Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Saturday At The Movies! Part VII of Milton Friedman's, "Free To Choose."

In this episode Milton Friedman looks at the consumerism movement and the impact of the explosive growth of protective government bureaucracies designed to look out for our best interests.


Friday, July 29, 2011

What Does August 2, 2011 Mean, To Those Of Us Living In Reality.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

I saw this at iowahawk today, and I don't believe that it could possibly be improved upon.  It is the Hawk's dire predictions of what will happen on August 3, 2011.


Beltway policy experts begin living by own wits; after 45 minutes there are no survivors.
Roving bands of outlaws stalk our streets, selling incandescent bulbs to vulnerable children.
Unregulated mohair prices at the whim of unscrupulous mohair speculators.
NPR news segments no longer buffered by soothing zither interludes.
Breadlines teeming with jobless Outreach Coordinators, Diversity Liaisons, and Sustainability Facilitators.
Cowboy poetry utterly lacking in metre.
General Motors unfairly forced to build cars that people want, for a profit.
Chaos reigns at Goldman Sachs, who no longer knows who to bribe with political donations.
Mankind's dream of high speed government rail service between Chicago and Iowa City tragically dies.
Sesame Street descends into Mad Maxian anarchy; Oscar the Grouch fashions shivs out the letter J and the number 4
No longer protected by government warning labels, massive wave of amputations from people sticking limbs into lawn mowers
New York devolves into a dystopian hellscape of sugared cola moonshiners, salty snackhouses and tobacco dens.
At-risk Mexican drug lords forced to buy own machine guns.
Chevy Volt rebate checks bounce, stranded owners more than 50 miles from outlet.
WH communications office reduced to sending talking points to Media Matters via smoke signals and log drums.
Potential 5-year old terrorists head to boarding gates ungroped.
Defenseless mortgage holders forced to live in houses they can actually afford.
Without college loan program, America loses an entire generation of Marxist Dance Theorists.
Embarrassing state dinners, as Obamas are forced to downgrade from Wagyu to Kobe beef.
President Obama places tarp over Washington Monument to conceal from Chinese repo men.
With the Dept of Ed shuttered, national school quality plummets to 1960s levels.
Anthony Weiner is forced to pay for own sex addiction therapy.
Displaced teenaged policy wonks organize under Supreme Warlord Ezra Klein.
Nation's freeway exits croweded with desperate bureaucrats waving 'will regulate for food' signs.
State Department diplomacy becomes 38% less diplomatic.
WH holds rummage sale Rose Garden; all HOPE merchandise, styrofoam Greek columns 95% off.

To a much broader point, this is a defacto balanced budget amendment. For those of you who posses an adult memory, we have faced a government shutdown before in this country. During every instance, the only people who were adversely affected were those working for the government, and those who's job it was to report on the government. In the instance of the latter, this group actually benefited greatly. This is the very definition of uselessness, one where if you did not show up for your job, nobody would actually care, but yourself. I keep hearing the Democrats whining about how this is a breakdown of our checks and balances system, and this meme has actually caused me to projectile snort coffee at my computer monitor. The thought that by not allowing the President to just unilaterally assign himself unlimited spending authority, and in fact institute the checks and balances system of him obtaining the constitutionally mandated permission of the very body given control of the purse strings in Article I section 8 of the Constitution is at best perplexing. The left howled like jackasses when then Secretary of State Alexander Haig misquoted the 25th Amendment. Blowing the very definition of checks and balances is way worse. In any case, passing legislation by pimping a perceived Armageddon has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration. Do not be afraid of an inflicted balanced budget, it will be a good thing in the long run. As a matter of fact, If we allow this to continue until November of 2012, the American people will be absolutely amazed at how completely bloated and useless our ruling elites have become. The only downside, is that it will give Barack Obama heightened authority of how to allocate the remaining $2.5 Trillion.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Case For Gold.

As you may or may not be aware, my posting against jumping on the gold bandwagon was part of a debate which took place at the Blogmocracy last night. Writing in favor of Gold was Yenta-fada. Yenta's piece is well written, much better than my effort, as Yenta is an actual writer, and I am not. I will say this again so that everyone understands, this does not reflect my personal views, but those of a guest author.  The full debate can be found here, enjoy.


