I'm actually really super mega tired of hearing about people claiming that Jesus is going to come back during the blood moons or people coming up with silly theories about the blood moons.
Let's get a few things under the "reigns" here first so we are all under the same premises:
1 - What we call a "blood moon" is actually the name for a total lunar eclipse. There are two things that need to happen in order for this to take place. First, the moon has to been in the "full moon" phase in order for it to happen. Second, the moon needs to pass into the shadow of the earth. The earth has a partial and a full shadow. The blood moon only occurs in the full shadow of the earth.
2 - The current calendar that we use is the Gregorian Calendar. Prior to that (circa 1580's) we used the Julian calendar. These dates figure longer and shorter for given months.
3 - The Jewish calendar is based on typical lunar cycles and their holidays correspond.
4 - Jewish Holidays aren't singular days such as "Christmas" or "Easter" but they last for about a week for the major holidays.
5 - Blood Moons aren't something that everyone everywhere on earth can view at the same time. When we are having night and view the eclipse the other side of the earth is experiencing day and the eclipses only last a few hours.
6 - When four of these "Blood Moons" occur within two years it's called a "tetrad" because of the rarity. From the time of 1c.e. there will have been 62 Tetrads until 2100c.e.
So there is a lot of conjecture about when these fall because people are making a lot of buzz about them falling on Jewish Holidays. This actually will have happened 8 times:
1. 162-163 C.E. (Common Era)
2. 795-796 C.E.
3. 842-843 C.E.
4. 860-861 C.E.
5. 1493-1494 C.E.
6. 1949-1950 C.E.
7. 1967-1968 C.E.
8. 2014-2015 C.E.
I'm actually kind of tired of hearing about famous events as if they are some sort of crazy happening. For instance, in 1967 the 76ers won the NBA Championship on the same day of the April Blood moon. That doesn't mean anything. The game was on that day. If the other team won you could draw your own lines in that way too. Later that year, Disney's "Jungle Book" was released on the next one. The other two from 1968 have no significant events tied with them.
The fact is that what happens with people and the moon is a lot of times based on how we interact with things. I do know the biblical prophecies and I see a lot of people drawing conclusions about what happens with Israel and the blood moon. Here's the problem with that line of thinking. Those blood moons on those holidays would have happened whether anything happened with Israel or not. It was the way the moon was moving in relation to the sun and the earth. If Israel didn't declare independence from Brittain in 1948 the blood moons still would have happened and it would still have been on those holidays.
It's wildly erratic to pull conclusions from what people do in relation to a natural phenomenon that we could calculate into the foreseeable future. If you believe Jesus is coming back, great! Good! I'm just saying that these occurrences are not likely what the prophets were talking about as it is inevitable that some of those people too had seen a blood moon before the prophecies were ever made. Those prophecies also mention an earthquake right before them that "moves mountains and islands" and a ton of stars falling from the sky.
Sometimes having a little context is more important than being right. Sure the bible could be talking about these blood moons, but if they are the earthquake and big happenings with them aren't there. Instead maybe we stop focusing on "getting out of here" and remember that Jesus said this:
Jesus replied: “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Nobody is Born Gay
In recent media, it has become increasingly popular to talk about the LGBT community and it seems to be a very divided situation. There are conservatives who think that people choose to be gay and there are the liberals that think that you are born one way or another. The truth of the matter is actually much much more surface level than that and it has a lot of science to back it up.
Before I even start into the topic, I'm going to make a DISCLAIMER here: In this blog I will be talking about "private" parts and I intend to refer to them by their names. I don't be using slang for them but not using the actual names makes things even more confusing and given the nature of how confused people seem to be about it the argument is better suited with real terms.
Now that it's out of the way, I plan to discuss the variant types of sexuality by breaking them down into the following elements:
1. All People Are Sexual
2. Rules of Attraction
3. Conditioning
4. Pools of Availability
5. How Choice Works
Rather than discussing each type of sexuality I will make here a list of types that all conform to the same set of rules:
1. Non-Sexuality -uninterested in any sexual activity
2. Asexuality -only interested in sexual activity by ones self
3. Homosexuality -having interest solely in the same gender
4. Heterosexuality -having interest solely in the opposite gender
5. Bisexuality - having interest in both genders
In these categories, there really isn't any such thing as 3 or 4, but I will discuss this later. Instead, for right now, let's just use the logical argument that they are a possibility simply because they are options rather than considering the real world application of them being entirely unobserved. On to the point.
ALL PEOPLE ARE SEXUAL
In all of science and nature we observe things in relation to their capacity for reproduction. We generally refer to this as their sexuality. Some things produce asexually, meaning within themselves. Some things produce heterosexually, meaning with the opposite gender. Ultimately, even among all of the five categories mentioned in the list, the goal of all of nature in any of those systems is a system for reproduction.
I am going to denounce here any kind of assertion that reproduction is the value for sexuality alone. It is much much more complex than mere reproductive value, as recent science mentions that the hormones that influence attraction for same-sex features for an in-utero fetus also cause the mother to become several times more fertile. If you're conservative and latching onto the idea of reproduction, your efforts are futile. If you are liberal and claiming that it's not the only function, you are correct but don't get too hasty.
What I mean when I say that all people are sexual is actually really simple. Everyone has an personal take on sexuality. They either do or do not prefer to engage in sexual activity. If they do, then they either do with others or alone. I it's with others then there must be a method of deciding which they will have interaction with - men or women. So all people are sexual in nature. We actually have tons of proof for this in your genetics. There are actual genes in your DNA that decidedly make you sexual. Everyone is sexual.
What does this mean? It's actually really simple. Nobody "IS" gay or straight or bi. We are all sexual beings and there is a number of variations we can choose from at any given moment and they are all consistently available to us. Good. Got it.
RULES OF ATTRACTION
This is where we get into the fun stuff. I am by no means "the authority" on all things regarding attraction. Nobody is. It's still a widely researched subject, but we can identify a few simple basics. Everyone who is interested in someone else for sexual activity must have a set of criteria that separates those that they find viable from those that they do not or you would simply sleep with everyone and anyone.
RULE #1: Attraction is not set in stone. It is ever-changing.
This is actually part of the beautiful thing with attraction. This is what allows two people to consistently be attracted to one another despite that her breasts sag, his hair runs for the back of his neck, her face gets wrinkles, and he becomes a curmudgeon such as myself. The fact that she can love my fat belly and still learn to love me while I lose weight and the fact that I will love her despite her size, hair, makeup, or whatever is what makes the relationship the most viable and as a product of that reproduction most viable. Attraction, from an evolutionary standpoint is required to be changing so as to prolong the species for the most possible applications. It's a beautiful thing that we aren't all locked into thinking that the Cheerleader or the Swimsuit model is attractive. To be candid, at the moment I do not personally find those looks attractive at all, but I will talk about the why of that in a later point.
The Kinsey Scale is a good and replicated experiment that shows that people at different times change their sexuality by some element (Kinsey Scale Experiment). In the experiment it is actually only a very short period of time for anyone that they are exclusively one type of sexual and even then it's largely skewed. The results actually suggest that there is never really a moment where people are solely one sexuality type but rather we are all bi-sexually capable at most times.
