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 news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A Liberal Point of View
I have been contemplating for a while whether or not to continue this blog. It isn't that I don't enjoy writing it. I certainly have. I'm just not sure that it is productive. I'm fairly certain the words I write aren't changing any ones opinion regarding the topics covered. Anyway onto the purpose for this post.
I read the following phrase on a blog I follow:
"I feel that people should be able to do what they want UNLESS it is totally distasteful, insensitive or just plain stupid."
This is not a person who lacks the mental capacity to have an intelligent conversation. To the contrary I have found her posts to be well thought and well written, even if I rarely agree.
This quote on the the other hand shows a rather telling lack of foresight. The problems with this line of thought are obvious, and I don't feel the need to explain them. If I do have to explain you won't understand anyway.
I read the following phrase on a blog I follow:
"I feel that people should be able to do what they want UNLESS it is totally distasteful, insensitive or just plain stupid."
This is not a person who lacks the mental capacity to have an intelligent conversation. To the contrary I have found her posts to be well thought and well written, even if I rarely agree.
This quote on the the other hand shows a rather telling lack of foresight. The problems with this line of thought are obvious, and I don't feel the need to explain them. If I do have to explain you won't understand anyway.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Arizona Law - Constitutional?
Before we get into this immigration law I'd like to take a moment and give my personal thoughts on immigration. My solution to the Hispanic illegal alien problem is very simple. Armed troops with authority to shoot anyone crossing the border at any place other than an authorized check station. We do this in other police actions to control movement half way around the world. Surely our own borders should be no less a priority. This would be very effective. You only have to step over a few dead bodies before you reconsider your method of entering this country.
Second, we need to make it MUCH easier for immigrants to enter this country to work as productive members of society. I am not against immigration. It is what makes this country strong. I am against illegal aliens crossing our border damaging our social services and creating a drain on our nation.
Now to the Arizona law.
I have two issues with this law that I believe violate your constitutional rights.
1. The law allows police officers to stop and question anyone they "have reason to believe" may be in the country illegally. What could this possibly mean in Arizona other than a hostile environment for anyone of Hispanic dissent. It is very plausible that a single individual driving to work could be stopped multiple times for simple having brown skin. This is the Hispanic version of "driving while black". This is not acceptable.
2. This law requires all individuals to carry on their person documentation showing their immigration status. This could mean a green card for an immigrant, or a social security card or birth certificate for a citizen. The problem with this is that it places the burden of proof on the accused. Rather than the principle accepted by the Supreme Court since the very inception of our country as a the standard of guilt.
This second point brings to mind the gestapo asking you for your papers. You have a right in this country under the 4th amendment to a reasonable degree of privacy and security in your person. In my opinion this law is a clear violation.
Some have criticized my opinion as hypocritical as I want to shoot people crossing the boarder with out due process. Depriving them of their life without a trial constituting a violation of their 5th amendment. To these people I retort that those crossing the border are not citizens of the United States, and therefore not protected by the bill of rights. However I will concede that it may be best to claim a few hundred feet this side of the border as military base property, thereby making a trespass an invasion.
Second, we need to make it MUCH easier for immigrants to enter this country to work as productive members of society. I am not against immigration. It is what makes this country strong. I am against illegal aliens crossing our border damaging our social services and creating a drain on our nation.
Now to the Arizona law.
I have two issues with this law that I believe violate your constitutional rights.
1. The law allows police officers to stop and question anyone they "have reason to believe" may be in the country illegally. What could this possibly mean in Arizona other than a hostile environment for anyone of Hispanic dissent. It is very plausible that a single individual driving to work could be stopped multiple times for simple having brown skin. This is the Hispanic version of "driving while black". This is not acceptable.
2. This law requires all individuals to carry on their person documentation showing their immigration status. This could mean a green card for an immigrant, or a social security card or birth certificate for a citizen. The problem with this is that it places the burden of proof on the accused. Rather than the principle accepted by the Supreme Court since the very inception of our country as a the standard of guilt.