Pros via Yenta-Fada

These are large questions because they relate to much larger issues than just making a good return on your savings. They ultimately relate to the insolvency of individuals, banks, and entire governments. To condense this into a single post is impossible. At some point, people are being asked to trust their currencies. Obama represents the ‘full faith and credit’ of the U.S. government. Most people have very little money left over to invest at all. Bonds are nothing more than IOUs. Stocks are, imo, an insider’s game. Real estate has proven to be a risky investment. Where can people put their money knowing that they will get it back in a form that matches inflation? My only answer is ‘real’ money’. I do not tell you it is the only answer. I’m not qualified to do that and I would not take the responsibility for your money. I do know that government stats are lies. Financial outlets have agendas of their own. I trust a form of money that was used for payment for at least two thousand years.
Here’s an interview which discusses much more than I know about an actual gold standard and monetary policy.
I probably love my job so much, because analysing gold is basically about analysing EVERYTHING: monetary, economic, socio-economic, historical, technical, fundamental and political aspects. In my reports I try to get a picture from all of this different aspects, that’s what makes it interesting for me.
Okay, then let us go down to the nitty-gritty related to the world of gold. Are we experiencing these days the first indications of the re-monetarization of gold? And what is your attitude towards gold as legal tender?
Ronald Stoeferle: Yes, I think there is a big paradigm shift going on right now. The thought of a currency not pegged to gold would have probably been absurd 100 years ago. That’s how illusory a gold standard sounds to us today. However, 20 years ago mobile telephones with internet connection, digital cameras, and a digital music collection were equally illusory. And we are in a similar situation with regard to the gold standard today. Today even the thought that back in 1971 every 35 US dollars were backed by one ounce of gold is absurd.
It had formerly been up to a handful of critical minds to question our monetary system, high-profile politicians and central bankers have meanwhile offered their opinion, too. Last year we saw numerous signals that indicated the fact that gold was gradually becoming “politically correct”. Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank and former member of the Bush cabinet, had this to say about the gold standard:
“The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today. The development of a monetary system to succeed ‘Bretton Woods II,’ launched in 1971, will take time. But we need to begin.”
Such statements would have been unthinkable only a few years ago! Since the mid-1970s hardly any high-ranking US politician has mentioned the gold standard in a positive context. This confirms the broad paradigm shift we are currently going through. Unfortunately many people interpreted the World Bank President’s statements wrongly, and he was immediately discredited. He did not argue in favour of an explicit return to the gold standard, but he commended its stability. On top of that he just wanted to launch a discussion and critically question our monetary system.
We assume that Zoellick is thinking of a basket of goods that among other goods contains gold. Thomas Hoenig, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City also called the gold standard a “legitimate monetary system”. Moreover, Prof. Robert Mundell – the “Father of the Euro” – urged gold convertibility for the euro and the dollar (i). Steve Forbes, publisher and former Republican presidential candidate, was also optimistic that the USA could return to a gold standard because of its fiscal imbalances.
Therefore I think that the foundation of a return to “sound money” seems to have been laid. We believe that a return to the gold standard is no major economic or organisational problem. Rather, what we have on our hands is a highly political and philosophical question of principle that has to be answered. We therefore believe that the strain has to become much bigger still before specific action will be taken. Who knows, but perhaps we will see a future where rather than asking for the price of gold, people will much more often ask for the price in gold.
Bill Buckler from the Australian newsletter “The Privateer”
According to the official figures put out by the US government, the economic “recovery” in the US celebrated its second anniversary on June 30, 2011. The “fuel” burned in this “recovery” is immense. Mr Obama’s presidency has ushered in the era of $US 1 TRILLION plus annual deficits riding on top of 0.00 percent controlling interest rates from the Fed. It has also ushered in the era in which almost nothing istraded on the paper markets which is not – explicitly or implicitly – guaranteed by the government.
The fuel to keep the global financial system functioning does not stop at the borders of the US. The “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” has just produced the first ever “audit” of the US central bank.It reveals that in the period between December 2007 and July 2010, the Fed parcelled out $US 16.1 TRILLION in emergency loans to financial entities all over the world. Almost half of this – a total of $US 7.75 TRILLION – was loaned to four US banks. They were Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and the Bank of America. In July 2010 (the cut off date for this “audit”), total US stock market capitalisation was $US 15 TRILLION. The Fed provided about half of that.
This inflationary explosion is unprecedented in any era. It represents the biggest ever effort to rescue a debt-based system from the ravages caused by its own debt issuing excesses. It has, at best, provided a “remission” for global paper markets. The cost has been devastating for REAL economies everywhere.
A cancer patient who goes under the knife gets the malignant disease physically removed. If all traces of the malignancy are removed, the patient will recover. If all goes well, the recovery will be permanent with no “remissions”. A life-threatening malignancy is NOT fought or cured by doing everything possible to increase its power and potency. Yet that is what financial authorities in the US and everywhere else have been doing in regard to the life blood of their economies. As this stark fact becomes ever clearer, Washington DC and Wall Street stand helpless before the fact that they can only cure the economy at the cost of killing the financial system which is feeding on it. It’s that simple.

-Yenta-Fada

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Finding Out What's In It! Part XII: Here's $10 Trillion In Savings.




Remember when Barack Obama took his place behind in front of the Teleprompter of the United States and declared, "Let me make this perfectly clear, if you like your current insurance plan, you will be able to keep it.  If you like your current doctor, you will be able to keep him/her."  Well, as it turns out, not so fast. At least 1 in 8 among you will be soon forced out of your current plans and away from your current doctors.  The truly ironic thing is this, not only is an overwhelming percentage of the American People against this sink hole of a law, and not only is it massively expensive and something we are learning on a daily basis that we are no where near being able to afford, and not only has it been found to be poorly written and hastily conceived, but it has the virtue of being declared unconstitutional in two Federal Courts already.  I am not really sure how much it would actually save us if we nixed this new federal behemoth.  I just made up a huge number since the CBO is somehow statutorily prohibited from supplying any actual or true figures anyhow.  I would be willing to bet however, if we took this crap out of the realm of the law of the land, it would make the Reid and Boehner plans seem like the childish cuts in spending that they actually are.

 Among the most striking of NFIB’s findings was the number of employer health insurance plans that have been or will be eliminated since PPACA’s passage — 12 percent, or one in eight. Eliminating employer health care plans “is the first major consequence of PPACA that small-business owners likely feel,” the report said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/study-1-in-8-employer-insurance-plans-getting-the-axe-since-obamacare/#ixzz1TKNDfF9Y

Of course the government lackeys are out there saying that it is way too early to be criticizing this law, as most of its wonderfulness hasn't gone into effect yet.  That's right my friends, we will be getting little pieces of this monstrously expensive entitlement spending budget busting gem rolled out to us over the next decade.  This is not a feature, but another piece of the, Nightmare on Pa. Ave., story which will be shouted out to us as we all stand around passing our time in soup lines.  As another aside, since the CBO utilizes an accounting gimmick called baseline budgeting, it is entirely possible that the repeal of this law would produce a $10 Trillion savings off of the current budget picture.  It could be much more, or much less.  It all depends on how much oats the Washington owned Unicorns eat that day.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

A Full Test Of My Anger Management Skills, Watching Our President Address The Nation.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon





Last night, President Obama addressed the nation for the 5th time in 3 weeks.  I decided to take some notes this time, and found myself growing angry.  I was angered by his complete ignorance on how an economy works, by his half truths and partial fabrications, by his misleading statements and by some bald faced lies that he told.  As the video is above, I have given some partial time indexing to his speech so that you might be able to follow along, but be careful, I wouldn't want any of you to lose control of your blood pressure as you listen to the Snake Oil Salesman in Chief spin his web of deceit.