RULE #2: We are not attracted to GENDER. We are attracted to features.
Science is ever confirming that what drives the attraction template is features.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/17-facts-about-human-sexual-attraction_n_3817941.html)
We are not decidedly attracted to a gender. If I did makeup for a girl to look EXACTLY like Hugh Jackman and took a picture and then placed it next to a picture of the real thing, my wife would find both attractive despite that the one has a vagina and the other has a penis because the way Hugh Jackman looks has features that she finds attractive. If we were solely attracted to someone based on genitalia we would all be unable to be attracted to someone unless they were naked. Alas, here we are in a day and age where we are attracted to features and not to gender per se. That's not to say there is no balance there either. Let's say that I was attracted to skinny arms. I might find that attractive, but when the person also has a hairy face and zitted back, I've weighted those unattractive features as heavier than the attractive "skinny arms." This lends us to the next rule.
RULE # 3: Everyone is attracted in some capacity to both genders as a product of rule #2.
Features are not unique to a gender that do not define their gender. That is to say, having wide hips is not uniquely female. There are males with this feature. Being hairy isn't intrinsically a male feature. There are hairy women. For any given stimulus for attraction it can be given to both male and female counterparts. If you are sitting there as a conservative thinking, "No way! There is no way I'm attracted to the same gender at all!" you are already missing it. It isn't suggesting that you are interested in the same gender as a whole being. It's suggesting that both genders will exhibit features that you find attractive. This is actually supported by science over and over again
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kinseyinstitute.org%2Fresearch%2Fak-hhscale.html&ei=3mVAU6rxKces2QWrjoFY&usg=AFQjCNGoiHbeU40wSH_o5fRDVdNVE7JhQw&sig2=JPNDTnXXibHeaht7L9di9g&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I)
So decidedly, we all have the ability to be attracted to both genders if we are a sexual in a way that is not non-sexual or asexual.
I'm sure there are a ton of other rules, but these are ones that I can define through a vast amount of reading on the subject and going over several scientific journals to find. They all circle back to these three main points and generally try to define sub-rules within these three.
CONDITIONING
In the media there is a drastic problem with how people view this. It has widely been held to believe that you could simply condition someone to be interested in the opposite sex by exposing them to those conditions long enough. The problem with that is Rule #2 of the rules of attraction. You aren't exclusively attracted to one given gender.
There are a few different things that condition you to like a given feature and this is a part that science is particularly concerned with understanding at the moment - so forgive any gaps in the explanation. If you have more information about how conditioning happens here, please feel free to comment. Anyway, onward and upward.
The recent scientific thought is that conditioning actually begins in the womb. The hormones given off by the mother and the environment of the womb begins you conditioning to certain hormones and certain stimuli that give you a positive or negative result and those results cause you to be conditioned for that response. So if you take a given feature you can actually come up with any number of variant ways to condition that feature. This is a lot of the difficulty of science right now and them trying to find out what makes someone straight or gay - forget the fact that nobody is decidedly either for their whole life.
Let's take an example of a "square jaw line" as a feature. I might have had a lot of people who had square jaw lines reach out to me in love as a child and I could have felt those feelings. As a result, when I see the feature, my body is conditioned to produce the same chemical response in a similar way that our body is conditioned to produce dopamine when we see other people smile
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.bufferapp.com%2Fthe-science-of-smiling-a-guide-to-humans-most-powerful-gesture&ei=Q2hAU-H2KsT22AXF1YGwDA&usg=AFQjCNEwFZLsRq3tDDHzaZcHYoyXRdnBpg&sig2=ahg29B-SmmkCNq4pSGhWXA&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I).
Most recently there have been advances in the study of conditioning and sexual desires. Here are some recent studies on sexual conditioning:
It's not really possible to dial all of the interactions that I have with square jaw lines to a definitive action. It's also not definitive that it is only male people who have given these experiences. What is definitive in this example would be that the square jaw line would then make me feel the same feelings of love in a biochemical way and I will be conditioned to seek these features out. Simple enough but then this plays into the next point.
POOLS OF AVAILABILITY
The thing that trips people up is exactly like what I was illustrating in the last point. If I were, for instance, conditioned to be attracted to square jaw lines, there is a finite group of people who possess the feature of having a square jaw line unless we were to surgically alter everyone to have them and then I would have some remote attraction to everyone.
The uniqueness of features serves to divide people into pools for the propagation of a given species. Generally, we like to find people with features similar to ourselves, as a rule of thumb, but not everyone is conditioned that way. In the case of the square jaw line, if that was my attraction for that feature then I might be led to conclude that I am more attracted to men because more men have square jaw lines than women. That's not definitively the truth. Assume that I put that person in a room with 10 square jawed women. If one of them had enough features that I found attractive, I would be attracted to that woman. It's actually really simple how the fundamentals work. It's a balance of attraction vs unattraction. If you have more features that I find attractive than those that I do not I will consequently find you attractive.
For some people, this can become very very difficult. Let's assume that you have a trait that is very rare that is conditioned to you as attractive - say hetrachromia (having two different colored eyes). If that is something that my mother had and I was conditioned to find attractive I have now reduced my options for finding that specific feature to roughly 1% of the nation. That's not too bad because I might have other features that are more common that outweigh that need, but let's say that I am also conditioned for red hair and very pale skin. I have now given myself to roughly a 4% chance if I searched all of the continental US to find someone with all three of those features. If those are weighted the most heavily, I may well assume that I need to "settle" or that I simply won't find someone attractive.
If I were conditioned to find mostly male characteristics then I am limiting myself to a very small portion of females but a very large portion of males. This might lead me to believe that "I am a gay male" but that's not really the truth. The truth is that I am conditioned to be attracted to features that are predominantly found in men. I am not gay or straight. I am conditioned and I select partners based on the pool of availability for a given set of desired features that will outweigh the undesired ones.
HOW CHOICE WORKS
If I were to say to you, "I have blargs and splarks. Which do you prefer?" you are then instantly provided with a choice. That is to say, when you are provided more than one option for any given need/want then you are afforded choice unless you are forced into one option without the ability to go to the other. For instance, there are several options for eye color, but I cannot actually choose mine. I can cover it up with contacts but I cannot actually change my eye color. I can color my hair, but I can never actually change my hair color. Those are forced on my through my DNA and I have absolutely no choice in the matter.
In sexuality, there are decidedly elements of your DNA that make you a sexual being. We have several studies that can actually pinpoint several chromosomes that are decidedly involved with your sexual decision making and the balancing of those desired and undesired features. In the case of the blargs and the splarks, we have no actual criteria as to value one over the other, so you still have a choice, but as of right now it is entirely arbitrary as I have given no values to them. If I say that blargs make you wealthy and splarks will make you poor, you would have a large portion of people who will now prefer blargs because they prefer to be wealthy versus poor, understandably.
The good thing about sexuality is that it's not defined in terms of gender entirely because you are attracted to features. It's not really the choice of "do you prefer men or women" unless you have interacted with both a penis and a vagina and then you could make a choice between the two. That wouldn't mean that just because you prefer penis as a man that you will only like men. It only means that if you found enough favorable traits on a man and he happened to have a penis then you are with a more suitable partner for what you have been conditioned to like. It works the other way around also.
