Did Trump Commit Tax Fraud?

The New York Times indicated that the information they’ve obtained about Donald Trump’s taxes was received from a source that legally possessed the information. It’s unclear how professionals, an accountant, lawyer, financial planner or employee of Trump, could possess such personal data and legitimately (and legally and morally) share it with a newspaper.

Frankly, all of these unnamed source scandals are beginning to rub Americans the wrong way. For all we know, the British spy, who concocted the infamous dossier on Trump, invented this whole pre-election tax brouhaha over the past two weekends (I’m being facetious). There’s a lesson to be learned. In politics, if you want something to remain confidential, don’t share it with anyone other than your lawyer or clergyman.

The Times is milking the information for all its worth. Actual legal transgressions have not been revealed (yet). And the timing of the disclosures is convenient (just before the debate). Did Trump or his financial advisors commit crimes? Did they not report income, fail to pay taxes on reported or unreported income, overstate deductions, improperly use deductions to decrease reported income? I don’t believe there is anything in the disclosures so far that accuses the president of criminal misbehavior.

Accounting is an expertise that is not familiar to most Americans. Tax accounting is the most complex aspect of accounting in general. Millions of Americans go to H&R Block and similar companies seeking help with their personal taxes each year. Their tax returns are a few pages, not voluminous like Trump’s. It’s likely that most of those following the story are not sure what Trump has done wrong, other than being an aggressive investor and advocate of himself.

Most people don’t realize that public companies and many large private companies report their financials two ways. One set up books is prepared on a cash basis for the IRS, and another is prepared for public consumption. The difference between these statements could be gigantic, especially profits and losses.

One issue is depreciation. For the IRS, depreciation is subtracted from revenues on an accelerated basis (more in early years and less in later years); it’s perfectly legal. This results in higher expenses and lower profits early on and is used for tax purposes (lower earnings, lower taxes). The other form of depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis for the public (equal amounts each year). The method will result in higher profits early on.

And then there are loss carryforwards, which are historical losses that can’t be used currently, but can be offset against profits in the future. If Trump owned a casino that went bankrupt and reported a huge loss, it may not be used in the year of the bankruptcy; he could, and does, shelter profits in the future with these losses.

To summarize the accounting issues, one only has to note that Trump has been under IRS audit at least since he took office in 2016. It would be virtually impossible for him to conduct a massive tax defalcation under the noses of the tax authorities.

What do we learn from the Times’ attack piece so far? Nothing we already didn’t know, for the most part. Trump was/is a snake oil salesman who is able to talk people into paying him to use his brand on buildings, hotels, consumer products, etc.

We also learned that Trump is a major player in many bad investments; he lost millions on some of them.

And finally, we know Trump uses other people’s money whenever possible, mostly banks, to make investments, milk companies of cash and abandon them, such as Trump’s casino investments and subsequent bankruptcies.

Trump is not a nice man. He’s a narcissist and a salesman extraordinaire. He’s a pathological liar and exaggerator of facts. But no one has yet proven that he broke the law. However, I will admit that I would prefer to have a president whose moral compass is greater than just borderline.

I seriously doubt Trump’s base will be materially impacted by the Times efforts to expose the man.

Note: Just finished viewing the first debate. It was awful. I’m saddened that we don’t have a better choice for president. I doubt many voters changed their minds based upon the debate.

Barrett Will Be Confirmed

The impending confirmation proceedings of Amy Coney Barrett have Republicans and Democrats in a tizzy. Liberals claim Barrett will tilt the Court too far right, while conservatives are saying they hope the Court will hamper progressive initiatives.

First things first. Barrett is going to be considered and voted upon by the Senate before the election unless something dramatic turns up. It would have to be something salacious or illegal to stop the process.

Republicans control the White House, so Trump gets to pick the next nominee for the Court. Conservatives appear to have a bulletproof majority in the Senate, and an enthusiastic vice president who is ready, willing and able to break a tie vote. So, let’s put to rest a rejection of the process. You may not like what is going on, but all the things occurring are delineated in the Constitution. This of course will not deter protests by any number of left-wing groups.

