Thinking is fun.
So is prediciting ...
For this NL's prediciton see the ILP section in Q1 '08's Press Release #2
For the need for me to tie up the loose ends for my last prediction let me just say this:
Reality 1, Gary 0.24
with the .24 on the edge (see BiO Spiritualism's autonomy/(self)ownwership formula in Yes, p. 8, and think of it/use it as a form or shape or teleometric method of partitioning up the number 1 and dealing it out to your inner calculations ... ) between being a worthless prediction or a worth some-thing prediction as in it did keep me from uping my 401 contribution ... until now that is ... so I think since the market is going to be making a biggie upturn over the next two years (this is not a formal ILP item) it's time for me to up my (401) ante ...
Political Commentary (Because, in America, we still can.)
I am against Barack Obama, not because he's black but because he is a socialist.
I am against Hillary Rodham Clinton because I don't like her.
I thought McCain could crush either one of them but after what I heard him say the other day (Wednesday 3/26/08 on CNN news) I'm no longer so sure. He said he didn't understand how 4 million of the 55 million mortgages--4 million apparently is the tally of the troubled mortgages--could cause so much problem. Well, if the average mortgage value were $200,000 then 4,000,000 of them would translate into an 800 billion dollar "problem". Since the government's total annual income in '06 was 2,401 billion dollars those 800 billion dollars of troubled mortgages translate into a third of the nation's annual "income" ... well let me see now. If I made $50,000/.65 = $76,923 (the 0.65 leaves room for a 35% tax rate so that my taxable income is the 50,000 dollars I use in a different, hypothetical, example herein) a third of that would be 25,641 dollars .... and if I now had to come up with that I of course couldn't ... unless ... unless ...
Unless I sold some of my assets (which in this theoretical situation I would have to sell but in my actual situation since I already had to file bankruptcy once and I sold assets to stay alive, financially, as long as I could--which worked as I did get a new source of income and did learn how to trim my expenses to be inline with my new, reduced source of income .. geez, maybe the government should have to learn the same lesson ... seems to me what's good for G ... M, oops, not ... rather, what's good for GD is good for America.
Greetings Customers (another tax time is upon us)
I received my 2007 1040 (Income Tax)
Forms & Instructions booklet--henceforth
referred to as the booklet--from the feds last
month and I am looking at
the governments' "income" and outlay pie charts on
page 86 of that booklet.
According to the outlays chart, 25% of our country's
total outlay goes to the military (23%)
and the police
(law enforcement & general government, 2%). If our
country's court system doesn't require more than say,
5%--a number not shown by itself as a piece of pie on
the chart but as a gut guess and giving the inefficient
courts the benefit of the doubt, 5% is not an irrational
guesstimate--then according to Objectivism's Ayn
Rand (who argues convincingly that a limited
government should be one that is confined to
providing for us individuals' defense
against thugs foreign and thugs
domestic, that is for the police, the
military and the courts) our taxes are
more than 3 times what they should be (100% /
30% = 3⅓ times more to be exact).
This being the case, the amount of the soon to be
rebated wool being put back unto the sheep
should be 70% of the $2.407 trillion "income" of
the federal government for the fiscal year ought six.
That is, our governments' Economic Stimulus Act
of 2008 should be returning 1,680 billion dollars to
the taxpayers, not the measly 152 billion dollars that
it is. Or that is, it should be a tad more than
(!!!) what it is.
And notice if this were the case we would be
getting from $3000 to $6000 in tax rebate checks
rather than the paltry few hundred bucks we are
getting. And not only are we getting a paltry amount
but to add insult to injury we are being expected
thank the royalty on high for their generosity of
tossing crumbs to us peons.
Notice how far "t,h,e,y" have come: from
Royal Queen, Marie-Antoinette of yesteryear to
our Royal Congress and President of today
who are "pleased to inform" us of what they have said
each other in regards to us peons; which, in essence
is: "let them eat
Now I know that the smart, non-peon
people among you who are reading this have all kinds
of objections, protestations and laments. In fact I can
hear you shouting them out and/or screaming them
out all the way back here at my desk. Such rants as,
what about all the entitlement Welfare programs!, they
consume 67% of the total outlays!!! of which Social
Security alone consumes 36%!!!, who's gonna pay for
this?!?!?!?!?!? You can't just cut this off because if you
did you'd wreck the nation and old people's lives as if
you put their one, communal neck into a guillotine and
pulled the rope (or should that be, "strings").
And some of you may even be saying:
But ... if they did return this much money and
did cut future tax rates by 70% where would all the
special interest groups who are against a 100%
laissez-faire-capitalistic society get their special favors
and tax loop holes?
