Subscribe to my blog! Enter your email address below!

Friday, March 8, 2013

Money, money, money... All the Government ever talks about is money!


INTRO 


You’re a hustler. Everyday you wake up and it’s ‘Rise and Grind’. Hopefully, your business consists of more than just a Facebook page, 100 likes, and a few pictures of your wholesale products now for individual sale. There is nothing wrong with having your business start up on Facebook. I am aware of humble beginnings. But as of late, I am a bit worried about all my Facebook entrepreneur friends. It is quite possible that your business will flourish. Playboy was started with a $600 loan and a few investors. But while you are busy running your company and soliciting ‘likes’ on Facebook, I think it would be a good idea for you to think about your finances at a grand scale. Although many of us think we are ‘getting it’. We are probably only getting it for ‘right now’. Just ask MC Hammer. How did he blow millions of dollars? Bad money management? Not being informed? Not educating himself? Money has a tendency to be here today, gone tomorrow. With the economic crisis our country is facing, barely recovering from the last recession, it is time to start making better INFORMED financial decisions. Whether you are starting a business, trying to start up a savings account, trying to figure out how to invest a few hundred, or thinking about retirement… we all can benefit from a little financial guidance. 


POLITICAL JARGON


Right now America is going through a self-inflicted hardship… And if you are a real contending hustler… you should be perfectly aware of the economic situation we are currently facing. Financial decisions that the government makes impacts us. And it may not be an overnight change, but it eventually creeps in. How many business owners or home owners lost everything due to the recession  It wasn't necessarily predictable but we knew the government was having financial problems for quite sometime. And in order to know what's going to happen with your money, it's good to watch the government and the big boys on Wall Street so that you can be prepared and save up for a hard hitting rainy days.

 It’s hard to keep up with all the political jargon - financial cliff, sequestration, debt ceiling, and etc., but to be aware is to be prepared. I was not sure what all these terms meant, but I have a tendency to Google things when I am curious… and I wanted to make this a one stop shop for all my uninformed readers.




The DEBIT Ceiling


What we consider the ‘debt ceiling’ is the maximum amount of money the United States can borrow. However, the debt ceiling is raised whenever the government comes close to the limit. The debt ceiling was created under the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, putting a "ceiling" on the amount of bonds the United States can issue. By hitting the limit and missing an interest payment to bondholders, the United States would be in default, lowering its credit rating and increasing the cost of its debt (Investopedia 2013). Sounds like a self inflicted wound. For one, it is not required nor is it necessary to have a debt ceiling. And since 1944 the debt ceiling has been raised 94 times. So why does Congress have a debt ceiling in place when it seems to cause more harm than good? Most democratic countries do not have a debt ceiling in place. 

So what is the purpose of the debt ceiling when they can just raise it whenever needed? Think about your monthly budget. You have it in place to know how much you would like to spend at a given time. You can spend more than what you placed in your budget, but you will be more aware of the consequences. I assume this is the greatest purpose of the ‘debt ceiling’. It engages the President and Congress in conversation. With the debt ceiling, it allows the citizens of the US to know how progress is going. But then again, being informed is simply that… being informed. And it seems like we are constantly being informed of an increase in debt that US citizens have no control over.

FISCAL CLIFF


Although the fiscal cliff was averted, it’s is important to know what it was and what occurred. The end of 2012 marked when the Budget Control Act of 2011 would come into effect which ended temporary payroll tax cuts, tax breaks for businesses, and marked the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. With the Budget Control Act coming into effect and tax breaks coming to an end, there was also a ‘fiscal cliff deal’ that was implemented on January 1. The most important details about the deal includes the payroll tax which has increased to 6.2% for individuals making an income of $113,700 or more, and there was an raise in investment tax, increasing from 15% to 23.8% for individuals in the highest tax bracket and a 3.8% surtax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200K and couples making more than $250K. The deal will raises taxes on 77.1% of U.S. households. However, they did extend the Bush-era tax cuts.

SEQUESTRATION


Sequestration is the term used to describe the governments forced budget cuts. The sequester was suppose to start at the beginning of the governments financial year (also known as fiscal year), which was September 1, 2012. However, it was pushed back to allow Congress to focus on the fiscal cliff. They gave themselves until March 1st 2013 to come up with a budget that would reduce the governments spending by 1.2 trillion dollars over a nine year period. And if they couldn't come up with a plan, which they haven’t, the sequester would automatically cut funding from government agencies across the board (leaving only a few pots of money safe, i.e. social security, military personnel, and Medicaid).


Many news reports are not recognizing the fact that the governments fiscal year is half way complete and that the $85 million budget cut for 2013 is not impacting an entire 12 months of spending, but will be pulled from the remaining six months left of the Fiscal Year 2013 which ends October 31. Many government employees working for the DoD will be furloughed a day a week, causing their salary to increase my 20%.


