Fiscal liberals

Indian Governor Jindal asked the GOP to "stop being the stupid party".  Most Indians like Governor Jindal vote for GOP not in the interest of the country or the community but for themselves. Jindal became a Governor by giving up his religion, his beliefs and his Indian heritage and it was worth it. 

There are few conservative Indians and yet many vote for GOP in their personal interest of lower income tax. But they do it with a sense of guilt because to vote for a "stupid party" sounds  stupid. I say that because I have heard so many Indians who vote republicans say the same sentence" I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal". Fiscal conservative is a euphemism for " I want my taxes lowered". Don't we all want to pay lower taxes? Where are the fiscal liberals who want to pay higher taxes? 

It makes sense to vote for the "stupid party" to get your taxes lowered but you need a different euphemism to overcome the guilt of voting for the "Stupid party". 

Reward the successful and the hardworking

Give $1 to a successful and creative entrepreneur and he/she would create $5 worth of working capital to expand the business which generates jobs. Give $1 to Government and it turns it to zero.

Instead of rewarding the successful and the hardworking we are constantly punishing them by taking away their hard earned wealth not knowing that it will only hurt us by reducing economic growth.

We reward the losers and the lazy, instead, by letting them decide how much of the hard earned money  the successful and the hardworking can keep with themselves.

Should we not reward the entrepreneurs by giving them money instead of taking from them?  Should we not punish the lazy losers instead? Is it not in our economic interest to leave as much money as possible in the hands of job creators?

It is not fair to punish the successful when who really needs to be punished are the 47% of the lazy and the losers.

The entrepreneurs should be rewarded with an income tax rate of negative 10%. The more profit an entrepreneur makes the bigger the reward check they get from IRS.

Expiry date on the constitution?

The US constitution belongs in the history books. We should start from scratch and write a brand new constitution from scratch based on the needs of today's world. And in the next constitution we should put an expiry date no more than 50 years and possibly less because the world changes  too fast.

Freedom means the freedom to make your own laws and that should include the power to write your own constitution, at least once in 50 years!

I find it insane that the right to bear arms is considered as sacred as the right to free speech. If it is in the constitution it must be something good. The constitution that never expires keeps the stupid laws much longer than it should because people stop to think and simply believe that if it is in the constitution it must be good. The doctor prescribed it so it must be good.

It is unpatriotic to question the greatness of our constitution and the greatness of our founders. The flaws of the constitution are never discussed and do not get exposed as a result and bad laws continue. If constitution expired today, is there a chance that the new constitution will have right to bear arms?

" I believe in the second amendment" say all the gun owners. As long as there is no one saying the opposite :" I do not believe in the second amendment", nothing of consequence will be done.

In our divided government only those things can be done that make everyone unhappy and not making half the people happy and the other half unhappy.

 How many people really want guns for the original reason for which the original intent of the second amendment which was to let the public have guns to fight a renegade government?  So why do we still need the second amendment?

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria , did not need the second amendment to get rid of their dictators. When the US Government cannot control the flow of drugs, you think they can stop the flow of arms into the country if a dictator took control of the country.

The second amendment is only an excuse for gun owners to own guns for fun, a stupidity with a big price tag.

It is time to rewrite the constitution.

A lose lose deal

I have not been a great fan of the checks and balances in our political system. I am thinking of changing my mind. I think  the founders knew that in a democracy with two equally powerful political parties, it is only posible to please half the people. This is basically an unfair situation. To be fair, it is  better to displease everyone a little. In a divided  government this is what actually happens. The fiscal cliff was avoided with both sided losing a little instead of one side winning completely while the other side losing entirely.

In a democracy winner takes all may not be a good idea because of the potential of making some people really unhappy. Perhaps the fair thing is to make everyone unhappy!