This is a difficult thing for me to do, but I will be taking an indefinite break from this blog. I love expressing my opinions on the political events of the day. I even more enjoy the dialogue with some of you who read this blog (yes the liberals too).
I feel that God has told me this blog is a distraction from what He wants me to focus on. What's that? I have no idea. One step at a time. I hope in the future to resume this blog, but that's not for me to decide.
I hope Republicans will rally around the party for the 2010 elections, as it's obvious from the first few months of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration that they plan to spend and grow government as much as possible. Currently averaging 36 BILLION A DAY!
I hope Independents and Libertarians will take a 2nd look at the Republican party, which is far from perfect, but with a little help can regain control of the house and return power to the people.
Finally I hope the politicians will learn from the past mistakes. Conservative principals are what the majority of Americans believe in. You will get hammered by the intellects of this country and the media, the same way the intellects and media attack anything that is rooted in the past. They want new ideas, and attitudes to show enlightenment, and growth. If you stay with the ideas that have always worked it's not sophisticated. Don't worry what the press and intellects say. Worry about doing the right thing. The right thing is taking power away from politicians and returning it to the citizens of this country. God bless you all, and I pray God continues to bless the United States of America.
A place to post thoughts, ideas, revelations and rants that hopefully will benefit those who read them.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Someting to think about as you listen to Obama tonight.
In a few hours President Obama is going to address the nation. It will no doubt be filled with some eloquent soaring rhetoric that he has become famous for. A lot of standard lines too that all Presidents say like our best days are ahead of us, the country must pull together etc. That's all well and good. What's not well and good is what he's going to tell us will fix the problem. The Obama fix is all about consumer confidence. We currently sit at the lowest level since they began measuring consumer confidence in 1967. It has dropped from last February at 76.4 to our new low of 21.2. The Obama plan says these numbers are a self fulfilling prophesy, brought on by the banks freezing credit, which popped the housing bubble, which scared homeowners who slowed their regular consumer behavior, which slowed the economy, which lead to layoffs, and the cycle continues downward. If we can just get Americans to spend like normal, and banks to lend again, that will allow businesses to hire back employees, who will spend more money, which means housing prices return, and we're back to the good ol days! Yea! But that's not how we got in to the mess, nor how we'll get out of it.
We got in to this mess because Americans have been spending like crazy. The saving rate of American citizens starting in 2005 was -1%. That's right America as a whole spent more money than we made. We did this because the federal government drove up the value of our homes starting in 1999. They did that by taking an active roll in getting low income people to share in the American dream of home ownership.
The community reinvestment act was part of the problem, as was the fed keeping interest rates low. Their intention was good. Help poor people own a home which will help save them money on taxes and allow them to save for the future. The fact that there were now more buyers than ever meant home prices started soaring, which lead to a soaring construction industry. The side effect was people started refinancing their houses at lower interest rates and pulling out equity on these artificially inflated prices and used that money for more consumption. Which drove the economy to incredible heights. But the ride can't last. All the poor people got their houses, which meant the prices had to start dropping. Then the poor people started defaulting which threw banks in to a death roll. That's how we got in to this mess.
To get out of it is simple, but quite painful. All those jobs that were created by the consumption, that was made possible by the inflated equity, that was created by poor people buying houses.... those jobs have to go away. Millions of people need to become unemployed. The poor people need to go back to apartments. We need to return the country to the way it was before the government started tampering with the housing markets. Only when we reset, can we start to build again. How long till then? It totally depends on how much President Obama wants to inject his solutions. With no government "stimulus" this trend would have accelerated to the bottom in 2010 by my guess. But if we "create some jobs", those jobs can't last, as American tax payers are already at the tipping point. If we stall foreclosures, we are doing a disservice to ourselves. The houses need to be foreclosed on so we can drop everyones housing value back to a real number.
It's not all doom and gloom however. In the last report issued Americans saving rate is way up to 3.6%. That's a long way from China's 50% saving rate but a big step in the right direction. That 3.6% is also the money President Obama is going to tell you spend tonight to return this country to our past greatness. But as you just learned the past decade was just a mirage, and only a fool would return to a mirage after finding it out.
We got in to this mess because Americans have been spending like crazy. The saving rate of American citizens starting in 2005 was -1%. That's right America as a whole spent more money than we made. We did this because the federal government drove up the value of our homes starting in 1999. They did that by taking an active roll in getting low income people to share in the American dream of home ownership.
The community reinvestment act was part of the problem, as was the fed keeping interest rates low. Their intention was good. Help poor people own a home which will help save them money on taxes and allow them to save for the future. The fact that there were now more buyers than ever meant home prices started soaring, which lead to a soaring construction industry. The side effect was people started refinancing their houses at lower interest rates and pulling out equity on these artificially inflated prices and used that money for more consumption. Which drove the economy to incredible heights. But the ride can't last. All the poor people got their houses, which meant the prices had to start dropping. Then the poor people started defaulting which threw banks in to a death roll. That's how we got in to this mess.
To get out of it is simple, but quite painful. All those jobs that were created by the consumption, that was made possible by the inflated equity, that was created by poor people buying houses.... those jobs have to go away. Millions of people need to become unemployed. The poor people need to go back to apartments. We need to return the country to the way it was before the government started tampering with the housing markets. Only when we reset, can we start to build again. How long till then? It totally depends on how much President Obama wants to inject his solutions. With no government "stimulus" this trend would have accelerated to the bottom in 2010 by my guess. But if we "create some jobs", those jobs can't last, as American tax payers are already at the tipping point. If we stall foreclosures, we are doing a disservice to ourselves. The houses need to be foreclosed on so we can drop everyones housing value back to a real number.
It's not all doom and gloom however. In the last report issued Americans saving rate is way up to 3.6%. That's a long way from China's 50% saving rate but a big step in the right direction. That 3.6% is also the money President Obama is going to tell you spend tonight to return this country to our past greatness. But as you just learned the past decade was just a mirage, and only a fool would return to a mirage after finding it out.
This isn't just some pie in the sky theory I pulled out of nowhere or someplace even less savory. Listen to one of the worlds top economists being interviewed on European Television. This is Peter Schiff
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Jesus would have been a Democrat
It seems lately a lot of my liberal friends have been hitting me with that. Seeing that Jesus is part of the holy trinity making Him the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe, any person who would attempt to answer His political affiliation on His behalf is a fool. So let's look at some God principals from the bible, and see if we can apply them to our lives in politics. God wants his people to feed the hungry and care for the poor as you read in Matthew and those who don't, will wish they had.
But Jesus was also clear that Government doesn't do Gods work in Mark 12:13-17 where he famously tells the people give Caesar what is his, and God what is His.
Politics is not the place to play the religion card. A Christan who studies their bible also knows, that God raises up all leaders, both good and bad for a number of reasons, but ultimately to bring glory to himself. For those who may have forgotten I direct you to Psalms 75:5-7 , Daniel 2:20-21 And yes that includes women leaders as you read about Deborah in Judges 4 So if you didn't like Bush, or don't like Obama, or don't like your boss at work, still know God put them over you for a reason.
This can be confusing. God wants us to care for the less fortunate, but separates government, from His work, while at the same time putting leaders in their positions. But maybe it's not as confusing as some would make it. What I take away from this is if you're a Christian you should be taking care of the poor. You can't expect government to do the work of Gods people. I challenge the religious right to have such an impact on your community that government officials would be ridiculed for proposing more socialist programs, because the needs of the people are already being met. The people who cry out for equality, justice and change this is where you can effect America. Right in your town. I applaud President Obama and his fellow community organizers as doing a good thing. If they're organizing people to change the community themselves, through hands on 1 on 1 relationships with people who need help. We need a lot more of that! I believe that's the spirit of Christ. However if you're a community organizer doing God's work you aren't to spend your days organizing votes to change some laws so that people are forced to give money to an organization whose leaders line their pockets before distributing the leftovers however they see fit. That organization in question by the way is our federal government. I know there are some good leaders there, but for the most part the men and women who run all nations do so for self centered reasons. Why does God allow that? Maybe so people will learn only He can fix our problems and we'll return our attention, trust and devotion to Him.
But Jesus was also clear that Government doesn't do Gods work in Mark 12:13-17 where he famously tells the people give Caesar what is his, and God what is His.
Politics is not the place to play the religion card. A Christan who studies their bible also knows, that God raises up all leaders, both good and bad for a number of reasons, but ultimately to bring glory to himself. For those who may have forgotten I direct you to Psalms 75:5-7 , Daniel 2:20-21 And yes that includes women leaders as you read about Deborah in Judges 4 So if you didn't like Bush, or don't like Obama, or don't like your boss at work, still know God put them over you for a reason.
This can be confusing. God wants us to care for the less fortunate, but separates government, from His work, while at the same time putting leaders in their positions. But maybe it's not as confusing as some would make it. What I take away from this is if you're a Christian you should be taking care of the poor. You can't expect government to do the work of Gods people. I challenge the religious right to have such an impact on your community that government officials would be ridiculed for proposing more socialist programs, because the needs of the people are already being met. The people who cry out for equality, justice and change this is where you can effect America. Right in your town. I applaud President Obama and his fellow community organizers as doing a good thing. If they're organizing people to change the community themselves, through hands on 1 on 1 relationships with people who need help. We need a lot more of that! I believe that's the spirit of Christ. However if you're a community organizer doing God's work you aren't to spend your days organizing votes to change some laws so that people are forced to give money to an organization whose leaders line their pockets before distributing the leftovers however they see fit. That organization in question by the way is our federal government. I know there are some good leaders there, but for the most part the men and women who run all nations do so for self centered reasons. Why does God allow that? Maybe so people will learn only He can fix our problems and we'll return our attention, trust and devotion to Him.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stop teasing me Mark Sanford!