Next is the issue of confirming a nominee in such a short period of time. It has been done before, and Barrett was vetted by the Senate a short time ago. The same questions will be asked by Barrett’s opposition relating to two major issues, Obamacare and Roe v. Wade. There is no reason why a short process would be a problem, although hysterical Democrats will likely do everything possible to obstruct Barrett’s confirmation.

A great deal of attention will be directed at the Merrick Garland ordeal. He was an Obama nominee in 2016 who was not afforded a Senate vote. At the time, Obama was president and Republicans held a majority in the Senate, and therefore controlled the confirmation process. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, refused to take up the Garland nomination, which was his prerogative. The Constitution says the Senate considers and votes on nominees. It provides no time frame to get the job done.

Today, a Republican president is nominating a conservative to replace a liberal judge, and the Senate is in the hands of the Republicans. Although Democrats insist that the facts are the same as when Garland was nominated, they are not. Barrett will be considered quickly because Republicans are in charge of every aspect of the process. We will hear about hypocrisy and fairness ad nauseum from those that oppose Barrett, but it will be to no avail.

How dangerous is a conservative tilt of the Court to America? For the most part, there are only a few major social issues that the Court must deal with. Nevertheless, Trump opponents will say that conservatives are dead set on changing our way of life. This is a gross exaggeration.

The major issues that may be challenged by the conservative majority on the Court are abortion and health care. And, if there is a problem with the 2020 Election, presumably it will be worked out in favor of Republicans, similar to the 2000 election.

Abortion laws will not be expunged. We have come too far in our country guaranteeing the right of women to choose. Roe v. Wade will remain intact, but it could be tweaked in subtle ways. For instance, more late term abortions could be outlawed federally or by additional states. In fact, abortions after the 2nd trimester could be limited (paving the way for a massive negotiated settlement of the abortion issue), or funding of abortions with public money could be restricted. The Court may chip away on abortion, but the basic right of women will survive in my opinion.

Obamacare is another contentious issue. It has been a dismal failure since it became law. President Obama spent trillions trying to set the stage for universal health care. The US cannot afford this entitlement. The ultimate resolution of the situation is to provide free healthcare to people who cannot afford it, an expanded Medicaid system, if you will. This is the direction our government should follow after Congress and a conservative Court determine that some elements of Obamacare are either unaffordable and/or unconstitutional.

From what has been made public, Judge Barrett is well qualified, well-educated, empathetic, religious and in love with her family and America. This is a pretty good combination. I don’t think the world will suffer at all if this conservative judge joins the Supreme Court.

Republicans Fill RBG’s Seat While Democrats Whine

Democrats are whining and complaining about Republican intentions to fill a Supreme Court seat before the election. If they want to stack the court with liberals and control the process, they must win the presidency and the Senate. It’s the only way. The Constitution explicitly indicates that the president is responsible for nominating new judges, and the Senate confirms at its own pace.

In 2016, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, would not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland and wanted to wait until after the presidential election to move forward with any new nominations to the Court. The Senate is responsible for confirming new justices and McConnell was well within his rights to delay. The Democrats should work on winning a majority of the Senate to ensure that nominees are considered in a timeframe favorable to the party. But they continue to whine instead.

It’s true that the replacement of RBG with a conservative judge would be a great coup for Republicans. They will have a rock-solid majority on the Supreme Court. And, if they ignore precedent, certain laws such as a woman’s right to choose and Obamacare, could be affected. It’s doubtful that abortion will be declared unconstitutional or illegal after all these years. Obamacare could, thankfully, be on the way out.

The truth of the matter is that Republicans control the White House and the Senate. In 2016, this was not the case. With this in mind, Republicans are in a position to establish the timing and confirmation of RBG’s replacement. Republicans are doing the things the Constitution mandates that they must do. And, would Democrats do the same if the shoe was on the other foot? You bet they would.

