Why do people and organizations move or change their affiliations from something they apparently believe in, only to join a new organization or location and work to change that org/location to match what they left?
There is a mindset that I continue to be confronted with that I just can't understand. Perhaps that is due to my nature of being logical and reasoned and I just can't comprehend this alternate view.
A few years ago, we met our new neighbors who moved 'to the country' from a much more populated area. They said they looked forward to the open fields, safe environment, lower property taxes, well-respected school system and 'easier way of life'. Shortly after they finished un-boxing their earthly possessions they began complaining about the lack of service. The young couple started complaining about trash service - you need to contract for your own service, that we needed sidewalks for strollers, that the police should routinely patrol the area. The neighborhood in question resides on an old horse farm with 20 MPH speed limits and 1-10 acre home sites and I can't remember any crime being committed since I moved in 11 years ago. This same couple were the first to contact the county and complain about the increase in their property assessment and demanded it be reduced as they did not wish to pay any more than what they were already paying. How exactly did they think the county would pay for the existing services - let alone the new ones they were asking for?
On a related note, I have been a part of youth sports in the area for several years. First, as a parent and coach and then on to the administrative side (league coordinator, coaches training, authoring policies ....). On two separate occasions, neighboring sports programs have had difficulty maintaining their programs and deferred families to our programs. As soon as we enrolled the new players and the seasons began to start - the former programs started making demands that 'our' program change to reflect the existing of 'their old' program. From 'adding a patch on the sleeve' to show the heritage from the older program to demanding that we change the guidelines for how teams are formed - WE NEEDED TO CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE their wants/needs.
A friend of the family moved to a very nice, convenient location in the area. The convenience of the area did have a price and that was it is difficult to get out of the neighborhood at certain times of the day due to the amount of traffic that passes the entry. I recently heard them complaining that a traffic light should be added to ease the flow in and out of the neighborhood.
My children attend private school. Specifically, they attend a Catholic school. We, as a family, made the decision to invest time and treasure to insure the best (in our eyes) for our children. Others have made that same decision and I applaud them for it. There are those (and I have heard them loud and clear) that are offended that their child must attend religion class ... IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL. I respect that they are not of the catholic faith but they did elect to send their child to that very school.
Lastly, when we moved in to our home we sought out the opinions of our neighbors prior to any projects. There was no law that said we had to do so, and the county I live in is very much a proponent of property rights. We had never had a conflict with any of our ventures until very recently. I hand carried a letter to my neighbor (newly moved in to the area) explaining an upcoming project. I respectfully requested any feedback on our plans and that we would listen to any/all concerns or questions but that the project was on a short timetable due to demand in the market. After a week of no feedback, I contacted the contractor and proceeded to start. Immediately, I received the call requesting a work stoppage until they could verify concerns they had with the county office. We (my family) had been to the county 3 times on permits and restrictions to insure there were no legal issues with what we had planned. Other than informing us that she did not want us to execute the project - there were NO comments regarding what our plans were. Nope, it was 100% about stopping the project and no 'middle ground'. In the end, the county backed us up and said we still have some rights in this country and county.
So, what to do? Why is it that new organizations or people moving in to a functioning society/group/area are free to dictate that the existing functioning group must change to adapt to the new tenants? Why is it that it is wrong to request and/or expect others to conform to the area they are moving to?
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
The incremental slide
The debate in Congress over the 'Health Care' bill has forced me to look at all that is and has happened in this country during my brief life. Looking at the debate and contrasting that to other differences in our society I think I have come to the simple conclusion that both sides of the aisle are more focused on incrementalism towards a goal they disagree with than the subject at hand.
On the political right, conservatives fear more than anything else that Socialism is the targeted direction and health care is just the next big hurdle. They may be right and looking back at the incremental steps made towards that end can be seen through the action of their opponents. Name a single thing that you do on a day to day basis that is not directly controlled, taxed or manipulated by the government ....
