Mar 06

10th Issue New Voice For Politics

In this Issue

Share the Love – Do not be greedy, it is time to redistribute the love; it is only fair.

Keeping Kentuckians Safe From Prosperity Taking the moral high road away from job creation.

If Only Companies Did Not Make So Much Money, Wouldn’t that be Swell? Golly gee it would.

Share the Love

By Claude de Vane

Once again, we have celebrated Valentine’s Day, a holiday where we show how we care for the one we love. This year, while out with my lovely wife at a romantic Italian restaurant, I will admit that even I was caught up by the romance in the air. Everything was perfect. Italian operettas were wafting through the air, the room was candle lit, and the most beautiful woman in existence was sitting at my table. Romance was everywhere; if I had went out into the alley next to the restaurant I am confident that I would have seen two dogs sharing a dish of spaghetti.

After such a lovely evening, everything seemed right in the world. At least I thought so, until I checked my Facebook New Feed and Twitter account. What was trending was not love, but hate, lots and lots of hate. Many lonely people had taken to the twitterverse to voice their displeasure and overall angst. Apparently, having a holiday point out that you are alone, because no one loves you, is not appreciated by everyone.
This outpouring of outrage towards Valentine’s Day bothered me greatly, because I have been blessed with my wonderful wife and now felt guilty. It was not fair that I had so much love in my life, while others had so little. Such a disparity did not seem right. Why should I be blessed with hugs, kisses, and other “pleasurable activities” every night, while others are all alone, separated from all human contact and compassion?

Something should be done about this inequality of love. For too long, handsome, charming, and mildly vain people like me have been showered with love, while others have had none. While in college, I would leave one relationship only to go into another, sometimes for one night, other times for longer, but the whole time, I felt loved and appreciated by many of the fairer sex. In comparison, I have recently discovered that many people would go months and sometimes even years without even going on a date. To my disgust and horror, I have even heard that there are women in their 30s who have never received flowers as a gift in their whole entire life.

After hearing about these romantic atrocities, I have decided to take a stand. No more will I sit idly by in a loving relationship with my hot wife, while others suffer in loneliness. It is time to share the love. Love needs to be redistributed. The top 1% of hot people, like me, need to stop being so selfish. For this reason, I will no longer spend every night with my wife. It is not fair that she should be the only one to benefit from my love. In order to be just, my weekends will now involve me redistributing my love away from the top 1% of happy women, which my wife is a member, to the other 99% of women that are less satisfied with their current relationship or alone.

I know what some of you will say about my plan to redistribute the love away from my wife and towards other women. Some will claim that she earned my love by working hard to stay beautiful, cooking dinner every night, keeping the house clean, and giving birth to our seven children. Others will argue that single people are lazy and that they need to work for a relationship, instead of waiting for someone to come along and bail them out.

In my mind, social justice demands that we take love away from those who enjoy so much of it, while others do not have enough. We should not give all of our love to one person; there is a limit to how much love a person should have in their life. If we are justified in demanding that money should be taken away from the rich and redistributed to the poor, are we not justified in taking love away from those who are really happy and redistributing it to those who are alone? Some people are happy every day in their marriage, while others have never been married. How is that fair? Would it not be more just to have a really handsome man like me in relationships with six other women, each one enjoying me one night a week; instead of the current arrangement, where my wife selfishly hoards me away from others every night?

As a society, we need to move beyond are selfish concepts of ownership. It is neither fair that 1% of the population holds so much money nor just that 1% of the population is in such a loving relationship. We need to move to the more enlightened view of redistributing money and love. We should distribute not based on merit, but based on need. Many women are in need, and it is only right that I satisfy their desires for the greater good of society.

As of this moment, I have not informed my wife of my new calling to personally redistribute love throughout society, but I am sure she will understand. After all, it is only fair.


Keeping Kentuckians Safe From Prosperity

By Holier than thou Hannah

In a previous issue of New Voice For Politics, another author suggested that gambling should be legal in Kentucky. Slot machines, card tables, and keno should all be allowed in Kentucky according to this other author, because casinos could provide jobs for individuals with a high school diploma or less. In exchange for these jobs, the citizens were supposed to accept the dangers posed by casinos; mainly, becoming addicted to gambling.

To be fair, not everyone who gambles will go broke, but there is a chance that some people will. One study estimated that 2.5% of the population will meet the criteria for pathological gambling at some point during their lifetime. Is it worth it for some to enjoy themselves at a slot machine, while others pay for it through addiction to the craps table? If only gambling was illegal throughout the United States as it is in Kentucky, then no one would ever be hurt by these damnable machines that lead to a poverty of the wallet and soul.

