OK, Thank You, Good Bye

An odd name for a blog on random stuff

[okthankyougoodbye]

U.S. government to require that hobbyists register their drones

The federal government plans to announce Monday that all drones will have to be registered.

So let me get this straight: you are mandating I register my drone, but some wackjob with an AR-15 doesn't. 'murica!

[okthankyougoodbye]

NRA

I'm convinced either the NRA or Republicans are setting up mass shootings on a consistent basis so we are always in grieving mode and will never enter the right time when it is appropriate to talk about gun control. The plan is so genius that I think I'm just jealous I didn't think of it.

I'm a firearms safety instructor and take people shooting on a regular basis, so I'm not some anti-gun liberal who thinks we should ban all firearms. I'm baffled how we let some large lobby group prevent our developed civilization from addressing a very stupid problem we have.

[okthankyougoodbye]

Police Use of Force

Everyone is outraged by use of force by an officer when the suspect appears to be peaceful, but you have to understand that if a suspect fears no consequence for non-compliance, then no one will ever comply with police. The rule is simple: comply with police and deal with whether or not the charges are justified after the arrest. Police need the use of force to deal with non-compliant suspects regardless of their "peaceful" status.

Nothing good can come from not complying with police, regardless of whether you agree with the charges. I've been unjustifiably handcuffed and thrown in the back of squad car for participating in a fight I was breaking up. Resisting arrest would've put me in the hospital for days. Complying with the officer got me released in two hours with an apology from the officer who admitted he was trying to control the situation.

[okthankyougoodbye]

The Gun Lobby is shooting themselves

You should all know that I'm a Korean-American, so I'm allowed make the joke at the end 

I'm all for gun rights, but the gun lobby has chosen the craziest god damn people as public figures for their campaign. No one is trying to take away ALL of your guns in some master plan to commit genocide. There hasn't even been a discussion to take away handguns and shotguns: it's a discussion on assault rifles. If the US wanted to become a tyrannical force, pretty sure your assault rifle is no match for a SCUD missile, Predator Drone, or an F-22 Raptor. If you don't believe me, play some multiplayer Call of Duty and see if your M16 is effective against the shit storm from an AC130. While you're at it, stop comparing the movement to tighten gun laws to Nazi Germany, Russia, and pretty much any southeast Asia massacre. It's almost an insult to the victims of those mass killings that the threat to your ownership of an AR-15 with a 30-round mag comes remotely close to the unspeakable acts that occurred in underdeveloped nations. I don't understand the need to own an arsenal of weapons as if Skynet is a real threat. If it has to do with small penis syndrome, do what Asians do: make lots of money, drive fast cars, or learn how to kill people 101 different ways with your hands/feet/head. They obviously get laid because look how many of them are around. I can't even walk past a mirror these days without seeing an Asian.

This blog is meant to start an intellectual conversation on policy and society. Please write your comments accordingly.

[okthankyougoodbye]

"Social Programs are Fat"

Response to "all of the money we waste on making sure that people have lavish lifestyles on government assistance," and "we will never be able to cut all of the fat because a large chunk of it is going to those on government assistance."

Social programs are not the fat. They are the main reason we pay taxes: to maintain a civil society through wealth redistribution. Head to India for a week and see what the result of low income tax and no social programs does for civility. I agree with (the poster) that our social programs are abused, but like the TSA, publicized bad apples give the whole program a bad rep. I saw the woman who won $1 million dollars in the lottery and still maintained welfare simply because she found a loophole in the system. But for every one of those, there are hundreds of thousands of people who legitimately use social programs during periods of need. Totally agree on raising social security age and make the need based.

Want to cut out real fat? Cut the $230B in military spending we have over the top 5 military spenders as a measure of GDP (4.7% v 3.1%), or the $50B we blow on non-military foreign aid every year, or the $20B in farm subsidies during a massive agri surplus, or the $800 million we lost over the last 10 years to provide food on Amtrak (I ride Amtrak regularly: the food sucks). These are real budget movers that no one will address.

This blog is meant to start an intellectual conversation on policy and society. Please write your comments accordingly.

[okthankyougoodbye]

Lower taxes increase charitable contributions

The argument.

If we have less gov't, that's more money for people to efficiently allocate to charity. It's almost a perfect correlation, the more money people have, the more money charities receive from donations. LBJ's War on Welfare, is an example of how awful gov't is at the charity business.

My Response.

You mean fragmenting social assistance, forcing those lacking resources to apply to numerous organizations to compete for qualification? We'll assume the main flaw of your argument doesn't exist: people will voluntarily donate their tax savings necessary to buoy the poverty population minus the cost of governmental inefficiencies and corrupt practices.

So, instead of taking that easily available counterargument, I ask you to look at an existing parallel case study: scholarships. High school students struggling to secure a sound fiscal plan for college spend an enormous amount of time and energy applying for private scholarships. It is highly competitive and there is not enough to go around, even for the most qualified. Unlike the poverty population, high school students still have rent, food, and medical care paid for by parents or existing government programs. Imagine the aspiring college prospect trying to hold a poverty-level job to make ends meet while spending the time to apply for these scholarships. The burden would be unbearable for most. That doesn't make them lazy: it makes them exhausted.

Would you voluntarily donate a meaningful portion of a 3% tax reduction to charity? Did you do it when Bush cut taxes? I'm willing to bet your 1040 Schedule A says you didn't. I didn't either. That's not meant to be a personal attack on you. As a society, we love to raise awareness, but we lack the motivation to take tangible action. We continue to have a large homeless population, uninsured patients, and overwhelming mental health issue in this country. Charity today hasn't made a dent in these issues. If you don't believe the homeless are a problem, spend a day at Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. The uninsured injured turn to bankruptcy court, which is forced charity on our healthcare system. If you don't feel mental health is an issue, go talk to the residents of Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT. LBJ's War on Welfare may have been an example of government waste, but there has been no example of the private sector making a meaningful impact on a single macro-socioeconomic issue, as demonstrated by the private scholarship system being supplemented by the largest federal student loan program in the history of our nation.

This blog is meant to start an intellectual conversation on policy and society. Please write your comments accordingly.

[okthankyougoodbye]

Trying to explain Socialism through a Communist Example

So someone baited me with a post about Classroom Socialism. Here's the main meat.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.  The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

Well, if you average everyone's production and distribute equally, that's communism. A bell curve would be closer to socialism. So I responded.

An oversimplified view of what people think is socialism. This example is text-book communism. I'm hoping our readers and this professor know the difference, or he should be pulled from teaching: him and the tenured professor from Florida who thinks Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy.

Our society is built to buoy those who are in times of need. We walk a fine line between keeping them motivated enough to work toward success and turning to crime because the risk is lower than reward. I agree with the arguments that the system is abused, plagued with red tape, and inefficient. However, to group everyone who uses government assistance as freeloaders who have no incentive to succeed is as inaccurate as saying all Hispanics are illegal or all gays have AIDS. You, me, and (mutual friend) went to private school with 5-figure tuition. We have absolutely no idea what hurdles those close to the poverty line encounter, nor should we pretend to. It's easy to sit at our 6-figure jobs and say "figure it out, my taxpayer dollars are precious." Deep down, we all know it's a bullshit argument. I'd rather have my taxes raised 5% than have half my stuff stolen by someone turned away for the basics of public assistance.

I almost equate this to gun policy in this country. Yeah, it's a problem. Yeah, it needs reform. We're not doing away with guns, so let's start talking legitimate solutions. All we do with these types of examples is spread falsities to those too lazy to do their own research.

This blog is meant to start an intellectual conversation on policy and society. Please write your comments accordingly.