This second point brings to mind the gestapo asking you for your papers. You have a right in this country under the 4th amendment to a reasonable degree of privacy and security in your person. In my opinion this law is a clear violation.
Some have criticized my opinion as hypocritical as I want to shoot people crossing the boarder with out due process. Depriving them of their life without a trial constituting a violation of their 5th amendment. To these people I retort that those crossing the border are not citizens of the United States, and therefore not protected by the bill of rights. However I will concede that it may be best to claim a few hundred feet this side of the border as military base property, thereby making a trespass an invasion.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Selling My Home in the New Government Era
About a month and a half ago my wife and I listed our home with a real estate agent. We have been renting for the last few years as we waited for the market to improve. In the mean time we had renters in our home to assist us pay the mortgage. We signed the papers with our realtor on a Friday morning. Friday afternoon she placed the sign in our yard. The house was shown Saturday morning, and that afternoon we had an offer in front of us. Wow, we were happy. While it wasn't quite full asking price, it was close.
{cue the "Imperial March" music}
Enter the government. The buyer of our home is doing so through a government guaranteed loan, so of course there will be an inspection to ensure the house meets minimum requirements. The inspector asked that we:
Replace a few shingles - No problem. I have extras.
Repair flashing around Chimney - Not a big deal.
Update outlets - Sigh. Okay.
Repair cracked window in basement. Fine.
Enter bank appraiser who asks for a vapor barrier under the addition. (This is a 10'x8' room. - Why do they care. It was fine when we bought it 5 years ago.
Enter City inspector who demands we:
Replace all smoke detectors. - Why? They still work! The city just wants new ones.
Replace 60amp electrical box with 120amp. - At this point I'm pulling my hair out. The city is requiring more than even the federal government. Oh by the way, if you don't make all repairs they will not allow the transfer of the deed. UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?
Of course you have to use their "approved" electricians. (There are only two.) You can't do the work on your own. How can this be constitutional?
It is no wonder the housing market is hurting. The government forces so many regulations that it eats up all your equity, if you are lucky enough to have some.
{cue the "Imperial March" music}
Enter the government. The buyer of our home is doing so through a government guaranteed loan, so of course there will be an inspection to ensure the house meets minimum requirements. The inspector asked that we:
Replace a few shingles - No problem. I have extras.
Repair flashing around Chimney - Not a big deal.
Update outlets - Sigh. Okay.
Repair cracked window in basement. Fine.
Enter bank appraiser who asks for a vapor barrier under the addition. (This is a 10'x8' room. - Why do they care. It was fine when we bought it 5 years ago.
Enter City inspector who demands we:
Replace all smoke detectors. - Why? They still work! The city just wants new ones.
Replace 60amp electrical box with 120amp. - At this point I'm pulling my hair out. The city is requiring more than even the federal government. Oh by the way, if you don't make all repairs they will not allow the transfer of the deed. UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?
Of course you have to use their "approved" electricians. (There are only two.) You can't do the work on your own. How can this be constitutional?
It is no wonder the housing market is hurting. The government forces so many regulations that it eats up all your equity, if you are lucky enough to have some.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Obama, Not so Concerned With Amendment #4
Not too awful long ago I wrote a post regarding my change of heart concerning the patriot act. Mostly the reason boils down to that I don't believe you can trust the government of the United States, or any government for that matter, to do the right thing. Well that goes for Bush and Obama alike. You may have read the story recently where officials in the Obama administration said the following regarding tracking citizens via their cell phones without a warrant. Here is the full story.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking
is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts.
In the times we live it seems that privacy really has become something the government believes is not a right. The fourth amendment to the constitution disagrees and reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While cell phones obviously had not been conceived at the time, the word "effects" applies to all your possessions. Including a cell phone and it's where abouts.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking
is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts.