So for the most part the gender of someone is only one element of whether you are attracted to them or not. In reality, you are weighing several features simultaneously. It's not "do you find this man attractive?" because that's too vague. It's more like, "do you like this man's eyes? smile? hair? physique? height? weight? body hair? intelligence? voice? laugh? and so on for an almost infinite set." If you like more than you dislike, you would say that the person is an attractive person. Fine.
The trouble is that there isn't always only two types. Like hair. There is blonde, brunette, red, white, silver, and a few other natural shades of hair. What's happening here is that you are prioritizing the attractiveness of given hair colors. For instance, I personally find red hair to be an attractive trait. Red hair is unique and I recall several of the women who took care of me when I was growing as having red hair. There weren't a lot of adult figures who did this for me, so the ones that did have left an impression - I am attracted to red hair. That said, it doesn't mean that the others are entirely out. That would be silly. What it means is that red is the first on the list, but if that red hair doesn't match their skin then it's decidedly at the bottom of the list. So you can see even with the hair how it's conditional and ranked.
These complications are another area where science is working to improve and it is what they mean by environmental situations that help condition a given response. All of this said to say that maybe the ideal line up of all of my most desirable traits exists out there, but that doesn't guarantee that I will find that combination attractive because part of the reason you find something attractive is that they repeat conditions that you had before, and it may either not be possible to have all conditions at one time that you find attractive or on the other hand having them all at the same time creates a new condition that you may or may not find attractive intrinsically.
GET TO THE POINT ALREADY?!
Okay. My point is that nobody is born gay or straight. Nobody sits down and says, "oh I am going to be gay/straight now." Everyone is conditioned to like certain features. For some people these features appear most often in the same sex. That doesn't make them straight or gay. It means only that the features they like the most appear in their own gender.
All of the political jargon going around and people saying things is actually wildly frustrating to me. People use words like "orientation" to mean something other than what it means. Being oriented means that you are set facing a given direction. It doesn't mean you cannot deviate from that path. It doesn't mean that you won't. It means that when you were born, the conditions in the womb were already beginning to make you attracted to a given set of features that may be verified by any of our five senses.
It is frustrating to no end when I see people on either side of the fence who have a severe lack of understanding with how these things work make sweeping statements that have no basis in either science or psychology. If you are conservative and you believe that making gay decisions is sin, okay. That doesn't mean that the person is a "gay" person. The bible doesn't call anyone "gay" but it does say that laying with a man as a man does a woman is sin. Some of it comes to understanding. They very well may feel like they are not in control. If you are a male who is conditioned to liking facial hair and bulky muscles it is going to be a very narrow pool of women that fit your model and we haven't even started to factor in social cues.
If you are liberal, stop saying that people were "born gay/straight" because that's equally wrong on the same grounds. People are not gay or straight. People are people first. Then they are sexual. Among sexuality there are variant types and you are attracted to features that cross several types. Everyone is. EVERYONE is. You aren't born any one way or another.
In the end, everyone deserves the same rights because in the end we are all the same. We are all sexual people who respond by balancing features that we have been conditioned to find attractive by ranking them. If one of those people has the right to do something, then so do all of them. It makes no difference what their choices are because if you are liberal you should agree that everyone deserves rights and if you are conservative you should believe that everyone was given the same rights by the same loving God.
SIDE NOTES FOR MY CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS
I am a Christian. I do believe that making gay decisions is sin, but we are not called to hold people who are not Christian to the same standards as we are. If they do not know Jesus, how effective is convincing them that those gay choices are sin? What does that serve? Are they now getting to heaven? No. They still don't know Jesus.
What definitively changes people in our belief system is a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Will there be people in heaven who have done gay things? Absolutely there will because the blood of Jesus has more power than anything else. The only way to show people Jesus is to show them love, because God is love.
As Christians, we can be on the "right" side of a given issue but lose the battle and that is what we currently are doing. If people look at us and do not see love, even love for the LGBT community, then why would they be curious as to what we have? Wouldn't they simply wish to get rid of it?
Before I even start into the topic, I'm going to make a DISCLAIMER here: In this blog I will be talking about "private" parts and I intend to refer to them by their names. I don't be using slang for them but not using the actual names makes things even more confusing and given the nature of how confused people seem to be about it the argument is better suited with real terms.
Now that it's out of the way, I plan to discuss the variant types of sexuality by breaking them down into the following elements:
1. All People Are Sexual
2. Rules of Attraction
3. Conditioning
4. Pools of Availability
5. How Choice Works
Rather than discussing each type of sexuality I will make here a list of types that all conform to the same set of rules:
1. Non-Sexuality -uninterested in any sexual activity
2. Asexuality -only interested in sexual activity by ones self
3. Homosexuality -having interest solely in the same gender
4. Heterosexuality -having interest solely in the opposite gender
5. Bisexuality - having interest in both genders
In these categories, there really isn't any such thing as 3 or 4, but I will discuss this later. Instead, for right now, let's just use the logical argument that they are a possibility simply because they are options rather than considering the real world application of them being entirely unobserved. On to the point.
ALL PEOPLE ARE SEXUAL
In all of science and nature we observe things in relation to their capacity for reproduction. We generally refer to this as their sexuality. Some things produce asexually, meaning within themselves. Some things produce heterosexually, meaning with the opposite gender. Ultimately, even among all of the five categories mentioned in the list, the goal of all of nature in any of those systems is a system for reproduction.
I am going to denounce here any kind of assertion that reproduction is the value for sexuality alone. It is much much more complex than mere reproductive value, as recent science mentions that the hormones that influence attraction for same-sex features for an in-utero fetus also cause the mother to become several times more fertile. If you're conservative and latching onto the idea of reproduction, your efforts are futile. If you are liberal and claiming that it's not the only function, you are correct but don't get too hasty.
What I mean when I say that all people are sexual is actually really simple. Everyone has an personal take on sexuality. They either do or do not prefer to engage in sexual activity. If they do, then they either do with others or alone. I it's with others then there must be a method of deciding which they will have interaction with - men or women. So all people are sexual in nature. We actually have tons of proof for this in your genetics. There are actual genes in your DNA that decidedly make you sexual. Everyone is sexual.
What does this mean? It's actually really simple. Nobody "IS" gay or straight or bi. We are all sexual beings and there is a number of variations we can choose from at any given moment and they are all consistently available to us. Good. Got it.
RULES OF ATTRACTION
This is where we get into the fun stuff. I am by no means "the authority" on all things regarding attraction. Nobody is. It's still a widely researched subject, but we can identify a few simple basics. Everyone who is interested in someone else for sexual activity must have a set of criteria that separates those that they find viable from those that they do not or you would simply sleep with everyone and anyone.
RULE #1: Attraction is not set in stone. It is ever-changing.