The government is the heart of the United States economy. Government spending is reduced, causing civilian employees and other government workers to have a reduction in salary. This then trickles down to contractors. Once their pay is cut that equals less spending at retail stores and restaurants. No one knows exactly how this will impact the economy, but from my point of view, it doesn't look good.

Sources:


http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp#ixzz2MxazCofj

Friday, March 1, 2013

The American Way





Gun violence has always been an issue in the United States. It’s America’s greatest hamartia. After the Sandy Hook shooting, Gun Laws have been heavily scrutinized within the media and legislation. Looking at the data, gun violence doesn't seem like it’s higher than years past. However, the media feeds off of fear and anxiety, so with every shooting of two or more, CNN and our other news giants will be sure to headline it as BREAKING NEWS.

Growing up in Miami, I thought it was normal to turn on the news and hear about a few homicides a day. So, whenever I heard people from outside of Miami talk about the violence in my city, I didn't understand what the big deal was until I moved to Tallahassee, FL to attend Florida A&M University. Tallahassee, FL, the capital, on average has about nine murders per year where Miami has about 67. That is when I realized that Miami had a problem.



www.City-Data.com

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Average
Tallahassee
8
7
9
4
12
9
10
5
8
6
13
10
8.4
Per 100,000
5.6
4.5
5.7
2.5
7.6
5.6
6.2
3.1
4.7
3.4
7.4
5.4
5.14
Miami
66
66
65
74
69
54
77
78
63
59
68
68
67.3
Per 100,000
16.9
17.7
17.1
19.4
17.9
13.9
19.6
19.0
14.7
14.1
15.4
16.8
16.9
*Miami data does not include surrounding cities



According to the FBI, there are certain variables that contribute to differences in crime from location to location. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:


*Population density and degree of urbanization.
*Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. 

*Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors. 
*Modes of transportation and highway system. 
*Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability. 
*Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 
*Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 
*Climate. 
*Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 
*Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 
*Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 
*Citizens’ attitudes toward crime. 
*Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.


The FBI has suggestions as to what contributes to violence but have they determined what contributes towards gun violence? America is known for its need for speed and enjoying the effortless way of doing things; fast food, fast service, fast internet, fast emails, so why not use a gun which is the fastest and easiest method to kill/harm someone?

To tackle the gun issue, I think it’s important to not focus on crimes involving guns as a whole but to break it down into sub-groups. Should mass homicide prevention be conducted the same way one would prevent street shootings? Mass shootings, usually targeting (but not limited too) innocent bystanders should be in a field of its own. The debate with mass shootings is the type of guns being used. With that in mind, the President and several political figures have announced their support to ban military-style assault weapons. However, CNN reports that there are 6,000 people a year that are killed by hand guns alone. If you compare this to the Newtown massacre, it’s 239 times that a year (CNN 2013). So, should we be focusing on handguns instead?



The figure above details gun-related homicides in 2011 by weapon type. This breakdown has remained consistent across the most recent five years of data made available by the FBI.



Being that I am not a gun fanatic, my boyfriend was able to breakdown the gun jargon and explain to me what makes a gun semi-automatic.

Semi-automatic guns are not machine guns. You pull the trigger once, and it shoots one bullet. Jeff Serdy explained to Fox News during an interview that labeling a gun an ‘assault’ weapon has nothing to do with how deadly it is. Scrutinizing all of the 2012 mass shootings, none of the suspects used an automatic weapon (mainly due to the fact that automatic weapons are banned). When you squeeze the trigger on an automatic weapon, bullets keep firing out of the gun until you stop squeezing. The military’s M-16 used to be automatic, however, the military has shied away from automatic firing and the latest M-16’s have three-shot burst and is semi-automatic. AR-15s, which is the civilian equivalent to the M-16, is not automatic and does not have three-shot burst. The difference between semi-automatic and a regular gun is that you do not need to cock it or load it after each shot. Using the term semiautomatic is broad, since a number of guns are semiautomatic. 

The term ‘assault weapon’ is confusing, since all guns could be considered assault weapons. A book could be consider an assault weapon if you try to assault someone with it. So what makes a gun an ‘assault weapon’… is it the capabilities or the style of a gun? Just because it may look like a military style gun, doesn't mean it’s more deadly. Any gun can be an assault weapon and there is no clear definition on what an assault weapon is. However, there is a clear definition for what an ‘assault rifle’ is. Assault rifles are automatic guns, and as aforementioned, automatic guns are already banned. The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre was a semiautomatic rifle. In the 13 mass shootings that occurred last year (not including gang shootings), only four could be positively linked back to using a semi-automatic gun. In regards to rifles, only four shooters could be linked to using a rifle (with one being semi-automatic). Seven of the suspects used handguns (with three being semiautomatic) in their shootings. (Keep in mind, that some of the suspects used multiple fire arms.)