I've applauded you South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford the past few weeks, as you've been saying that even if the stimulus bill was passed, you may refuse the money. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn was so worried that all his hard work on the bill may not be felt in his home state that he inserted a "punish Mark Sanford" clause at the last minute. The legality of that clause is currently being debated. It says in effect that if you turn down the money the state legislature could go around you to the feds and get the money anyways. I assumed Governor, that clause would make you throw up your hands and say "you guys win".
But last night, there you were on Fox news, and then again this morning on CBS news saying you may still not accept the money.
Is it real? Could you Mark Sanford have the gubernatorial gonads to tell Obama "we will not be forced to follow your bad plan"? The Democrats are saying you're just grandstanding in the hopes of building support for a run at the White House. Republicans in SC are now wilting under the pressure and saying "even though we're against the plan, we're 'paying' for the money anyways so let's spend it". But you're still standing strong. And suddenly I hear John Lennon in my ear...."you say you want a revolution"
What would the revolution cost us? Well the bill that was voted on and passed was never read by anyone individual including the President. But now that it's here, you and the Sanford team are going line by line to see what happens if we do accept the money. You've already told us it would grow unemployment by more than double because now part timers are included in the federal money. Who knows what else you'll find. And no one seems certain what happens to the money if we reject it. Do they spend it anyways?
I'm going to worst case it. We turn down the 8 billion dollars coming to South Carolina. The federal government, like old King George, says we're going to charge you for it anyways. So the 5 million residents of SC are on the hook for 8 billion. Most of the 5 million people aren't tax payers though, so let's say 1 million residents are responsible for 8 billion. That's $8000 per tax payer. I would love to get a loan, from one of the propped up banks of bailout, to stroke a check to the porkapotomus government saying it's over. You can't force us to behave the way you see fit. You can't force us to build electric cars, and educate 3rd graders on sex. You are not the boss of us, rather we are the boss of you! Federal money is our money. You have no money of your own. The only way you can get money is to tax us, or print it, and we've had enough of both. The people who voted for change were sick of the excess deficit spending of the past. Their idea of change was not to increase the rate at which we go in to debt, but rather reverse it.
Mark Sanford, I'm telling you if you take a stand and say "I have the will of the people on my side". Only 37% of Americans wanted this plan. I have the annals of history on my side, showing no society has ever deficit spent it's way out of a recession. The people know that what the federal government is doing, is wrong. And I will not be a participant in growing government, which always hurts individuals". If you say that and refuse the money you may inspire a revolution. There's at least 3 other Governors who might jump on that bandwagon of righteousness immediately. Then TX, RI, GA, IN, AZ, and a few others who have been voicing their complaints would have ability to refuse as well. Mark Sanford you can become a voice for the people. A voice that has been crying out for change, and mistakenly accepted a change for the worse. They've seen their mistake, and now depression has set in as the realization that trillions of dollars of debt is about to be placed on their heads. Mark Sanford you can be the zoloft for taxpayers. Government is so out of control that our current obligations over the next 30 years puts a tax burden of 1.25 million dollars on a family of four according to the CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Government must shrink or it will kill us all like a giant blood sucking tic that never gets it's fill till it kills both itself and the thing it's sucking off of.
And I can still hear John Lennon..."we all want to change the world".
But last night, there you were on Fox news, and then again this morning on CBS news saying you may still not accept the money.
Is it real? Could you Mark Sanford have the gubernatorial gonads to tell Obama "we will not be forced to follow your bad plan"? The Democrats are saying you're just grandstanding in the hopes of building support for a run at the White House. Republicans in SC are now wilting under the pressure and saying "even though we're against the plan, we're 'paying' for the money anyways so let's spend it". But you're still standing strong. And suddenly I hear John Lennon in my ear...."you say you want a revolution"
What would the revolution cost us? Well the bill that was voted on and passed was never read by anyone individual including the President. But now that it's here, you and the Sanford team are going line by line to see what happens if we do accept the money. You've already told us it would grow unemployment by more than double because now part timers are included in the federal money. Who knows what else you'll find. And no one seems certain what happens to the money if we reject it. Do they spend it anyways?
I'm going to worst case it. We turn down the 8 billion dollars coming to South Carolina. The federal government, like old King George, says we're going to charge you for it anyways. So the 5 million residents of SC are on the hook for 8 billion. Most of the 5 million people aren't tax payers though, so let's say 1 million residents are responsible for 8 billion. That's $8000 per tax payer. I would love to get a loan, from one of the propped up banks of bailout, to stroke a check to the porkapotomus government saying it's over. You can't force us to behave the way you see fit. You can't force us to build electric cars, and educate 3rd graders on sex. You are not the boss of us, rather we are the boss of you! Federal money is our money. You have no money of your own. The only way you can get money is to tax us, or print it, and we've had enough of both. The people who voted for change were sick of the excess deficit spending of the past. Their idea of change was not to increase the rate at which we go in to debt, but rather reverse it.
Mark Sanford, I'm telling you if you take a stand and say "I have the will of the people on my side". Only 37% of Americans wanted this plan. I have the annals of history on my side, showing no society has ever deficit spent it's way out of a recession. The people know that what the federal government is doing, is wrong. And I will not be a participant in growing government, which always hurts individuals". If you say that and refuse the money you may inspire a revolution. There's at least 3 other Governors who might jump on that bandwagon of righteousness immediately. Then TX, RI, GA, IN, AZ, and a few others who have been voicing their complaints would have ability to refuse as well. Mark Sanford you can become a voice for the people. A voice that has been crying out for change, and mistakenly accepted a change for the worse. They've seen their mistake, and now depression has set in as the realization that trillions of dollars of debt is about to be placed on their heads. Mark Sanford you can be the zoloft for taxpayers. Government is so out of control that our current obligations over the next 30 years puts a tax burden of 1.25 million dollars on a family of four according to the CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Government must shrink or it will kill us all like a giant blood sucking tic that never gets it's fill till it kills both itself and the thing it's sucking off of.
And I can still hear John Lennon..."we all want to change the world".
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A sad day for all Americans
I haven't blogged in a while, because I think I'm becoming depressed. Depressed over how our country is saddling itself with a debt that will take decades to payoff. We've been told "we have to do something", and "spending is stimulus". This is the equivalent of an individual about to lose their home in foreclosure buying the best alarm system in the world because he had to protect it.
Their are two ways to attack most problems. Using a sports analogy, you can play to win or play not to lose. Democrats are play not to lose kind of people. Their stimulus package, now renamed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, shows their thought patterns. You can read the entire thing here or here. Here's the difference in thought patterns. Republicans suggested that to create jobs we could lower the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world at around 40% down to European levels of 25%. Allowing companies to keep more of their money, which would allow them to hire people. Also a lower tax rate would encouraging companies to stay here. That's playing to win. Playing not to lose is the Democrats suggestion of increasing the amount of money we pay in unemployment benefits. One has to ask how is that stimulus? How is that recovery or reinvestment?
In 1996 Bill Clinton and a Republican House played to win by passing the Welfare Reform Act. President Clinton correctly predicted it would "end welfare as we know it". The number of people in 1997 on welfare was 12 million. Today it's 5 million. The first time in the history of the program that it dropped. Today the signing of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act ended welfare reform. Growing welfare is not playing to win.
The AP points out a few billion in pork in this plan. They over looked another 20 billion in pork going back to the Chicago airport, that would build a western terminal that all airlines have already assured airport officials they will not rent or use. Literaly the terminal to nowhere, but 45 times more expensive than the bridge to nowhere, that at least some people would have benefited from. And the bridge was correctly protested n both sides of the isle and stopped. No one blinked at this 20 billion. But who had the time to blink. This bill was thrown together and rammed down our throats all in the name of urgency to save jobs. However most of this money won't be in the system for a year or more. The President himself set a goal of 18 months to spend 3/4 of it. Why are we looking a year to 2 years down the road when the economy is tanking right now?
The answer is playing not to lose. Winners however play to win. Instead of bravely taking on the challenge and stimulating the economy by encouraging new companies to launch, we're bailing out failures so we won't lose jobs. Americans for the most part have been bred to be winners. That's why when they learned of what this bill was really about support dropped like the Hindenburg disaster that it is, and now only 37% think it's a good idea.
So it's a sad day for Americans because in spite of their objections, our government went ahead and did what they thought was best for our economy. By the way 200 of our nations top Economists took out a full page ad in the NY Times to let our government know this bill was a bad idea. This bill will cost over a trillion with interest and will negatively effect every living American the rest of our lives. It's a sad day. We'll overcome this like we do every challange, but it's a national day of mourning for lost jobs, and the further diminishing of freedom, by government extending it's roll in to all of our lives.