In reality, the lawmakers of Kentucky are not going far enough by prohibiting casinos in their state. They need to stop all gambling, they need to stop horse racing in Kentucky. Each year, horse tracks destroy men’s souls. Lawmakers have blinders on to the vileness of these stables of inequity. They are blinded by the tradition of horse racing and the easy tax money that they squeeze out of the poor saps at the horse tracks. Annually, it has been estimated that $3.5 billion dollars are generated by the horse breeding industry that employs 96,000 individuals in Kentucky when looking at the industry and supporting industries that support horse racing in the state. Undoubtedly, some will suffer by making horse racing illegal in Kentucky. Those who work in the barns breeding horses and on the tracks providing the horses with a place to race will lose their jobs, but their souls will be lighter after they leave these sleazy jobs.

Some will argue that when two individuals wish to both willfully engage in a financial transaction, for example gambling, they should be allowed to do so. This is nice in theory, but the reality is occasionally one of these parties might end up being hurt from the deal. In order to make sure that no one ever experiences any discomfort, a third person should be allowed to prevent two people from engaging in acts that they would like to do. This is why the government must stop people from doing things that they enjoy.

Based on this line of reasoning, Kentucky legislatures should ban several other dangerous industries besides gambling. For example, coal production should be prohibited. Even though many people enjoy inexpensive energy, the risk to the environment is too great. This is why people in California should be allowed to tell Kentucky energy producers that they should not be allowed to buy coal from Kentucky coal miners, because people in California know more about what Kentucky need than Kentuckians. This ban will be extremely devastating to the Appalachian Region of Kentucky where 31% of jobs are connected to the coal industry and 34% of the total earnings are the result of the coal production, but how hard can it be to find new jobs for nearly a third of their economy?

Finally, if Kentucky legislatures really cared about helping people, they would stop the production of bourbon. People around the world happily consume this excellent Kentucky product, but some drink too much of it. In order to keep those who drink too much safe, bourbon production should be made illegal. This will undoubtedly be disappointing for the nearly 10,000 individuals employed in this industry as well as to the tax payers who will likely miss the $125 million dollars they received each year from the industry, but they should experience some comfort by remembering how they are helping the minority of individuals that cannot drink alcohol responsibly. An additional benefit to the ban on bourbon will be that citizens of Kentucky shall be prevented from drowning their sorrows in bourbon, which will allow them to remain sad for extended periods of time.

Admittedly, destroying the horse, coal, and bourbon industries in Kentucky will most likely result in an economic depression and massive job loss, but on the other hand, the unemployed will have more free time to feel morally superior to citizens of other states with booming economies.

If Only Companies Did Not Make So Much

Money, Wouldn’t that be Swell?

By Daniel Meredith

Can a corporation make too much money? Recently, a person claimed that a company should not be allowed to open up in their state, because the corporation makes too much money. This statement is not unique to this one individual. A growing number of people have become increasingly alarmed by companies making profits. But is there something wrong with making money and what would the alternative be?

All companies are required by necessity to make money. If a company does not generate revenue that covers their costs, they will go out of business, which is very bad. When a company goes out of business, bad things happen for everyone: all of the people that the company employs lose their jobs, people that relied on the companies’ goods and services are out of luck, and the government now has less money that they can tax and more unemployed that they must support. A perfect example of this occurred when Hostess went out of business. Over 18,000 employees lost their jobs and the world had to do without Twinkies and Ho Hos. For the benefit of society, companies need to be profitable; otherwise, people will suffer and society will be without creamy goodness.

Many people amazingly do not realize that it is not just the investors who benefit from a profitable company, when a company is profitable everyone wins. The first big winner is the government.  Before the lucky investor is able to use their money for anything, the government comes in and demands a piece of the action. Uncle Sam requires that he receives some of the money through taxes, which go to fund the government that we all fondly enjoy and love. If companies did not make profits, the government would not have enough money to fund all of its programs. Without profitable companies, government would not be able to function.

After the government takes its piece of the profits, the remaining profits do not remain idle. Investors do not stash all of their cash in underground vaults in order to go swimming in pools of gold coins a la Uncle Scrooge McDuck. Thanks to inflation, investors are actually punished if they sit on their cash, because the value of their wealth decreases when money is devalued via inflation. If the profitable investor wants to keep their gains or earn even more money, they are left with only one option, reinvesting their earned profits.

Often, investors will invest more money in the same profitable corporation or another company that has an even greater potential for growth. When they invest in a company, many people benefit. In order to increase production, a company will have to hire more people, which will help the unemployed. Another frequent benefit of expansion is an increase in efficiency, because it is often cheaper to produce 100,000 units of an item than 100 thanks to economies of scale. The increase in efficiency results in a decrease in the cost to produce a product, which is often passed on to customers in the form of a decrease in the price to purchase the manufactured item. This is why a flat screen TV used to cost thousands of dollars, but today can be purchased for a few hundred.

The greater the profit for a company, the greater amount of money is available for the investor to reinvest and benefit all of society. Is it wrong for the company to make a large amount of money when society as a whole benefits from the profits? Would it be preferable to not have any companies making a profit and have government agencies close due to a lack of tax dollars?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>