In the article ‘Mass Shootings in 2012: Crimesider reports on this year's public shootings’, Julia Dahli researched the 13 mass shootings and determined whether the guns used were stolen or registered to the shooter and what type of gun was used. Dahli also researched the gun laws in every state where the shootings occurred to see if the states with stricter gun laws benefited. In the Sandy Hook case, a background check would not have mattered since the shooter stole the gun from his mother. In the 13 shootings, only three of the shooters’ guns could be positively identified as guns that were legally purchased by the shooter. And in Connecticut, the gun laws are moderately strict.
So what does a previously convicted criminal who is still engaged in illegally activity do when he/she needs a gun and they are not allowed to get one because their resident state requires a background check? They steal their weapons or buy them under the table. 

What about mass shootings? Do these shooters usually have a criminal history? Some do, and some don’t. However, this is usually the first thing the media and the courts look for when dealing with a suspected shooter. The report usually includes ‘he/she had no criminal history’ after the defendant is charged with a crime. So… what does that even mean? In my perspective, it tells us that people with no criminal history can become criminals, murders, rapist, etc. So background checks may not be the best answer to reducing gun violence, but it could help. The more you rules you enforce, the more people you will be able to eliminate from legally owning a gun… assuming people are obtaining their guns the legal way.

Looking around the world, especially at countries that do not allow their citizens to own guns, I ask ‘how is the homicide rate in other countries in comparison to the United States’? Let’s look at countries that ban guns, there may be less shootings occurring (because amazingly, countries that have a ban on guns, will still have homicides due to guns) but what about stabbings? Setting someone on fire? What about stoning someone to death? Has those countries looked into their Stoning Laws? Or does their constitution allow them the right to bear stones?


The problem here is not guns. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Most murders are committed by men, so should we just ban men from using guns? Not be sexiest, but I think we would actually see some relief with this option. Criminals and murders like guns because guns provided a more quick, easy and efficient way to kill. And being that America is one of the richest countries on earth; Americans can afford guns and the ammunition, unlike other countries. 

Looking at the states with the strictest gun laws, you will notice that these states still suffer from high homicide rates due to guns. So strict gun laws doesn't mean the problem will be solved. It’s not the weapon but the mentality. Who’s doing all the killings in Chicago? Well, there is lots of gang violence plaguing Chicago. Is it as easy as 1,2,3… Get rid of the gangs and you will see a decrease in homicides. 

Banning guns is the ultimate catholicon. Banning guns will only make America a scarier place because it would leave honest, law abiding citizens unarmed, and the criminals will have an unfair advantage. Culturally, an American would shoot you. In Afghanistan, you would be blown up. In other countries they will set you on fire or stab you. In some places, you could be stoned or even beheaded. Yes… beheaded. Culturally, Americans have leaned towards the more effective way to kill someone… with a gun.

Discriminating Against the Mentally Ill

The term mentally ill is widely used and could mean severely different things. And after volunteering with a Mentally Ill hotline, I know that people with a mental illness does not want to be categorized as being mentally ill but rather someone living with a mental illness. Now, after several mass shooters have been linked to having a mental illness, it seems as if all people living with a mental illness will have to pay for what a few have done. It’s unfair to link all citizens with a mental illness into one large group of ‘mentally unfit to own a gun’ because being mentally ill could mean so many different things. And mentally ill does not mean that your violent or attend to harm others. The Sandy Hook shooter was described as having Aspergers. But last time I checked, Aspergers was a form of autism, not a mental illness.

You hear the media addressing gun violence like it’s all the same. To attack such a behemoth issue, I would suggest dividing it into fractions. You cannot solve all gun violence issues using one method. And although they have stated that they don’t want to band all guns… well, this would be fine with me but I think about home many citizens this will impact people who have never committed a crime and don’t intend to. I have more faith in the legal system that the 2nd Amendment will stand firm and the right to bear arms will remain our constitutional right. However, I truly don’t believe that banning guns is going to solve the gun violence and if it does reduce gun violence, another type of violence will merge if it is not done properly. It is an adiaphorous belief that banning a certain type of gun will eliminate America’s ‘problem child’ (aka the Mass Shooter). 

With or without semiautomatic guns, homicides will still take place, as you can see from the statistics… and when you eliminate one evil, another rises in its place. I think they should actually take the time to look at the data, and analyze it correctly. Focus more on the individuals and early warning signs and use that along with other research to build an approach to prevent these senseless mass shootings, instead of running to legislation with a ‘feel good’ law – laws that make the citizens feel good and safe when it ultimately doesn't really prevent anything. Because at the end, someone mentally disturbed who is determined to kill many people all at once, will. That is why our focus should be on the individual and coming to their rescue before it is too late.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/gun-debate-what-makes-gun-assault-rifle/