On the left, giving in on any portion of the debate will lead to safe ground where the opposition can build (or take away) from something they hold dear. Example: Covering abortion under the massive health care overhaul. Any argument about federal spending for this by the right is immediately responded to by stating that we can't interfere with a women's right to choose. After all, giving in on this topic might just lead to an overturn of Roe v. Wade.
The arguments around a single payer system are vast. The one that I continue to be amazed by is where the folks on the left are 'for the little people' and that we need to deliver services to those that can't afford to pay for themselves. I am a BIG proponent of helping out, donating time and money, looking out for those less fortunate and insuring that nothing stands in the way of someone living up to their own potential. However, the argument of taking more and more from one class of people to a different class of people with the threat of prosecution is not looking out for anyone. Plain and simple it is extortion and theft. Even if 100% of the additional money collected went directly to those less fortunate - doing so through threat of prosecution is a direct attack on the liberties of another.
On the other side of the argument.... we have some in our society who forget or fail to acknowledge that their good fortune comes by the grace of God. That their good fortune has been given to them for a reason and that we are all just here temporarily. Yes, hard work and commitment are the tools that many of them used to gather their wealth but they were given the opportunity by a power higher than themselves.
While this post is not nearly complete - I want to close with a small example of how much trouble the current direction by our government is causing us. Consider the data last reported (2008) shows that we have roughly 19.7 million government employees in the United States. This includes state and local along with military and federal. While they don't all make the > $100,000 that was recently reported .... if we estimate that each employee makes $70,000 (unburdened costs) a year. I am using simple math for estimating and the numbers could be much more extreme if we dig in to it in more detail. How many non-government employees does it take to pay their salaries? If the non-government employee made the same $70,000 and were taxed at 15% and the entirety of that tax went to pay direct salary payments to the government employee ..... it would take 131,500,000 citizens just to pay the salaries.
For those that claim the government pays the employees not Joe Public. Please remember that the government doesn't have anything. The government does make anything. The government does truly sell anything. When the government prints more money the only thing that changes is the volume of money. This in turn has the adverse affect making the money in your pocket worth less.
Back to the example - what happens if 10% of the public were to lose their jobs? In an effort to jumpstart the economy the government creates new jobs - but they are government jobs, what happens to the model. In order to pay for government employees taxes are raised to 16.7% and the government can then hire an additional 39,450 employees. All this while 13.15 million of the previous 131.5 million workers are now out of work. THIS MODEL SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Remember this when the Census workers are on the payroll and we are told that unemployment just dropped dramatically.
When the government takes and takes and demands more and more from its citizens it no longer works for the people. Instead the people are working for the government. Abraham Lincoln closed the Gettysburg address with "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " Let us not forget those words and do the right thing for God, country and each other.
On the political right, conservatives fear more than anything else that Socialism is the targeted direction and health care is just the next big hurdle. They may be right and looking back at the incremental steps made towards that end can be seen through the action of their opponents. Name a single thing that you do on a day to day basis that is not directly controlled, taxed or manipulated by the government ....
On the left, giving in on any portion of the debate will lead to safe ground where the opposition can build (or take away) from something they hold dear. Example: Covering abortion under the massive health care overhaul. Any argument about federal spending for this by the right is immediately responded to by stating that we can't interfere with a women's right to choose. After all, giving in on this topic might just lead to an overturn of Roe v. Wade.
The arguments around a single payer system are vast. The one that I continue to be amazed by is where the folks on the left are 'for the little people' and that we need to deliver services to those that can't afford to pay for themselves. I am a BIG proponent of helping out, donating time and money, looking out for those less fortunate and insuring that nothing stands in the way of someone living up to their own potential. However, the argument of taking more and more from one class of people to a different class of people with the threat of prosecution is not looking out for anyone. Plain and simple it is extortion and theft. Even if 100% of the additional money collected went directly to those less fortunate - doing so through threat of prosecution is a direct attack on the liberties of another.