In the times we live it seems that privacy really has become something the government believes is not a right. The fourth amendment to the constitution disagrees and reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While cell phones obviously had not been conceived at the time, the word "effects" applies to all your possessions. Including a cell phone and it's where abouts.
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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Big Brother Twisting Your Arm
Here it comes, employees of the government will no longer have control of their own bodies. According to this story from Newsday government health employees will not have a choice when it comes to the h1n1 vaccine.
I have mixed feelings about this because the entire premise is screwed up.
First, I believe the employee/employer relationship works like this; the employer has the right to demand their employees do anything that isn't against the law. For example, many employers do not allow their employees to smoke, and will fire them if they discover they are doing so. They do this based on the premise that smoking employees get ill more often and cause cost increases in insurance. This is fine. If you are not comfortable with what the employer requires then you are free to find employment elsewhere.
In a normal situation the government via the judicial system is there to stand between the employee and employer to ensure there are no breaches of the constitution.
In this case the employer is the government, and as the government gobbles up more and more of the private sector you may soon find yourself unable to escape employer demanded vaccines. Followed presumably by further intrusions into your liberty.
Despite a planned rally in Albany Tuesday to protest a state regulation
requiring health care workers be vaccinated against influenza — both seasonal
and swine flu — New York’s top public
health official predicts dissenters will ultimately extinguish their anger and
roll up their sleeves.
The regulation, which was approved in August, comes
with a stinging addendum: Get vaccinated or get fired.
I have mixed feelings about this because the entire premise is screwed up.
First, I believe the employee/employer relationship works like this; the employer has the right to demand their employees do anything that isn't against the law. For example, many employers do not allow their employees to smoke, and will fire them if they discover they are doing so. They do this based on the premise that smoking employees get ill more often and cause cost increases in insurance. This is fine. If you are not comfortable with what the employer requires then you are free to find employment elsewhere.
In a normal situation the government via the judicial system is there to stand between the employee and employer to ensure there are no breaches of the constitution.
In this case the employer is the government, and as the government gobbles up more and more of the private sector you may soon find yourself unable to escape employer demanded vaccines. Followed presumably by further intrusions into your liberty.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Gun Toting Hate Mongers
Beginning late in the Clinton administration I've been noticing a growing gulf of ideals between the two major political parties in the United States. From Lewinsky to Bush Lied People Died, to now, town hall meetings with protesters carrying guns. Are these things just an example of citizens exercising their rights to disagree with government? Or, are we growing more and more divisive in our vision for this great country?
Maybe I'm the only right winger willing to be honest about this subject, but the carrying of guns to protest the health care bill is not a simple, "I'm carrying because it is my right to do so." It is instead, "I'm carrying this gun to remind you that the 2nd amendment exists to allow citizens to rise up against a corrupt government." And I'm a supporter.
Of course we don't want to say that is really what the "gun toting" is about. But it is. And that is okay. That is the purpose of the the right to bear arms, so that in the event of a government growing corrupt, the people have a means to remove them, forcibly if necessary, from their positions of power.
Imagine a world without this right. It really is the teeth in the constitution. Pretend if you will for a moment if all guns were removed from the people of this nation. Then imagine that legislators decide all on their own that they will no longer require an election to maintain power. How would you remove them? You couldn't. They would have the force of the military behind them and you would have no means of defense.
Are you okay with that?
Maybe I'm the only right winger willing to be honest about this subject, but the carrying of guns to protest the health care bill is not a simple, "I'm carrying because it is my right to do so." It is instead, "I'm carrying this gun to remind you that the 2nd amendment exists to allow citizens to rise up against a corrupt government." And I'm a supporter.
Of course we don't want to say that is really what the "gun toting" is about. But it is. And that is okay. That is the purpose of the the right to bear arms, so that in the event of a government growing corrupt, the people have a means to remove them, forcibly if necessary, from their positions of power.