If the high tax rates didn't exist in the first place,
you say, there would be no need for loop holes.
Well perhaps, but ... what about special favors.
Same thing then, special favors to what end? ...
less taxes? ... and/or special favors to legally lock out
your competitors, e.g., non-profits of all kinds
that get special tax treatment by their very existence.
And what about all the various licenses that the
government requires of the producers ... to
produce ... the myriad of goods and services that
human beings need to survive and thrive?
Licensing of some production by the
government is justified if and only if it
involves work for the government in the areas of the
police and/or the military and/or the courts; otherwise
government licensing is not justified.
Because of the special favors aspect of our
government then, tax rates alone can't solve ALL our
problems but if they were closer to what they
should be--that is, reduced from what they are
by 70%--wouldn't the benefit of getting "special favors"
also be significantly reduced?
But ... Until and unless ... we have a 100% laissez-
faire-capitalism system we will have to live with what
we do have including the up and coming presidential
candidates--whomever they end up being--for the
upcoming presidential election.
That is, since Democrats and Republicans at root
are the same (both believe self-sacrifice is the
highest ideal) and differ only in their methods--in the
how they are going--to get you to
sacrifice (involuntarily, the
Democrats; or voluntarily, the
Republicans first choice,
or by force as means of last resort if the voluntary
doesn't work) ... since this, then, there isn't much
hope for the I's of our immediate future seeing things
change that much.
Unless of course ...
If you don't feel like voting for the same old royalty, then I
suggest, rather than saying noa (none of the above) by
not voting you should consider doing me as a
write in candidate.
If you do decide to do so let me suggest that you
do it this way so that some other Gary Deering can't
get the notice. That is, my book sales are doing so poorly
my sales volume is approaching a 100%
I need and can use all the notice I
can get. So do it the following way when you write me
Gary D. Deering, BiO Spiritualist Consultant
the world's first PsycHHology Engineer
With the foregoing understood then, we can
emboss our sloganeering campaign buttons thusly:
|GD the ex-peon, non-royalty candidate for pres
If elected I promise to
implement my two broad based
ideas to solve the problem of cutting off the Welfare
State by the method of substitution. That is, rather
than cutting off the welfare programs with an
cut them off instead with an idea; an idea that
title: "Sell the moon and give us back our money".
As to the doing away with the 70% excess taxes the
federal government now takes from us year in and
year out, every year-after-year-after boring year here is
how I would do that.
I call it:
|The pres's 3 Step Tax Recovery Program:
Freeze the ways and wherefores of tax rules and what
nots as to how taxes are figured for everybody
way they are done this year, 2008, for 2007 taxes (for
examples see your own tax return).
Find out how gutsy the populace is by asking them to
vote on one of the following numbers: 5, 10 or 15 as
to the number of years we-the-people will allow
our elected officials to get rid of the 70% excess.
For the sake of argument and to simply demonstrate
process, say the peoples choose 10 years as a
reasonable amount of time for allowing the
government to get its act together. Then
decrease each person's tax amounts by a
proportional amount so that after ten years it will =
30% of the rate-amount it is for 2007 taxes.
That is, for sake of demonstration, say my taxable
income for 2007 is $50,000 (which it isn't but let me
dream a little) and hence I owe $8,930 (see the
booklet, page 69) in federal taxes, then in 10 years
that same amount would be 70% less or only $2,679;
a savings from this one tax alone of $6,251!!!
following for an elaboration on how this would work:
scan of tax Form 1040 (2007) Page 2 from page 2+ of
the booklet with Lines 63a and 63b
63 Add lines 57 through 62. This is your
tax. . . . 63 ________
63a [enter multiplier from Table
X]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63a________
63b [multiply line 63 by line 63a].
is your rTT (real total tax). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And then Add this table somewhere in the
Table X, page Y
Tax Year multiplier
0 2007 1.00 Base year
1 2008 .93
2 2009 .86
3 2010 .79
4 2011 .72
5 2012 .65
6 2013 .58
7 2014 .51
8 2015 .44
9 2016 .37
10 2017 .30
and I will have fulfilled half of my non-
campaign-promises to you as your new president.