Their are two ways to attack most problems. Using a sports analogy, you can play to win or play not to lose. Democrats are play not to lose kind of people. Their stimulus package, now renamed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, shows their thought patterns. You can read the entire thing here or here. Here's the difference in thought patterns. Republicans suggested that to create jobs we could lower the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world at around 40% down to European levels of 25%. Allowing companies to keep more of their money, which would allow them to hire people. Also a lower tax rate would encouraging companies to stay here. That's playing to win. Playing not to lose is the Democrats suggestion of increasing the amount of money we pay in unemployment benefits. One has to ask how is that stimulus? How is that recovery or reinvestment?
In 1996 Bill Clinton and a Republican House played to win by passing the Welfare Reform Act. President Clinton correctly predicted it would "end welfare as we know it". The number of people in 1997 on welfare was 12 million. Today it's 5 million. The first time in the history of the program that it dropped. Today the signing of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act ended welfare reform. Growing welfare is not playing to win.
The AP points out a few billion in pork in this plan. They over looked another 20 billion in pork going back to the Chicago airport, that would build a western terminal that all airlines have already assured airport officials they will not rent or use. Literaly the terminal to nowhere, but 45 times more expensive than the bridge to nowhere, that at least some people would have benefited from. And the bridge was correctly protested n both sides of the isle and stopped. No one blinked at this 20 billion. But who had the time to blink. This bill was thrown together and rammed down our throats all in the name of urgency to save jobs. However most of this money won't be in the system for a year or more. The President himself set a goal of 18 months to spend 3/4 of it. Why are we looking a year to 2 years down the road when the economy is tanking right now?
The answer is playing not to lose. Winners however play to win. Instead of bravely taking on the challenge and stimulating the economy by encouraging new companies to launch, we're bailing out failures so we won't lose jobs. Americans for the most part have been bred to be winners. That's why when they learned of what this bill was really about support dropped like the Hindenburg disaster that it is, and now only 37% think it's a good idea.
So it's a sad day for Americans because in spite of their objections, our government went ahead and did what they thought was best for our economy. By the way 200 of our nations top Economists took out a full page ad in the NY Times to let our government know this bill was a bad idea. This bill will cost over a trillion with interest and will negatively effect every living American the rest of our lives. It's a sad day. We'll overcome this like we do every challange, but it's a national day of mourning for lost jobs, and the further diminishing of freedom, by government extending it's roll in to all of our lives.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Maximum wage is the new minum wage
President Obama announced today that he had set a maximum wage for executives at companies who receive future bailouts. The maximum wage is a very generous $500,000! Obama commented; "This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers." I can hear the chants of "right on" and "power to the people" rising all over this great land. What Obama and his supporters somehow are unable to grasp is that $500,000 a year is a lot more than these executives deserve. (There's probably at least a few libs who agree with that). What these executives deserve is to be fired. Obama is correct that it's an outrage that executives are being rewarded for failure. But the executives would have been fired if the Federal Government hadn't stuck it's nose in to the free market. Either these executives would have been fired and replaced by competent execs or the company would have folded and the competent companies would have grown. Either way failure is not rewarded in a free market.
But "we couldn't let the banks fail" is the cry of the lib. Why not? Unlike the depression, all Americans money is insured up to $250,000. So if Wachovia went under what happened to my money? The same thing that did happen when Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo. The money goes in to a different bank, and a bunch of sorry execs drop down a few rings at their next bank job and are reeducated on their job, making them better at their profession.
Now we have the same sorry lot, running things as they see fit, which obviously isn't good, and Obama trying to correct their mistakes. Is that really the job of future Presidents? To train executives on how to run their business? I know there's still a few people out there who think George Bush was a moron. What happens when the next moron gets elected?
The President and the government in general should not have the power to effect our economy outside of declaring war and raising/lowering interest rates or taxes. That's it! If GM fails are we all going to walk or only buy foreign cars? Or would a group of savvy business people see an opportunity to create a new car company? That new company would have a fresh start without trillions in debt weighing it down, and they could create a better car for a lot less. They would need people who know the car business and there would be a bunch who had recently become unemployed who could help guide this new venture. They would be the best of the best who learned from their mistakes.
I think what scares the pants off libs is that if they didn't jump in and rescue companies, thousands of people would lose their jobs, and it starts an avalanche where all companies start downsizing and once you lose your job, you're out, because no one is hiring. That is scary! In that scenario it can't be stopped without an outside force (IE; Government) stepping in to spend money and reignite the economy. But that's not how markets work.
When economies hit a down slide there are some people who become inspired to create, or people who have been waiting for cheap labor, or cheap commercial rent, or some change in the market to launch their venture. They are the fuel to reignite the economy. There's close to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS waiting to be invested. That's a lot more than the 825 Billion Obama and crew want to invest. But the people in charge of those 9 trillion bucks will sit on it, till conditions are right for them to make more money. Having a government tinkering around with banks, auto, airlines and just about every other industry is not what these people are looking for. How do I know? You don't see them investing do you?
But "we couldn't let the banks fail" is the cry of the lib. Why not? Unlike the depression, all Americans money is insured up to $250,000. So if Wachovia went under what happened to my money? The same thing that did happen when Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo. The money goes in to a different bank, and a bunch of sorry execs drop down a few rings at their next bank job and are reeducated on their job, making them better at their profession.
Now we have the same sorry lot, running things as they see fit, which obviously isn't good, and Obama trying to correct their mistakes. Is that really the job of future Presidents? To train executives on how to run their business? I know there's still a few people out there who think George Bush was a moron. What happens when the next moron gets elected?
The President and the government in general should not have the power to effect our economy outside of declaring war and raising/lowering interest rates or taxes. That's it! If GM fails are we all going to walk or only buy foreign cars? Or would a group of savvy business people see an opportunity to create a new car company? That new company would have a fresh start without trillions in debt weighing it down, and they could create a better car for a lot less. They would need people who know the car business and there would be a bunch who had recently become unemployed who could help guide this new venture. They would be the best of the best who learned from their mistakes.
I think what scares the pants off libs is that if they didn't jump in and rescue companies, thousands of people would lose their jobs, and it starts an avalanche where all companies start downsizing and once you lose your job, you're out, because no one is hiring. That is scary! In that scenario it can't be stopped without an outside force (IE; Government) stepping in to spend money and reignite the economy. But that's not how markets work.
When economies hit a down slide there are some people who become inspired to create, or people who have been waiting for cheap labor, or cheap commercial rent, or some change in the market to launch their venture. They are the fuel to reignite the economy. There's close to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS waiting to be invested. That's a lot more than the 825 Billion Obama and crew want to invest. But the people in charge of those 9 trillion bucks will sit on it, till conditions are right for them to make more money. Having a government tinkering around with banks, auto, airlines and just about every other industry is not what these people are looking for. How do I know? You don't see them investing do you?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why Citigroup should have got their new jet
Yesterday Obama put pressure on Citigroup to cancel their order of a 45 million dollar jet. Citigroup had received 45 BILLION DOLLARS a few months ago from the Federal government because they were on the verge of going out of business. The government decided Citigroup was too big to fail. Too many people would lose their jobs, and just about every American would be effected negatively by the collapse of Citigroup. So fueled with the best of intentions the government spent 45 billion dollars to keep Citigroup alive.
According to Henry Paulson the former Treasury Secretary, Citigroup and in fact all of the banks didn't want the bailout, because they were afraid the government would start tinkering with their business. Paulson had to assure them that the Feds would stay out of their affairs, but wanted them to take the money to keep the credit markets flowing.
The banks fear started to come true yesterday with the call from Obama. The point isn't whether buying a jet is the proper move for the bank. The point is once government gets involved in your business they want to run it. That's tinkering with the free market. What about the jet manufacturer that lost a 45 million dollar sale because of Obama's call? Are they going to have to layoff people now? Would there have been any pressure from Obama if Citigroup was spending 45 million on electric cars for their executives? What if the 45 million was for solar panels to help power their banks? Will all future purchases have to get government approval?
If the government hadn't bailed out Citigroup, those people buying the 45 million dollar jet would be out of a job by now. The market would be falling deeper in to a recession. Thousands more would be unemployed. But the reality is that's what the market needs. Once we hit our bottom we can start to rebuild. The best thing would be for us to get to our bottom fast so we can get out of this quicker. Instead of dragging it out for years or even a decade like we did with the socialist programs of the 30's, or Japan in the 90's. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the mood of the country who continue to pray for a miraculous turn around brought on by the super intelligence of a few men in Washington. You could gather 1 million of the most brilliant men in Washington and they can't legislate us out of this. It was legislation that tinkered with the free market and got us in to this!
Citigroup should have gotten their jet, and run their business as they see fit. If they go out of business, other banks would get more business and hire more people. Instead they caved and have given government more leverage to expect them to respond to more "advice" in the future.
According to Henry Paulson the former Treasury Secretary, Citigroup and in fact all of the banks didn't want the bailout, because they were afraid the government would start tinkering with their business. Paulson had to assure them that the Feds would stay out of their affairs, but wanted them to take the money to keep the credit markets flowing.