Imagine a world without this right. It really is the teeth in the constitution. Pretend if you will for a moment if all guns were removed from the people of this nation. Then imagine that legislators decide all on their own that they will no longer require an election to maintain power. How would you remove them? You couldn't. They would have the force of the military behind them and you would have no means of defense.
Are you okay with that?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A Life All In
The first mission trip my wife ever took was to Mexico. Sponsoring that trip were Chris and Jackie Leggett. This was a transformational trip for my wife. Instrumental in that change were Chris and Jackie who truly exemplified living the life of a Christian.
Chris and Jackie were missionaries to Mauritania, Africa. Where they gave micro-business loans to locals to help build their economy, as well as teach the women trades such as sewing.
In addition whenever the opportunity arose they would share their faith in Christ with the people of this Muslim nation. As with most Muslim countries Christian proselytizing is strictly prohibited.
After marrying, my wife introduced me to the work of this couple, and suggested we support them financially whenever we could. A couple years ago they visited us in our home and spoke at our church. I’m sure we never told them, but they were a greater blessing to us in those few days than we were ever to them.
Chis was killed this June while arriving at his office in Mauritania. Apparently he was shot during an attempted kidnapping. Chris leaves behind a wife and 4 kids. Al Qaida has claimed responsibility.
Chris Leggett lived a life All In. He will be missed.
Chris and Jackie were missionaries to Mauritania, Africa. Where they gave micro-business loans to locals to help build their economy, as well as teach the women trades such as sewing.
In addition whenever the opportunity arose they would share their faith in Christ with the people of this Muslim nation. As with most Muslim countries Christian proselytizing is strictly prohibited.
After marrying, my wife introduced me to the work of this couple, and suggested we support them financially whenever we could. A couple years ago they visited us in our home and spoke at our church. I’m sure we never told them, but they were a greater blessing to us in those few days than we were ever to them.
Chis was killed this June while arriving at his office in Mauritania. Apparently he was shot during an attempted kidnapping. Chris leaves behind a wife and 4 kids. Al Qaida has claimed responsibility.
Chris Leggett lived a life All In. He will be missed.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Life Minus Men
Apparently a world with out men is closer than you think. Scientists have now created human sperm from stem cells. Of course this brings up the concept of life without men. As the sperm can be created from any stem cell, including that of women. You could literally have a child with only a mother. This prospect doesn't scare me. Even if women are able to somehow wipe out men, they will always keep a few around. Likely in a warehouse somewhere, or maybe each woman would have one in the closet. Men would be something along the lines of a vacuum, coffee maker, or other appliance. Women would pull out the man on occasion for specific purposes such as changing the oil in their car, killing a spider, and opening difficult pickle jars. Don't worry men you'll still have a place in this world.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
4th of July Hawaii Vacation
Would you be willing to take your 4th of July holiday in Hawaii if it were totally free? Of course I ask the question because N. Korea is threatening to launch a nuclear weapons test in the direction of our Hawaiian islands. Well, I don't think I would take my family, but if I were a single guy I think my answer would be yes. While I'm not willing to take a chance with my family, I am quite certain that all N. Korea is doing is rattling it's sabres.
Imagine the consequences of launching a nuclear weapon on Hawaii. First we intercept the rocket with our own missile defenses, then we proceed to wipe the diaper wearing midget off the map. Oh... wait. That is what Bush would have done. Obama will go to the United Nations and get a resolution declaring N. Korea bad... bad rogue nation. On the other hand I think I'll stay home for the holiday. Have a great Independence Day.
Imagine the consequences of launching a nuclear weapon on Hawaii. First we intercept the rocket with our own missile defenses, then we proceed to wipe the diaper wearing midget off the map. Oh... wait. That is what Bush would have done. Obama will go to the United Nations and get a resolution declaring N. Korea bad... bad rogue nation. On the other hand I think I'll stay home for the holiday. Have a great Independence Day.
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.
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.