This is actually part of the beautiful thing with attraction. This is what allows two people to consistently be attracted to one another despite that her breasts sag, his hair runs for the back of his neck, her face gets wrinkles, and he becomes a curmudgeon such as myself. The fact that she can love my fat belly and still learn to love me while I lose weight and the fact that I will love her despite her size, hair, makeup, or whatever is what makes the relationship the most viable and as a product of that reproduction most viable. Attraction, from an evolutionary standpoint is required to be changing so as to prolong the species for the most possible applications. It's a beautiful thing that we aren't all locked into thinking that the Cheerleader or the Swimsuit model is attractive. To be candid, at the moment I do not personally find those looks attractive at all, but I will talk about the why of that in a later point.
The Kinsey Scale is a good and replicated experiment that shows that people at different times change their sexuality by some element (Kinsey Scale Experiment). In the experiment it is actually only a very short period of time for anyone that they are exclusively one type of sexual and even then it's largely skewed. The results actually suggest that there is never really a moment where people are solely one sexuality type but rather we are all bi-sexually capable at most times.
RULE #2: We are not attracted to GENDER. We are attracted to features.
Science is ever confirming that what drives the attraction template is features.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/17-facts-about-human-sexual-attraction_n_3817941.html)
We are not decidedly attracted to a gender. If I did makeup for a girl to look EXACTLY like Hugh Jackman and took a picture and then placed it next to a picture of the real thing, my wife would find both attractive despite that the one has a vagina and the other has a penis because the way Hugh Jackman looks has features that she finds attractive. If we were solely attracted to someone based on genitalia we would all be unable to be attracted to someone unless they were naked. Alas, here we are in a day and age where we are attracted to features and not to gender per se. That's not to say there is no balance there either. Let's say that I was attracted to skinny arms. I might find that attractive, but when the person also has a hairy face and zitted back, I've weighted those unattractive features as heavier than the attractive "skinny arms." This lends us to the next rule.
RULE # 3: Everyone is attracted in some capacity to both genders as a product of rule #2.
Features are not unique to a gender that do not define their gender. That is to say, having wide hips is not uniquely female. There are males with this feature. Being hairy isn't intrinsically a male feature. There are hairy women. For any given stimulus for attraction it can be given to both male and female counterparts. If you are sitting there as a conservative thinking, "No way! There is no way I'm attracted to the same gender at all!" you are already missing it. It isn't suggesting that you are interested in the same gender as a whole being. It's suggesting that both genders will exhibit features that you find attractive. This is actually supported by science over and over again
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kinseyinstitute.org%2Fresearch%2Fak-hhscale.html&ei=3mVAU6rxKces2QWrjoFY&usg=AFQjCNGoiHbeU40wSH_o5fRDVdNVE7JhQw&sig2=JPNDTnXXibHeaht7L9di9g&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I)
So decidedly, we all have the ability to be attracted to both genders if we are a sexual in a way that is not non-sexual or asexual.
I'm sure there are a ton of other rules, but these are ones that I can define through a vast amount of reading on the subject and going over several scientific journals to find. They all circle back to these three main points and generally try to define sub-rules within these three.
CONDITIONING
In the media there is a drastic problem with how people view this. It has widely been held to believe that you could simply condition someone to be interested in the opposite sex by exposing them to those conditions long enough. The problem with that is Rule #2 of the rules of attraction. You aren't exclusively attracted to one given gender.
There are a few different things that condition you to like a given feature and this is a part that science is particularly concerned with understanding at the moment - so forgive any gaps in the explanation. If you have more information about how conditioning happens here, please feel free to comment. Anyway, onward and upward.
The recent scientific thought is that conditioning actually begins in the womb. The hormones given off by the mother and the environment of the womb begins you conditioning to certain hormones and certain stimuli that give you a positive or negative result and those results cause you to be conditioned for that response. So if you take a given feature you can actually come up with any number of variant ways to condition that feature. This is a lot of the difficulty of science right now and them trying to find out what makes someone straight or gay - forget the fact that nobody is decidedly either for their whole life.
Let's take an example of a "square jaw line" as a feature. I might have had a lot of people who had square jaw lines reach out to me in love as a child and I could have felt those feelings. As a result, when I see the feature, my body is conditioned to produce the same chemical response in a similar way that our body is conditioned to produce dopamine when we see other people smile
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.bufferapp.com%2Fthe-science-of-smiling-a-guide-to-humans-most-powerful-gesture&ei=Q2hAU-H2KsT22AXF1YGwDA&usg=AFQjCNEwFZLsRq3tDDHzaZcHYoyXRdnBpg&sig2=ahg29B-SmmkCNq4pSGhWXA&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I).
Most recently there have been advances in the study of conditioning and sexual desires. Here are some recent studies on sexual conditioning:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14739689 (2004)
This study shows from 2004 the effectiveness of conditioning sexual response to a non-sexual object entirely - in this case a gun and it provides quite successful results
This study shows from 2004 the effectiveness of conditioning sexual response to a non-sexual object entirely - in this case a gun and it provides quite successful results
"The results provide evidence for appetitive classical conditioning of sexual response in women, and are the first to show attenuation of sexual response in women by aversive conditioning"
"Genital and subjective sexual responses were successfully modulated by the differential conditioning paradigm. This replication of our previous study confirms the effectiveness of our conditioning procedure and indicates that it may provide a fruitful paradigm for further research on associative sexual reward learning in humans."
It's not really possible to dial all of the interactions that I have with square jaw lines to a definitive action. It's also not definitive that it is only male people who have given these experiences. What is definitive in this example would be that the square jaw line would then make me feel the same feelings of love in a biochemical way and I will be conditioned to seek these features out. Simple enough but then this plays into the next point.
POOLS OF AVAILABILITY
The thing that trips people up is exactly like what I was illustrating in the last point. If I were, for instance, conditioned to be attracted to square jaw lines, there is a finite group of people who possess the feature of having a square jaw line unless we were to surgically alter everyone to have them and then I would have some remote attraction to everyone.
The uniqueness of features serves to divide people into pools for the propagation of a given species. Generally, we like to find people with features similar to ourselves, as a rule of thumb, but not everyone is conditioned that way. In the case of the square jaw line, if that was my attraction for that feature then I might be led to conclude that I am more attracted to men because more men have square jaw lines than women. That's not definitively the truth. Assume that I put that person in a room with 10 square jawed women. If one of them had enough features that I found attractive, I would be attracted to that woman. It's actually really simple how the fundamentals work. It's a balance of attraction vs unattraction. If you have more features that I find attractive than those that I do not I will consequently find you attractive.
For some people, this can become very very difficult. Let's assume that you have a trait that is very rare that is conditioned to you as attractive - say hetrachromia (having two different colored eyes). If that is something that my mother had and I was conditioned to find attractive I have now reduced my options for finding that specific feature to roughly 1% of the nation. That's not too bad because I might have other features that are more common that outweigh that need, but let's say that I am also conditioned for red hair and very pale skin. I have now given myself to roughly a 4% chance if I searched all of the continental US to find someone with all three of those features. If those are weighted the most heavily, I may well assume that I need to "settle" or that I simply won't find someone attractive.
If I were conditioned to find mostly male characteristics then I am limiting myself to a very small portion of females but a very large portion of males. This might lead me to believe that "I am a gay male" but that's not really the truth. The truth is that I am conditioned to be attracted to features that are predominantly found in men. I am not gay or straight. I am conditioned and I select partners based on the pool of availability for a given set of desired features that will outweigh the undesired ones.
