There's a program the White House is doing that if people get so many petitions (I think it's 250,000) on any topic, the Obama administration promises a formal response. So, among the petitions was one that the United States create a Death Star (from Star Wars). The proposal was formally denied on the grounds that it's not in the country's financial best interest to spend $400 quadrillion on something that they don't see direct benefit from and furthermore the United States does not condone blowing up planets.
I'm not sure if I should be amused or annoyed or indifferent to this request. It's kind of funny, but it is kind of wasting the country's time. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Okay, now for general comments on the State of the Union Address...First of all, when I was a kid, I thought the State of the Union meant an award was being given to the state of the year. I usually voted for Texas. Anyway, now I know it's not as cool as that. So regarding this year's speech, I was pleasantly surprised because I was expecting a lot of hyped fluff. There was only a little bit of that. One thing I wanted to comment on was the President's mention of cyber warfare. That left me imagining a scenario where one day a large portion of websites aren't functioning, online data basis are inaccessible, and network-linked operating programs are inoperative. This would be devastating and I feel completely incapable of anticipating how I could personally defend against such an attack.
Another topic he addressed was fuel efficiency. He spoke about a technology that would allow vehicles to cover the same distance on half the fuel. That sounded nice. I didn't look into it any further, so I don't really know what he's talking about. As is common rhetoric for this man, he mentioned the virtue of laying higher taxes on more wealthy persons and how it's obviously their obligation to contribute more taxes because they obviously don't have better things to do with their money. So, this is a flawed idea. I don't pretend to believe that all wealthy people are altruistic and trying to take care of fellow countrymen, but I am personally acquainted with some people that fit that altruistic description. So other things that wealthy people could do besides paying taxes are donating to charities that help people succeed, investing in things that stimulate the economy and give people jobs, and also to assist other people in establishing financial independence. I don't trust the people who collect taxes and appropriate those funds to do a better job than those who acquired it in the first place.
I haven't studied it myself, but I heard that the wealth possessed by the amount of people making over $250,000 a year evenly distributed to all Americans making less than that would not even equate to $100 per month. Perhaps this is incorrect, again, I haven't looked into it, but it is logical that the impact would not be very significant.
Also discussed was the need to raise minimum wage. I understand a lot of the reasoning for that. I understand a lot of people would benefit and be able to make ends meet easier; the part that I disagree with is when it was mentioned that raising the minimum wage would not have the result of decreasing the amount of available jobs. Now the most basic logic tells me that business owners have several expenses including equipment necessary for producing a marketable product, advertising, licensing, credentialing, as well as paying their employees. So if business owners are required to raise all persons being paid a minimum wage to $9/hr, that requires more funds go to employees, which results in less funds available for other expenses, such as recruiting and product development among other things. Essentially, money has to come from somewhere. It has to be taken from somewhere, so if a business owner is doing enough business to just keep the company going without securing profit, then those business owners are required to pay each individual employee more. They therefore cannot employee as many employees.
Those are my thoughts. Please comment if you feel like it. Thank you.
My concerns on the cyber warfare is not so much about the whole internet going down as the power grid. If the internet and even cell phone communications get shot, well, that would be unfortuante; go ham radio folks. But if the power grid went out? No refrigeration, no A/C, no gas pumps, no air conditioning, etc. Would homes heated by natural gas still work? Thermostats rely on electric power, though some on batteries. But what about the controlling programs that operate the natural gas infrastructure? So... no heat? Seems like a reasonable possibility. Water? Hopefully still okay, but again, what electricity dependent systems manage the water supply? What about the water pumps that get us the water in the first place? If power went out there...?
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, my major concern? Power grid. My random 2 cents on that.
Richard said on March 1:
ReplyDeleteMan, that was some Lincoln kind of thinkin'. Well done. I do want to comment, but will reserve most comments till later. More later,
Dad