On the other side of the argument.... we have some in our society who forget or fail to acknowledge that their good fortune comes by the grace of God. That their good fortune has been given to them for a reason and that we are all just here temporarily. Yes, hard work and commitment are the tools that many of them used to gather their wealth but they were given the opportunity by a power higher than themselves.
While this post is not nearly complete - I want to close with a small example of how much trouble the current direction by our government is causing us. Consider the data last reported (2008) shows that we have roughly 19.7 million government employees in the United States. This includes state and local along with military and federal. While they don't all make the > $100,000 that was recently reported .... if we estimate that each employee makes $70,000 (unburdened costs) a year. I am using simple math for estimating and the numbers could be much more extreme if we dig in to it in more detail. How many non-government employees does it take to pay their salaries? If the non-government employee made the same $70,000 and were taxed at 15% and the entirety of that tax went to pay direct salary payments to the government employee ..... it would take 131,500,000 citizens just to pay the salaries.
For those that claim the government pays the employees not Joe Public. Please remember that the government doesn't have anything. The government does make anything. The government does truly sell anything. When the government prints more money the only thing that changes is the volume of money. This in turn has the adverse affect making the money in your pocket worth less.
Back to the example - what happens if 10% of the public were to lose their jobs? In an effort to jumpstart the economy the government creates new jobs - but they are government jobs, what happens to the model. In order to pay for government employees taxes are raised to 16.7% and the government can then hire an additional 39,450 employees. All this while 13.15 million of the previous 131.5 million workers are now out of work. THIS MODEL SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Remember this when the Census workers are on the payroll and we are told that unemployment just dropped dramatically.
When the government takes and takes and demands more and more from its citizens it no longer works for the people. Instead the people are working for the government. Abraham Lincoln closed the Gettysburg address with "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " Let us not forget those words and do the right thing for God, country and each other.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
No wonder we are where we are
I am no genius when it comes to ... just about anything. With that disclaimer how hard is it to pass a U.S citizenship test? Personally, I found it to be a relatively simple test - take a look at the questions and see for yourself. Apparently, I am not a normal citizen of the country as 'elected officials' only scored 44 per cent. 'Ordinary' citizens scored 49 per cent. This information was taken from the article 'US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics' . If the education, or awareness of our country is this abysmal - there is no question as to why we find ourselves continuing to elect officials that really have no idea what they are supposed to do, let alone become self declared experts on foreign policy, financial issues, health care or even the role of government.
Instead of electing people who understand the history of our country, its role in the world or even a strong discipline in an area that matters to the general population, we seem to elect people who will cater to a particular need or cause. Where does this get is .... Refer back to my previous post .
This most recent election brought to the forefront the concern over 'qualifications' to become President or Vice President. Personally, I think anyone wishing to run for office should be required to take the test, pass it with at least an 80% (that was a B in grade school) and their scores and answers published for all to see. Not that it will matter much as we are increasingly becoming a society of hand outs. That is the general population increasingly sits back and puts their hand out looking for what their elected official will give them.
Go back to my previous post on taxation and see where you fit. In the end, if you find yourself not wanting to pay for someone elses beer will you do something about it or just complain and threaten to move if your candidate doesn't win ... like Alec Baldwin promised to do.
Instead of electing people who understand the history of our country, its role in the world or even a strong discipline in an area that matters to the general population, we seem to elect people who will cater to a particular need or cause. Where does this get is .... Refer back to my previous post .
This most recent election brought to the forefront the concern over 'qualifications' to become President or Vice President. Personally, I think anyone wishing to run for office should be required to take the test, pass it with at least an 80% (that was a B in grade school) and their scores and answers published for all to see. Not that it will matter much as we are increasingly becoming a society of hand outs. That is the general population increasingly sits back and puts their hand out looking for what their elected official will give them.
Go back to my previous post on taxation and see where you fit. In the end, if you find yourself not wanting to pay for someone elses beer will you do something about it or just complain and threaten to move if your candidate doesn't win ... like Alec Baldwin promised to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
