Month: October 2023

Having basic needs met: housing/food/medical care/education/opportunities/equality/work and income are essential for human fulfillment and dignity.

This is true for every human being.

We ALL could have our basic needs met. But to do that we would have to pool our resources and make sure that they are all universally distributed.

Most people are only a paycheck away from being destitute at some point in their lives. Would it not be in the best interest of ALL of us to make sure that instead of finding ourselves destitute and impoverished we collectively take care of each other as brothers and sisters?

How much does the average American make in a lifetime? The answer varies by industry, education level, gender and location. The typical lifetime gross income range for American males is $1.13 million to $3.05 million, and $510,000 to $1.86 million for women, according to Social Security Administration data.

Individual income taxes accounted for more than half of total revenues for the federal government in 2022. The US collected $5.03 trillion in federal revenues in 2022, up $630 billion from the previous year, after adjusting for inflation. That equates to $15,098 collected per person, up 14% from 2021.

The average American will pay $532,910 in taxes throughout their lifetime. That’s a third (33.23%) of all estimated lifetime earnings ($1,571,244) spent on taxes.

A billion dollars is equal to one million dollars times 1,000.

Here’s what we know: Since 2020, the richest 1 percent have captured almost two-thirds of all new wealth. According to a 2021 White House study, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the US paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent.

1. Bernard Arnault $208 B

2. Elon Musk $143 B

3. Gautam Adani $128 B

4. Jeff Bezos $119 B

5. Warren Buffett $110 B

6. Larry Elison $109 B

7. Bill Gates $103 B

8. Carlos Helu & Family $89 B

9. Mukesh Ambani $88 B

10. Larry Page $79 B

11. Steve Ballmer $77 B

12. Michael Bloomberg $76 B

13. Sergey Brin $76 B

14. Amancio Ortega $70 B

15. Zhong Shanshan $70 B

16. Jim Walton $61 B

17. Rob Walton $60 B

18. Charles Koch $59 B

19. David Thomson & Family $53 B

20. Michael Dell $52 B

That’s just the top 20 billionaires.

The costs of some dozen or so drugs are now being negotiated by Medicare and Pharma is spending gazillions of dollars to try to prevent it. Does Pharma think that negotiating drug prices on even this minuscule group of drugs might be a “gateway” to lowering the cost of more drugs? To which I would answer, “It damn well should be the opening salvo in Medicare being able to negotiate the cost of all drugs!”

My question is: Why isn’t Medicare able to negotiate and set the cost of ALL drugs? The ridiculously minuscule number of drugs that Medicare was okayed to negotiate is ludicrous. Medicare needs to be able to negotiate the cost of ALL drugs it procures. Anything less is insufficient and insulting and not really of much benefit to Medicare recipients.

If Congress really wanted to actually do something to mitigate inflation, it would write a law that allows Medicare to negotiate the costs of ALL drugs with Pharma.

Yes. Flying is often the only reasonable mode of transportation because distances are long and time is limited. And people do not give flying anywhere they feel like going a second thought. It has become the way we live. But before about 2 generations ago, air travel had not existed for all of the history of people inhabiting the Earth. Now it’s habit. But there are consequences to living like this. Including causing irreversible harm to the planet and probably eventually killing the planet and extinguishing the human race and life as we know it.

It amazes me that the subject of air travel has not even entered the discussion on climate change and what to do about it.

According to the latest estimates, there are approximately 100,000 flights per day. This number includes all types of flights, including passenger, cargo, and military aircraft. Passenger flights alone account for over 90,000 flights per day, transporting millions of passengers to destinations all around the world.

Just as we need electric cars to cut down the emissions from cars, we also need an alternative type of fuel for planes to do so. But that is not going to happen unless it enters into the discussion about climate change in the first place.

A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.2 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO2.

Compared to:

CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are 3.15 grams per gram of fuel [1], which gives CO2 emissions from a Boeing 737-400 of 115 g per passenger per km. At a cruising speed of 780 km per hour [Wikipedia, 28.2. 08], this is equivalent to 90 kg CO2 per passenger per hour.

