There is one thing that "almost" everyone I talk to can agree upon. Whether republican or democrat it seems we have all come to the conclusion that we can't continue to run budget deficits forever.
If you read this and the first thing you want to do is begin blaming one party or the other, don't bother. WE are all to blame.
We can not continue the path we are on. We must either decide to make very deep cuts to social service programs, or raise taxes significantly on EVERYONE. Not just the very rich. Just taxing the rich more wouldn't be enough.
Every dollar taken in in taxes in a year is consumed to pay for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security alone. That leaves every other program and service including DOT, DOD, Treasury, and countless other programs to be funded by loans.
With recent reports of 45 percent of households having at least one member receiving aid from government and nearly half of all people paying zero dollars in taxes, I'm afraid there is no cutting of the programs. At least not without riots in the streets.
All this leaves us in a position where taxes will need to go up dramatically in order to pay our every expanding debts. This could include a VAT tax on top of income taxes, high taxes on corporations (which would likely be very detrimental to business), higher personal income taxes across the board or maybe even all of the above.
How would you solve the problem. Cut programs, raise taxes or a combination of the two.
Just a hint for those of you who would blame Iraq/Afghanistan war operations for the deficit, fine, but realize that ALL the money spent on all the war operations in the last 9 years is still 300 billion less than the budget deficit this year alone. So, you can say we need to stop the wars, and that would be a good start. However, one year's worth of war costs is less than 9 percent of the deficit. We've got a long way to go. It's time to make a choice.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Assault on Capitalism
To say that there is an assault on capitalism in this country is an understatement. From the bailouts of wall street and motor companies to the calls for the Venezuela style take over of BP the assault is obvious. I have only two quick thoughts I'd like to share.
1. We don't currently have a capitalist system. The government is intertwined in both banking the motor companies, oil, just about every sector of the economy we see struggling is already highly regulated by our government. The arguments that it was capitalism that led to the economic troubles we see is a fallacy.
2. (And this was the real point of this post) Nearly every day I hear people whining and complaining about how much money the gas stations make on a gallon of gas. I hear people complaining about the cost of health care, insurance... etc.
The same question always remains. If you really believe they have such a high profit margin, then why haven't you opened your own business. You could undercut their price and make money hand over fist. You don't even have to become a doctor. Just open a clinic, hire some docs, charge a lower rate and watch the people flock in your doors. They will be glad you are charging less, and you can swim in all your profits like scrooge mcduck. But you don't. I wonder why. Either you are not willing to take the risk, or you don't really believe what you are claiming.
There is also another option. It is possible that you don't believe there should be a profit allowed. That clinics and doctors should be run as non-profits. In which case you are a hypocrite.
I think your industry should be non-profit.
1. We don't currently have a capitalist system. The government is intertwined in both banking the motor companies, oil, just about every sector of the economy we see struggling is already highly regulated by our government. The arguments that it was capitalism that led to the economic troubles we see is a fallacy.
2. (And this was the real point of this post) Nearly every day I hear people whining and complaining about how much money the gas stations make on a gallon of gas. I hear people complaining about the cost of health care, insurance... etc.
The same question always remains. If you really believe they have such a high profit margin, then why haven't you opened your own business. You could undercut their price and make money hand over fist. You don't even have to become a doctor. Just open a clinic, hire some docs, charge a lower rate and watch the people flock in your doors. They will be glad you are charging less, and you can swim in all your profits like scrooge mcduck. But you don't. I wonder why. Either you are not willing to take the risk, or you don't really believe what you are claiming.
There is also another option. It is possible that you don't believe there should be a profit allowed. That clinics and doctors should be run as non-profits. In which case you are a hypocrite.
I think your industry should be non-profit.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Change Your Insurance Expectations
Lets think for a moment about insurance. What are things you pay to have insured? You want to make sure you have life insurance to protect against the unlikely event of your death. (assuming you are in good health. If not you couldn't afford the premiums.) You want to insure against the unlikely event that some natural disaster such as tornado or perhaps a fire destroys your home. So you need home owners or renters insurance. You insure your car against the unlikely event that you lose control of your vehicle and create a new drive through window at a local convenience store. Insurance is designed to protect you from liability should some unlikely, but financially devastating circumstance occur in your life.
Have you ever wondered why you don't buy tire insurance. Just pay the premiums and if your tires wear out you can just pay the co-pay. There will of course be a small deductible. You don't because it is not unlikely that your tires will wear out. In fact it is an absolute certainty that sooner or later you will need new tires.
Insurance should be treated the same way. You know with absolute certainty that you and your family are going to need to see the doctor for minor cases of bumps, bruises, coughs and colds. Yet for some reason we want to purchase insurance to cover the costs. It doesn't make financial sense. Let me break it down for you.