HOW CHOICE WORKS
If I were to say to you, "I have blargs and splarks. Which do you prefer?" you are then instantly provided with a choice. That is to say, when you are provided more than one option for any given need/want then you are afforded choice unless you are forced into one option without the ability to go to the other. For instance, there are several options for eye color, but I cannot actually choose mine. I can cover it up with contacts but I cannot actually change my eye color. I can color my hair, but I can never actually change my hair color. Those are forced on my through my DNA and I have absolutely no choice in the matter.
In sexuality, there are decidedly elements of your DNA that make you a sexual being. We have several studies that can actually pinpoint several chromosomes that are decidedly involved with your sexual decision making and the balancing of those desired and undesired features. In the case of the blargs and the splarks, we have no actual criteria as to value one over the other, so you still have a choice, but as of right now it is entirely arbitrary as I have given no values to them. If I say that blargs make you wealthy and splarks will make you poor, you would have a large portion of people who will now prefer blargs because they prefer to be wealthy versus poor, understandably.
The good thing about sexuality is that it's not defined in terms of gender entirely because you are attracted to features. It's not really the choice of "do you prefer men or women" unless you have interacted with both a penis and a vagina and then you could make a choice between the two. That wouldn't mean that just because you prefer penis as a man that you will only like men. It only means that if you found enough favorable traits on a man and he happened to have a penis then you are with a more suitable partner for what you have been conditioned to like. It works the other way around also.
So for the most part the gender of someone is only one element of whether you are attracted to them or not. In reality, you are weighing several features simultaneously. It's not "do you find this man attractive?" because that's too vague. It's more like, "do you like this man's eyes? smile? hair? physique? height? weight? body hair? intelligence? voice? laugh? and so on for an almost infinite set." If you like more than you dislike, you would say that the person is an attractive person. Fine.
The trouble is that there isn't always only two types. Like hair. There is blonde, brunette, red, white, silver, and a few other natural shades of hair. What's happening here is that you are prioritizing the attractiveness of given hair colors. For instance, I personally find red hair to be an attractive trait. Red hair is unique and I recall several of the women who took care of me when I was growing as having red hair. There weren't a lot of adult figures who did this for me, so the ones that did have left an impression - I am attracted to red hair. That said, it doesn't mean that the others are entirely out. That would be silly. What it means is that red is the first on the list, but if that red hair doesn't match their skin then it's decidedly at the bottom of the list. So you can see even with the hair how it's conditional and ranked.
These complications are another area where science is working to improve and it is what they mean by environmental situations that help condition a given response. All of this said to say that maybe the ideal line up of all of my most desirable traits exists out there, but that doesn't guarantee that I will find that combination attractive because part of the reason you find something attractive is that they repeat conditions that you had before, and it may either not be possible to have all conditions at one time that you find attractive or on the other hand having them all at the same time creates a new condition that you may or may not find attractive intrinsically.
GET TO THE POINT ALREADY?!
Okay. My point is that nobody is born gay or straight. Nobody sits down and says, "oh I am going to be gay/straight now." Everyone is conditioned to like certain features. For some people these features appear most often in the same sex. That doesn't make them straight or gay. It means only that the features they like the most appear in their own gender.
All of the political jargon going around and people saying things is actually wildly frustrating to me. People use words like "orientation" to mean something other than what it means. Being oriented means that you are set facing a given direction. It doesn't mean you cannot deviate from that path. It doesn't mean that you won't. It means that when you were born, the conditions in the womb were already beginning to make you attracted to a given set of features that may be verified by any of our five senses.
It is frustrating to no end when I see people on either side of the fence who have a severe lack of understanding with how these things work make sweeping statements that have no basis in either science or psychology. If you are conservative and you believe that making gay decisions is sin, okay. That doesn't mean that the person is a "gay" person. The bible doesn't call anyone "gay" but it does say that laying with a man as a man does a woman is sin. Some of it comes to understanding. They very well may feel like they are not in control. If you are a male who is conditioned to liking facial hair and bulky muscles it is going to be a very narrow pool of women that fit your model and we haven't even started to factor in social cues.
If you are liberal, stop saying that people were "born gay/straight" because that's equally wrong on the same grounds. People are not gay or straight. People are people first. Then they are sexual. Among sexuality there are variant types and you are attracted to features that cross several types. Everyone is. EVERYONE is. You aren't born any one way or another.
In the end, everyone deserves the same rights because in the end we are all the same. We are all sexual people who respond by balancing features that we have been conditioned to find attractive by ranking them. If one of those people has the right to do something, then so do all of them. It makes no difference what their choices are because if you are liberal you should agree that everyone deserves rights and if you are conservative you should believe that everyone was given the same rights by the same loving God.
SIDE NOTES FOR MY CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS
I am a Christian. I do believe that making gay decisions is sin, but we are not called to hold people who are not Christian to the same standards as we are. If they do not know Jesus, how effective is convincing them that those gay choices are sin? What does that serve? Are they now getting to heaven? No. They still don't know Jesus.
What definitively changes people in our belief system is a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Will there be people in heaven who have done gay things? Absolutely there will because the blood of Jesus has more power than anything else. The only way to show people Jesus is to show them love, because God is love.
As Christians, we can be on the "right" side of a given issue but lose the battle and that is what we currently are doing. If people look at us and do not see love, even love for the LGBT community, then why would they be curious as to what we have? Wouldn't they simply wish to get rid of it?
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
PPACA "Obamacare" and the GOP Government Shutdown
For those of you who know me, you already know that I tend to lean Democratic. I don't claim to be bi-partisan, but generally speaking I do hold some very Libertarian and Socialist views also. In fact, I even have some beliefs that are very right-wing. All of that said, the contents of this article will seem very GOP-bashing and/or pro-Democrat. Cest la vie. Get over it. I will present the facts and then my interpretation of those facts.
This article is intended to discuss why our government officials are so deeply divided and what the ramifications are of the Affordable Care Act. So let's get some of the basics out of the way first.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PPACA
WHAT IS: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)?
PPACA, affectionately termed "Obamacare," is a piece of legislation that was introduced to our government in late 2009. It was sent through to Congress (which was Democrat controlled at the time) and approved. Subsequently, the Democratic Senate also approved this bill and it was ran to our president at the time, Barack Obama, who signed it in to law.
WHAT DOES: PPACA Do?
Well, PPACA does a lot of things. The bill is 2,409 pages long. If you wish to read it yourself please feel free HERE. In the absence of a desire to literally explain EVERY element of that many pages, let me summarize some of the larger aspects of this bill:
So that covers the bigger portions of what this does. This isn't by any means a definitive source as to what the exact rules are or even how they all apply, because there is much too much content for that here. Again, you are welcome to read the entire bill at your leisure through the link I provided above.
OUR CONGRESS AND THE HANDLING OF PPACA
So our Congress and our Senate have a problem. When this bill was passed into law, it was pushed hastily through by Democrats seeking to take advantage of a GOP-deficient government. We had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We were basically unstoppable. It's like when your brother gets to stay home from school after your mom baked cookies and when you get home the cookies are gone. The Democrats ate all of the cookies and the Republicans got mad. Understandably so.