1 gallon of gas, on average, creates 8,887 grams of CO2 for the average car. You can calculate how much CO2 you create by multiplying the number of gallons of gas it takes for your car to travel a given distance. So, if your car uses uses 50 gallons of gas in a trip, it has produced 440,350 grams of CO2. That trips generated .44035 metric tons of CO2.

Whereas, a Boeing 737-400 creates 90kg of CO2 per passenger per hour. So, if you are a passenger on a Boeing 737-400, your share of the emissions output is 90 kg per passenger hour.

In terms of traveling by cruise ship, here is some data:

But just how severe is their impact on the climate? Unfortunately, taking a cruise takes a toll on the planet. Your trip will average anywhere from 700-1000 pounds of carbon emissions a day, which is much higher than flying, driving or a traditional ‘land’ vacation.

Because the Trump era begs these questions:

Shouldn’t our president and other elected officials be required to have a minimum level of intelligence, not be corrupt, follow laws, be ethical and have morals?

Shouldn’t our president and other elected officials follow standards of normal behavior and actually honor the oath of office that they swear and not deviate from it for their own purposes?

Shouldn’t our president and other elected officials refrain from engaging in partisan and divisive politics to obtain and retain political power?

There are two kinds of politics in the United States today:

One that is self-absorbed, self-protective, defensive and insecure/paranoid. This type of politics protects the status quo and those who already enjoy comfort and privileges.

The other type of politics is concerned with problem-solving in order to have a more equitable, fair and just society where we are all citizens with the same rights and we all strive to do the right things, take care of each other, and improve life for everyone, not just the privileged.

These are two sets of opposing politics. It’s not really possible to straddle the fence and/or be neutral or “centrist” with these two distinct types of politics. When people often talk about the two political parties or about the left or the right, liberal or conservative, they often say that there’s no difference, that “both parties do it.”

That is not true when it comes to the two types of politics I have described here. One is the politics of selfishness, indifference and heartlessness. The other is practical and believes in working for what is best for the most people. It’s utilitarian.

I’m not trying to be provocative. I’m just asking people to think about it for themselves. Don’t answer this question to anyone but yourself. Which of these two political ideologies best fits you?

I believe the type of politics that has had the bigger influence in United States for a long time has been the selfish type of politics that serves the status quo and the wealthy. As a result this country does not have justice for all or full equality of all citizens. But it does have a grotesquely skewed economy that favors the rich and punishes the middle and lower classes. The current politics have allowed for the dissolution of the separation of church and state and for the church(es) to insert themselves directly into politics and assert their agendas, which are not religious at all but serve as political dogma and tyranny which goes against what the authors of the Constitution intended and also go against the teachings of Jesus and Buddha and all the teachings of true religions.

So far, utilitarian politics, the politics that do the most to help the most people, have only had limited success in the democracy of the United States and have always been branded as being socialist or communist or other pejoratives, even if those labels are not correct and confuse people with emotion and distortion. But the thing that is true about utilitarian governance that cannot be gaslighted and will always remain true is that when the government works honestly and sincerely for the people to improve and lift up the lives of all citizens and to do what is best and right for the most people most of the time, it stands up to and is superior to all the gaslighting.

The United States is a young democracy. It is searching its soul and trying to figure out which type of politics it wants to accept and embrace. So far, it has built quite a campaign on the successful elements of good governance that it has been able to accomplish despite all of the forces that have always arrayed themselves against it doing so. But the serious question that remains unsettled is whether or not the United States will finally take steps to strengthen itself and create a more perfect union and correct the imperfections that keep it from doing so? Or not? That is what will be interesting to see; which direction the country will take.

I don’t hate homeless people. I hate homelessness. Homeless people do not simply have no home. Most of them don’t really have anything at all except their lives and the clothes they are wearing and the few possessions they carry around with them. Contrary to what some people say, everyone, all the people in all the countries all around the world, should have a place of shelter that provides them safety, security, and some comfort. The homeless people everywhere all around the world are people, human beings, just like all of the rest of us who are fortunate enough to have shelter. And they deserve our help in finding the safe shelter that they do not have if we as individual people take any part in a collective responsibility for the whole community of human beings. If we have any belief in or feel any responsibility and connection in humanity as a whole. As citizens, that is the only moral response to homelessness that we can have to the homeless. Help is needed. Help is the solution. The beginning of the end of the problem of homelessness is to stop ignoring and turning away from the problem.