Seeing the doctor = x
If you see the doctor and pay the bill yourself :
Your Bill = x.
If you buy insurance to pay for routine office visits you will pay the insurance company via your premiums:
premiums = x+administrative costs+profits.
Face it insurance companies are not in the business of loosing money. They are in the business of making money. If they are going to pay for your routine office visits which you KNOW are going to occur, you will pay more than if you paid them on your own.
The obvious flaw here is that the doctors' offices agree to take a smaller percentage of payment from the insurance companies for a visit and for certain procedures in exchange for guaranteed payment. However, You can do that on your own. Doctors offices are willing to take less if you ask. But you have to ask, then make payment in full. Start a health savings account to pay for routine office visits for you and your family. Then purchase a catastrophic health insurance plan to insure you against the UNLIKELY event that someone in your family be diagnosed with something as costly as cancer.
If you buy your own insurance this will save you money. Do the math. Even if you have a broken arm it is still cheaper to pay for it on your own than pay the huge costs associated with the "pay-for-everything insurance plans".
Have you ever wondered why you don't buy tire insurance. Just pay the premiums and if your tires wear out you can just pay the co-pay. There will of course be a small deductible. You don't because it is not unlikely that your tires will wear out. In fact it is an absolute certainty that sooner or later you will need new tires.
Insurance should be treated the same way. You know with absolute certainty that you and your family are going to need to see the doctor for minor cases of bumps, bruises, coughs and colds. Yet for some reason we want to purchase insurance to cover the costs. It doesn't make financial sense. Let me break it down for you.
Seeing the doctor = x
If you see the doctor and pay the bill yourself :
Your Bill = x.
If you buy insurance to pay for routine office visits you will pay the insurance company via your premiums:
premiums = x+administrative costs+profits.
Face it insurance companies are not in the business of loosing money. They are in the business of making money. If they are going to pay for your routine office visits which you KNOW are going to occur, you will pay more than if you paid them on your own.
The obvious flaw here is that the doctors' offices agree to take a smaller percentage of payment from the insurance companies for a visit and for certain procedures in exchange for guaranteed payment. However, You can do that on your own. Doctors offices are willing to take less if you ask. But you have to ask, then make payment in full. Start a health savings account to pay for routine office visits for you and your family. Then purchase a catastrophic health insurance plan to insure you against the UNLIKELY event that someone in your family be diagnosed with something as costly as cancer.
If you buy your own insurance this will save you money. Do the math. Even if you have a broken arm it is still cheaper to pay for it on your own than pay the huge costs associated with the "pay-for-everything insurance plans".
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Limiting Pay
What would happen if we limit the pay of top executives working for private companies? Why do we want to limit it? If you do limit their pay, Where does it go?
I'll start with why. Why do we want to limit pay? Simple. Anger and jealousy. The masses are angry that wall street executives made loans they new were not wise, made millions of dollars doing so, and then were bailed out by our tax dollars when things went south. The anger is righteous. The solution would have been to let them fail. We are jealous because we see the lifestyles they lead, and believe falsely that if those executives had less the rest of us would have more.
Where would that money go? These are privately owned companies. If the money doesn't go to the executive it would stay in the coffers of the company to be used for various other endeavors like building new offices, expanding services, or perhaps just stay on the books as profit in cash. BUT.... would that really be okay. I mean isn't the point here that these companies are making too much money at the expense of consumers. So, instead a windfall profit tax would be in order. Therefore instead of expanding their business and HIRING more employees, they will shelter it in foreign investments, or have it taken by the government to be given to others.
The myth here is that there is a limited amount of money in the economic pie. Each dollar I have in my pocket is a dollar not available for anyone else. This is only a myth. In reality profits grow the economy and make more jobs available. Deficits shrink the economy and make less jobs available.
It isn't difficult to see what will happen. You can't redistribute money to make all people equally wealthy. You can only redistribute money to make all people equally poor. Understand that if you took ALL the profits from Exxon Mobile at the peak of their profit, each tax payer could get 1 tank of gasoline. Whoopie.
I'll start with why. Why do we want to limit pay? Simple. Anger and jealousy. The masses are angry that wall street executives made loans they new were not wise, made millions of dollars doing so, and then were bailed out by our tax dollars when things went south. The anger is righteous. The solution would have been to let them fail. We are jealous because we see the lifestyles they lead, and believe falsely that if those executives had less the rest of us would have more.