The first minute:  We start off by referencing the budget surplus of 2000.  The concept of a supposed budget surplus has been discredited so many times by myself and others that quite frankly it is becoming more than tedious.  Yet, no matter how many times the President and Democrat leaders are busted pitching this meme, it is repeated over and over again.  His very next statement is that we spent this money on, "risky tax cuts for the rich."  There are a couple of points I wish to make here.  First off, tax cuts of any kind are not the same as spending.  Those tax rate cuts actually produced higher revenues for the government to use.  The concept also assumes that the Clinton tax rates are somehow a default position for the level of taxation our nation is supposed to be maintaining.  Since Clinton actually increased the rates of taxation over those set up during the Reagan Administration, wouldn't that be considered a Clinton tax rate increase, and then what happened under Bush 43 was just a partial reversal of the Clinton rate hike?  This statement also assumes that whatever Americans earn is as a matter of principle property of the Federal Government, and any amount of money not taxed is money Washington has graciously allowed us to keep.  Barack Obama then told us how the man he succeeded in office had involved us in frivolous wars.  Well, that we will never forget stuff only took a decade to see us forget.  We were viciously attacked on September 11, 2001.  Afghanistan was a necessary war to be waged against those who sought to destroy America.  In fact, Barack Obama himself campaigned on the idea that the war in Afghanistan was our, "just and necessary war."  Calling it frivolous at this point is dishonest.  The war in Iraq, I will admit is more controversial.  I will state here that I agree with our use of force there, and still believe this war to be something which needed to happen.  It also happens that a vast majority of the people in this country agreed with me at the time, and most especially those political leaders who are now claiming that they were against it the whole time.  Before anyone gets on their high horse and starts in with the Bush lied crap again, let me remind you that President William Jefferson Clinton stated claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in no fewer than 5 of his State of The Union Addresses.  The Congressional Authorization for the war in Iraq was actually delayed for the express purpose of allowing the Democrat lawmakers time to get themselves on the record in support of the war.  Just as an aside, when will President Obama obey United States Law and ask Congress for the authorization to use force in Libya?  Next Barack went on to say that the deficit he inherited was on track to top $1 Trillion.  This is simply a bald faced lie, as Bush's most egregious deficit was $450 Billion.  Granted, that is way beyond reasonable, also remember it included the Tarp Bailout of $757 Billion which Senator Obama voted in favor of.  (Just for fun, go back to your recorded Obama speeches from 2007 and 2008 to get an idea of what Candidate Obama said about budget deficits.)  Then we got to hear about the Keynesian Theory of how a recession required more spending to spur economic growth.  It is important to note that Maynard Keynes always considered his explanation of his economic theory to FDR to be his greatest mistake.  His belief that it allowed politicians to become irresponsible under the guise of doing economic good turned out to be prophetic words indeed.  Keynes advocated a very limited deficit spending in the private sector only and not the public works ripoffs we see today.  The, "infrastructure investment," inflicted upon us by President Obama and his minions have had the exact same effect that they have had each and every time they have been tried, zero positive effect on the economy.  In fact, they have only ever served to make things worse.  Our limited resources are used to subsidize goods and services which are not needed or wanted by most citizens, and the result is that only the few chosen recipients of the government contracts turn out to be benefited in any way.  Then the President told us how the stimulus saved jobs.  Well, how fitting for this President, he needed to create his own class of measure to give the illusion of success.  Never before had the concept of a saved job been used in the American Lexicon.  Just a brief reminder here, the unemployment skyrocketed after Obama's stimulus debacle.

The Second Minute:  Then the President gave us this little gem, a little bit of demagoguery.  He told us that failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a default, which is not at all true.  Not making our interest payments would cause a default, which actually happened once before during the Carter Presidency by the way, and we are all still here.  If the debt ceiling is not raised, Congress and the Executive Branch will still be able to meet our debt obligations with the $2.5 Trillion in revenue which we currently send to Washington every year.  Any default on our debt at that point would be expressly the decision of the Executive Branch, meaning the President himself.  He also further asserted that this would cause our interest rates to, "skyrocket,"  and for runaway inflation to occur.  The simple truth is that the Quantitative Easing program being instituted by Obama, Geitner, and Bernanke is already going to have this effect. In fact, the beginnings of this are already creeping into our view.  Remember the Carter years?  Well shockingly, the replay of Jimmy Carter's policies will have the exact same effect on our economy as they did the last time.  President Obama's printing of currency will have the disastrous effects on the economy as he claims failure to take on increased debt would have.  This is just the Huckster in Chief's way of pinning the blame for his horrid economic record on something other than his horrid economic policies.  Next he told us of the importance of further infrastructure to somehow create more jobs.  I must at this point ask a question.  When, in our nation's history has this ever worked?  Can you name a single time when public works projects has actually served to increase overall employment?  Why on Earth are we still listening to anyone who speaks of, "investment in infrastructure," as a means to spur economic growth with any seriousness at all?

Third minute, but tied for first as most egregious minute:  He started this minute off by telling us how the Republican politicians have been unreasonable and unwilling to go along with any of his plans, but I would like to point out here that in his entire Presidency, Barack Obama has not offered anything resembling a budget nor a plan to attack our debt.  I have not seen a President so intent on avoiding any sort of a role in leadership at any point in my lifetime.  All this President does is to give speeches, and this is all he wishes to do.  His leading by following philosophy is perplexing, and also not really all that good for the country.  As it happens, we actually do need an administrative leader to attend to the nation's business.  He is claiming that he is proposing serious cuts in spending, which would actually make me laugh if it did not anger me so.  Try to follow me here.  First off, he has proposed nothing at all, let alone serious cuts in spending.  Secondly, just about 3 months ago, he claimed on T.V. once again that we needed to take a scalpel to our spending problem and not a machete.  So, President Obama, which is it, serious cuts or a scalpel?  Thirdly, after increasing discretionary spending by a whopping 83% over 2 years time, anything short of a 50% decrease in discretionary spending is nothing more than a sick joke on the American People.  Then we get to it, the only actual spending cuts advocated by liberals ever, the cuts of, "hundreds of billions of dollars from defense."  We're going to put this next statement in bold face, just to emphasize the point.  Defense spending is the only spending specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States as being necessary for the protection of her citizens.  Then we get to our old friends, waste and fraud.  We apparently are going to save money by eliminating waste and fraud.  Just a simple question here, why would we not already be saving this money?  Are you actually telling me Mr. President that waste and fraud were O.K. prior to the debt debate?  Didn't you already campaign on stopping waste and fraud during your Presidential bid to become our Chief Executive?  Then the President told us that his nonexistent plan was designed to save Medicare and Medicaid, and that the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan would destroy those programs, when in fact the opposite is true.  Were you ready for more demagoguery?  Well too bad, because it was time to mention those loopholes and special deductions for the greedy corporate fat cats again.  Rounding out minute number three was our old friend the corporate jets, a special tax credit actually put into place by a Democrat majority as an effort to get Americans flying again.  Doing the math on this little baby, we find that closing this tax credit down, and charging a back tax on frequent flyers dating back to the birth of Jesus, (pretending that they were flying with the same regularity for the last 2011 years of course, you know, since the Obama plan depends on magic anyhow,) we would be able to cover about 12 hours worth of deficit spending by the President.  You liberals might be a lot shocked to know that we conservatives are against tax credits and special deductions.  It is a game being played to pick favorites based on certain government approved behaviors and an affront to the free market system.  We want a simple to understand tax rate, to be paid by everyone with the same rules to be applied to everyone.  This would mean that GE. a company who did not pay a dime in income taxes for fiscal year 2010 would not have been given huge credits for producing the cfl light bulbs we do not want and then forcing us to purchase in place of the incandescent bulbs we do want.  They also would not have received those credits for producing those subsidized windmills which produce more expensive and far less reliable energy, which by the way is far more dangerous than nuclear power.  (Over the last decade, there have been 47 deaths caused by the GE windmills, and zero deaths caused by nuclear power.)  By the way, who is President Obama to determine how much each individual citizen should sacrifice, and where is Obama's sacrifice?  He told us all in March of 2009 that we should save on gas by taking staycations rather than vacations, and his family is flying family and friends to Spain for their children's birthday parties.  All in all, he claims his plan, which actually does not exist yet, will give us $4 Trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.  The problem is that the CBO can not even score his statement as by their own words, "we don't score speeches."  I've seen this movie before.  Even if he were to offer specifics, we are well past the time where accounting tricks and gimmicks would be helpful, even in the slightest sense of the word.