Among the many criticisms I have about Democrats is the vengeful disdain they have for the man in the White House. They called him unfit before and after he was fairly elected by America. They’ve made it as difficult and personal as they as they could for a new president. Given Trump’s reputation, how did they think he would react to being called every dirty name in politics? I will stipulate that Trump has made no attempt to temper the situation, and now it has spun out of control.

Democrats are divided. They are guided by tired and ineffective leadership. The best they could do is nominate a 77-year old man to be their presidential candidate. The leaders in the House are ancient and despised by the new breed of Democrats in Congress.

Further, Democrat efforts to gain control of the government by selling Americans on the benefits of socialism is insane. America will remain a capitalistic country for the foreseeable future. As much as philosophers and liberals hate income inequality, it will never end completely because America is a competitive place. Every American strives to be wealthier and improve his or her lifestyle.

Clearly, Democrats are focusing on the wrong issues. They demonize the most successful among us. They say the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, as the group pays their tax liabilities year after year as prescribed by tax laws. Democrats unnecessarily antagonize the wealthy class, even as they drive the economy and donate billions each year to the needy.

Democrats are losers, and their attitude about the Supreme Court proves it. They should spend less time impeaching and whining and more time trying to solve problems and grooming more young and qualified people to run for office.

Practicing For An MRI Test

This is the second time that I’m writing about my experiences with MRI procedures. Why, you ask? Because every time I have an issue, my doctors order me to take another MRI. Then, if they see anything else that is suspicious, they order another one.

In the future, I’m going to “practice” for future MRI tests, just like I would for any test. Hopefully, this will help me endure the rigors and discomfort of the ordeal. More on this later.

Frankly, I have plenty of time to partake in these disturbing procedures in an effort to stay healthy. But my fear of going into the tube has grown materially over the years.

Why are the machines so noisy? Why are they so small? An average sized man barely fits inside. The chance of claustrophobia is increased exponentially because of the way these damn machines are constructed. Why does it take 30 minutes, or more, to take a few pictures? We’ve had the technological ability to go to the moon for decades, yet it takes 1/2 an hour of torture to determine the extent of an injury or malady.

A few years ago, I was waiting to take an MRI in the anteroom. Of course, I was nervous as hell. Suddenly, Justin Tuck, who was then a defensive lineman for the New York Giants appeared, having just gotten an MRI. Justin is a Notre Dame graduate (as I am), so it was pretty exciting to meet him.

My immediate observation was, this guy is humongous. He appeared to be 1 1/2 times my size. I thought, I can barely fit into the machine, how does he manage it? Really, why is it so important to squeeze patients in and make them feel uncomfortable? Someone should start a movement to make MRIs more spacious.

CT scans and MRI’s are procedures that capture images within your body. The biggest difference is that MRIs use radio waves and CT scans use X-rays. MRIs are a principle way for doctors to view potentially dysfunctional parts of your body. By the way, CT tubes are much smaller, and the procedure is only a couple of minutes.

A constant imaging field and radio frequencies bounce off the body’s fat and water molecules. Radio waves are transmitted to a receiver in the machine, which is translated into an image of the body that can be used to diagnose problems.

The MRI machine is loud, really loud. Usually, a patient is offered earplugs or headphones to make the experience more tolerable. You have to be still in the MRI for an extended period of time for the images to be clear.

I’ve had all sorts of adventures relating to MRIs. Once, I needed an MRI for my shoulder. I tore my rotator cuff. My surgeon said I needed an MRI, and I refused. The doc is a friend of mine, and he told me I had to go down into the MRI torture chamber and take some pictures or he couldn’t fix my shoulder. I told him I was frightened. He called me a number of derogatory names in front of several people. They referred to me being a chicken.

I told him that it was no laughing matter. I said, I would do the MRI under three conditions. By this time, a crowd had assembled, and everybody was laughing as my shoulder pulsed.

The doc asked, what are the conditions? I said I want to be unconscious, not just with a sedative, but with general anesthesia. He asked me if I was serious and looked at me like I was out of my mind. I said yes. He agreed. Everyone was hysterical laughing once again.

He asked, what else? I told him I wanted to be asleep before I entered the MRI anteroom. More laughing. He said okay. He asked what else? I said, I wanted to be unconscious after the procedure, so I wouldn’t see the MRI machine. More laughing. The doc agreed.

Several weeks later, I showed up for the MRI, I was knocked out, and I got my pictures taken. It probably cost me triple the amount to pay for the anesthesiologist, but it was worth it.

I really had to do something to make the MRI process more bearable. I went to an imaging place for another MRI. They said they had no anesthesiologists on staff when I told him I wanted to be knocked out. I got up and started to walk out. The staff put a full court press on me trying to get me to stay. It was another crazy scene.

One of the nurses said they had prism glasses that enabled a patient to look backwards out of the machine to alleviate any claustrophobia. To make a long story short, it worked pretty well.

I now have my own glasses just in case the imaging place doesn’t have them. You can buy them online.

I recently was told I needed another MRI. I started to feel tremendous anxiety even armed with my glasses. I’ve been stalling about taking the MRI trying to psych myself up. The thought of lying in the tube for so long was weighing heavily on me.

I decided I should “practice” for my 30-minute MRI encounter. So, for a week, I’m going to lay down every day somewhere in my apartment that feels confining with my prism glasses. I will then try to keep still for 30 minutes without moving.

I’ll bet I’m the only patient who has been practicing for an MRI. Wish me luck.

Farewell RBG

Farewell Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You were a liberal Supreme Court Justice and a great standard bearer of justice. Every American will miss your wise perspectives and wit.

I know you were trying to live long enough to give Joe Biden the honor of replacing you. Sorry it didn’t work out. In your coveted seat in Paradise, you will no doubt have a bird’s eye perspective while witnessing the fireworks that will kick off Sunday during the lineup of news programs.

Here is the preliminary state of affairs. Donald Trump has the constitutional duty to replace RBG, even though his opponents are saying he does not. Trump haters will remind us that the Senate would not consider Merrick Garland, the man that Barack Obama nominated during his final year in office. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate, indicated that the next president should be the one to nominate a new justice in an election year. The replacement would take Justice Scalia’s place on the Court. McConnell refused to take up the nomination of Garland and Bret Kavanaugh was confirmed. Now, we have a somewhat similar situation.

Trump will surely nominate someone who is a conservative that will impact the tenuous conservative/liberal balance of judges on the Court. Currently, there are four conservative judges, three liberal judges and Justice Roberts who sometimes votes with liberals. He is the swing vote.

If Trump manages to get a conservative confirmed to replace RBG, the Court would have five conservative justices, three very liberal justices and Roberts. But conservatives would no longer need Roberts to side with them to have their way. It would be a very important moment for the Court and could have a huge impact on American society and values.

What will Trump do? Presumably, he will move rapidly to nominate a new judge. Time is of the essence. The Senate must confirm with only a majority vote. Currently, the Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and Independents who vote with them. To confirm, McConnell must find 50 senators to support the nominee. In a 50-50 tie, VP Pence will deliver the winning vote.

There appears to be three potential Republican holdouts, Murkowski of Alaska, Collins of Maine and Romney of Utah. If any other Republicans are not supportive, the nomination will fail.

Even though Amy Coney Barrett has the edge according to rumors, it might make sense for Trump to nominate someone familiar to the Senate to save time, like a member, to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Cotton of Arkansas and Cruz of Texas have been mentioned as contenders. By choosing someone familiar to the senators, the vetting time could be cut short. This strategy is a long shot.

The process will not be a smooth one. Democrats will harp on the following issues as they object to anyone nominated by Trump:

Garland’s nomination in the final months of the Obama administration. It should be noted that now Republicans control the presidency and the Senate. When Garland was nominated the presidency was in the hands of a Democrat and the Senate was Republican.