The banks fear started to come true yesterday with the call from Obama. The point isn't whether buying a jet is the proper move for the bank. The point is once government gets involved in your business they want to run it. That's tinkering with the free market. What about the jet manufacturer that lost a 45 million dollar sale because of Obama's call? Are they going to have to layoff people now? Would there have been any pressure from Obama if Citigroup was spending 45 million on electric cars for their executives? What if the 45 million was for solar panels to help power their banks? Will all future purchases have to get government approval?
If the government hadn't bailed out Citigroup, those people buying the 45 million dollar jet would be out of a job by now. The market would be falling deeper in to a recession. Thousands more would be unemployed. But the reality is that's what the market needs. Once we hit our bottom we can start to rebuild. The best thing would be for us to get to our bottom fast so we can get out of this quicker. Instead of dragging it out for years or even a decade like we did with the socialist programs of the 30's, or Japan in the 90's. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the mood of the country who continue to pray for a miraculous turn around brought on by the super intelligence of a few men in Washington. You could gather 1 million of the most brilliant men in Washington and they can't legislate us out of this. It was legislation that tinkered with the free market and got us in to this!
Citigroup should have gotten their jet, and run their business as they see fit. If they go out of business, other banks would get more business and hire more people. Instead they caved and have given government more leverage to expect them to respond to more "advice" in the future.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Should Republicans hope for Obama to fail?
That was the big question all weekend after Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails". Isn't that being a hypocrite? Didn't Rush and most Republicans say you have to support our President especially when the country is at war? So what's good for them doesn't apply when a Democrat is in power? Conservatives, if they were fair, should be rushing (no pun intended) to Obama's defense, and yet they're silent! Well the headlines and news shows covered the story as "I hope he fails", but what did Limbaugh actually say? He actually wants Obama's policy proposal to fail. If the Government does nothing, that would be far better than adding 825 billion to our headache.
If you believe in smaller government than you have to hope Obama fails, because if he succeeds in passing his proposal, it will hurt the country. Now if he gets it passed and spends the 825 billion only a fool would say I hope that the stimulus package fails, because then you are rooting against America, not Obama. I have no ill will towards Obama. I have voluminous ill will for his proposals. I know the bigger the government, the bigger the problems. They have proven consistently for 200 years they are inept at running anything. From DMV, to medicare, to social security, to their own cafeteria. Which taxpayers had to subsidize. No matter what government takes over, it never goes well. So why would I want them in charge of our healthcare, the auto industry, the banks, our energy etc?
If you believe in smaller government than you have to hope Obama fails, because if he succeeds in passing his proposal, it will hurt the country. Now if he gets it passed and spends the 825 billion only a fool would say I hope that the stimulus package fails, because then you are rooting against America, not Obama. I have no ill will towards Obama. I have voluminous ill will for his proposals. I know the bigger the government, the bigger the problems. They have proven consistently for 200 years they are inept at running anything. From DMV, to medicare, to social security, to their own cafeteria. Which taxpayers had to subsidize. No matter what government takes over, it never goes well. So why would I want them in charge of our healthcare, the auto industry, the banks, our energy etc?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Am I smarter than a Professor at MIT?
No I am not smarter than any M.I.T. Professor. Sadly though being smart doesn’t mean you grasp problems. This morning around 5:15a as I was driving to work I heard Dr Simon Johnson on NPR. He is a very decorated economist and currently a professor at M.I.T. Previously he was a member of the U.S. Securities Exchange commission in the Clinton administration and the Chief Economist for the IMF till August of last year. There’s no way I’m smarter than this guy. However he amazingly has no idea what is currently happening with the economy. I was able to deduce that when he said “The U.S. doesn’t currently have too much debt so we can afford the bad bank program”. This site will scare you if you have no idea how in debt we are. It’s a very fluid situation but it’s safe to say it’s over 10 trillion dollars, while some estimates have us at over 50 trillion. But let’s use the lowest figure. 10 Trillion dollars makes us the most in debt country in the world!
Perhaps Dr Johnson developed his position on percentage of debt compared to our GDP. Then we’re way better off compared to every country in Europe, but still running at about 100 percent. Yes what we make every year is how far we go in debt every year. By a 3rd graders comprehension this can’t be healthy, and can’t be sustained for an extended period.
Dr Johnson and the Obama team are suggesting the reason we’re in this problem is a lack of confidence in the banking industry and by consumers in general. If we can get the banks to lend money and consumers to start spending like they did in years past then companies will start hiring again. That would be true except for one major flaw. We are out of money.
What I mean by that is for years Americans consumed more than they earned. The average American since 2004 spent $1.02 for every dollar they earned. Most did that because they were able to get home equity loans. House prices were rising at record rates, so why not take out some that equity and spend it on trips, clothes, home improvements etc? The government policies of tinkering with the free market drove up home prices, and kept interest rates artificially low. If the Government had not taken an interest in trying to get every American to own a home, there would be less buyers. That would have kept prices stable. Which would have stopped people from getting home equity loans. It also would have slowed the economy to a real rate. Car sales wouldn’t have exploded, Construction wouldn’t have exploded. Computer sales, retail, service industries all would have kept growing at a much slower pace than the explosion that has taken place since around 1995.
The artificial growth of our economy also grew our tax base, and as we know government at any size will spend every penny. Now that our tax base is shrinking local, state and federal government is scrambling to find new ways of taxing us.
Recession is another way of saying our economy is shrinking. It’s shrinking to it’s proper size. Millions of people will lose their jobs. That doesn’t change the fact that we need this recession. The economy will grow again when some of these people who are currently out of work start new businesses. It will take years for us to right ourselves, but we will do it. The worst thing we can do now is try to “stimulate” the economy. This not only stalls true recovery but adds to the problem by adding more debt.
Perhaps Dr Johnson developed his position on percentage of debt compared to our GDP. Then we’re way better off compared to every country in Europe, but still running at about 100 percent. Yes what we make every year is how far we go in debt every year. By a 3rd graders comprehension this can’t be healthy, and can’t be sustained for an extended period.
Dr Johnson and the Obama team are suggesting the reason we’re in this problem is a lack of confidence in the banking industry and by consumers in general. If we can get the banks to lend money and consumers to start spending like they did in years past then companies will start hiring again. That would be true except for one major flaw. We are out of money.
What I mean by that is for years Americans consumed more than they earned. The average American since 2004 spent $1.02 for every dollar they earned. Most did that because they were able to get home equity loans. House prices were rising at record rates, so why not take out some that equity and spend it on trips, clothes, home improvements etc? The government policies of tinkering with the free market drove up home prices, and kept interest rates artificially low. If the Government had not taken an interest in trying to get every American to own a home, there would be less buyers. That would have kept prices stable. Which would have stopped people from getting home equity loans. It also would have slowed the economy to a real rate. Car sales wouldn’t have exploded, Construction wouldn’t have exploded. Computer sales, retail, service industries all would have kept growing at a much slower pace than the explosion that has taken place since around 1995.
The artificial growth of our economy also grew our tax base, and as we know government at any size will spend every penny. Now that our tax base is shrinking local, state and federal government is scrambling to find new ways of taxing us.
Recession is another way of saying our economy is shrinking. It’s shrinking to it’s proper size. Millions of people will lose their jobs. That doesn’t change the fact that we need this recession. The economy will grow again when some of these people who are currently out of work start new businesses. It will take years for us to right ourselves, but we will do it. The worst thing we can do now is try to “stimulate” the economy. This not only stalls true recovery but adds to the problem by adding more debt.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Are you tired of hearing how amazing Obama is?
Yesterday I was at the gym and Forest Whitaker was on Oprah explaining that Barack showed the country it's OK to be passionate with your wife. Because we've never seen a President dance that way with his wife before. I thought "What?". Oprah said that simply because Barack is our President it not only makes her want to be a better person, she is in fact already a better person. I thought "Huh?". For months I've had to listen about what a moron our President was. Only electing Obama could make this country whole and respectable again. Today on NPR they interviewed an English Baroness at the U.N. who said the election of Obama returned America to prominence. These types of statements by "citizens of the world", both here and abroad, have been consistent for about 6 months now. They don't even make sense!
I remember watching Jimmy Carter get uncomfortably freaky with Rosalyn on the dance floor, and many tender moments with all the Presidents and their wives through the years. America has been the prominent country in the world since WWII. If not us, whom? China? Russia? England? Which country was the world looking to the past 8 years? It's like a large part of this country and the world have popped wacky tablets and can't remember what life was really like before Obama!
Then I had a revelation. Of course I have always known it was going to be a big deal that Obama was our first black President. But perhaps it was I who had popped the wacky tablet. No one who reads this was a slave, had a friend who was a slave, or even a parent who was a slave. There might be a few people whose grand parents or great grand parents were slaves. I had a great grandmother who was an American Indian. She was a tad bitter about how her entire village was forced on to a reservation in CT. And while I had sympathy for her and how her life turned out, it never effected mine. Because although my roots are Indian, African, European, Asian, and from all corners of the world, (just like everyone else) I look white. It was easy for me to believe in school in the 70's that I could grow up and do anything I wanted, because I looked like the people doing the big things.