Homelessness has many causes. All of those causes should be identified, defined, and described in order for us to fully understand them. This information should be disseminated as a matter of universal education. If human society and a global community are naturally and normally evolving, a full understanding of homelessness and all of its causes is needed in order to eliminate it as the universal and multidimensional social problem and nuisance and general threat to health and public safety, and the failure of society in general to care for the entire body, that it is, once and for all.

Does humanity solve its problems? Does it have such a responsibility or obligation? If humanity is ever going to solve the complex set of problems that create homelessness, which it could do if it has the political will to do so, it will be necessary to solve all of the problems that coalesce to create it. That means addressing problems of inequalities of education, poverty, distribution, services and public assistance as well as substance abuse and mental health care.

Some of the most significant deficiencies and defects of capitalism are that it precludes educational and economic opportunities and shuts so many people out of the economic well being and security that is so important to a sense of security. (It will certainly not be a best seller, but the examination and writing of the history of the economy in the last one hundred years that saw the explosive growth of income inequality when the most opportune class became ever more opulently wealthy, and the most impoverished more and more destitute, has yet to be adequately written and thus recorded.) It also turns the economy in general into more of a lottery or casino than a stable basis upon which resources can be better managed for the benefit of all of society and not just the most fortunate or the most conniving and ruthless and luckiest investors and insiders. The most unfortunate and deprived in the economy are those who find themselves homeless. Capitalism has been moving along a path parallel to and along the exact same direction and trajectory as Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest in its most cynical political application. This is probably the most significant reason and important cause of the class and economic and social inequalities that have only been exacerbated and made worse by corporate media, politics, and by power of vested interests that oppose equality and justice in general and have caused so many people to fall into poverty and homelessness. As a system of economics, capitalism has contributed greatly to the problem of homelessness.

However, the problem of homelessness isn’t only a problem of economics. It is a problem of failures and victimization, whether they are external or self-inflicted, that are experienced by the homeless themselves. When poor people are victims of bad public policy, substandard education and training, maltreatment, authoritative suppression and oppression, bad laws and regulations, political disenfranchisement, persecution and discrimination of all kinds, injustice and illegal and immoral actions that are imposed on them, they cannot be blamed for their misfortunes. When judgement is made against the poor, it is most likely to be because they did not utilize or take advantage of things that they could control to make their lives better and give them more stability. Bad decisions, inadequate preparation and training, submission and resignation, and being victimized have all been factors that have contributed to a mind set that may be part of homelessness, a type of mentality of homelessness. It is not, however, constructive or useful to assign blame or guilt or to make judgements about people when they have experienced the hardships of poverty and/or homelessness whether they are a result of external or imposed conditions. Homelessness should ideally be a problem that is comprehensively understood and solved from all angles, from the public and by the homeless themselves. The responsibility, if there is one, to respond to and do something to end homelessness will have to be an endeavor that is both public and individual. It will also have to involve the homeless themselves, in their own understanding of their own part in being homeless and in self-care (which they will need to do for themselves or which they may need to be taught) in order to do the work that only they can do for themselves, to the best of their abilities, to improve their own lives for themselves and to not rely exclusively and passively on everything being done for them and to them.

There needs to be a discussion of rights and responsibilities around homelessness. Do the homeless have a right to set up camp on private or public properties that they do not own without asking for permission to do so? If the homeless are refused access to a place for shelter by its owners or managers, what alternatives should a community consider providing so that they can find shelter elsewhere? Should low or no cost housing be established and provided by the public at public expense “to get people off the streets”? How much and in what way should the public that spends public money to provide affordable low or no cost housing to the homeless be allowed to help the homeless and set rules and regulations or create opportunities for the homeless to be part of the communities where they live? Should there be rules and regulations and conditions attached to public housing? Since the problem of homelessness is a problem of not owning shelter or the resources needed to secure shelter, how can homeless people be helped to help themselves while also being encouraged to participate as members of the community at large?

For humanitarian and public health reasons, communities with homeless populations need to address the issues that create the problem of homelessness and solve them to help the homeless and to help themselves and their communities as a whole.