Replacing a liberal judge with a conservative judge will upset the current balance of power in the court.

Replacing a female judge with a male judge, assuming the nomination of either Cotton or Cruz, will create more resistance.

The history of all Trump’s possible nominees considering Roe v. Wade, gun control, civil rights, etc. will be controversial.

Trump’s presidential performance should not allow him to confirm three judges.

It’s going to be a zoo in Washington during the next several months. The pandemic, the election and the Supreme Court confirmation will serve to politicize our nation’s capital even more than it has been in the past.

Politicizing Covid-19

I’m sad to report that, along with so many other issues, the pandemic is being politicized to the maximum extent possible. By way of comparison, it’s the same as a president and his opponents using an extended military conflict for political gain. When the health of the entire world is dependent on our leaders, politics should be left at the door of the conference room. There is misbehavior on both sides of the aisle.

In the case of a national emergency, the president, the commander-in-chief, must lead the country. For the most part, he or she must develop a game plan to defeat the enemy. In this case, the enemy is an infectious disease that has killed thousands of people globally.

The criticism of Trump began when the flu virus started to rampage across the world. Given that medical science was not up to the challenge, and experts didn’t have a clue about how to respond to COVID-19, the president took action to protect the country. He prevented travel to and from China and the other places that posed a threat to the US, and he tried to calm Americans.

Democrats endlessly harped on the president’s decisions. What is curious, is that the experts were not in agreement about what to do, so Trump made decisions on his own. He tried to do the things that would minimize the spread of the pandemic. Frankly, when the history books are written about this sordid situation, they probably will say there was no one who had the right answers to defeat Covid. The disease was going to take its course no matter what actions world leaders took.

Masks were not going to guarantee our health. There were not enough of them, or ventilators, because medical experts did not predict the world would need them. China reacted in their political interests and let the rest of the world down by downplaying the strength of the virus. The history books will probably say Trump did the best with what was known at the time.

This is not to say that every tactic Trump employed was strictly in the best interest of the American people. The disease arose during an election year and the politicians were yearning for an opportunity to showcase their leadership. Trump exaggerated, and Democrats tried to downplay an ongoing economic surge. The latter got their wish in the form of the coronavirus.

Fast forwarding to the present, the president was on TV this week promising to deliver a safe vaccine before the election. No surprise there. Trump may need to keep this promise to get reelected. But the proof is in the pudding. If a safe vaccine is not available, for the general public, by Election Day, Trump will probably lose to Joe Biden.

So, why are Democrats berating him for predicting that a cure is around the corner? Simply put, Democrats will do anything and say anything that hurts the president’s chances to win reelection. This includes charging the president with lying about a deliverable vaccine for everyone, not just for the most vulnerable among us.

One would think that all Americans including Democrats would do anything to benefit the well-being of the country, even if it resulted in votes for Trump. We’re talking about a disease that has the potential to kill off the entire human race. Why would a patriot be anything but helpful? Why would Trump lie about something so important that will either take place by Election Day or not?

Every day, I feel more embarrassed and ashamed by my leaders. Even to save the world from a horrible pandemic, Republicans and Democrats cannot join hands to work together to defeat the disease. After the pandemic is over, and we have our next president, voters should spend time to consider whether the losers we have as leaders should be thrown out of office.

Thank You Bill Gates

Thank goodness there are people like Bill Gates in this world. Somehow, in the face of a stubborn pandemic, Gates sees light at the end of the tunnel.

In a report about progress fighting global disease, malnutrition and poverty, Gates predicted hard financial times for trouble spots around the world. Yet he is confident that rich countries will once again dedicate large amounts of money to those in need.

In the meantime, the situation is dire. Vaccines for other maladies and for preventative activities are falling off as wealthy nations focus on doing the things necessary to stamp out domestic coronavirus. In effect, the percentage of GDP dedicated to foreign aid will decrease in the short term.

