or underinsured.
• Fifty-nine percent of adults with moderate incomes (between $14,856 and $27,925 for an individual or between $30,657 and $57,625 for a family of four)—or 21 million people —were uninsured or underinsured.
• Adults who were uninsured were less likely to receive recommended preventive care in 2012. For example, only 48 percent of women who were uninsured during the year received a mammogram within the recommended period, compared to 77 percent of those who were well insured all year.
• Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, not statistically different in real terms from the 2011 median of $51,100
The ACA health insurance premiums are projected to be an average of $328 monthly or $3,936 annually for a Bronze package. I myself settled up to battle the Healthcare.gov (when it worked) to see if the healthcare exchange would be better for myself and family and my premium per month was $946 per month- my employer coverage is currently $115 per paycheck bi-weekly and will increase by $30 a paycheck next year so with my current high deductible plan I will pay $290 per month with additional cost going to a tax-free Health Savings Plan which I will contribute $500 to annually with an additional contribution of $800 annually from my employer. I am apart of the 85% of Americans that have health insurance coverage – my worries are what about those that do not?
Now, let’s look at the penalties for the coming years if one were not to procure health coverage for various personal reasons:
(All calculations are for perspective purpose only! Flat and null of market fluctuations based on if more Americans were to obtain insurance in this time frame, affects of inflation over time, lowered average premium cost, and amendments made to penalties.)
2014 Scenario
In 2014, the fine to remain uninsured is $95 per person (up to a family maximum of $285, or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater) and $47.50 per child. Now most families in America will be charged the max $285 based on the above mentioned data. As most that would not qualify for subsidies as they make to much money so in the first year these charges would equate to approximately 30 million American families being charged this fee so that would be $8.5 billion collected in fees the first year and $6.8 billion paid out for subsidized beneficiaries.
2015 Scenario
The penalty will increase to $325 per person and $162.50 per child in 2015 or $925 maximum or 2% of family’s annual income; greater cost will be deducted. Penalty fees will be collected in the amount of $27.75 billion and $6.8 billion dispersed to handle subsidized beneficiaries.
2016 Scenario
In the following year the penalty will cap at $695 per person and $347.50 per child or 2.5% of a family’s income up to $2,085; greater cost will be deducted. In each of these penalty scenarios that I just discussed most family’s will pay the top amount each year for not having health insurance, so using the above mentioned number of 30 million Americans unable to procure health insurance in the year 2016, the amount of fees collected from uninsured working/unemployed Americans would be $62.5 billion and than tax funds would pay $6.8 billion for those that are subsidized with credits.
Now let me wrap up the numbers portion of this article….
In just three years, ACA will collect fines of $98.75 billion if the uninsured stay as they are and face the penalties as they have not found a affordable way to obtain health insurance at the average median income of $51,017 a year, and distributed 20.4 billion for subsidized beneficiaries based on my flat line calculations that do not include fluctuations in the market as they are difficult to predict with my level of research.
Enrollment and Exemptions
Many of us know you can sign up for health coverage on an exchange anytime between now and March 1, 2014 and your coverage would begin Jan. 1, 2014, at the earliest. If you do not enroll in that window, you will not be able to get health coverage through the insurance exchange marketplace until the next annual enrollment period unless there are extenuating circumstances. To achieve subisidies and exemptions you would have to fall under one such scenario of the following:
•You are uninsured for less than three months of the year.
•You live illegally in the United States.
•You’re incarcerated and not awaiting disposition.
•You’re a member of a recognized Indian tribe.
•Your income is officially deemed too low ($10,000 a year individual/$20,000 family).
•The lowest-priced converge would cost more than 8 percent of your household income.
•You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare.
•You’re a member of a recognized health-sharing ministry
My Thoughts..