MYTHS
Republicans have tried more than five times in the last year alone to pass legislation that either de-funds PPACA or creates exclusions for themselves and other select groups (creating a privileged group). Every time these bills pass the house, the senate has rejected them. Republicans have sought a straight bill that allows people to decline PPACA (rendering it useless), they have tried other bills that say that money cannot go to PPACA, they have tried having bills that say that Congress and those in office do not need to take the PPACA insurance, and several other attempts. Since their other efforts have not worked, they are now working an angle to sneak the legislation about our healthcare into a budget that was already working. When the lawmakers in the senate noticed that they were trying to pass add-ons to the law that delay, de-fund, and leave members exempt they rejected it. Both the President and our Senate have said they will not partially fund our government (because that actually has a huge impact on foreign economy also) and they will not allow a budget law to be abused for personal party agenda such as repealing the effects of a law that passed the House and Senate and was found Constitutional.
As a result, the GOP lead Congress is refusing to assemble a bill that will not begin a systematic disassemble of "Obamacare" and because we passed the fiscal year for 2013, the funds that would be used to fund the basic elements that are shut down are locked up because we don't have an existing law to tell those funds where to go. It's like if you asked for $15 to go to a movie, but you only ask your mom for the $15 without saying what for. Your mom then asks, "What for?" Our government hasn't told mom what it is for, so mommy says no and 800,000 people are out of work, several people are going without WIC support, many headstart programs are shut down and lists taken apart, and other devastating affects while Congress enjoys their $132/day budget for "lunch" and their cozy, uninterrupted six-figure salaries.
WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A DEFAULT?
Well there are a ton of things to consider, but let's get to the most basic version of the problem. If we don't budget our money by a given time (November 1st at the latest) our government runs out of allocated funds to pay for certain things like Social Security, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on existing debt. This part is substantial, but can still be mitigated through existing funds to avoid a "default" but at the same time you are then allocating funds that would be used to preserve the value of our other major value - treasury bonds.
Treasury bonds are considered to have the highest fidelity of any investment in the world as our government has NEVER defaulted. As in, ever. Like, we never actually have gone back on our promises to pay these, because we have simply increased our debt limit and allocated funding for these. It's a great system, but when we aren't furthering our agenda and are spending the money reserved for these on other assets, the power of the dollar decreases, which simultaneously decreases the value of the bonds. This is a normal process that happens at around a 2% margin whenever we increase the debt limit, but the rate of return is higher than that for the bond, so the maturation still exists. Without the increase in the limit, the value of the dollar will dip much further and cause a proverbial "spike" downward in the value of the dollar, which stimulates the sale of these bonds and subsequently a downward spiraling economy.
Now I'm going to get a little bit technical, so bear with it:
In traditional economics, the general model shows that austerity (paying debt) is good for the overall economy during recession because it provides confidence to the general public. This is seemingly logical, but if you evaluate using a new and more accurate (by data) model, it's not correct.
The SFB model for aggregate demand in relation to austerity shows that historically (during WWI and WWII) we had a massive spike in our deficit the likes of which we have never seen. The government actually does a tally of an average amount of money spent out of the american personal income (PCE) and the fantastic part about this is that, historically speaking, when our government runs up massive deficits our people generally have extra money and spend it more.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PCE-Price-Index.php
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1950_2018USb_15s2li111lcn_G0t
So if we evaluate the data from these sources you can see that there are only two instances where the SFB Model for Aggregat Demand in relation to Austerity is proven wrong by the data. One period of time would be 2002-2004 and the other being from 2008-Now. The most common and definitive source to pinpoint with these lack of gains in PCE while experiencing a drastic increase in deficit is our manufacturing.
In the 80's our government (Both Bush Sr. and Clinton) signed into law some provisions that made sending manufacturing jobs overseas easier and cheaper. There isn't a law that specifically gives them "tax breaks" but there is a law that allows them a break for moving companies interstate or out of the nation. This combined with the fact that there are many nations overseas that allow for slave labor at massively lower wages while also doing little to no taxation on those revenues make other nations a safe haven for companies to manufacture and make untaxed revenue that is able to be funneled back to America at a very low rate because of laws that protect over seas revenue of domestic companies from over taxation. Ultimately this meant that more companies were sending jobs and manufacturing overseas.
This also lowers what our nation calls "Gross Domestic Product" or GDP. Coincidentally, GDP versus our existing debt is the primary way that we figure what the National Debt is. So these companies sending these jobs overseas lowers our GDP because we aren't making the product here. The consequence of that is a higher national debt, which concerns people.
This article is intended to discuss why our government officials are so deeply divided and what the ramifications are of the Affordable Care Act. So let's get some of the basics out of the way first.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PPACA
WHAT IS: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)?
PPACA, affectionately termed "Obamacare," is a piece of legislation that was introduced to our government in late 2009. It was sent through to Congress (which was Democrat controlled at the time) and approved. Subsequently, the Democratic Senate also approved this bill and it was ran to our president at the time, Barack Obama, who signed it in to law.
WHAT DOES: PPACA Do?
Well, PPACA does a lot of things. The bill is 2,409 pages long. If you wish to read it yourself please feel free HERE. In the absence of a desire to literally explain EVERY element of that many pages, let me summarize some of the larger aspects of this bill:
- Pre-Existing Conditions: PPACA forbids insurance companies from denying a person coverage because of existing illnesses. It goes further to say that a given people of a given area that are the same age and non-tobacco users must be offered the same premium. This means that all 27-year-old people (male and female) in or around Minnesota who do not smoke MUST be offered the same premium as myself as I write this.
- Minimum Standards: PPACA establishes a bare minimum for what a plan can provide you. Among these standards are the following: You cannot be dropped because you got sick, You cannot have price discrimination against you based on gender or pre-existing conditions, all children can stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26, Insurance cannot establish an annual or lifetime cap on essential services (ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.), Essential services ( mammograms and colonoscopies, wellness visits,gestational diabetes screening, HPV testing, STI counseling, HIV screening and counseling, FDA-approved contraceptive methods, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screening and counseling.) MUST be covered without copay/co-insurance/deductible
- A fee is imposed to Businesses that employ 50+ people but do not offer insurance and on those that are not covered by insurance. It gets a little hairy here, but let me get you the basics. Your fee if you have no healthcare? $95/year. A business' fee for not offering it when they have over 50 full-time employees? $2,000/employee/year ($3,000 if they get insurance from PPACA) but both of these fees are scheduled to increase over time. There are subsidies that are available to any family that makes less than 400% of the current poverty line ($11,490 + $4,020 for each additional person in your family - so for my family $94,200) and for small businesses. If you don't make enough income, you are exempt from the law. If your employer only covers you and not your family, you are exempt. If you already get insurance from your provider at work you can opt in and get a subsidy as long as your offered insurance is more than 8.5% of your individual income or 9% of your family income, whichever is higher. WHOA THAT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS!!! Okay, here is the skinny. If you are poor, you are exempt. If you are rich, you already pay more. If you are in the middle and only the employee is offered insurance, you are exempt. Most other cases you will need either the employee plan, a PPACA plan, or you'll pay the fee which is considerably less but still will not cover your medical bills. It's a fee to compensate the rest of America because you are costing them money every time you go to the hospital without insurance.