Another disturbing phenomenon is that wealthier nations such as the United States will focus on developing and distributing vaccines for their own use. Even this somewhat selfish perspective was set aside by Gates who said extra vaccines will be produced to take care of poorer countries.

There is a dark side to foreign aid that must be dealt with. Why should the US, or any wealthy nation, dedicate billions of dollars towards lesser developed countries when so many people in their country are under duress? Shouldn’t we allocate money first to our fellow Americans before sending support overseas? The ethical considerations of this situation are stunning and should keep ethicists busy for years to come. From a practical perspective, can the world be safe if there are so many medical issues around the globe that could wipe out the human race? Are we only as safe as the most unsafe among us?

Gates believes everything will be back on track in a couple of years. The United States will once again send billions of foreign aid to the needy outside of our country. But will other wealthy countries follow suit? Consider the problem Trump has had getting our allies to spend their fair share on defense. Once again, the United States may have to subsidize other nations. It is our moral obligation to do so.

Great, wealthy individuals, like Bill Gates are dramatically providing needed funds for the most basic needs around the world. They are an inspiration to all people on Earth. They deserve our gratitude and admiration.

What If Republicans Win

Liberals and long-term Trump haters are not going to accept a Trump victory in November without creating a stir. There’s going to be blood in the streets as agitators roil the emotions of those Americans who have looked forward to the moment the president would be ousted from office.

What will happen if the president is reelected? The count and recount of ballots will take some time to complete as the loser will undoubtedly challenge the results. In the meantime, provocateurs will be hitting the streets as the current abhorrent behavior morphs into a 1960s anarchy replay. Rioting, looting, injuries and death will supersede the carnage of the coronavirus pandemic. Urban discontents will have an excuse to destroy property and steal from their neighbors. The streets will be war zones where rioters and police will battle it out.

Large urban centers will be desecrated and much of the social advancement since earlier days will be lost. Gains by Blacks will be put on the backburner as the police attempt to bring order to the largest cities in the country.

The rioters will afford Trump an opportunity to use force. He will call up Reserve and National Guard units and pit citizen against citizen. The urban carnage will be the rationale for using military force to supplement police departments.

Crazed hysterical radicals will incite the newly elected hysterical president. Martial law, curfews and prohibition of any type of protest will be the order of the day. In the meantime, Democrats and Republicans will be screaming at each other on the floors of the Senate and the House trying to score political points.

The media will be publishing “I told you so” op-eds blaming the chaos on Trump and his backers. Columnists at the New York Times and all the other left leaning news outlets will try to denigrate anyone with a conservative perspective. Whether Trump wins or loses the election, he will lose. The election will be moot to 1/2 of Americans who voted for Trump.

Eventually, order will be restored, and the left-wing politicians will continue their witch hunt. Don’t be surprised if Trump is impeached again. Don’t be surprised if he ignores the entire process. The next four years will be an era of radical left venom directed at Donald Trump along with complete congressional paralysis.

Initially, the financial markets will rejoice that Sleepy Joe and his band of Socialists have been defeated. Capitalism will win the first few days of the new presidential term. The medium-term performance of the stock market will depend upon how nasty civil unrest becomes and, of course, whether the pandemic tapers off. Hopefully, Trump will moderate spending to avoid another recession. The economy will boom if social issues don’t ruin the party.

If we assume the Senate stays Republican, with less than a 2/3 filibuster majority, and the House remains in the hands of Democrats, Trump will opt to govern by fiat and mandates from his bully pulpit. Foreign policy will tend towards isolation, and Trump will bring most of our soldiers home.

The president will get even tougher with his allies and force them to pay their fair share of military readiness across the globe, in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. China will be devastated by increased tariffs and hardnose negotiations with the US.

Trump will spend the next four years trying to convince his constituents that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize (for Middle East accomplishments) and a place on Mount Rushmore. Americans will continue to roll their eyes every time Trump declares he’s the greatest.