Minute number four:  He started this minute off by telling us that spending cuts would be a drag on the economy.  The opposite is true.  How many times must we prove it?  When the government spends money, it is money confiscated by the private sector.  The people who had their money taken will have less to spend on what they need and want.  This is nothing more than our old friend the broken window fallacy disguised as pretty rhetoric and grown fat beyond recognition.  He claimed that spending cuts would be a burden to small businesses.  That's a real laugher, since it is the onerous regulation and red tape implemented by President Obama and his Administration which have been assaulting the small business owners in this country.  Not a week passes by that I do not see an op-ed written by a small business owner absolutely ripping President Obama for his disastrous policies.  His claim that he enjoys bi-partisan support is just plain silliness.  first of all, as stated previously, he has made not one proposal at all to even achieve bi-partisan support, and in fact, the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan actually had more than a couple of Democrat defectors voting for it in the House.  Every Republican Senator voted for it in the Senate, where President Obama claims to have his bi-partisan support.  As it turns out, Politico reported that the Boehner plan actually had Harry Reid's support prior to Obama nixing the deal.  Later of course, Reid gave a speech calling it the worst piece of legislation he had ever seen.  That is what I would call political grandstanding.  To round out minute number 4, Barack Obama asserted that a lack of willingness to capitulate to his demands was equal to his being the only reasonable person left in the room.  Just as a suggestion to the President, maybe his cause would be helped if he actually ever proposed a budget or submitted anything with specificity.

Fifth Minute:  As a personal note here, thank goodness the GOP politicians, after years of lacking, are showing an actual backbone.  My message to them, don't give in, not one inch on this.  It is time for this nonsense to end.  Barack Obama picked this point in his speech to tell us that corporations and our top wage earners are in fact not contributing anything to our revenues.  A little fun fact here.  The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of our total tax revenues.  Half of our country, pays nothing.  Corporations pay taxes as well, and in fact, much of that money is double taxed.  This double taxation occurs when a company pays taxes on its profit, and then when a dividend is paid to shareholders, they are taxed on the income.  I agree that the gimmicky tax credits used to promote a governmentally approved behavior, but a fairer and flatter, and vastly simplified tax structure is anther discussion entirely.  His assertion that spending cuts would create undue burden on our economy is just plain silliness.  The burden is created by increased confiscation of our government and increased intrusion into the free market system.  Next, little Barry Obama felt is necessary to tell us all how we were incapable of understanding all of this debt limit discussion anyway.  We should just let the smarter folks who completely screwed things up deal with it and not worry so much about the details.    to round up minute number 5, he harped once again on private jet owners, and added a new group for us to be jealous of and hate, the reviled hedge fund managers, (most of whom by the way live outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore conveniently beyond the socialist reach of B. Hussein Obama.)

Sixth minute:  There was some more whining about tax credits and such, which of course the bulk of that silliness came from his side of the aisle anyway.  He then said the single most dishonest thing of the entire speech.  He gave a litany of things which we all feel the government is justified in spending.  Why is it that it is always the vital services which the left threatens to cut when confronted with a tightening of the belt?  Soldiers pay, fire, police, veterans benefits, social security, our debt.  Realize, that if the ceiling is reached, and the credit card turned off, our government will still have $2.5 Trillion to spend.  This is ample to cover those expenditures.  In fact, we could keep the entire shebang of the vital services, if we were only to give up the Social Welfare State.  There is the rub, once this happens, it is up to the Executive Branch to set the spending priority.  If those things are cut, it will be because Barack Obama decided to do it.  His claim that 98% of Americans would see no tax increase under his nonexistent plan is as much a lie today as when he first posited this in 2008.  Since that time, the middle class has been saddled with the single largest tax increase in history.

Seventh minute:  The statement that the wealthy have pitched in every time they have been asked is beyond dishonest, it is evil.  (Not all wealthy people are evil, nor even any of them, but just follow me on this.)  Wealth in this country is not taxed, income is taxed.  The Warren Buffets and Steven Jobs of the world have teams of accountants showing them how to shelter their wealth and incomes derived from wealth from tax consideration.  Warren Buffet in fact has no taxable wage for running his company beyond $1.  His income is derived from a qualified dividend on Berkshire Hathaway Stock which dividends at about $20,000 per share.  He uses the most complex system of tax loss harvesting, trusts, foundations, etc. known to man kind in order to shield him from whatever changes are made for the rest of us.  There should be a special tax levied on those who have benefited from the very best the free market system had to offer and then decide to advocate that the rest of us be robbed of the opportunities which worked so well for them.  Besides, all empirical evidence of the last hundred years or so show that increases in the top marginal rates of taxation actually result in the top brackets paying a lower percentage of the overall tax revenue collected.  Thomas Sowell has done an excellent job in documenting this.  He invoked Reagan here, and I almost threw a table through the T.V.  Beyond the fact that he flat out lied about his Reagan quote, and stated that Reagan advocated tax increases, there is not a single point anywhere on the political spectrum where Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama meet.  The continued attempt of Obama to portray himself as Reagan is simply the single most transparent piece of political dishonesty ever to have occurred outside of the Soviet Union.