As to the other half of my two promises as your
newly elected president it may have to wait until I
release my book (en)titled:
|"Sell the moon and give us back our money"
or to be more precise, sell our moon
and give us back
or that is, Baby Boomers Unite, don't let
guilt you into thinking your social security checks are
welfare. Those checks are actually backed by real
assets that the government and some of its
men (the kiss-a.. ones, which are easy to visualize
generally but difficult to isolate individually) have
amassed over the last half century. So, if
we sell those assets--as we who have paid for them
are entitled to do and some would even argue, are
obligated to do as a way to honor promises
have a shot at getting the full 2.89 times our
social security checks that we should be
(Take the Social Security Statement you get
every year from the feds and determine the amount
you paid into Social Security every year and apply the
CPI--Consumer Price Index--rate of return for every
year to those contributions as sinking fund
contributions to determine the total that is really due
you in today's dollars. When I did this for my
contributions--spanning 1961 to a couple two, three
years back when I did this calculation--I got a
multiplier of 2.89. Unfortunately, the spread sheet I
used to calculate this--including the annual values for
FICA rates and CPI numbers--was lost in one of my
not backed-up hard drive crashes and so I can't give
you this to use. Since I don't feel like spending the
time recreating this, if you want to check this out for
yourself you'll have to research the FICA yearly rates
and the CPI yearly rate over the life of your Social
Security Statement and do your own equivalent
calculation. If you do I'm betting it will come out
similar to this 2.89 number if you've been gainfully
employed and paid into Social Security over a quarter
century or more like I have. P.S. I can't
remember if I
used the employer contributed amount or not, I think I
did because it was contributed in my name. If
you want to argue who "owned" that money, me or my
employer? we might be stuck on it too long and get
nowhere; something our controllers would like us to
do. But, we don't have to do this because the one
thing we can conclude for sure, the one thing we
know for sure is this: the government did
own it but the government is the "one" who ended up
That is, by way of demonstration about the 2.89
multiplier, if you are about
to retire and will be getting say $1000 a month social
security, you should be getting ... would
be getting ...
$2,890 per month if the feds had given you nothing
more than the rCPI return (real Consumer Price Index,
that is the CPI before "they" took food and energy out
of it which t.h.e.y did just recently) on your (sinking
fund) FICA investment over the 30 or so years you
were forced to pay into it
paycheck after paycheck after
But of course notice, not only are you not
but you are being 1984'd into thinking of it as
And if this isn't bad enough notice who the
government has hired to lead the frontal attach on your
psyche. Is it the liberal democrats? No. Is it the
religious right republicans? No. It is none other than
the professional Objectivists who it would
paying back the government for their (the
special status as a non-profit, tax exempt
allowed to push the
Philosophy of Objectivism in exchange (one
argue) for convincing the millions of up and coming
baby boomers that the money they had confiscated
from them is really an illusion and that the money they
are being "gifted" back is just that, a gift from
What's that cliché? ...
Et tu, B ... naw ...
granted, it feels this way, but perhaps a better,
more objective choice is: sad but true?
Sad but true.
I guess the (professional)
Objectivists are people too and as such are not
exempt from the psycho-epistemological problem I
call "emphasis-extreemum". That is, see every
professional objectivist writer from here to tim-$-2 ...
who couldn't think outside their square if their
(psychhological) life depended on it ... (which of
course it does, but) who write one boring after boring
after boring-into-your-brain article on the Social
Security "problem" and how it is just some variation on
the Ayn Rand theme of the welfare state coming home
to roost. Ayn Rand had another take on this problem
also--a take we could name after the (fictional)
world's best economist; that is we could call it the
take--but besides my(amateur)self I've never seen or
heard of any Objectivist--amateur or otherwise--
take this take and run with it. I therefore must
conclude, since I no longer suffer from
ee (or pee if
you like) and 'they' do that that explains it: "emphasis-
extreemum" has got hold of "their"
psychoepistemologies and won't let go and hence
they don't allow themselves to "break free" of "ee".
But ... what the hey, c'est la vie .... life goes on and we
can't afford to get bogged down [just yet] in their
[immature] T.O.T.S [or as we will change it in book 2
to, t.o.y.s and t.o.t.s] problems and so we move on ... )
... to conclude this particular NewsLetter.
That is, in conclusion, let me say, I don't really
want to be president, but, if that's what it takes
my book sales up there, then so be it, I guess I'll do it.
As of this time BiO Spiritualism
Counseling Centers are only available online.
If you feel you need more
than "sounding board" advice as same is afforded
you via BiO Spiritualism's Online processes
the multiple benefits you can get for $$$ FREE $$$ from just reading
the content in www.gdeering.com`s BiO
Spiritualism and Gary's
Venns websides) you are best advised to seek
therapist with whom you can establish a rapport and
get some serious psychological (that is,
psychological as in Selfishness Training)
For some insight on how
you can help yourself manage this aspect of your
growth and development go
here and click on the "How to
choose a therapist" article.