I grew up in a lower middle class town, so I had friends who looked like the rainbow. Friends with names like Esdars Chisolm, & Freddie Diaz were less likely to believe they could achieve anything they dreamed of, because no one who looked like them had ever done it before. Since the 70's we've had numerous minorities rise to very high positions in all walks of life. Robert Johnson started BET, Oprah became a household name & billionaire, Richard Parsons became CEO of Time Warner and then Citigroup. The CEO's of Aetna, McDonald's, Merril Lynch, Xerox, American Express to name some biggies, are all minorities. Colin Powel was not only a 4 star General but became Secretary of State, and was replaced by Condoleeza Rice. Minority Governors, Senators, Congress people, and mayors of major city's. Business, politics, sports, entertainment, military it seemed like all the doors have swung wide open. America had transformed itself in to the country where you truly were judged by the content of your character. But a lot of those changes came in the last 20 years. They had heard all they could stand about George Washinton Carver and his damn peanuts! All of the other famous minority leaders were pretty much Civil rights oriented, but not a whole lot of Mexican Governors, or Black CEO's in the 70's or before. So anyone over 30, who is a minority, has a whole different perspective on opportunity than a white man. They've seen the changes in their lifetime, but wondered how real is it. A couple of politicians, and a handful of CEO's is a start, but will it last? Now their glass ceiling has been shattered. The most powerful man in the world is a minority. Will minorities still miss out on jobs because of the color of their skin. Never again! Just kidding. Of course they will. Is there now reverse discrimination against white men? Absolutely. The playing field will never be level till we get to heaven, but as a society we're getting better every day. So if "citizens of the world" who have been prejudiced against most of their lives want to celebrate this enormous occasion for a few years, I guess we should all just sit back and let them go nuts. Telling them they're being irrational certainly isn't going to help anything. And if my great grandmother was alive and an American Indian became President I'm sure she'd take a break from being ticked that her tribe didn't get a casino, (yeah if she'd only been a Mohegan I'd be rich!) and go crazy for the next few years.
To our leaders in Washington this doesn't mean you rubber stamp Obama's socialist movement. Fight it tooth & nail! We can ill afford to have a government, irregardless of who is the President, running our business's for us. And that's exactly Obama's plan, with the very unassuming pleasant sounding names of "stimulus", "job creation", & "bailout". Their real names are "state run", "communist" & "Marxism". History is clear that whenever any government from any nation starts running any business it always turns out bad. Government can't create jobs without running the business. Government can't stimulate the economy by flooding it with freshly printed money. And it can't bail us out with money it doesn't have.
I remember watching Jimmy Carter get uncomfortably freaky with Rosalyn on the dance floor, and many tender moments with all the Presidents and their wives through the years. America has been the prominent country in the world since WWII. If not us, whom? China? Russia? England? Which country was the world looking to the past 8 years? It's like a large part of this country and the world have popped wacky tablets and can't remember what life was really like before Obama!
Then I had a revelation. Of course I have always known it was going to be a big deal that Obama was our first black President. But perhaps it was I who had popped the wacky tablet. No one who reads this was a slave, had a friend who was a slave, or even a parent who was a slave. There might be a few people whose grand parents or great grand parents were slaves. I had a great grandmother who was an American Indian. She was a tad bitter about how her entire village was forced on to a reservation in CT. And while I had sympathy for her and how her life turned out, it never effected mine. Because although my roots are Indian, African, European, Asian, and from all corners of the world, (just like everyone else) I look white. It was easy for me to believe in school in the 70's that I could grow up and do anything I wanted, because I looked like the people doing the big things.
I grew up in a lower middle class town, so I had friends who looked like the rainbow. Friends with names like Esdars Chisolm, & Freddie Diaz were less likely to believe they could achieve anything they dreamed of, because no one who looked like them had ever done it before. Since the 70's we've had numerous minorities rise to very high positions in all walks of life. Robert Johnson started BET, Oprah became a household name & billionaire, Richard Parsons became CEO of Time Warner and then Citigroup. The CEO's of Aetna, McDonald's, Merril Lynch, Xerox, American Express to name some biggies, are all minorities. Colin Powel was not only a 4 star General but became Secretary of State, and was replaced by Condoleeza Rice. Minority Governors, Senators, Congress people, and mayors of major city's. Business, politics, sports, entertainment, military it seemed like all the doors have swung wide open. America had transformed itself in to the country where you truly were judged by the content of your character. But a lot of those changes came in the last 20 years. They had heard all they could stand about George Washinton Carver and his damn peanuts! All of the other famous minority leaders were pretty much Civil rights oriented, but not a whole lot of Mexican Governors, or Black CEO's in the 70's or before. So anyone over 30, who is a minority, has a whole different perspective on opportunity than a white man. They've seen the changes in their lifetime, but wondered how real is it. A couple of politicians, and a handful of CEO's is a start, but will it last? Now their glass ceiling has been shattered. The most powerful man in the world is a minority. Will minorities still miss out on jobs because of the color of their skin. Never again! Just kidding. Of course they will. Is there now reverse discrimination against white men? Absolutely. The playing field will never be level till we get to heaven, but as a society we're getting better every day. So if "citizens of the world" who have been prejudiced against most of their lives want to celebrate this enormous occasion for a few years, I guess we should all just sit back and let them go nuts. Telling them they're being irrational certainly isn't going to help anything. And if my great grandmother was alive and an American Indian became President I'm sure she'd take a break from being ticked that her tribe didn't get a casino, (yeah if she'd only been a Mohegan I'd be rich!) and go crazy for the next few years.
To our leaders in Washington this doesn't mean you rubber stamp Obama's socialist movement. Fight it tooth & nail! We can ill afford to have a government, irregardless of who is the President, running our business's for us. And that's exactly Obama's plan, with the very unassuming pleasant sounding names of "stimulus", "job creation", & "bailout". Their real names are "state run", "communist" & "Marxism". History is clear that whenever any government from any nation starts running any business it always turns out bad. Government can't create jobs without running the business. Government can't stimulate the economy by flooding it with freshly printed money. And it can't bail us out with money it doesn't have.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
An open letter to Time magazine
Dear Editors of Time magazine,
When you publish op ed pieces it's very important to have the facts checked. Your Jan 19th 2009 print edition features an opinion piece filled with misleading facts written by Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University. The cornerstone of Mr Sachs article is that Americans are taxed at 18% of GDP and Europeans are taxed at 28% of GDP. This tax difference began in the 1970's. And now the Europeans enjoy better health care, the elimination of poverty, and improved educations, because of their increased tax burden. Unfortunately the facts are in opposition to Mr Sachs case. Starting with health care. If 30 plus years ago the European health care began to improve, then their life expectancy should have as well.
However the CIA World factbook has life expectancy for for the U.S. and most European country's at 78, with Poland is laging at 75.
As for education a European compilation lists 11 of the top 15 universities in the world in the US including state schools like Penn State, Cal Tech and others. Because school districts are run at local levels we can't address anything other than college results. But the fact is if you want the best education in the world, you come to America.
As for poverty, it doubled between 1970 and 1990 in the United Kingdom. Currently 20% are considered "very poor". The European term for poverty. The US is at 12.5% and has been for years. Not that anyone should be happy with 12.5% of Americans being in poverty, but the facts bear out that the exact opposite is true from what Mr Sachs argued. Europeans increased tax burden has not improved their region but weakened it in comparison to the United States. So again the facts tell a different story.
In France 10,000 people die each year because of their socialized medicine. And they're boasting that it's only 10,000 dead per year. Another half million suffer severe adverse effects from things like confusion of the patients name. When we hear about someone getting the wrong leg amputated or something sad because of misreading names we are saddened but understand that the people responsible will have a penalty from fines to prison. A story in todays London Times shows there's 130,000 casses a year of doctors doing wrong procedures on patients. In Europe there is no punishment because you can't sue the government, and with medical people underpaid and overworked by the government accidents are going to happen. Our country and systems aren't perfect. But if we're going to debate the merits of ideas, then it's only fair to present the facts of history as well.
When you publish op ed pieces it's very important to have the facts checked. Your Jan 19th 2009 print edition features an opinion piece filled with misleading facts written by Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University. The cornerstone of Mr Sachs article is that Americans are taxed at 18% of GDP and Europeans are taxed at 28% of GDP. This tax difference began in the 1970's. And now the Europeans enjoy better health care, the elimination of poverty, and improved educations, because of their increased tax burden. Unfortunately the facts are in opposition to Mr Sachs case. Starting with health care. If 30 plus years ago the European health care began to improve, then their life expectancy should have as well.
However the CIA World factbook has life expectancy for for the U.S. and most European country's at 78, with Poland is laging at 75.
As for education a European compilation lists 11 of the top 15 universities in the world in the US including state schools like Penn State, Cal Tech and others. Because school districts are run at local levels we can't address anything other than college results. But the fact is if you want the best education in the world, you come to America.
As for poverty, it doubled between 1970 and 1990 in the United Kingdom. Currently 20% are considered "very poor". The European term for poverty. The US is at 12.5% and has been for years. Not that anyone should be happy with 12.5% of Americans being in poverty, but the facts bear out that the exact opposite is true from what Mr Sachs argued. Europeans increased tax burden has not improved their region but weakened it in comparison to the United States. So again the facts tell a different story.