Where would that money go? These are privately owned companies. If the money doesn't go to the executive it would stay in the coffers of the company to be used for various other endeavors like building new offices, expanding services, or perhaps just stay on the books as profit in cash. BUT.... would that really be okay. I mean isn't the point here that these companies are making too much money at the expense of consumers. So, instead a windfall profit tax would be in order. Therefore instead of expanding their business and HIRING more employees, they will shelter it in foreign investments, or have it taken by the government to be given to others.
The myth here is that there is a limited amount of money in the economic pie. Each dollar I have in my pocket is a dollar not available for anyone else. This is only a myth. In reality profits grow the economy and make more jobs available. Deficits shrink the economy and make less jobs available.
It isn't difficult to see what will happen. You can't redistribute money to make all people equally wealthy. You can only redistribute money to make all people equally poor. Understand that if you took ALL the profits from Exxon Mobile at the peak of their profit, each tax payer could get 1 tank of gasoline. Whoopie.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
If I had Voted for Barack Obama
I can only assume people voted for Barack Obama because they agree with his policy statements. So, if I had voted for President Obama, would I be happy with his performance to this point?
Obama Policy: Pull out the troops from Iraq. Keep them in Afghanistan.
Result: Well, I'm not exactly happy. Obama kept the EXACT time table set forth by Bush. But what else could he do. The war in Iraq was all but over, and the pull out would have been very difficult to have pulled off any sooner. There is now a major thrust in Afghanistan. Just where President Obama said we should be.
Obama Policy: Ensure every American has health care insurance.
Result: He is certainly pushing for it. I'm happy that possibly by next year I will no longer pay for health care what so ever.
Obama Policy: Improve diplomatic relations through talk as opposed to force.
Result: This is certainly what he is trying to do, thought it seems he is alienating some of our closest allies (the Brits, Israel) in an effort to be nice to Iran, Venezuela and others. This is what he said he would do. I'd like it if he could do this without upsetting our long time friends.
Obama Policy: Force "green energy on the public.
Result: While there have been some rumblings about this on a large scale cap and trade doesn't seem to be close to a reality yet. There are vouchers to buy greener cars. That is a step in the right direction. I'd still like to see Obama push to rid the world of coal fire power plants.
Obama Policy: Set up a system that rids us of the old model of "bubble and burst".
Result: Giving money to those troubled companies, and setting up government programs to ensure they are run properly in the future. Using tools like, pay czar, car czar x2. Economy seems to be getting better. Credit goes to Obama.
I guess if I'm an Obama supporter I have to be happy with his performance. I would have to say that as far as campaign promises go, Obama seems to be more serious about keeping them than most presidents. Or perhaps he just has the majorities to get it done.
Obama Policy: Pull out the troops from Iraq. Keep them in Afghanistan.
Result: Well, I'm not exactly happy. Obama kept the EXACT time table set forth by Bush. But what else could he do. The war in Iraq was all but over, and the pull out would have been very difficult to have pulled off any sooner. There is now a major thrust in Afghanistan. Just where President Obama said we should be.
Obama Policy: Ensure every American has health care insurance.
Result: He is certainly pushing for it. I'm happy that possibly by next year I will no longer pay for health care what so ever.
Obama Policy: Improve diplomatic relations through talk as opposed to force.
Result: This is certainly what he is trying to do, thought it seems he is alienating some of our closest allies (the Brits, Israel) in an effort to be nice to Iran, Venezuela and others. This is what he said he would do. I'd like it if he could do this without upsetting our long time friends.
Obama Policy: Force "green energy on the public.
Result: While there have been some rumblings about this on a large scale cap and trade doesn't seem to be close to a reality yet. There are vouchers to buy greener cars. That is a step in the right direction. I'd still like to see Obama push to rid the world of coal fire power plants.
Obama Policy: Set up a system that rids us of the old model of "bubble and burst".
Result: Giving money to those troubled companies, and setting up government programs to ensure they are run properly in the future. Using tools like, pay czar, car czar x2. Economy seems to be getting better. Credit goes to Obama.
I guess if I'm an Obama supporter I have to be happy with his performance. I would have to say that as far as campaign promises go, Obama seems to be more serious about keeping them than most presidents. Or perhaps he just has the majorities to get it done.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
How do you Spell Chutzpah
The dictionary defines this word as a slang noun coming from the Yiddish vernacular, meaning:
1.unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall.
2.audacity; nerve.
Today on Drudge I read a story (original story on Reuters) about Barney Frank, once again, asking Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to relax lending restrictions on condominiums. Here are my problems with this.
1. Making loans to risky buyers (along with mark to market accounting) is what got us into the mortgage melt down.
2. Barney Frank sits on the Banking Committee and got a sweetheart deal.
3. Barny Frank lied to the American People about the viability of Fanny and Freddie just weeks before they collapsed.
4. Barney Frank pushed for more lenient loaning practices for low income buyers.
If that were all perhaps I could look past it.... BUT then when the melt down happens Frank acts as though he were just a spectator in the whole affair and blames the meltdown on Bush. Spouting lies that it was the Bush administration that deregulated the banking industry. While he was pushing for over site. YOU ARE THE OVER SITE, BARNEY. And yet you did nothing to stop this. As a matter of fact, you said all was well with Fanny and Freddie. Now when the spotlight is off, You are once again pushing for deregulation. Asking Fanny and Freddie to make loans that you know are risky. Barney Frank have you no honor.
The classic definition of chutzpah is that given by Leo Rosten: "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Government to Monitor Your Blog
Watch what you are saying boys and girls on the blogosphere, Uncle Sam wants to make sure you are on the up and up. According to reports from the AP, The Federal Trade Commission is set to monitor blogs to ensure any product review you make, is not made in exchange for compensation. According to the FTC many bloggers have received $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Apparently under the new regulations which are expected to be approved latter this summer a simple graphic ad with link for which you receive compensation, would be enough to trigger oversight.
Is this really necessary? Are there really throngs of people out there buying products based on anonymous reviews. Where is the personal responsibility? Are we really going to pay people to read and monitor blogs to make sure you aren't getting paid?
If you follow this trail to it's logical conclusion it does not end well for the individual. Imagine you tell your friend to shop at Wal-Mart because they always have the lowest price. (or so they claim) But soon you are being sued by the federal government because you own stock from Wal-Mart from back when you worked there in college. Sure you had forgotten all about it, but never the less, you have an interest in the company.
Perhaps I'm being a bit overly dramatic, but maybe not.
Is this really necessary? Are there really throngs of people out there buying products based on anonymous reviews. Where is the personal responsibility? Are we really going to pay people to read and monitor blogs to make sure you aren't getting paid?
If you follow this trail to it's logical conclusion it does not end well for the individual. Imagine you tell your friend to shop at Wal-Mart because they always have the lowest price. (or so they claim) But soon you are being sued by the federal government because you own stock from Wal-Mart from back when you worked there in college. Sure you had forgotten all about it, but never the less, you have an interest in the company.
Perhaps I'm being a bit overly dramatic, but maybe not.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How does Obama Differ from Chavez Again?
I'm sure they're different. I just can't seem to remember how at the moment. Apparently Obama not wanting to be out done by his friend in the southern hemisphere is seeking more power to seize the companies that he has deemed necessary for the American Economy. Here is more from the story written in the LA Times.
Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would
have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American
International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system.
Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to
banks.
So, just to clarify. Chavez bad for seizing privately held companies. Obama good. Hmmm. So I guess Obama gets to decide which companies would jeopardize the financial system if they fail. Or maybe we should appoint a czar for this task. After all Senate approval and over site of something of this magnitude is not really necessary. No, as with all the czars he will answer directly to Obama. I guess we didn't really need the separation of powers, as dictated in our constitution.
Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would
have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American
International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system.
Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to
banks.
So, just to clarify. Chavez bad for seizing privately held companies. Obama good. Hmmm. So I guess Obama gets to decide which companies would jeopardize the financial system if they fail. Or maybe we should appoint a czar for this task. After all Senate approval and over site of something of this magnitude is not really necessary. No, as with all the czars he will answer directly to Obama. I guess we didn't really need the separation of powers, as dictated in our constitution.
Monday, May 4, 2009
America Gets a Pay Day Loan
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that pay day loans are a bad, I mean really bad idea. I was having a conversation with a co-worker today who told me she is still trying to pay off a pay day loan she had taken out... OVER A YEAR AGO. The loan itself was for 4 thousand dollars, since that time she has paid almost 8 thousand dollars in interest and still has more than 2 thousand remaining on the balance. While my co-worker was wringing her hands trying to figure out how to pay this down, the loan officer at this establishment was wringing his hands trying to figure out where to spend the money.
Will the United States ever pay off the loans we are currently taking out. Can we see anything other than debt on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, I blame Obama, the debt has sky rocketed under him. However, Bush was no Scrooge McDuck.
I imagine a good parent is willing to suffer now in hopes their children will have a better life. Instead we are getting a credit card in our children's name and maxing it out. This is unacceptable.
Will the United States ever pay off the loans we are currently taking out. Can we see anything other than debt on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, I blame Obama, the debt has sky rocketed under him. However, Bush was no Scrooge McDuck.
I imagine a good parent is willing to suffer now in hopes their children will have a better life. Instead we are getting a credit card in our children's name and maxing it out. This is unacceptable.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
While I Wasn't Paying Attention in Church
While I would like to pretend that I am the ideal parishioner, I confess that often I am not. This past Sunday while the preacher was speaking on the topic of.... well I forgot that too, I was thinking of something else. Although this time I can say it was Jesus who was occupying my thoughts.
If Jesus were to arrive today in the United States, not to take us to heaven, but if His first coming were to be today, I would love to just sit and pick His brain. I found myself wanting to ask about what we as a nation should do regarding the "War on Terror". What we as a nation should do about our economy, or poverty or gun laws. If He came today, I would ask Him and surely he would tell me, and probably agree with what I believed all along.
It was then that it hit me. Those are exactly the thoughts the pharisees were having. They thought Jesus would come as a reigning king. He would ride in, destroy the roman oppressors and lead Israel back to her promised glory. Instead He came and spoke to individuals.
If Jesus were to have come for the first time, and I saw Him, maybe I would have asked those questions. If I had, I believe Jesus would have answered cryptically because I would have been asking the wrong questions.
The right questions are. What should I do about the killing in my town? What should I do about my neighbor who needs help? What should I do about the poverty around me? What should I do? That is the question.
Thankfully I don't have to wonder. He already told me.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Getting Fired!
I never thought getting fired might be the best thing that could happen. Last fall I began working at a job that while I enjoyed, was extremely stressful for my family as my schedule was very hectic. Often times I would leave the house at 6am and return as late as 9pm. As you can imagine after scarfing down a meal I was soon off to bed. Apparently my wife was wanting a little more time than that.I knew she was wanting more time, but who quits a job in this economy without one to replace it. Didn't seem smart to me. Long story short, on March 15th I was informed that my services would no longer be needed. That's how you say, "You're Fired!, when you don't want your former employee to arrive on the company doorstep with a gun. I was without a job. For the first time in my life I had been fired.
I had imagined I would be upset by the news. I wasn't. I had imagined that I would be worried about how I would provide for my family. I wasn't. Instead I found that I had peace about the situation.
I start my new job tomorrow. I didn't really even have to look. It fell into my lap. I will be earning at least the same amount, quite possibly more. I will have insurance that was previously unavailable. And I will have more time to spend with my wife... and this blog. Both of which have been neglected.
The word of the day boys and girls is providence.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
I'm No Economist, But I Can Do Math
I'm going to warn you at the outset. There are a lot of numbers in this post, but I'm going to try to keep this simple. When I first heard about Obama's plan to give a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans and raise taxes to "fair" levels on everyone else I couldn't see how the numbers would pan out. So here they are. I have taken these numbers from the United States Census, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, and the Federal Government. I'll state at the outset that these are numbers from 2006 and will admittedly be a little off from 2008, but they are the most recent available when all needed information is considered. Please read this post as it is important to Barack Obama's plan for your taxes, health care, and the economic future of our country.
2006 Revenue $1,397,800,000,000 just from income tax.
Total Income is $2,407,000,000,000
2006 Expenditures $2,655,400,000,000
Top 1% AGI is $389,000 and pays 40% of all taxes.
Top 5% AGI is $153,000 and pays 60% of all taxes.
Bottom 50% make less than $32,000 and pay less than 3%
2006 population estimate 298,754,819..... 25% under 18
So let me break this down for you. There are 224,066,114 adults in the United States. 1% of that is 2,240,661 people. That means the average person in the top 1 percent pays roughly $250,000 in taxes. Remember the top 1 percent starts at only $389,000. Seems a bit extreme doesn't it. That leaves just $139,000 for raising their kids, paying their student loans and maybe even creating more jobs for other Americans. And that doesn't even include state and local taxes.
What about the top 5 percent who start at only $153,000 per year. Excluding those in the top 1 percent who have already been tallied; The average person in this category pays $31,191
How high do you want to raise taxes on the top 5 percent, so that we can give a tax cut to everyone else. Remember roughly half of all Americans pay virtually NO income taxes to the federal government. If you were to raise taxes an additional 10% on the top 5% of wage earners it would raise an additional $83,868,000,000 that is a heap of money. No question about it. But how much is that for the 95% of Americans who will get that money. That is right after raising taxes another 10 percent on those who create jobs we could cut a check to everyone else for a cool $394.
Remember Obama has also promised to provide you with health care and a slew of other spending programs that would either increase our indebtedness or come out of your 394 dollar check.
You could elect Barack Obama. You could get the check. But is it worth the damage it would do to our economy.
These are the facts. I didn't make them up. I did the math.
2006 Revenue $1,397,800,000,000 just from income tax.
Total Income is $2,407,000,000,000
2006 Expenditures $2,655,400,000,000
Top 1% AGI is $389,000 and pays 40% of all taxes.
Top 5% AGI is $153,000 and pays 60% of all taxes.
Bottom 50% make less than $32,000 and pay less than 3%
2006 population estimate 298,754,819..... 25% under 18
So let me break this down for you. There are 224,066,114 adults in the United States. 1% of that is 2,240,661 people. That means the average person in the top 1 percent pays roughly $250,000 in taxes. Remember the top 1 percent starts at only $389,000. Seems a bit extreme doesn't it. That leaves just $139,000 for raising their kids, paying their student loans and maybe even creating more jobs for other Americans. And that doesn't even include state and local taxes.
What about the top 5 percent who start at only $153,000 per year. Excluding those in the top 1 percent who have already been tallied; The average person in this category pays $31,191
How high do you want to raise taxes on the top 5 percent, so that we can give a tax cut to everyone else. Remember roughly half of all Americans pay virtually NO income taxes to the federal government. If you were to raise taxes an additional 10% on the top 5% of wage earners it would raise an additional $83,868,000,000 that is a heap of money. No question about it. But how much is that for the 95% of Americans who will get that money. That is right after raising taxes another 10 percent on those who create jobs we could cut a check to everyone else for a cool $394.
Remember Obama has also promised to provide you with health care and a slew of other spending programs that would either increase our indebtedness or come out of your 394 dollar check.
You could elect Barack Obama. You could get the check. But is it worth the damage it would do to our economy.
These are the facts. I didn't make them up. I did the math.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wouldn't It Be Nice?
Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world with out hunger?
Wouldn't it be nice if you had a car as nice as your neighbors'?
Wouldn't it be nice if no one went without health care?
Wouldn't it be nice if you were paid as much as that CEO from Lehman Bros?
Wouldn't it be nice if the super rich had a little bit less, so that everyone else could have just a little bit more?
I'm talking about making life a little bit easier for those at that bottom. Those at the top have enough, don't they?
These are the thoughts I imagine liberals to have. They sound reasonable don't they. In fact Barak Obama's words echoed these thoughts when he spoke to "Joe the Plumber". "It's not that I want to hurt you, but if you're doing well, we need to spread the wealth around a little bit."
And so they make policies in order progress this ideal. This ideal, however, is communism.
Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
It sounds like a noble idea, equality for all. They love the idea, even if they won't admit it.
Attn Socialists, The Free Market Works
The housing bubble has been fingered by most economic experts as the root cause for what we are experiencing through out the financial world. It has also been the main point of contention by those who say that free market capitalism is ineffective. In reality it was the governments involvement that was forcing banks to make loans to folks who had no business receiving home loans, but that is a subject for another post.
It was announced today that as prices have began to fall on overpriced homes. Sales are increasing, and we're not talking about a little bit.
LA JOLLA, Ca. -- Southern California home sales shot up by an unprecedented
65 percent last month from the dismal, record lows of a year ago, when a credit
crunch slammed the brakes on home financing. September sales also posted a rare
gain over August as price cuts lured more buyers. Foreclosure resales rose to
half of all transactions.
Here is the full story if you care to read it. Here is the point. The free market works. We don't need a bail out. We don't need the government stopping foreclosures. We don't need more government intervention. We need less. The market will correct itself. Government intervention will only prolong the downturn.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Drastic Times Drastic Measures?
Scary when the only politician I see taking the side of the people in this recent financial crisis is Ron Paul. During the primaries I was sure Ron Paul was a kook. He still might be. In fact it's likely. Yet he is the only person I have seen speaking straight forward about this problem. How it was caused. How it could have been prevented. Who is responsible. What should be done.
With both conventional parties selling out American principles it might be time to send an historic message by sending a third party candidate into the white house.
What has happened to the Republican Party when I'm considering a vote for Ron Paul.
700 Billion Just Not Enough
Many of us said this would happen and here it is. Wall Street looking for more. Even with you committing 700 billion from your grandchildren's future to stop the bloodletting of the markets, Wall Street insiders say the big traders are still looking for more.
Open up your pockets again. You are going to see more and more stories in the news shortly regarding the need for a second package to help bail out the "Global Economy".
I am against a bail out. I am for capitalism. I am for a free market, and I am for the people of the United States of America. However, I am realistic enough to know there will be real consequences for not providing for a bailout. Here is what I believe they will be.
1. Lots of families losing their homes.
2. Even those who are making payments will see the note on their home called "due in full".
3. You will not be able to get a loan for ANYTHING for some time, possibly years.
4. Business will not be able to get loans, grow business, create more jobs.
5. Unemployment would rise as high as 15 percent. (That is double the current rate)
6. Many would see their retirements dwindle in the face of a diminishing dollar and shrinking market.
These are just a few of the costs of not bailing out wall street. You may agree with me that the bailout is a bad idea, but you must be ready to face the consequences. Remember the fall of Russia was one of reckless financial spending. Have we learned the lessons of the great depression and the downfall of Russia, or are we destined to repeat those lessons?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Capitalism: A Failed Policy
"Capitalism doesn't work in today's market place." This was a phrase I heard yesterday as I was standing around the coffee pot before any actual work began. This from the brain of a college student majoring in BUSINESS. I could hardly believe my ears, but yes this is the wisdom being taught at our colleges and universities today. Here is the thought process.
Due to the cold war the media went on a massive propaganda campaign to demonize socialism. It really isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing, in fact it may be the best thing. You just believe it is a bad thing because you have been brainwashed by the media. Capitalism doesn't work. It is only good for the employer, not the employee. As proof of why capitalism doesn't work this person then pointed to the collapse of the current banking system in the United States. "See that is what capitalism gets you. And it just hurts the common people."
Although I am tempted to explain why this kid is ignorant, uninformed and just plain wrong. I'll let this one stand on its own.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The ATM is CLOSED!
Shortly after turning 18 I made my first trip into a casino. I remember being overwhelmed when I walked through the doors to find all the bright flashing lights, all around be were the sounds of gamblers winning at the machines. Interesting isn't it that when the machines give you a little more than you put it, the bells begin to sound, the lights flash and you envy the person whose machine is announcing their big win.
I remember sheepishly asking my brother, "How do these things work?", a little embarrassed that I didn't know how to use the machine instinctively. "Easy", he said, "put your money in here", I did, "and pull the lever". I did. Soon what appeared to me to be a random group of pictures appeared on the machine, the bells flashed and 20 dollars in quarters came spilling out of the machine. My first quarter and I was a winner. If this is what gambling is all about, I like it.
It didn't take long, however, to discover that my first experience was not the norm. Shortly thereafter I had extinguished the 20 dollars I had won and was just enjoying the free pepsi. Can you imagine? All the soda you want.. for free. This place is great.
A friend of mine had a little bit different story. You see he had an endowment. So instead of 20 dollars, he put in 100. Hey, I guess if you can afford it, good for you. Then after that he went to the ATM and took out another hundred, followed by another hundred. All to chase after that original hundred dollars the house now owned in addition to the extra money he sent in after it. My friend had a gambling problem. The only way to stop him was to keep him away from the casino, AND the ATM.
My friends we, the United States of America have become that man. We have lost our tail in risky ventures in the financial industry and now we are going back to the ATM making a withdrawl of almost a trillion dollars more, hoping a fools hope that we can recover what we have lost.
If we are to save this country we love lets admit we have a problem, accept the loss, and tackle congress before they make it to ATM. After all, it is not only our money on the other side of that ATM it is also our kids and grand kids.
I remember sheepishly asking my brother, "How do these things work?", a little embarrassed that I didn't know how to use the machine instinctively. "Easy", he said, "put your money in here", I did, "and pull the lever". I did. Soon what appeared to me to be a random group of pictures appeared on the machine, the bells flashed and 20 dollars in quarters came spilling out of the machine. My first quarter and I was a winner. If this is what gambling is all about, I like it.
It didn't take long, however, to discover that my first experience was not the norm. Shortly thereafter I had extinguished the 20 dollars I had won and was just enjoying the free pepsi. Can you imagine? All the soda you want.. for free. This place is great.
A friend of mine had a little bit different story. You see he had an endowment. So instead of 20 dollars, he put in 100. Hey, I guess if you can afford it, good for you. Then after that he went to the ATM and took out another hundred, followed by another hundred. All to chase after that original hundred dollars the house now owned in addition to the extra money he sent in after it. My friend had a gambling problem. The only way to stop him was to keep him away from the casino, AND the ATM.
My friends we, the United States of America have become that man. We have lost our tail in risky ventures in the financial industry and now we are going back to the ATM making a withdrawl of almost a trillion dollars more, hoping a fools hope that we can recover what we have lost.
If we are to save this country we love lets admit we have a problem, accept the loss, and tackle congress before they make it to ATM. After all, it is not only our money on the other side of that ATM it is also our kids and grand kids.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Where I'm coming From
While working in Missouri a woman strolled through the doors carrying a baby and pushing a stroller at the same time. This is a feat. Much respect for moms all across the country toting with them their youngsters. I had known both this woman and her husband for some time now. They were excellent customers. On most occasions they were a cheerful lot bringing joy to those around them. Such was not the case during this incident, which was about to get ugly. She wanted my opinion.
She was wagging her finger in the her husbands face saying her paycheck was getting cut because of him. Let me explain. This couple, though pleasant and fun to be with, had been on the public dole from the time they moved out on their own, about 5 years at this point. The mother had taken a test when she was in middle school and had been identified as learning disabled. An apparent disability that I was unable to see from my vantage point, and it certainly hadn't hampered her ability to mother two children. So, at this point in addition to her "disability" she received food stamps, housing assistance, wic, and a host of other financial incentives. I had been to their home. They had two cars, sat elite tv, a flat screen bigger than my twenty inch and of course 3 video game systems to pass the time not spent working.
Here is where the trouble began. A few days prior I had encouraged the husband to get a job at a local car dealership, a position he took and loved. This simple act however cut her "paycheck" as she called it, in half. Now I was in the middle of a marital war. She demanded he quit, He demanded she get off her lazy but and get a job. I was in a pickle.
She was wagging her finger in the her husbands face saying her paycheck was getting cut because of him. Let me explain. This couple, though pleasant and fun to be with, had been on the public dole from the time they moved out on their own, about 5 years at this point. The mother had taken a test when she was in middle school and had been identified as learning disabled. An apparent disability that I was unable to see from my vantage point, and it certainly hadn't hampered her ability to mother two children. So, at this point in addition to her "disability" she received food stamps, housing assistance, wic, and a host of other financial incentives. I had been to their home. They had two cars, sat elite tv, a flat screen bigger than my twenty inch and of course 3 video game systems to pass the time not spent working.
Here is where the trouble began. A few days prior I had encouraged the husband to get a job at a local car dealership, a position he took and loved. This simple act however cut her "paycheck" as she called it, in half. Now I was in the middle of a marital war. She demanded he quit, He demanded she get off her lazy but and get a job. I was in a pickle.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Poor in America
What does it mean to be poor in America? Hungry? Overworked? Thirsty? Cold? No, No, No and No. Here is a picture of the average poor person in America.
The typical American deemed poor in the United States has a car, air conditioning, refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer, microwave, 2 televisions, cable or satellite, DVD player, and a stereo. He has access to medical care, his home is in good repair, and doesn't have to live with a house full of people. Don't believe me. This is compiled from information submitted by the "poor" who indicated as such to the census bureau and compiled by the Heritage Foundation.
Here are more results...
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
24 percent of poor households have a cell phone.
I have been saying for some time now that poor people are given too much by the federal government. They live too well to receive public assistance. Up until this point though, my evidence has only been anecdotes from my personal experience. A weak argument at best. So, in response I would always hear, "Sure you will get a few people who take advantage of the system, but it's worth it to help the masses."
As it turns out however I was right all along. Abuse of the system is not the exception to the rule. It is the rule. This is why when poor families receive their earned income credit, which they have not earned, they are able to spend it on a brand new 4-wheeler. Living on the government dole should be painful. It should be a very miserable existence. No cable, no cars, and no cell phones. There must be some incentive to work your way out of poverty.
You can't work your way out of poverty Jay. Really?
The average American poor family with children works only 800 hours a year. In case you don't want to do the math that is about 16 hours a week. Most of us do that in 2 days or less. If those same families were to have just one wage earner working 40 hours a week 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of the poverty range.
Coming soon. My solution to poverty and the welfare state.
The typical American deemed poor in the United States has a car, air conditioning, refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer, microwave, 2 televisions, cable or satellite, DVD player, and a stereo. He has access to medical care, his home is in good repair, and doesn't have to live with a house full of people. Don't believe me. This is compiled from information submitted by the "poor" who indicated as such to the census bureau and compiled by the Heritage Foundation.
Here are more results...
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
24 percent of poor households have a cell phone.
I have been saying for some time now that poor people are given too much by the federal government. They live too well to receive public assistance. Up until this point though, my evidence has only been anecdotes from my personal experience. A weak argument at best. So, in response I would always hear, "Sure you will get a few people who take advantage of the system, but it's worth it to help the masses."
As it turns out however I was right all along. Abuse of the system is not the exception to the rule. It is the rule. This is why when poor families receive their earned income credit, which they have not earned, they are able to spend it on a brand new 4-wheeler. Living on the government dole should be painful. It should be a very miserable existence. No cable, no cars, and no cell phones. There must be some incentive to work your way out of poverty.
You can't work your way out of poverty Jay. Really?
The average American poor family with children works only 800 hours a year. In case you don't want to do the math that is about 16 hours a week. Most of us do that in 2 days or less. If those same families were to have just one wage earner working 40 hours a week 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of the poverty range.
Coming soon. My solution to poverty and the welfare state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)