Minute number 8, also tied for the most egregious minute of the speech:  Our problems are not tied to the debt ceiling, they are tied to the debt.  The ratings agencies by the way, for anyone bothering to read their statements made it very clear, they don't care at all where we determine our arbitrary debt ceiling, but rather whether or not we will be able to meet our obligations.  This entire minute was a huge lie, and worse, it assumes we are all stupid people.  He stated that raising the debt ceiling would not allow Congress to  spend any more money, but rather simply allow them to meet our current obligations.  This lie is in fact so bold, I find it difficult to even address it.  Yes, increasing the debt ceiling would allow congress to borrow more money in our name, and continue the ridiculous amount of spending beyond our means.  They would be able to meet our obligations if that ceiling were not raised, and it would be the President's sole decision as to whether our obligations were met after that or not.  He made the statement that in the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  I feel a quote from little Barry Obama, as a U.S. Senator during a similar discussion in 2006 is in order.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Something else to consider here.  Since the Eisenhower Administration, our total debt, while it has grown over the years, and while I would not consider this to be good, has been maintained at around 30% to 35% of our GDP.  It has remained somewhat reasonable.  Under Barack Obama's stewardship, the total debt has doubled as a percentage of our GDP.  It now stands at a staggering 70% of our annual economic output.  This one fact alone does make this years debt debate  a far different thing than previous debates.  Once again, he mentioned that we won't be able to pay our bills, which is a complete lie.  Once again, Barack Obama would have the power of executive decision making to determine how the $2.5 Trillion would be spent.  Any decision to default or cut off Social Security or anything else would be President Obama's alone.

The ninth minute:  This gave us another round of threats to discontinue our vital services and more threats to seniors.  He then used the credit rating agencies, and something struck me odd about the whole thing.  Something beyond the little reported on fact the the agencies have in fact already downgraded us, and in fact Pimco, one of our creditors, has already cut us off.  A couple of years ago, every Democrat and his uncle were screaming about these same ratings firms and their complete whiffs on Enron, Worldcom, Lehman Bros. Bear Stearns.  All of these examples maintained triple A ratings 1 week prior to their collapses.  All of the deleterious effects rattled off by the President during this minute are the result of mounting debt and not any arbitrary limit we impose upon that debt.  I do agree with the President that default would be reckless, but that decision would rest squarely with Obama, and he is using his possible decision as a well placed threat upon our conscious.  This is far from helpful or even adult like.

Minute number ten:  Now we get down to the real reason for his political grandstanding.  He is accusing the Republicans of kicking the can 6 months down the road rather than the 15 months he wishes to kick the can down the road.  In his 15 month scenario, he would be able to avoid this issue until after his reelection bid in November of next year.  It is all about Barack Obama after all.  The Republicans are kicking the can down the road until the regularly scheduled due date for the next fiscal budget.  What probably has the President confused about this is the fact that the Democrats were not really vigilant in Constitutional requirement to produce an annual budget.  In fact, during their entire 4 years in control of the House, they failed to produce a single budget. The fiscal 2011 budget proposed and denied was the first proposed budget in 4 years.  It is not the Republican House members fault that the President and the Democrat controlled Senate refused to even consider the budget.  I'm just spitballing here, but perhaps today's problems are somehow related to the refusal to impose any sort of budgetary process.  The President decried the stubbornness of the Republican controlled House, and I say thank goodness that they are standing fast.

Minute number eleven:  This can be summed up by the memory of the old Popeye cartoons.  "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."  What it comes down to is this, if we give up on our campaign pledge to not increase taxes on Americans, (on top of the already massive increases imposed by the Obamacare Law,) President Obama promises to give us unspecified spending cuts about a decade down the road.  Just like Lucy and the Football, those cuts will never materialize.  We know this of course because we have all seen this before, and we are still waiting on the spending cuts Tip O'Neal promised Ronald Reagan in 1982.

Minute number twelve:  President Obama completely punted on his role as the leader of our nation.  He told the folks in Congress to go back and work out a deal that he could take credit for after signing.  He has yet to propose anything, ever during his Presidency.  He also said something else of interest here.  He was speaking directly to the 87 Republican Freshmen.  He claimed that the same national anger swept both he and them into office.  I must state here, Obama could not have missed the historical perspective in a more grotesque fashion.  Obama was swept into office with talk of Hope and Change during a time of deep discontent with the GOP as a result of their failure to live up to any of their campaign promises.  The 87 GOP Freshmen were swept into office as a national restraining order served against Barack Obama and his core policy agenda.  The only demands made of the Republican House members was that they stick to their guns, not capitulate and show some backbone.

Minute number thirteen:  The old compromise theme raises its ugly head again.  To the Democrats, this means for the Conservatives to just give up on their core beliefs and accede to the demands of the Democrats.  Not this time, this is not going to happen.  We have deep philosophical differences in this country, and this fight needs to happen.  We must stand up for our principles and not give in to a course of action which is guaranteed to destroy our country.  I believe the politicians who are getting themselves elected by the conservative base finally have a grasp on what we expect of them.

Minute number fourteen:  Economic justice for those of you who do not know, is the watchword of the Socialist Party.  I get a laugh out of people who declare anyone racist for pointing out the fact that Barack Obama is a Socialist, and then ignoring cute little gems like this.

Enjoy the speechifying of someone sane and honest.




UPDATE:  Almost on Que, we get this little piece of proof of the Obama Administration purposefully engaging in a scare tactic in order to create a mob mentality in America.  Is there anything which is not beneath the current President of The United States?

Hat tip buzzsawmonkey.

UPDATE II:  This is a real laugh fest, as a reporter during the daily press briefing actually asked Jay Carney for a copy of the President's non existent plan.  I sort of felt sorry for Carney as he squirmed about stating that yes, indeed the plan exists, and it was at the white House Friday Evening, but that if you weren't around on Friday, hard cheese for you America, you don't get to see the plan!  enjoy.



Hat tip Lobo91,

Monday, July 25, 2011

The Case Against Gold.

Every morning I hear on the radio about how gold is our only financial salvation. We hear evidence every day about the explosive results gold has brought to the investors who have shown the savvy to put their faith in this choice for their retirement, and general plans to build wealth for their future. Indeed, over the last 5 years, gold has done well. Before people accept the pleas of the gold selling crowd, and their paid media spokes people who get paid to lend their names to this investment strategy, please consider an alternate Point of view.

Jack and His Magic Beanstalk.

Any time you make the decision to invest part of your hard earned capital into an investment vehicle, do so with the knowledge of what it is you are investing in. We have all heard the tale of Jack, who traded his capital, in this case a goat, for some magic beans. His dad, quite correctly I might add, was somewhat miffed. Jack failed to do his due diligence to determine it there were actually any such thing as magic beans, and if indeed the stranger's beans were good. He also failed to determine that if they were magic, if that magic would turn out to be a good thing. Later, when a giant climbed down the magic bean stalk, he ran amok and threatened the entire community, an event which Jack could have avoided through simple research into his investment. Such is the nature of any investment, it is crucial that you, and any professional you work with to discuss the nature of your chosen investment until you are both satisfied that you have a complete understanding of what you are investing in. Now, I know what you are thinking, how difficult could gold be, and you would be partially correct. I will be speaking to gold from an investment perspective, which is slightly different from what you may have been told previously.