Friday, May 15, 2009
My Friend Val a Long Time Coming
A friend of mine Val Geissler called to tell me this week that he couldn't run from a relationship with God any longer. I love this man, but had wondered if I would ever see this day. I could not have more joy than this news gave me.
Val is a charactor and America's Favorite Cowboy Entertainer. Val has since given up the show circuit but still puts on a funny show. If you have a few moments check out this link. It is about 15 minutes, but you won't regret it. It's the cremation of Sam McGee.
Val is a charactor and America's Favorite Cowboy Entertainer. Val has since given up the show circuit but still puts on a funny show. If you have a few moments check out this link. It is about 15 minutes, but you won't regret it. It's the cremation of Sam McGee.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Is the Sky Really Falling?
For days now, every time I see or hear the news all I hear about is how we are all going to die from this swine flu pandemic. Is it really that bad? I suspect not. There has been 1 death thus far from swine flu in the United States. Meanwhile since the first of the year there have been over 10 thousand deaths from the regular old boring flu. You know the kind you already had back in February.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we don't need to take a look at this strain, however I suspect it is only a slightly more dangerous version that the one I seem to get twice a year anyway.
If I were to venture a guess, I would think the only people at serious risk are the very young, very old, and those whose immune systems are compromised. So, the exact same people who need to be concerned about any strain of the flu.
Lets take a look at a segment from this article....
A 6 to 7 percent death rate would make the Mexican swine flu nearly three times
deadlier than the worst flu pandemic in the last 100 years — the 1918 Spanish
flu, which killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million people worldwide.
Seriously. Really. You gotta be kidding me. The swine flu which has killed less than 200 people worldwide is now worse than a flu which killed almost 50 million people. What world am I living in. I can only shake my hand at what passes for journalism.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Shame on you, Associated Press.
What is the Associated Press trying to prove with this story?
The Headline reads, "For Somalis, Piracy Road to Power, Prosperity". That's right ladies and gentlemen the Somali people can not be faulted for taking over a ship and holding it's crew hostage for millions of dollars. What choice do they have? This is the same argument liberals have been using to justify gang violence for years.
The story goes on to say, "For young Somalis, piracy offers a life of adventure and money: At sea, they are armed with automatic weapons, rockets and grenades. On land, they are a cross between a town official and a gangster rapper — with grand houses, luxury cars and beautiful wives." Do you notice how the writer of this story attempts to glamorize the life of a hostage taker, and how you are almost encouraged to sympathize with the plight of the pirate?
Shame on the AP for writing this story, and shame on Fox News for running it. These are terrorists. Or should I say were terrorists.
3 out of the 4 hostage takers were killed by snipers this Easter morning. The 4th surrendered. And yet the headline says that the hostage was "released". No he wasn't released, he was rescued heroically.
I'm so tired of the way the news organizations vilify our military all the while sympathizing with our enemies.
The Headline reads, "For Somalis, Piracy Road to Power, Prosperity". That's right ladies and gentlemen the Somali people can not be faulted for taking over a ship and holding it's crew hostage for millions of dollars. What choice do they have? This is the same argument liberals have been using to justify gang violence for years.
The story goes on to say, "For young Somalis, piracy offers a life of adventure and money: At sea, they are armed with automatic weapons, rockets and grenades. On land, they are a cross between a town official and a gangster rapper — with grand houses, luxury cars and beautiful wives." Do you notice how the writer of this story attempts to glamorize the life of a hostage taker, and how you are almost encouraged to sympathize with the plight of the pirate?
Shame on the AP for writing this story, and shame on Fox News for running it. These are terrorists. Or should I say were terrorists.
3 out of the 4 hostage takers were killed by snipers this Easter morning. The 4th surrendered. And yet the headline says that the hostage was "released". No he wasn't released, he was rescued heroically.
I'm so tired of the way the news organizations vilify our military all the while sympathizing with our enemies.
Monday, October 20, 2008
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)