In France 10,000 people die each year because of their socialized medicine. And they're boasting that it's only 10,000 dead per year. Another half million suffer severe adverse effects from things like confusion of the patients name. When we hear about someone getting the wrong leg amputated or something sad because of misreading names we are saddened but understand that the people responsible will have a penalty from fines to prison. A story in todays London Times shows there's 130,000 casses a year of doctors doing wrong procedures on patients. In Europe there is no punishment because you can't sue the government, and with medical people underpaid and overworked by the government accidents are going to happen. Our country and systems aren't perfect. But if we're going to debate the merits of ideas, then it's only fair to present the facts of history as well.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Is this really how you heal a country?
AP reports today that Michigan Democrat John Conyers has introduced legislation to form a committee to see if anyone in the Bush administration broke the law while working on national security. I'm assuming here that Sen Conyers feels like the world is outraged by our torture of inmates, and in order to regain our respectability we must prosecute those who have besmirched our good name.
Sen Conyers should be reminded of a few things. John I hope you're reading this. First, the election of Obama has already cleared the American people with the "citizens of the world". Second, 47% of the country voted against Obama so despite the chorus of glee from the left, almost half the country isn't for this administration, and a lot of us believe the 44th administration will be one of the most dangerous to our long term health in this country. You can't argue that we're wrong, anymore than we could argue that you were wrong with Bush. It's an opinion. So if you really want to start trying to build some unity, the last thing you do is say we're going after the administration that was twice elected and served 8 years. I don't care if Bush's approval rating was as low as the Houses (oh did you forget that Bush still has an approval rating more than twice that of you and your pals on the hill?) it's never a unifying thing to go after Presidents. Finally, let's stop pointing fingers. We could still be pointing at shady things about Obama that were getting traction just before the election but thankfully the majority of our side has let it go. Both of us are saddled with kook fringes, that we can't be held responsible for. So anyone who starts ranting about illegal campaign contributions, Bill Ayers, stolen speeches, Jeremiah Wright, ties to dirty politics in Chicago, etc we consider them our kook right. It'll be back in 2012 and open for discussion then, but for now it should sit quietly.
So Sen Conyers, put your legislation away. Tuesday will be a huge day in DC. Go to the parties, live it up, and let Obama start leading you and your boys. That is the best thing you can do for yourself, your party, and the country.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
What is the definition of Communism
According to Webster the definition is : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. In all of recorded history Communism has never "worked". Meaning instead of some people lowering their standard of life so that everyone else can raise their level, so that all citizens share a comfortable lifestyle. Not for a lack of trying! François-Noël Babeuf lead a socialist revolution in France in the late 1700's, and before he was executed said; "Society must be made to operate in such a way that it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others". Since then wonderful intentioned people as diverse as Susan B Anthony to John Lennon have pushed for socialist/communist governments. Currently China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, & Vietnam have government for the common good. And some of the most deplorable living situations in the civilized world. The Soviet Union was suffering under communism till 1990. As bad as things are currently in Russia, their citizens see a way of improving their lives through Capitalism. When they strive harder to improve their lives, the entire country benefits from increased production.
So knowing that it has been attempted numerous times and failed every time, any one who would propose anything like it again would be insane. Because insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I'm sorry to announce that President elect Obama is apparently insane. George Stephanopoulos blogs that in his interview with Obama that will air tomorrow: I asked the president-elect, "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?" Obama said "Yes". Again, when you ask human beings to sacrifice for the greater good, we all suffer. We must all contact our Reps to let them know that we don't want to Socialist or Communist reform.
So knowing that it has been attempted numerous times and failed every time, any one who would propose anything like it again would be insane. Because insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I'm sorry to announce that President elect Obama is apparently insane. George Stephanopoulos blogs that in his interview with Obama that will air tomorrow: I asked the president-elect, "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?" Obama said "Yes". Again, when you ask human beings to sacrifice for the greater good, we all suffer. We must all contact our Reps to let them know that we don't want to Socialist or Communist reform.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Reintroducing Milton Friedman
I received a call from an old friend today and as with most of conversations they either turn to Christ (my favorite subject) or politics (my 2nd favorite). This one ended up in the latter, and at some point I brought up Milton Friedman. My friend is around 30 and it dawned on me that a lot of young conservatives may not be familiar with the brilliance of Friedman.
He was an economist who rose to national fame in the 60's and 70's. He was a supporter of the New Deal till he challenged his own theories, and his conclusions shocked him. That Government can't manage the economy, because people will know what they're doing and adjust their habits to neutralize the goal. That there will always be a rate of unemployment so it only harms the rest of the country to try and create jobs for the 5% or so who don't want them. He then created his own theory called Monetarism. His theory predicted in the 60's an effect that our government deficit spending would create in the 70's called stagflation. That's when the economy becomes stagnant but inflation rises. Other economists laughed at him, but his model was shockingly accurate. In 1976 he won the Nobel prize for his theory and work.
His true value to us is his ability to break down complex issues so we all can understand. Here he is on the Phil Donahue show in the 70's. This 2 minute clip was the inspiration for the great scene with Michael Douglas in Wall Street.
If you want to learn more from Friedman we're fortunate that he hosted his own show where he taught his principals on public television in the early 80's, and recorded lot's of lectures. There are hours and hours of Friedman material on youtube. I'll leave you this incredible 30 minute interview from the 60's. Great quotes include "I admire the softness of their hearts, but it very often extends to their head as well." & "The problem is they feel like the people need to have Big Brother look out for them, when in fact Big Brother is supposed to be the one being watched by the people".
He was an economist who rose to national fame in the 60's and 70's. He was a supporter of the New Deal till he challenged his own theories, and his conclusions shocked him. That Government can't manage the economy, because people will know what they're doing and adjust their habits to neutralize the goal. That there will always be a rate of unemployment so it only harms the rest of the country to try and create jobs for the 5% or so who don't want them. He then created his own theory called Monetarism. His theory predicted in the 60's an effect that our government deficit spending would create in the 70's called stagflation. That's when the economy becomes stagnant but inflation rises. Other economists laughed at him, but his model was shockingly accurate. In 1976 he won the Nobel prize for his theory and work.
His true value to us is his ability to break down complex issues so we all can understand. Here he is on the Phil Donahue show in the 70's. This 2 minute clip was the inspiration for the great scene with Michael Douglas in Wall Street.
If you want to learn more from Friedman we're fortunate that he hosted his own show where he taught his principals on public television in the early 80's, and recorded lot's of lectures. There are hours and hours of Friedman material on youtube. I'll leave you this incredible 30 minute interview from the 60's. Great quotes include "I admire the softness of their hearts, but it very often extends to their head as well." & "The problem is they feel like the people need to have Big Brother look out for them, when in fact Big Brother is supposed to be the one being watched by the people".
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Fixing the middle east in one post.
I’m under the impression most people have no clue what’s happening in the middle east. They hear things like Gaza is shooting rockets at Israel, and Israel is now attacking and won’t let Gaza civilians receive medical attention or food. We’re told this war has existed for thousands of years and will continue till the end of time. Maybe the hostilities will continue, but I think the U.S. position needs to be clear.
The back story. Judea was the land of the Jews. Romans captured the country and renamed it Palestine. Later Palestine was conquered by the Arabs who ruled Palestine for over 1000 years. In 1917 things went nuts. The Balfour Declaration from the British Government who was the worlds super power of the day announced; the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" with the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Understandably the Arabs weren’t thrilled with that idea and rioted continuously and attacked the Jews who tried to move back in to the land. 30 years and 2 world wars later the U.N. designated the formation of a country for the Jews to be called Israel. Immediately the Jews and Arabs went to war and the Jews won. The Jews then expanded on the land the U.N. had designated claiming that was their right for winning the war. There have been skirmishes ever since and wars in 1956, 67, 73, & 82. Israel now controls both the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights which are part of Palestine. They have maintained control since the won the war in 1967
It doesn’t help that the land the U.N. designated to create Israel is smack dab in the middle of Palestine. Palestine is currently divided in 3 Golan to the north, the West Bank and the tiny little Gaza strip to the south. So you can understand why the people of Palestine are ticked. If the U.N. created a country and put it between Philly, Pittsburgh and NY Americans would be ready to fight I’m sure. On the flip side The Jews did nothing wrong. They are an incredible group of people who without a homeland for thousands of years, maintained their identity. No other group has done that. When you read ancient text accounts of the Canaanites, and the Ammonites, you also read of the Jews. No other group survived. When nations were conquered, the survivors melded in to the dominant nationality, and became Romans and then Arabs or even British. But the Jews survived and the U.N. decided to return part of their homeland to them. Of course they should take it! And be proud of it.
The solution according to both the experts and from surveys of Palestine and Israel citizens is called the The 2 State Solution. So all we have to do is draw up some borders that both sides can agree to and it’s over. But here’s the rub. Every time negotiations start rolling folks in the Gaza strip start firing off rockets in to Israel. For the past 4 years that’s been going on and while only a few Israelis have died, many have lost homes, property, and of course are under the constant threat that a rocket is going to sail through their window. Israel which ranks 3rd in the world by combat power behind America and China, has shown great restraint in not attacking Gaza. But it makes negotiations impossible. Gaza has their own leaders separate from the West Bank and Golan. Gaza elected the party Hamas. Hamas started in 1987 as a party that prides itself on suicide bombings of Israelis and social programs for Palestinians. It’s like the mob in NY. You know they’re killing and robbing other people but they feed the less fortunate in the neighborhood, so you like having em around. But you know they're bad. Never forget that Hamas is evil. Hamas charter calls for the end of Israel by any means possible. When Hamas candidate Dr Al-Zahar won the Presidency of Gaza in 2006 he gave an interview where he said he dreams of new maps with no Israel on it. This is consistent with Hamas co founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi statement in 2002 that Hamas would remove Israel from the map. That was shortly before Abdel himself was removed from the map by an Israeli missile into his car. Before he left this earth he announced that God hates Israel and America.