- PPACA plans must be offered through each individual state and they are encouraged to expand the Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Tricare programs. Each state will have a Marketplace, where competitive bids from insurance companies will be posted in four tier levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) of ascending costs and benefits. Medicaid is specifically expanded for individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, including adults without disabilities and without dependent children but also allows you to disregard 5% of your income, so it's really more like 138% of the poverty level. The problem is that several states have opted out even though it helps them get better at a lower cost. The Medicare program is improved so as to close up donut holes from Medicare Part D and make payments based on individual care not individual providers (I.E. If I break my arm it covers the fixing of that arm in one payment to the hospital, not 40 payments for the 40 elements that comprised that fix - WAY BETTER).
So that covers the bigger portions of what this does. This isn't by any means a definitive source as to what the exact rules are or even how they all apply, because there is much too much content for that here. Again, you are welcome to read the entire bill at your leisure through the link I provided above.
OUR CONGRESS AND THE HANDLING OF PPACA
So our Congress and our Senate have a problem. When this bill was passed into law, it was pushed hastily through by Democrats seeking to take advantage of a GOP-deficient government. We had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We were basically unstoppable. It's like when your brother gets to stay home from school after your mom baked cookies and when you get home the cookies are gone. The Democrats ate all of the cookies and the Republicans got mad. Understandably so.
MYTHS
- PPACA will cost us a lot of money: No - PPACA cuts 2 trillion from our deficit over the next 20 years (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/)
- PPACA causes our debt to increase: No. Debt is configured as "Gross Domestic Product" GDP vs. Existing Amounts owed. Capital Gains tax and the Bush-Era cuts lower GDP for us. Since capital gains are taxed lower, rich investors typically make their money by purchasing companies, downsizing, shipping jobs overseas (which they get a tax break for thanks to Bush), and then sell the company. That sale is a "capital gain" and is taxed lower than my paycheck but capital gains do not offer more GDP or jobs in America. They lower GDP and job growth, which increases the "indebtedness" to those amounts. Simple version: rich people are getting richer while decreasing jobs and increasing the national debt
- PPACA Will drain our economy of resources: No. It will only drain the GOP and insurance companies of their resources.
- Congress has no reason to be upset: Yes they do. The law means they HAVE to take a plan from PPACA, meaning they no longer get those swanky plans from their providers but they have to pay more like the rest of us.
Republicans have tried more than five times in the last year alone to pass legislation that either de-funds PPACA or creates exclusions for themselves and other select groups (creating a privileged group). Every time these bills pass the house, the senate has rejected them. Republicans have sought a straight bill that allows people to decline PPACA (rendering it useless), they have tried other bills that say that money cannot go to PPACA, they have tried having bills that say that Congress and those in office do not need to take the PPACA insurance, and several other attempts. Since their other efforts have not worked, they are now working an angle to sneak the legislation about our healthcare into a budget that was already working. When the lawmakers in the senate noticed that they were trying to pass add-ons to the law that delay, de-fund, and leave members exempt they rejected it. Both the President and our Senate have said they will not partially fund our government (because that actually has a huge impact on foreign economy also) and they will not allow a budget law to be abused for personal party agenda such as repealing the effects of a law that passed the House and Senate and was found Constitutional.
As a result, the GOP lead Congress is refusing to assemble a bill that will not begin a systematic disassemble of "Obamacare" and because we passed the fiscal year for 2013, the funds that would be used to fund the basic elements that are shut down are locked up because we don't have an existing law to tell those funds where to go. It's like if you asked for $15 to go to a movie, but you only ask your mom for the $15 without saying what for. Your mom then asks, "What for?" Our government hasn't told mom what it is for, so mommy says no and 800,000 people are out of work, several people are going without WIC support, many headstart programs are shut down and lists taken apart, and other devastating affects while Congress enjoys their $132/day budget for "lunch" and their cozy, uninterrupted six-figure salaries.
WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A DEFAULT?
Well there are a ton of things to consider, but let's get to the most basic version of the problem. If we don't budget our money by a given time (November 1st at the latest) our government runs out of allocated funds to pay for certain things like Social Security, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on existing debt. This part is substantial, but can still be mitigated through existing funds to avoid a "default" but at the same time you are then allocating funds that would be used to preserve the value of our other major value - treasury bonds.
Treasury bonds are considered to have the highest fidelity of any investment in the world as our government has NEVER defaulted. As in, ever. Like, we never actually have gone back on our promises to pay these, because we have simply increased our debt limit and allocated funding for these. It's a great system, but when we aren't furthering our agenda and are spending the money reserved for these on other assets, the power of the dollar decreases, which simultaneously decreases the value of the bonds. This is a normal process that happens at around a 2% margin whenever we increase the debt limit, but the rate of return is higher than that for the bond, so the maturation still exists. Without the increase in the limit, the value of the dollar will dip much further and cause a proverbial "spike" downward in the value of the dollar, which stimulates the sale of these bonds and subsequently a downward spiraling economy.
Now I'm going to get a little bit technical, so bear with it:
In traditional economics, the general model shows that austerity (paying debt) is good for the overall economy during recession because it provides confidence to the general public. This is seemingly logical, but if you evaluate using a new and more accurate (by data) model, it's not correct.
The SFB model for aggregate demand in relation to austerity shows that historically (during WWI and WWII) we had a massive spike in our deficit the likes of which we have never seen. The government actually does a tally of an average amount of money spent out of the american personal income (PCE) and the fantastic part about this is that, historically speaking, when our government runs up massive deficits our people generally have extra money and spend it more.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PCE-Price-Index.php
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1950_2018USb_15s2li111lcn_G0t
So if we evaluate the data from these sources you can see that there are only two instances where the SFB Model for Aggregat Demand in relation to Austerity is proven wrong by the data. One period of time would be 2002-2004 and the other being from 2008-Now. The most common and definitive source to pinpoint with these lack of gains in PCE while experiencing a drastic increase in deficit is our manufacturing.
In the 80's our government (Both Bush Sr. and Clinton) signed into law some provisions that made sending manufacturing jobs overseas easier and cheaper. There isn't a law that specifically gives them "tax breaks" but there is a law that allows them a break for moving companies interstate or out of the nation. This combined with the fact that there are many nations overseas that allow for slave labor at massively lower wages while also doing little to no taxation on those revenues make other nations a safe haven for companies to manufacture and make untaxed revenue that is able to be funneled back to America at a very low rate because of laws that protect over seas revenue of domestic companies from over taxation. Ultimately this meant that more companies were sending jobs and manufacturing overseas.
This also lowers what our nation calls "Gross Domestic Product" or GDP. Coincidentally, GDP versus our existing debt is the primary way that we figure what the National Debt is. So these companies sending these jobs overseas lowers our GDP because we aren't making the product here. The consequence of that is a higher national debt, which concerns people.
SO WHY ARE PEOPLE FIGHTING OVER THIS IF IT DOES BETTER FOR EVERYONE?
Of the top 20 people who get money from insurance companies, only 5 (FIVE) are Democratic,
one of which hasn't taken office, three of which vote in favor of GOP agenda and insurance
companies every time until it's a hot button issue (Max Baucus, Mark Warner, and Kay Hagan),
and one that outright votes for legislation regulating AHA 5 times, votes to make insurance
payouts for flood victims more difficult, votes against regulating private bribery to congress,and
votes against working Americans.
The fact is, of the top 20 people financed by Insurance companies seeking to dismantle AHA,
all 20 vote to help our government pay insurance companies and against regulating those
costs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/535/mark-warner...
https://votesmart.org/.../key-votes/8749/gary-peters...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/21082/kay-hagan...
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53315/max-baucus...
Of the top 20 people who get money from insurance companies, only 5 (FIVE) are Democratic,
one of which hasn't taken office, three of which vote in favor of GOP agenda and insurance
companies every time until it's a hot button issue (Max Baucus, Mark Warner, and Kay Hagan),
and one that outright votes for legislation regulating AHA 5 times, votes to make insurance
payouts for flood victims more difficult, votes against regulating private bribery to congress,and
votes against working Americans.
The fact is, of the top 20 people financed by Insurance companies seeking to dismantle AHA,
all 20 vote to help our government pay insurance companies and against regulating those
costs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/535/mark-warner...
https://votesmart.org/.../key-votes/8749/gary-peters...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/21082/kay-hagan...
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53315/max-baucus...
Short story? GOP/Republicans are in the pocket of Insurance companies. They get swanky perks from them, boat loads of cash, and some very nice health plans for pennies. Many things can contribute to different parties and that's a good thing. Democrats are largely funded by Lawyers and Lobbyists. The difference here is you don't see Lawyers and Lobbyists poaching on the people of America and you do see Insurance doing that. Additionally you see Congress that is funded by them voting in favor of Insurance companies. Facts are facts. GOP is lining their pockets with Insurance money and they don't want to let go.
The GOP (Republicans) are also very sheepish to mention that their primary financial contributors happen to be Healthcare and Insurance companies who have fought this bill tooth and nail. In fact, the ONLY reason that insurance is mandatory is because those insurance company lobbyists refused to entertain such legislature unless they forced everyone to have insurance
The GOP rep Ted Cruz recently went on record saying that this bill will cause work weeks to shorten to 29 hours for america's top employers. 9/10 of our top employers are slanted toward the GOP through financial investments to lobbyists who, coincidentally, lobby primarily for budget and healthcare. This is more like a threat versus an observation. The GOP has threatened and enacted an economic halt, have failed in legislature more than 40 times to negate the law, and are in the minority.
Sources:
GE Contributions are mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)
YUM! Brands (includes McDonald's) contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000029955)
UPS Contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000081)
(http://www.forbes.com/.../)
http://shopyourpolitics.com/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/u-s-largest-employers/
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F
Every fiscal year our government sets a budget and that budget means that our debt has a ceiling. This allows for our money to hold a given value and several other purposes. When our government does not have a budget agreed to they typically have a Continuing Resolution (CR) that is passed which basically says, "we're gonna keep doing what we have been until we decide on a new budget." Republicans have made several attempts with the GOP Congress to pass laws that will render PPACA ineffective, including a suit with the Supreme Court, but more than 5 bills have been rejected prior to July 2013 that were designed to de-fund PPACA or leave certain rules/parties exempt and the Supreme Court found the law constitutional.
CONCLUSION
No one party has the whole answer. When Democrats rule, the poor take advantage of the wealthy. When GOP rules there is no such thing as middle class.
My strongest suggestions for improving our economy are the following:
The GOP (Republicans) are also very sheepish to mention that their primary financial contributors happen to be Healthcare and Insurance companies who have fought this bill tooth and nail. In fact, the ONLY reason that insurance is mandatory is because those insurance company lobbyists refused to entertain such legislature unless they forced everyone to have insurance
The GOP rep Ted Cruz recently went on record saying that this bill will cause work weeks to shorten to 29 hours for america's top employers. 9/10 of our top employers are slanted toward the GOP through financial investments to lobbyists who, coincidentally, lobby primarily for budget and healthcare. This is more like a threat versus an observation. The GOP has threatened and enacted an economic halt, have failed in legislature more than 40 times to negate the law, and are in the minority.
Sources:
GE Contributions are mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)
YUM! Brands (includes McDonald's) contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000029955)
UPS Contributions also mostly Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000081)
(http://www.forbes.com/.../)
http://shopyourpolitics.com/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/u-s-largest-employers/
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F
Every fiscal year our government sets a budget and that budget means that our debt has a ceiling. This allows for our money to hold a given value and several other purposes. When our government does not have a budget agreed to they typically have a Continuing Resolution (CR) that is passed which basically says, "we're gonna keep doing what we have been until we decide on a new budget." Republicans have made several attempts with the GOP Congress to pass laws that will render PPACA ineffective, including a suit with the Supreme Court, but more than 5 bills have been rejected prior to July 2013 that were designed to de-fund PPACA or leave certain rules/parties exempt and the Supreme Court found the law constitutional.
CONCLUSION
No one party has the whole answer. When Democrats rule, the poor take advantage of the wealthy. When GOP rules there is no such thing as middle class.
My strongest suggestions for improving our economy are the following:
- Incentivize local manufacturing by lowering taxes for domestic manufacturing and increase taxes on manufactured product that is shipped into domestically located companies. This concept does two things. It creates a more competitive market for small and medium size businesses that originate here while creating opportunity for labor markets and decreased unemployment. The consequences of this being higher GDP and more job growth. The overseas tax should not exceed however the value of the less expensive labor overseas, as foreign trade markets are also volatile.
- Re-evaluate Capital Gains law. Large companies have shifted their sights to increasing their personal income through capital gains, or the purchase and subsequent sale of a given item or company. What this results in is companies being purchased and then liquidated for a higher resale value. This combined with the local incentives for manufacturing will promote traditional gains and higher GDP, which improve the overall wealth of our nation.
- Allow for an expanding deficit in the wake of the enactments of #1 and #2. It has shown historically that when manufacturing jobs and gross domestic product are prevalent in our nation that a boom in Government deficit spurns a boom in consumer spending (PCE). Essentially the SFB model of Aggregate Demand dictates that the burden will either be on the government or on the people. If the people have the burden, money flow stops and the government suffers (recession - where we are now). If the government has the burden, the people spend and the government recoups funds due to taxation (everyone wins).
Ultimately, I support a whole government overhaul similar to what Iceland did in 2011. In this specific case, I side with Democrats where I think it's absolutely INSANE to hold up a whole nation over something that you have failed to make happen more than 5 times and only oppose because the people who line your wallet oppose it. Although the Speaker of the House, John Boehner-R, and the Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid-D, are both dirty and lie to the American people(http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/sip-black-tea/2013/oct/2/boehner-reids-backroom-deal-keep-congresss-obamaca/). I assume most politicians do this and we need to start fresh, regulate incomes, and not allow significant donors from the private sector or influential businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)