Is Trump really destroying our Republic? Do you really think a president with less than a majority mandate and tenuous control of only one house of Congress can do that much damage? It should be noted that Trump and Reagan are the only presidents in recent years that did not start a war. In fact, Trump has brought many soldiers home.

No, Trump’s not going to do that much damage. In fact, his aggressive attitude towards allies and his enemies was something that benefited the US. We were being treated like patsies as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and even the European Union rode roughshod over us.

Liberals are going to impose the most damage. They will encourage violence, while pretending to be peace-loving. This violence will cause Americans to confront other Americans. It will be a minor civil war.

The rule of law will be ignored as liberals in urban centers make excuses for rioting and destruction. The provocateurs will be hurting their allies by destroying local neighborhoods. Local officials will refuse to prosecute troublemakers.

The right of free speech has been dramatically taken from anyone who does not toe the line with liberals. Conservative ideology is anathema on college campuses, even as half the population of America espouses it.

In summary, liberals will have to come around to accepting that there are many different perspectives in the country. And every one of them has the right to be expressed. If they don’t recognize this basic right, our country will be walking backwards for an extended period time.

The impending election will make it obvious what groups are patriotic and what groups are enemies of the state.

If Democrats Win

Americans are going to have to live with a president that they don’t deserve for another four years. No matter who wins the election, we are going to be short-changed. I think we all know what it would be like with four more years of Trump deception and narcissism. Let’s discuss what might happen under a Biden administration.

I’ve selected four broad topics to consider in this assessment. They are: socialism, patronization of violent protest, out of control spending and unrestrained illegal immigration.

Are Americans prepared to reside in a country where exceptionalism is a dirty word? Do we want everyone to earn the same amount of money, live in the same size house and not benefit from extra effort, ambition or innovation? The part of the American dream that is rarely discussed is the possibility to make it big and have a great life. Most Americans want to grab the brass ring even though they know that becoming a wealthy is a long shot.

Our country has so many people who have had incredibly productive careers in which many lives have been influenced and improved. All the high-tech opportunities would never have materialized if there were no avenues to raise capital that led to high returns. But, it’s not just money. The personal satisfaction of giving a better life to your family and to your employees is the ultimate rush. This satisfaction is far more noble than just accumulating money in your bank account.

Americans want a chance to do well and win the contest. They want to be recognized as honor students, as employees of the month, as entrepreneurs of the year, as new chief executive officers.

Americans don’t want to be classified as equals. They don’t want their government to tell them where to live, what schools they should attend, what occupations they should have or how much money they can make. Americans want to excel and over-achieve.

There is no way that the country will stand by and allow its leaders to institutionalize important aspects of life. Americans don’t want salary or price controls, limits on outsized compensation, free (and substandard) medical care or less innovation that might improve our lives, our wellness or happiness. Socialism is a nonstarter, even if Biden wins.

More and more average citizens are standing up and saying they support the right to protest, but they abhor the individuals that are agitating for more violent action against federal and local governments and the police. Even Biden has said so. Men like Gandhi, Mandela and King have made long-lasting impacts on their countries and civilization by protesting peacefully.

Uncivilized and uneducated people that have no hope must sometimes resort to violence. Anarchy and unrestrained leadership encourage violence. That’s not what we have in our country, even with the likes of Donald Trump at the helm. America does not want a king or a despot, or anyone who strives for this type of power. They cannot thrive politically in this country.

Radicals have implicitly endorsed violent behavior that is taking place in the country. Some overly aggressive progressives have used the plight of Blacks to espouse an aggressive strategy to force change. It’s a terrible way to encourage change. Violent action will be met with violent pushback.

When compromise and men and women of peace and good intentions are stifled by killing, looting and anarchy, the improvements that are sought take much longer to obtain. Blacks deserve better than what they have been subjected to for the last 200 plus years. The tide is in their favor. The time is right. The political environment has never been better. Violence will spoil these efforts, and Democrats should be advising their constituents accordingly, and not turning a blind eye to anarchy.

The deficit is out of control it was impossible to avoid this situation with the pandemic. The government needed to spend to help the middle class, unemployed Americans and struggling businesses. As normalcy returns, the spigot must be turned down or the dollar and the economy will be permanently damaged. The crazy proposals at this time made by Biden and his followers will only make matters worse.

Certain entitlements are necessary now, but most new proposals should be delayed until after the current economic crisis subsides. Suggesting universal health care, forgiveness of school debt and a massive climate control program now shows just how out of touch liberals are.

It’s time to address the causes of poverty with a job for every able-bodied citizen, as opposed to cash payments from the government with no quid pro quo. Everyone should have a job and those that cannot work should be given enough money to live comfortably. This investment will pay off over time.

Democrats are going to load us up with new entitlements if they take control, just like Obama did with Obamacare.

America is having a difficult time taking care of its citizens. We don’t need any more illegals in the country. The interlopers are creating gigantic financial stress in many places throughout the country. Ultimate citizenship for those already in the US should be an objective, but only if new illegal immigration is curtailed.

Democrats want open borders. It’s political, as most of the people, if they become citizens, will likely vote Democratic. We cannot afford to take care of more illegal immigrants.

A vote for Biden will lead to economic and social chaos. Joe is not a moderate, and his administration will be chock full of radical individuals that will push social and economic change too soon.

The Pandemic Could Be A Long-Term Affair

Everyone is asking themselves each day, what’s it going to be like after the pandemic, and when will it finally subside? In the meantime, the politicians are bickering with each other about every aspect of the virus crisis including members of the same party.

I still believe the public is not receiving the information it is entitled to, which will enable average Americans to make personal choices about taking risk. Is it because we can’t be trusted with sensitive data, such as how many people are actually dying? One would think that this is the most important metric. If the death rate decreases to a nominal number (not to minimize the importance of any deaths), the nation should begin to return to normalcy, the definition of which remains to be determined.

Given that older people and those with serious medical conditions are the most vulnerable (to die), the behavior of all Americans should be built around a plan to protect this group. The operative metric for vulnerable people is the number of new cases of coronavirus. The danger is not about new cases per se, rather, it’s preventing vulnerable people from exposure to the bug.

As an aside, large and small companies should advise vulnerable employees, the aged and those with other medical issues, to work from home and avoid unnecessary contact until new cases diminish. It is not necessary for the entire workforce to work remotely without end.

The really big issues facing political and business leaders are return to school, return to the office and attending crowed venues, including religious ceremonies, weddings, restaurants, bars, movies, and gyms. For most people, visitation with family members is also a critical issue. It’s going to be different to stop Americans from seeing their loved ones for much longer.

The estimated arrival of a vaccine is now front and center. Because of the impending election, the timing and approval of a prevention therapy has become greatly politicized. When this happens to any issue the information flow becomes unreliable and distorted.

Trump would love to have a vaccine before the election. I hope the president does not push the vaccine upon us before it is determined to be safe. Correspondingly, I hope the Trump’s opponents don’t do anything to unnecessarily slow down the process for political gain.

I keep returning to the issue of normalcy in this blog. Realistically, people will not go to work willingly until they are sure it’s safe, and transportation to and from the office is reliable and sanitary.

Similarly, children going back to school are another bugaboo. Even though healthy children don’t die from the virus, many parents will balk at knowingly sending their loved ones into a diseased environment.

Unfortunately for restaurants, diners are not going to take unnecessary risks for a meal. Many smaller bistros are going to be forced out of business because of reticence on the part of their customers, and a distance requirement that will negatively affect the number of meals that can be served.

And then there are transportation issues, beaches, parks, museums, etc. that will be problematic for a long time. We are all in for a tough ride in the short to medium term. Risk aversion will be paramount to most Americans.