The back story. Judea was the land of the Jews. Romans captured the country and renamed it Palestine. Later Palestine was conquered by the Arabs who ruled Palestine for over 1000 years. In 1917 things went nuts. The Balfour Declaration from the British Government who was the worlds super power of the day announced; the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" with the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Understandably the Arabs weren’t thrilled with that idea and rioted continuously and attacked the Jews who tried to move back in to the land. 30 years and 2 world wars later the U.N. designated the formation of a country for the Jews to be called Israel. Immediately the Jews and Arabs went to war and the Jews won. The Jews then expanded on the land the U.N. had designated claiming that was their right for winning the war. There have been skirmishes ever since and wars in 1956, 67, 73, & 82. Israel now controls both the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights which are part of Palestine. They have maintained control since the won the war in 1967
It doesn’t help that the land the U.N. designated to create Israel is smack dab in the middle of Palestine. Palestine is currently divided in 3 Golan to the north, the West Bank and the tiny little Gaza strip to the south. So you can understand why the people of Palestine are ticked. If the U.N. created a country and put it between Philly, Pittsburgh and NY Americans would be ready to fight I’m sure. On the flip side The Jews did nothing wrong. They are an incredible group of people who without a homeland for thousands of years, maintained their identity. No other group has done that. When you read ancient text accounts of the Canaanites, and the Ammonites, you also read of the Jews. No other group survived. When nations were conquered, the survivors melded in to the dominant nationality, and became Romans and then Arabs or even British. But the Jews survived and the U.N. decided to return part of their homeland to them. Of course they should take it! And be proud of it.
The solution according to both the experts and from surveys of Palestine and Israel citizens is called the The 2 State Solution. So all we have to do is draw up some borders that both sides can agree to and it’s over. But here’s the rub. Every time negotiations start rolling folks in the Gaza strip start firing off rockets in to Israel. For the past 4 years that’s been going on and while only a few Israelis have died, many have lost homes, property, and of course are under the constant threat that a rocket is going to sail through their window. Israel which ranks 3rd in the world by combat power behind America and China, has shown great restraint in not attacking Gaza. But it makes negotiations impossible. Gaza has their own leaders separate from the West Bank and Golan. Gaza elected the party Hamas. Hamas started in 1987 as a party that prides itself on suicide bombings of Israelis and social programs for Palestinians. It’s like the mob in NY. You know they’re killing and robbing other people but they feed the less fortunate in the neighborhood, so you like having em around. But you know they're bad. Never forget that Hamas is evil. Hamas charter calls for the end of Israel by any means possible. When Hamas candidate Dr Al-Zahar won the Presidency of Gaza in 2006 he gave an interview where he said he dreams of new maps with no Israel on it. This is consistent with Hamas co founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi statement in 2002 that Hamas would remove Israel from the map. That was shortly before Abdel himself was removed from the map by an Israeli missile into his car. Before he left this earth he announced that God hates Israel and America.
If all this rhetoric sounds familiar it's because it's awful similar to Iran’s president Ahmadinejad announcing that Israel must be wiped off the map. The U.S. State Dept announced years ago that Hamas was being funded by Iran so this position of their President wasn’t a surprise. So you understand what IRan is funding, the money is to pay poor people to become suicide bombers, and pay their family upon completion of the mission.
I almost forgot! Article 32 of Hamas charter states that Zionists “aspire to expand from the Nile to Euphrates. We must not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity”. In case you’re unclear on Zionism it’s the belief that Jews should have a homeland. So America & England are tops on that list of must be destroyed. Knowing that as the back ground you have to laugh when the head of Hamas now says “we mean no harm to Israel or the Jews of the world. We just want them to stop attacking us so we can negotiate”.
In the opinion of Hamas, and Iran, the west led by America and Europe, is the only reason there is an Israel. So they want to end Israel and then turn on us. In the same speech Ahmeadinejad announced Israel must be wiped off the map he said "Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels…say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan." He also calls us The Great Satan. So again it’s laughable when he tells 60 Minutes in an interview “it's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?". Of course they don't want a war with us. Iran and Gaza can’t go to war with anyone…yet. But they are building up. They are trying to pursuade Egypt, Jordan, and all Muslim nations to join them. In the mean time they have thousands of suicide bombers ready to go. 10,000 Iranians volunteered last week to go to Gaza to blow themselves up in the hope of killing Jews.
In 07 Ahmeadinejad said "Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future. the will to commit suicide is one of the best ways of life."
We’re dealing with mad men intent on leading their people to war with us. Political correctness will kill us all if we don’t respond properly to the threats. When we treat Hamas like a regular political party it’s the same as treating the Fascists, or the Nazi’s as a regular party. All 3 were elected by their nation to lead, but if their goal is end our way of life, we can’t allow them to sit at the table and persuade other nations they mean no harm. Cry it out from the roof tops and expose them as pure evil. Then don’t back down. Bush was right in 02 when he called out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. Iran is no longer in a position to sponsor terror, as they had for decades. North Korea was a monster for years with 200,000 political prisoners according to Amnesty International who said those prisoners are raped, starved, and used for medical experiments. Until recently people were executed for listening to radio stations from South Korea. In the 70’s & 80’s North Korea had people hijack planes with westerners on to execute them. But they changed their ways in the 90’s and began sponsoring Libya and Syria with weapons in their attempts to bring down the U.S. Since being called out North Korea is turning around. Kim Jung has actually started introducing Capitalism. Most importantly they have shut down their nuclear weapons program, and are no longer dealing with Syria. Libya of course has had a turnaround of it’s own the past few years, and is now an Allie of ours.
In the opinion of Hamas, and Iran, the west led by America and Europe, is the only reason there is an Israel. So they want to end Israel and then turn on us. In the same speech Ahmeadinejad announced Israel must be wiped off the map he said "Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels…say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan." He also calls us The Great Satan. So again it’s laughable when he tells 60 Minutes in an interview “it's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?". Of course they don't want a war with us. Iran and Gaza can’t go to war with anyone…yet. But they are building up. They are trying to pursuade Egypt, Jordan, and all Muslim nations to join them. In the mean time they have thousands of suicide bombers ready to go. 10,000 Iranians volunteered last week to go to Gaza to blow themselves up in the hope of killing Jews.
In 07 Ahmeadinejad said "Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future. the will to commit suicide is one of the best ways of life."
We’re dealing with mad men intent on leading their people to war with us. Political correctness will kill us all if we don’t respond properly to the threats. When we treat Hamas like a regular political party it’s the same as treating the Fascists, or the Nazi’s as a regular party. All 3 were elected by their nation to lead, but if their goal is end our way of life, we can’t allow them to sit at the table and persuade other nations they mean no harm. Cry it out from the roof tops and expose them as pure evil. Then don’t back down. Bush was right in 02 when he called out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. Iran is no longer in a position to sponsor terror, as they had for decades. North Korea was a monster for years with 200,000 political prisoners according to Amnesty International who said those prisoners are raped, starved, and used for medical experiments. Until recently people were executed for listening to radio stations from South Korea. In the 70’s & 80’s North Korea had people hijack planes with westerners on to execute them. But they changed their ways in the 90’s and began sponsoring Libya and Syria with weapons in their attempts to bring down the U.S. Since being called out North Korea is turning around. Kim Jung has actually started introducing Capitalism. Most importantly they have shut down their nuclear weapons program, and are no longer dealing with Syria. Libya of course has had a turnaround of it’s own the past few years, and is now an Allie of ours.
The last 4 years Bush has gotten wishy washy about holding up Hamas and Iran and saying these leaders are not to be trusted. We will not negotiate with them, they are terrorists who have no honor. We need to remind the world and ourselves of how bad they are so there is no confusion. Israel will remain a country. They want to work with the leaders of Palestine to draw up a 2 state map, but can not work with Hamas. Iran will do what it can to end the peace process because they want war. When it’s out in the open you can see through the veiled attempts at peace. It’s important to know your adversary, and what their goals really are. I beg our leaders to tell Americans and the world the truth and face the criticism that comes for being insensitive to other cultures. The criticism can’t kill you. Hamas and Iran can.
Once the world sees these groups for what they are, the groups will be forced to change or face the cold reality that they’re going it alone. Either way we’re all better off.
Once the world sees these groups for what they are, the groups will be forced to change or face the cold reality that they’re going it alone. Either way we’re all better off.
Monday, January 5, 2009
A libs concern for Republicans
Well it's the first Monday of the new year and time to start cleaning up the mess of what's left of the Republican party, and begin building our foundation for 2010.
A concerned liberal friend of mine wrote me an e-mail over the weekend that included an article from a guy who was pointing out that Republicans are basically all white guys, and suggested we don’t want minorities in the party. This friend has sent several e-mails in the past that have inspired intense dialogue. My friend has never given me permission to reprint his e-mail. So today I will present the gist of his and then reprint my response. You'll notice the 2nd response is a little more passionate
As for this article the guy is obviously of the belief that Republicans don't want anyone other than white guys in the party, and uses facts to build his case. However the truth is that Democrats have done a better job of attracting minorities, and hence they have more candidates that are minorities.