I am not sure if this program will settle the weary American woes of health insurance, but I am certain that it will cost financially weary Americans some additional money every year if they are not able to budget appropriately for Health coverage in their current fiscal scenario. My hope is that Americans look at these numbers and start to engage a plan to either go with the current ACA policy or become engaged in a solution to better our American health industry through vigorous passion and undeniable voice! What is your stance?
OUR VOICE. OUR ACTION. OUR NATION
For inforamtion verification and sourcing see links below:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/uninsuredintheus/ib.shtml
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions
The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act
The American Welfare State
I recently got into a debate via social media about the current condition of the United States Welfare program and challenged to present data to support my views on why the American Social Programs are overrun and this article is what I put together. I hope you enjoy the read!
America thrives on a Citizens capability to thrive in the work force and achieve fiscal independence, and I have always believed that as a person that is blessed to walk the soils of this glorious nation that I am able to achieve such financial prowess by possessing these three American traits; strong work ethic, ambition, and ferocious determination but there is a growing lack of these traits in America as more Citizens settle into the social programs that have come to be since the revelations of the 1930’s or The Great Depression era and I have often wondered how have these programs developed over the decades since their conception. So lets look at the current numbers and reference the numbers of the 1980’s – a relatively lull era of events.
Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare—————- 12,800,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps————- 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance—2,859,000
Total number of Americans on assistance————– 21%
As we all know Welfare has long been a considerable presence in the U.S. economy that now services 313.9 million people. As of August 65.1 million or 21% of the American population are enrolled in an assistance program. I by no means feel that social programs serve no benefits to America, but I do not think that such a hefty amount of American’s need to be involved in this program – call it skepticism as only 58.6% of our population attributes to the labor force – now I know what most may be thinking at this point – What a brutal thing to say! I know many people that can hold jobs but will not as they are assimilated to entitlement living. America needs programs like this to ballast the poverty levels – I know this, but the term “impoverished” needs to be reevaluated as if a person is a working class American that cannot afford vital life needs then they very well should seek assistance as most Americans would be overjoyed to help a working family, but if a person on this program makes it a long term career choice than they should be desisted from their position and recycled into the labor force until they accumulate some work experience and replenish some of the funds they used in their long stay on Welfare – this is my opinion anyway.
So lets look at how long Americans on these programs stay on them; here are the statistics based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human:
Less than 7 months——19%
7 to 12 months—— 15.2%
1 to 2 years——— 19.3%
2 to 5 years——— 26.9%
Over 5 years ——– 19.6%
Another portion of this debate is how these programs affect The United States financially – So let’s take a look.
Currently, entitlement spending reflects as a 19% expenditure to our Gross Domestic Product or GDP which currently produces $15.6 trillion annually. That means Entitlement spending cost American’s $3 trillion a year! These figures are an increase from the 1980’s deduction of 13% which would have equated to $3.6 billion deducted from the $2.8 trillion GDP generated in the 1980’s. An impressive jump in expense in just 33 years; to put it in a stronger prospective that is a $2.994 trillion dollar increase; or 9.1 billion dollar increase each year since 1980 – I think we all got the point by now. It is truly a growing deficiency in our gross domestic product and it is projected to grow significantly with the current fiscal course of the United States.
My calcuations are based on the most recent published data from government agencies and does not reflect the implications of inflation over time.
Now enough about numbers, lets talk America – we all know that America faces some turbulent times ahead and with those times Americans will suffer and have to go without certain properties of their life but lets face it we cannot continue to feed horrendous amounts of dollars into a program without discussing how to weed out career beneficiaries that take from those that actually need aid. There must be changes to these program that make it as prosperous as it was meant to be, not a lifestyle choice for working capable American’s. We can fix any aspect of America if we are willing to pursue the proper corrections as we are united in this effort to keep the United States an autonomous fiscal body!
OUR VOICE. OUR ACTION. OUR NATION.
If you want to look at additional spending information that I used to draft this article here they are:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
http://www.wrconference.net/
http://www.acf.hhs.gov
http://www.hhs.gov/
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm
andrewsoption 