Gold, has been used until very recently as the standard of currency for the entire world who used a central currency. (Remember that prior to colonization of the Western Hemisphere, nothing was used as a currency, barter was still being practiced.) You should also realize however, that gold's role as the accepted standard for currency was completely arbitrary. The same holds true for silver. These metals were chosen because of their apparent rarity. The value of gold, from its earliest days has been an assigned one. It is also true, that over the years, actual usage for both gold and silver have been found. Yes gold is a tangible thing, but its value is determined only by faith and the perceptions of those negotiating for it.

Why Then Has Gold Shown Explosive Growth Over The Last Decade?

The performance of investments are determined by a variety of factors. One important thing I wish to impart to everyone is this though, the capital markets are not efficient places. Like any human endeavor, fear and greed also play a role. We experience an economic crisis in this country every 5 years. While each one is unique in some way, they are also all the same in several important aspects. One of those aspects is that they all have a beginning, take on a life of their own, are great fodder for the media, and eventually come to an end. Precious metals have the virtue of being precious. That is to say, the amount of gold in the world at large is not going to be seriously increased thereby changing its assigned value in any appreciable way. Gold's supporters are very quick to point out that it is a tangible asset, which will not disappear nor be eroded by inflationary pressures. In as much as those statements have been made, and while it maintains its status, even if it is no longer true, as the standard backing the world's economies, then gold indeed will not be subject to inflationary pressures nor will its value erode. At the same time though, be very careful to separate real growth from an increase in relative value.

What Is The Difference Between Real And Perceived Growth?

When you buy a gold ingot, and you place it under your pillow, at no time in the future will you have a second ingot of gold with it, unless of course you have purchased a second one. That gold is not going to grow. No amount of prayer, alchemy, wizardry, or any other thing in this wold will cause your gold to have babies. Your gold will also not have a yield, such as is the case with fixed investments. Your gold will never, during the time that you own it, write you a single check for a dividend paid or interest earned. The increase in value of the gold is only caused by the following factors, its abundance in relation to the amount of currency available, and its perceived value assigned by the people in society. If people are afraid or apprehensive about the state of their currency, then the price of gold, historically has been bid up, and been bid up rapidly. Such is the case in today's world. Our elected geniuses in Washington have decided to purposefully inflate the economy. As a default, any tangible substance in the world today has increased in relative value accordingly. Gold is no exception to that rule. Gold and Silver however have also been the beneficiaries of people's fears. People are afraid of further erosion of their currencies value, and therefore are buying more gold and silver than even the current inflationary pressures would dictate. In effect, it is a bet that this will all get worse before it gets better. The problem for gold buyers is that this very phenomenon is the very definition of a bubble. The second gold took off faster than the current rate of inflation, its current price became a bubble. One of the things that is the same in every economic crisis, is that all bubbles eventually burst. The only question is who will be left holding the gum wrapper when this happens.

What Is Your Sell Discipline?

This is the single most important question which can be asked of any investment counselor or private investor. What market signals are you going to use to help you to avoid being left holding the bag on when the inevitable happens. Elevators go up, and they also come back down. I once asked someone to consider this when in a competitive situation, and then warned the prospective client to demand a more substantive answer then the cliche buy low and sell high. gold is no different. There are a lot of commercials out there telling you that you should buy gold, and they are using the old tactic of fear to do it. My question, when are they telling you to sell? This has happened to gold before, and at its peak in 1979 gold hit well above $800 an ounce. 8 Years of a Reagan Presidency, and gold fell to somewhere in the mid $200 range. In 2005 my father called me up and said, "what do you think of gold? It is on a 20 year high." I explained what that meant. If you purchased gold at the tail end of the Carter Presidency, you would have broken even in terms of non comparative dollars by 2005. If you took inflation into account, you would never have broken even until the next time gold experienced a bubble. What this teaches us is this, you have to know when to get out. Over time, gold is going to pace perfectly with inflation, and this is its nature, and what it has been designed to do. It is also going to experience pricing bubbles which will make some buyers happy and others sad as they negotiate the murky waters of an inefficient market place.

Short Term Versus Long Term Thinking

People selling or extolling the virtues of a particular investment will often arbitrarily pick a time frame which puts their investment in the best possible light. When you start to listen for it on all of the commercials, it will make you laugh. My personal favorite are the guys hawking fixed annuities extolling their goods during the beginning days of a market correction. "Over the last 3 months, our index based annuity has outperformed the S & P 500 by x percent. Of course, since the annuity may carry at least a 20 year surrender period, a time frame of that length would probably be a much better place to discuss as an honest reference point. Yes, in the very recent past, gold has had a good run, but taken over the time frame of your expected working life, added with the time you expect to live in retirement, let's say 50 years, how has it performed? How does that compare with other investment choices? Are there other alternative choices which have not been considered? In any investment strategy, I will include a percentage into what I would call non correlating asset classes. It usually is 5% to 8% of a portfolio. I am not usually adverse to including Precious Metals within this framework, but today, I say you have much better plays with your hard earned money. Commodities will help stave off inflationary erosion, have the benefit of being useful other than having an arbitrarily assigned value, and have not reached the status of huge bubble. If you insist on making your play gold, then at least keep yourself diversified, and only allow a small portion of your portfolio to be tied to this one asset class. Certainly no more than 10%.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Sunday AT The Movies!

Steven Crowder takes apart Bill Maher.



So, where does all of the money spent on government regulation go, and who benefits from the monstrous bureaucracy?



Ann Coulter on the various plans offered by the sundry GOP Pols.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Saturday At The Movies! Milton Friedman's Free To Choose Part VI

Friedman offers his solution to our problems with the public education system in this installment. Here we are some 32 years later and the Friedman solution has achieved marvelous success where ever it has been put into place, and yet there are still people wielding tremendous power who seek to prevent its full scale implementation. Those people would be the public sector unions.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Included In The List Of Politicians Claiming The Mantle Of Reagan Is....... Barack Obama?

One of the most sickening memes to be pimped to us from the, (and yes, I'm borrowing a catchy phrase from doriangrey,) treasonous fifth column media is that Barack Obama is Reaganesque in the performance of his duties as President. Those of you with an adult memory will remember Ronald Reagan as the man who simplified the tax code by eliminating huge sections of it. He lowered marginal tax rates to their lowest levels in any era, (the top marginal rate was 28%.) He flattened out the pyramid, and he eliminated a vast array of shelters and credits in order to insure that the so called rich were not able to escape their fair share. At the same time, he projected American strength by beefing up the military and vastly increasing its budget, not just from a conventional standpoint, but also by going full bore into the SDI missile defensive shields. This system, which is a thorn in the sides of the Socialists since its inception is the world's only true defensive weapons system, as it is designed not to harm anybody, but simply to shoot down incoming missiles aimed at us. Just to make another quick point, how anyone calling themselves an advocate for peace would be able to oppose this system is beyond astounding. Ronald Reagan had inherited a far worse economy from Jimmy Carter, and by deregulation, lowering tax rates, and defunding large swaths of the federal bureaucracy, he was able to show vast improvements in the economy by this point in his Presidency. Barack Obama is increasing government regulation, adding new taxes at an astounding rate, and indeed creating new government bureaucracies by executive fiat. He is in effect the anti-Reagan. Indeed, it takes an incredible amount of dishonesty to draw this comparison in a serious manner. So, naturally when we need that level of dishonesty, I give you MSNBC.



Fortunately, during that same show, Chris Matthews made the mistake of having someone with an adult memory, Michael Steele, on as a guest. The result was one that I probably would have had, outright laughter. My favorite part? Well that would be Matthews and his other guest, Joan Walsh, are actually feigning hurt feelings at the concept of being laughed at for making this comparison.



The bottom line is this, if you do not wish to be laughed at, do not say stupid things. Equating Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan qualifies under this rule.  I understand the why, President Obama's performance of the job he successfully campaigned for in 2008 has not been stellar, to say the least.  Even his most ardent supporters are beginning to show frustration with his performance to date.  The only thing left for them is to try to equate him with someone who was actually good at the job.  That is why it is somewhat amusing to me to witness the same people who viciously maligned Reagan, called him stupid, derided his policies, now attempting to co-opt his legacy for their man.

Special note:  The post I put up two days ago was not advocating for tax increases as a means to closing the budget deficit.  In fact, I argued the opposite.  For whatever reason, some folks assumed that I had taken the opposite view, and was for the so called balanced approach.  As someone who has an understanding of the Laffer Curve, I can assure you that I fully understand that Tax Rate Cuts lead to increased revenues.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

If Your Country Were On The Verge Of Financial Armageddon, What Would You Do?

I know I would be working feverishly to find solutions to the financial crisis. In crisis mode, stopping the absolutely free flow of red ink would be amongst the top of things on my to do list. For our President though, no way no how he is about to consider trite little things like NOT SPENDING MORE MONEY. Apparently, our President feels that we need a new Federal Agency, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This was undoubtedly hidden into one of the newly passed insane omnibus laws passed and signed prior to the restraining order employed by the American People in November of 2010. The purpose of the new agency, well, the best explanation I've heard so far is that this agency will read the fine print for us poor shlubs not capable of reading at a high school level and protect us from unscrupulous businesses who have the temerity to produce written contracts for us to sign prior to doing business, and then do exactly as they disclosed that they would. Putting aside for the moment the absolute folly of introducing a brand new bureaucracy at a time when we can not afford the ones already in place, I find it somewhat insulting that the President and his minions have determined that I am just plainly too stupid to read a contract all by myself. This agency also fails to actually address the true cause of the financial meltdown, which for those of you not paying attention were two criminal money laundering scam masquerading as a government backed private entity called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coupled with a Law entitled the Community Reinvestment Act. The entire enterprise were enabled and protected by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Ted Kennedy. So, who has been the last person tapped to run this agency, why it was Richard Cordray of course. Richard was fired by the State of Ohio recently for being one of those sue happy Attorney Generals who felt that suing private businesses for having the misfortune of actually conducting business in the wrong state rather than enforcing the current laws of the state. To explain this further, because it is that important that everyone understand who is about to head our newest consumer protection Democrat Party shakedown scam I will explain what it is that Ohioans did not like about Richard Cordray. When he came across a company that for whatever reason he did not like, we'll call them XYZ inc. If he was unable to come up with an actual law that XYZ inc. was actually violating, he would file a law suit in civil court. Since Governors get blamed for unemployment and companies leaving town, and not Attorney Generals, well who cares about consequences anyhow? The reason President Obama had such a hard time describing what the newest agency would be up to is that so much of its language states that its purview and authority will be up to the discretion of the director. Lucky us.


Exit Question: Are we actually broke, or do we have the money to do this?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

I Agree, Let's Raise Revenues. How Do We Do That?

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Here is another side to the argument about the debt debate, which unfortunately receives very little attention.  I do not believe that a single person exists in America who does not recognize that increasing revenues would be helpful in alleviating our mounting debt crisis.  I also do not believe that anyone would honestly state a personal opinion that cutting spending would not help in cutting our monstrous debt.  The latter, while there is still much argumentation as to whether we should make this step our main focus, is much easier to see the steps which must be taken to see it through.  All we need do is to make the hard choices as to which checks must still be written, and then limit that check writing to $2.5 Trillion per year.  The former, well that is a different story.  I will disclose here that I am not an economist, nor do I have a degree in economics.  What I do have is the ability to read, and fortunately, some very brilliant economists have written extensively on this subject.  The question is how do we actually go about the business of raising revenues in this country, and why don't we do that.

Raising tax rates on anyone does nothing to enhance revenues.  Closing so called, "loopholes," does nothing to raise revenues.  Lowering tax rates has always, every time it has been tried, increased revenues.  We know this, not only due to the theories posited by Andrew Mellon, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and countless others, but also because we have the actual evidence provided by history to look at.

 When Rosenman referred to what had been happening "since 1921," he was referring to the series of tax-rate reductions advocated by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon and enacted into law by Congress during the decade of the 1920s. But the actual arguments advocated by Secretary Mellon had nothing to do with a "trickle-down theory."

High rates drive taxpayers into shelters.

Mellon pointed out that, under the high income-tax rates at the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1921, vast sums of money had been put into tax shelters such as tax-exempt municipal bonds instead of being invested in the private economy, where this money would create more output, incomes and jobs — thereby producing higher tax revenues for the federal government.

The actual results of the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s were very similar to the results of later tax-rate cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and George. W. Bush administrations — namely, rising output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the rising incomes, though the tax rates had been lowered.
Another consequence was that people in higher-income brackets paid not only a larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after what were called "tax cuts for the rich." It was not simply that their incomes rose, but that this was not taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable to get higher returns outside of tax shelters.
The facts are unmistakably plain, for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people making over $100,000 a year was 73%, the federal government collected a little over $700 million in income taxes, of which 30% was paid by those making over $100,000.
Revenue spiked as tax rates were slashed.
By 1929, after a series of tax-rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24% on those making over $100,000, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income taxes, of which 65% was collected from those making over $100,000.
There is nothing mysterious about this. Under the sharply rising tax rates during the Wilson administration, fewer and fewer people reported high taxable incomes, whether by putting their money into tax-exempt securities or by any of the other ways of rearranging their financial affairs to minimize their tax liability.
Under Wilson's escalating income-tax rates to pay for the high costs of the First World War, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of more than $300,000 — a huge sum in the money of that era — declined from well over a thousand in 1916 to fewer than three hundred in 1921. The total amount of taxable income earned by people making over $300,000 declined by more than four-fifths in those years.
Secretary Mellon estimated in 1923 that the money invested in tax-exempt securities had tripled in a decade, and was now almost three times the size of the federal government's annual budget and nearly half as large as the national debt. "The man of large income has tended more and more to invest his capital in such a way that the tax collector cannot touch it," he pointed out.
Getting that money moved out of tax shelters was the whole point of Mellon's tax-cutting proposals. He also said: "It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to the support of his government should remain unaltered."
The facts are plain: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But as tax rates rose, that number fell to 21 by 1921. After a series of tax-rate cuts in the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more rose again, to 207 by 1925.
As output surged, joblessness plunged.
It should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue under these conditions. Nor is it surprising that, with increased economic activity resulting from more investment in the private economy, the annual unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2% to a low of 1.8%.
The last time I checked, we were all human beings, all of us.  As human beings, we are all capable of changing our behavior.  We will perform those activities which reward us, and cease those activities for which we are punished.  When we passed Jimmy Carter's idiotic windfall profits tax, the net result was that oil companies produced exactly enough of their product to make the allowable amount of profit, and they stopped at the exact amount of production which would allow them to remain unpunished.  Combine Jimmy Carter's idiocy with Richard Nixon's idiotic price controls on a gallon of gasoline, and the result was miles long gas lines and rationing.  Private capital is sitting on the sidelines right now.  President Obama has treated us to more than one of his wonderful speeches in which he verbally assaulted the business community for the crime of not investing their capital thereby creating the jobs he so desperately needs in order to be reelected.  But like you and me, the business community is peopled by human beings.  From their perspective, why should they? 
Think of your situation.  How hard do you have to work in order to save a thousand dollars.  If I knocked on your door and said, "loan me a thousand dollars so that I may start my own business."  Would you lend me that money without a thought, or would you seek to understand what your benefit would be?  Would you expect to be paid back more than what you loaned, or would you be satisfied with the repayment of merely the original thousand?  If my business fails, you lose your investment.  If my business succeeds, chances are you would want to be compensated for the risk you took.  When the government pledges itself to share in your reward, because you have made too large a profit to suit them, how will you react?  Most people with capital to invest would react in the same way, by not investing into a situation where their upside has been predetermined to bring retribution from the government.  
Even if you disagree with me, and you believe that we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem, not only are you mistaken, but tax rate increases are the exact wrong way to go about the business of solving that problem.  The scary part for me is that President Obama knows this.  He has placed creation of politically active mobs and community organizing thug tactics above the well being of the American People.  He is not the first politician to do this of course, but he has been the most successful in America's history, and he is the most dangerous today.  Labor day will bring the official, "its not too early to be running for President time."  This gives me something to look forward to.  


Monday, July 18, 2011

Why It's Conservatism, And Not Republican For Me.

Watch the video first, it'll blow your mind. I say that meaning that it should be nothing new, but this time it is a little different. Acorn for all of its government ties and direct links to the Democrat Party was in fact still a separate enterprise from the government. These fine folks helping James O'Keefe qualify as a Drug Dealing Russian Pimp are in fact employees of the State of Ohio, working for the State's Welfare System. At one point, at the 6:56 mark, I was hopeful that the Sociopathical worker was about to kick the scumbags out, and instead used the delay to inform the drug dealing pimps that they in fact qualified for even better benefits than what they were seeking.

Putting aside for the moment the absolute hilarity of the wretched Russian accents employed by our undercover sting reporters. (it reminded me of my favorite Television show from the sixth grade, Hogan's Heroes.) As a citizen of the State of Ohio, I find it troubling that as a matter of course, and with absolutely no hint of resistance, we are placing drug smuggling pimps and their sex slaves on the public dole, who are also by the way not citizens of our country. The phrase we hear from the subjects of the sting over and over again is, "I'm not allowed to hear that, la la la la la..." We keep hearing anecdotal stories as a prop to get these insane laws of entitlement passed, forcing greater and greater outlays from the public largess, and as we learned recently, those anecdotal stories more often than not turn out to be outright lies and fabrications. Please tell me that someone else sees the opportunity to cut some of these outflows off without actually hurting in any way people who are truly in need and unable to fulfill their needs without government help. For those of you who feel as though this evil has been visited upon our society by only one political party, and not both, I am sorry to have to burst your bubble. Ohio has a Republican Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and State Treasurer. Yes it is true that they have had less than 8 months at the helm, and the current group of leaders have not had time to address this monster. It is also true however that Governor Strickland only served 4 years as Governor, and his entire slate of Democrat cohorts also only had those same 4 years. This problem predates that. Ohio has been dominated by Republican Leadership for a long time, and this monstrosity took much longer than a couple of decades to develop. These boils have been festering for a very long time indeed. If you think that just sending Republicans to elected office will solve this, think again. The problem is that Republicans, while saying the right things often times to get elected, are very often content to assume the power and take the perks of an already bloated system. An open statement to Governor Kasich: This is why the Tea Parties came about. Whether you realize it or not, the Tea Parties were responsible for sweeping you and your entire staff into office. Get on top of this, and reverse this damage to our State. Merely slowing government growth and accounting gimmicks are not what we want. We want an end to this type of shenanigans. We want an end to smug bureaucrats being employed at our expense and running some 25 square feet of office space as though it were their private kingdom. We want to live in a society where it is no longer necessary for one of every three citizens to posses a government issued permit which enables them to find some form of employment. We want an end to a system which enables drug smuggling pimps to emigrate here and find a willing bureaucracy to place them in the loving hands of the public dole. We want the people who hire others to work and create wealth to be welcomed into our state and not chased away as some sort of monster due to the mythical robber baron mentality. We want an elected official to understand that our Constitution created a framework for a government which would be constrained by the limitations set by its citizens, and not the other way around. If you don't get this Governor Kasich, your time in charge will last just as long as Ted Strikland's UPDATE: The first State applied band-aid will apparently be applied in the form of mandatory training for all HHS field employees. Color me a little more than slightly skeptical here. This disease of Socialism is part of the DNA now, and it needs to be treated as the cancer upon our society that it is. Scrambling around and paying lip service to the phrase we are mad too will not solve a damn thing. I also believe the training as it were, will be entirely on the subject of how not to get caught in future stings.