The Republican party I believe is going to change, and probably not how liberals expect. Conservatives are going to reclaim the party and stop chasing moderates. It's a race to the center every election with who can be the least offensive candidate. That ends up with both parties looking very similar and most people frustrated. See http://www.blackagendareport.com/ to see how liberals are frustrated already with Obama. The Republicans are way more frustrated than that with Bush, and our leaders, so expect to see conservatism rise on this side of the isle. I believe that once a clear message of what conservative values are is sent out a number of minorities will respond and want to be a part of that. A young man up in the DC area has already started a movement. http://hiphoprepublican.com/about/ I would love to see Michael Steele head up our party, but either way he is becoming a major force for conservatives to reach out to blacks, and invite them to explore our platform. We definitely need to resemble the face of America more so all conservatives feel like their voice is represented. And now that we're starting to get back on point, I think you'll see that begin to happen.
Happy New Years!
My friend then responded that Michael Steele is “too partisan” to attract minorities. He also thought “Rove & Co” tried to shun the center with Bush and that’s why Bush is one of the most polarizing figures in American history. Here’s my response to that!
Michael Steele is a partisan and so am I. You are a partisan too! We have values that we don't waiver on to try and win votes. Bush is so polarizing, because libs were ticked he told them their opinion didn't matter. I hope Obama does the same. As a leader you do what you believe is right. The American people aren't in a position to know how to handle problems, so whatever you and I think is useless. We don't see the reports they see. A lot of info they can't share with us, so all they can do is try and make us feel secure that they know what they're doing. As for the House I expect Republicans to be ticked off at Bailouts, taxes, Supreme court nominations etc. I expect the media won't play it up like they do when the Dems get ticked at what Republicans do. When Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, and their gang are screaming about anything, I instinctively know it was the right decision. When they are happy, I'm concerned. So Obama will be just as polarizing a figure as Bush because I and people who think like me believe he's dangerous to the economy, the military, our courts and everything you thought Bush was dangerous for. For Obama's sake I hope he just gives Republicans lip service. Taking meetings with them and acting like he cares what they think, but then does what he feels is right. Because Bush lost the base when he started trying to appease Dems. Then no one wanted to follow. At least 50% want to follow Obama now, like they did Bush 4 years ago. In order to keep that 50% he should close Gitmo, raise taxes on anyone making over 200 grand, and print 1 trillion dollars to start businesses that use solar and wind. All those ideas are horrible from my standpoint but at least he'll be keeping his base happy.
Rove and Co screwed the base with things like No Child left behind, pushing for home ownership for every American, sending out stimulus checks, keeping the borders open and suggesting amnesty for illegal aliens. All things Libs liked at first. It showed he was a moderate with compassion at the time. Liberalism at it's very heart is about compassion. How do we show it? Making sure kids in poor communities get the same education as rich kids, making sure poor families have a chance to start building wealth by owning a home, giving every American some money to help through the rough times, and giving hard working law abiding immigrants the same chance our forefathers had in this great nation. POPPYCOCK! Universal testing leads to universal cheating, because teachers want to keep their jobs, so all kids get cheated out of an education to prepare for a test. People who don't make enough to own a home, can't own a home. It's not the nations job to help them. It's the nations job to give them a chance. Times get rough because the free market says we need to slow down. When the government tinkers, we suffer a lot more down the road. Let the suffering begin! And for every dollar we print to "bail us out" will just extend the length of our misery. Other than the pilgrims, and the slaves, most people's forefathers came through legally. We've had limits on immigration for a number of reasons, and one of them is to make sure people with a stake in this country are the only ones making a living. Immigrants who make money and mail it back to their country are a huge drain on us. Of course I don't blame them, and if in their situation would probably attempt to do the same. But it's not best for the country. McCain was a moderate who got out centered. I and millions of others have been disenfranchised to use a popular term as of late, because while my vote counted, I wasn't given anyone to vote for. Palin, Johnson, Jidel are the first of a new wave of diversity that's coming. Conservatives are getting fired up for 2010. I'm looking to get a few seats back then. But look for a new party by 2012.
So you can see I'm fired up and ready for big changes. Let me know if you are too. In the words of C&C Music Factory; "Let's get this party started right"!
A concerned liberal friend of mine wrote me an e-mail over the weekend that included an article from a guy who was pointing out that Republicans are basically all white guys, and suggested we don’t want minorities in the party. This friend has sent several e-mails in the past that have inspired intense dialogue. My friend has never given me permission to reprint his e-mail. So today I will present the gist of his and then reprint my response. You'll notice the 2nd response is a little more passionate
As for this article the guy is obviously of the belief that Republicans don't want anyone other than white guys in the party, and uses facts to build his case. However the truth is that Democrats have done a better job of attracting minorities, and hence they have more candidates that are minorities.
The Republican party I believe is going to change, and probably not how liberals expect. Conservatives are going to reclaim the party and stop chasing moderates. It's a race to the center every election with who can be the least offensive candidate. That ends up with both parties looking very similar and most people frustrated. See http://www.blackagendareport.com/ to see how liberals are frustrated already with Obama. The Republicans are way more frustrated than that with Bush, and our leaders, so expect to see conservatism rise on this side of the isle. I believe that once a clear message of what conservative values are is sent out a number of minorities will respond and want to be a part of that. A young man up in the DC area has already started a movement. http://hiphoprepublican.com/about/ I would love to see Michael Steele head up our party, but either way he is becoming a major force for conservatives to reach out to blacks, and invite them to explore our platform. We definitely need to resemble the face of America more so all conservatives feel like their voice is represented. And now that we're starting to get back on point, I think you'll see that begin to happen.
Happy New Years!
My friend then responded that Michael Steele is “too partisan” to attract minorities. He also thought “Rove & Co” tried to shun the center with Bush and that’s why Bush is one of the most polarizing figures in American history. Here’s my response to that!
Michael Steele is a partisan and so am I. You are a partisan too! We have values that we don't waiver on to try and win votes. Bush is so polarizing, because libs were ticked he told them their opinion didn't matter. I hope Obama does the same. As a leader you do what you believe is right. The American people aren't in a position to know how to handle problems, so whatever you and I think is useless. We don't see the reports they see. A lot of info they can't share with us, so all they can do is try and make us feel secure that they know what they're doing. As for the House I expect Republicans to be ticked off at Bailouts, taxes, Supreme court nominations etc. I expect the media won't play it up like they do when the Dems get ticked at what Republicans do. When Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, and their gang are screaming about anything, I instinctively know it was the right decision. When they are happy, I'm concerned. So Obama will be just as polarizing a figure as Bush because I and people who think like me believe he's dangerous to the economy, the military, our courts and everything you thought Bush was dangerous for. For Obama's sake I hope he just gives Republicans lip service. Taking meetings with them and acting like he cares what they think, but then does what he feels is right. Because Bush lost the base when he started trying to appease Dems. Then no one wanted to follow. At least 50% want to follow Obama now, like they did Bush 4 years ago. In order to keep that 50% he should close Gitmo, raise taxes on anyone making over 200 grand, and print 1 trillion dollars to start businesses that use solar and wind. All those ideas are horrible from my standpoint but at least he'll be keeping his base happy.
Rove and Co screwed the base with things like No Child left behind, pushing for home ownership for every American, sending out stimulus checks, keeping the borders open and suggesting amnesty for illegal aliens. All things Libs liked at first. It showed he was a moderate with compassion at the time. Liberalism at it's very heart is about compassion. How do we show it? Making sure kids in poor communities get the same education as rich kids, making sure poor families have a chance to start building wealth by owning a home, giving every American some money to help through the rough times, and giving hard working law abiding immigrants the same chance our forefathers had in this great nation. POPPYCOCK! Universal testing leads to universal cheating, because teachers want to keep their jobs, so all kids get cheated out of an education to prepare for a test. People who don't make enough to own a home, can't own a home. It's not the nations job to help them. It's the nations job to give them a chance. Times get rough because the free market says we need to slow down. When the government tinkers, we suffer a lot more down the road. Let the suffering begin! And for every dollar we print to "bail us out" will just extend the length of our misery. Other than the pilgrims, and the slaves, most people's forefathers came through legally. We've had limits on immigration for a number of reasons, and one of them is to make sure people with a stake in this country are the only ones making a living. Immigrants who make money and mail it back to their country are a huge drain on us. Of course I don't blame them, and if in their situation would probably attempt to do the same. But it's not best for the country. McCain was a moderate who got out centered. I and millions of others have been disenfranchised to use a popular term as of late, because while my vote counted, I wasn't given anyone to vote for. Palin, Johnson, Jidel are the first of a new wave of diversity that's coming. Conservatives are getting fired up for 2010. I'm looking to get a few seats back then. But look for a new party by 2012.
So you can see I'm fired up and ready for big changes. Let me know if you are too. In the words of C&C Music Factory; "Let's get this party started right"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kelly Nash
- This is my serious "self portrait" that I created in my bathroom. I have since shaved the beard but am too busy blogging to redo my self portrait.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments