by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/18
A primary driver of the American Revolution was, taxation without representation. Basically the idea that government can tax people and the people have no say in choosing those who create the taxes was not acceptable. Today we have that very problem and if not addressed it will lead to another revolution.
Do you believe that if your parents rack up $50,000 in credit card bills that you, now an emancipated adult living on your own, should have to repay your parents debt? After they die should the credit card company be allowed to force you to repay the dept your parents ran up even while you were long gone from your childhood home?
Even though you had no say in the debt, received little or no benefit from the debt, had no control over how big the debt got, should you have to repay that debt your parents incurred?
You having to repay the debt of your parents is essentially taxation without representation. You had no say in the borrowing but must repay the debt. Today's millennial's are having to repay baby boomer debt, that occurred long before they could vote. They are taxes massively for spending that they had no say. They didn't vote for the congressmen who borrowed and spent like drunken sailors, but do have to pay the tab.
It is immoral and unfair to burden our children with the debt we incurred. We should tax the old proportionate to the debt that was built up while they were old enough to vote. Baby boomers choose to spend money they didn't have, and now expect their grandchildren to pay it back. That is immoral and wrong.
Why should a man take a hard dangerous job to have a third of his pay go to paying off the debt his grandparents borrowed? Why not live at home in his parents or grandparents basement mooching of them, rather than work to repay their debt?
Those who kept electing politicians who, year after year, keep piling up the national debt, now in the untold trillions of dollars, not those too young to vote are responsible for that debt. Let those who borrowed the money have the burden of repaying the debt. Republicans and Democrats have done it and millennial's -- conservative or liberal -- have had nothing to do with it.
It's the parents and grand parents who have been piling debt upon the young, electing politicians who've spent and spent, refusing to cut, spending their children's birthright to get re-elected again and again, until the debt becomes so monstrous that it will crush the young, liberal or conservative, and grind them into dust.
Why should they work hard, and produce excess wealth, to repay the debt of Baby boomers?
If they become "woke" to the fact that they are paying for the excess of previous generations, what if they say, "No!, pay your own debts." and refuse to work, or refuse to pay taxes.
SocSec and Medicare for the elderly must be cut, they voted for all the spending, they should suffer the privation necessary to repay the debt they incurred. To do anything else is taxation without representation and can lead to revolution, and is immoral. The son isn't responsible for the sins of the father.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Monday, December 8, 2014
Reality Check - America Not Working
Reality Check - America Not Working
By Tom Rhodes, 12/8/2014
The news last week is about Black Friday sales dropping 11% since last year, and China surpassing the USA as the world’s Number 1 economy. The question to as is: Is China doing better or the USA doing worse? And Why? Employment records tell the story. The USA is doing worse. America isn’t working anymore. To be the Number 1 economy you have to be doing stuff. We aren’t.
About 100 million American who could be working aren’t. We’re not talking about kids and old folk, but 1 in 4 Americans between the age of 25 and 54 are not working. How is it possible that 1 in 4 working aged adults is idle? That idleness translates into a declining economy.
Here’s another interesting fact. 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. Now the description of poverty in the USA doesn’t match the description of poverty in other parts of the world. Does the fact that 1 in for adults in their prime working age are idle matches the 1 in 4 kids living in poverty sound coincidental?
Think about what it means when 1 in 3 adults between the age of 25 and 54 are working. Remember TANSTAAFL . To feed, and provide entertainment to the 100 million non-working adults even at what the USA classifies as poverty levels isn’t cheap. Not very many of those 100 million working age adults have a wealthy inheritance, nor are very many disabled. As of Novermber 2014 there are 119 Million full time workers. And of those 119 Million, around 30 Million work for the government. Full time government employees are paid out of tax dollars, hence other workers pay their salaries, they are by definition drain’s on non-government worker salaries. Ouch, That means that to support the 100 million non-working adults, plus 30 million government employees, and the 100 million or so kids, disabled, and old folks, there are only 90 Million people working.
That pretty much answers the question of why the USA is no longer the Number 1 economy in the world. We’re not working. That answers the question on why a middle class income can no longer afford to purchase a new car. We’re not working. That answers the question of why we spent $11 Billion less on Black Friday. We’re not working. That pretty much answers the question of why 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. We’re not working.
How is it possible that 100 Million working age adults don’t work? Are there that many stay at home moms? I don’t think so. Are there that many millionaires who are independently wealthy and don’t have to work? I don’t think so?
What makes that possible is a simple fact, in America today one doesn’t have to work in to eat. Not only don’t you have to work to eat, but the idle in the USA have cable TV, cell phones and free health care.
I would say soon you will see those working, quit working, why bother when you can get by without working, but I can't, soon is now. We’ve crossed the tipping point, and this is what it looks like when people go Galt. Why work if you don’t have to, especially when out of your pay check the government is going to take enough take care of somebody else. Why not be the somebody else? What does it look like when working age adults, go idle – China exceeds USA as Number 1 economy and Black Friday sales take a 11% drop.
Obama noticed and even said so, but just not clearly. Being a stay at home mom taking care of her kids is a choice "we don't want" women to make. He wants, nay needs, able bodied people working, but we're not, as a nation too many of us have gon Galt.
By Tom Rhodes, 12/8/2014
The news last week is about Black Friday sales dropping 11% since last year, and China surpassing the USA as the world’s Number 1 economy. The question to as is: Is China doing better or the USA doing worse? And Why? Employment records tell the story. The USA is doing worse. America isn’t working anymore. To be the Number 1 economy you have to be doing stuff. We aren’t.
About 100 million American who could be working aren’t. We’re not talking about kids and old folk, but 1 in 4 Americans between the age of 25 and 54 are not working. How is it possible that 1 in 4 working aged adults is idle? That idleness translates into a declining economy.
Here’s another interesting fact. 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. Now the description of poverty in the USA doesn’t match the description of poverty in other parts of the world. Does the fact that 1 in for adults in their prime working age are idle matches the 1 in 4 kids living in poverty sound coincidental?
Think about what it means when 1 in 3 adults between the age of 25 and 54 are working. Remember TANSTAAFL . To feed, and provide entertainment to the 100 million non-working adults even at what the USA classifies as poverty levels isn’t cheap. Not very many of those 100 million working age adults have a wealthy inheritance, nor are very many disabled. As of Novermber 2014 there are 119 Million full time workers. And of those 119 Million, around 30 Million work for the government. Full time government employees are paid out of tax dollars, hence other workers pay their salaries, they are by definition drain’s on non-government worker salaries. Ouch, That means that to support the 100 million non-working adults, plus 30 million government employees, and the 100 million or so kids, disabled, and old folks, there are only 90 Million people working.
That pretty much answers the question of why the USA is no longer the Number 1 economy in the world. We’re not working. That answers the question on why a middle class income can no longer afford to purchase a new car. We’re not working. That answers the question of why we spent $11 Billion less on Black Friday. We’re not working. That pretty much answers the question of why 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. We’re not working.
How is it possible that 100 Million working age adults don’t work? Are there that many stay at home moms? I don’t think so. Are there that many millionaires who are independently wealthy and don’t have to work? I don’t think so?
What makes that possible is a simple fact, in America today one doesn’t have to work in to eat. Not only don’t you have to work to eat, but the idle in the USA have cable TV, cell phones and free health care.
I would say soon you will see those working, quit working, why bother when you can get by without working, but I can't, soon is now. We’ve crossed the tipping point, and this is what it looks like when people go Galt. Why work if you don’t have to, especially when out of your pay check the government is going to take enough take care of somebody else. Why not be the somebody else? What does it look like when working age adults, go idle – China exceeds USA as Number 1 economy and Black Friday sales take a 11% drop.
Obama noticed and even said so, but just not clearly. Being a stay at home mom taking care of her kids is a choice "we don't want" women to make. He wants, nay needs, able bodied people working, but we're not, as a nation too many of us have gon Galt.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
No Budget = No Recovery
By Tom Rhodes, 5/1/2014
The Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery. . . . “ I ask, “What Recovery?” The WSJ goes on, “Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”
The reason the GDP sucks is obvious; less than 1 in 5 households have even one fully employed person (look at unemployed and underemployed as measured by U6 in the official employment numbers). No workers = no production = no growth = stagnant GDP.
Over the time of the so called “recovery” real inflation has raised the actual cost of living by nearly 20%, while real wages are down. If the government wasn’t fudging the numbers, we’d see the great recession was followed by stagnation not recovery and we are headed into recession again. We have seen repeatedly a few months after the government announces the GDP they “correct” that number and for the past decade, is inevitably lower, what’s lower than 0.1% growth???
What we know about the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Senate is that they haven’t passed a budget in 5 years. That means there is no plan and it’s obvious. The reality is”
A government that can’t budget can’t govern!
The Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery. . . . “ I ask, “What Recovery?” The WSJ goes on, “Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”
The reason the GDP sucks is obvious; less than 1 in 5 households have even one fully employed person (look at unemployed and underemployed as measured by U6 in the official employment numbers). No workers = no production = no growth = stagnant GDP.
Over the time of the so called “recovery” real inflation has raised the actual cost of living by nearly 20%, while real wages are down. If the government wasn’t fudging the numbers, we’d see the great recession was followed by stagnation not recovery and we are headed into recession again. We have seen repeatedly a few months after the government announces the GDP they “correct” that number and for the past decade, is inevitably lower, what’s lower than 0.1% growth???
What we know about the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Senate is that they haven’t passed a budget in 5 years. That means there is no plan and it’s obvious. The reality is”
Friday, October 4, 2013
Obama’s Juvenile Temper Tantrum
By Tom Rhodes, 10/4/2013
Concerning the upcoming fight on increasing the Debt Limit, I agree fully with President Obama who said:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
– Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, March 2006
He was 100% right! But that was 2006 when he was a senator. Today he calls any senators saying those very same words “deadbeats” and refuses to negotiate with them. He even has the chutzpa to tell the American people that raising the Debt ceiling won’t raise the national debt.
Obama thinks and acts like the American you’re stupid. The government is “shut down” so he uses more people, materials, and labor to but fences and blocks around national monuments than it takes to do nothing and just leave them open. I’ve been to DC several times, having a nice NPS ranger to standing around to answer questions about the Jefferson memorial is nice, but not necessary. It’s outside, composed of circular marble steps, a portico, a circular colonnade of Ionic order columns, and a shallow dome, the building is open to the elements, has no doors etc.
Ever have your own blog or web page? Take this one, LPCitrus , when I don’t have time (time is money) to work on it, it doesn’t go away, in fact to take it down takes more work and effort and time (hence money) than to just leave it up until I have the time. The shutdown of all the National Park Service and other Government web sites cost more than leaving them up. If we are shut down because the government can’t spend money where did the money come from to shut the web sites down, and why shut them down if they would work and provide service to the American people even during a shutdown with ZERO additional effort.
The answer is obvious, a government shut down is painless to almost all of the people of the USA, Obama and the Democrats are actively trying to cause the most pain they can to get their way. They were offered virtually all the spending on everything but Obamacare and because they refuse to compromise with the Representatives the people put in the House to control spending, government is shut down. Blocking off an outside building made of marble, granite, and concrete is an active political act costing more than leaving it open. Obviously Obama thinks you’re too stupid to realize it. Blaming anybody, the Republicans or even Democrats in the House or Senate is absurd, this is all Obama.
Obama is a crybaby who when he doesn’t get his way decides to take your ball and throws a tantrum to get his way.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Jobs – Reality 101
By Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2012
Job numbers came out and unemployment is widely reported to have gotten slightly worse to 8.5%. That is a totally bogus number that doesn’t represent reality. Lucky for us the government does report real usable data, they and the press just choose to report manipulated skewed data to placate the masses.
The data we should be looking at is the percentage of working age people employed vs. population of working age people. This is called the employment-to-population ratio or EPR. The new numbers show that the EPR is down to 58.2% from 58.4%. This number is calculated by taking the total number of employed people and dividing by the number of individuals in working-age, and multiplying by 100.
Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics EPR graph for the last decade.
What the 54.2% EPR means is that 582 of every 1000 working aged people has a job, or 458 of every working age person is not working. This does not include children or retirees. Compared to the EPR of 63.4% in December 2006 and we see we have a problem. What’s worse, is the 140,000 or so new jobs created last month is backwards, and not enough to maintain current employment levels; hence the increase in the official but bogus unemployment stat of 8.3%.
Our average working age population growth rate is around 0.2% per month. So just to keep employment levels stable we need around a quarter of a million new jobs every month. The official end to the recession was June 2009, since then we’ve only averaged a little less about 110,000 new jobs per month, this is less than half the new jobs we need every month just to maintain our current EPR. The result is that we are now in the 41st month of over 8% unemployment, and the reality that since June 2009 the EPR has dropped from 59.4% to 58.2%. So although there have been new jobs created, they haven’t even kept pace with the increase in our working age population.
John Williams’ Shadow Stats, shows unemployment and other government stats, calculating them the way they used to be calculated, and compares them to the bogus numbers the government now reports. Here’s their graph of Unemployment numbers.
Right now employment numbers suck. The new American Dream is “I got a job!” and we cannot expect our children to do as well as we did.
Job numbers came out and unemployment is widely reported to have gotten slightly worse to 8.5%. That is a totally bogus number that doesn’t represent reality. Lucky for us the government does report real usable data, they and the press just choose to report manipulated skewed data to placate the masses.
The data we should be looking at is the percentage of working age people employed vs. population of working age people. This is called the employment-to-population ratio or EPR. The new numbers show that the EPR is down to 58.2% from 58.4%. This number is calculated by taking the total number of employed people and dividing by the number of individuals in working-age, and multiplying by 100.
Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics EPR graph for the last decade.
What the 54.2% EPR means is that 582 of every 1000 working aged people has a job, or 458 of every working age person is not working. This does not include children or retirees. Compared to the EPR of 63.4% in December 2006 and we see we have a problem. What’s worse, is the 140,000 or so new jobs created last month is backwards, and not enough to maintain current employment levels; hence the increase in the official but bogus unemployment stat of 8.3%.
Our average working age population growth rate is around 0.2% per month. So just to keep employment levels stable we need around a quarter of a million new jobs every month. The official end to the recession was June 2009, since then we’ve only averaged a little less about 110,000 new jobs per month, this is less than half the new jobs we need every month just to maintain our current EPR. The result is that we are now in the 41st month of over 8% unemployment, and the reality that since June 2009 the EPR has dropped from 59.4% to 58.2%. So although there have been new jobs created, they haven’t even kept pace with the increase in our working age population.
John Williams’ Shadow Stats, shows unemployment and other government stats, calculating them the way they used to be calculated, and compares them to the bogus numbers the government now reports. Here’s their graph of Unemployment numbers.
Right now employment numbers suck. The new American Dream is “I got a job!” and we cannot expect our children to do as well as we did.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Any Questions?
By Tom Rhodes 2/27/2012
Liberals tout the seasonally adjusted employment numbers being improved as proof of the success of government economic stimuli. They conveniently ignore the fact that many more millions of people are "permanently" out of work so are no longer counted as unemployed, than there have been new jobs created. The fact is that the government "adjusts" the numbers to send the correct political message. The simple fact is that we have more people living in the USA than we did when Obama took office, and the total number of people employed is significantly lower. That is not job growth, Period. The method the government uses to count employment, etc. are continuously changed to reflect the political message the government wants to portray. If you want real numbers and an honest comparison look at the numbers and data from John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics. The basic problem we have is not that there isn't enough government stimuli but that the ruling elite are addicts. They are addicted to spending money they don't have.
What is needed is solid foundational jobs, production, and consumption based on real economic availability and demand. Artificial demand won't increase availability, nor entice those who produce to produce more.
People have been taking and using artificial stimulants longer than we have been recording history. Whether it be cocoa leaves or cocaine, coffee or amphetamines, drugs to keep energy levels unnaturally high have been used by people forever. They are not bad in and of themselves, a temporary stimulus to complete a task is not a bad thing, provided you don't continuously use them in place of food or sleep.
Consider cocaine, it can give you a short-term boost, but it can also cause your hart to race so intensely that it explodes. There is no nutritional value to artificial stimulants. They just accelerate the consumption of energy reserves that your body would not normally use if left to natural metabolic mechanisms. It does not create those reserves; replenish those reserves; sustain those reserves; it just uses them up. To be health you need normal amounts of food and sleep. When stimulants wear off, you either crash or take more. The long term effects are usually very bad, a wasted withered body that needs slow long term, and costly, recovery, or worse yet death. Nobody would claim or accept that being strung out on coke or amphetamines is healthy, wise, or effective way to live.
Economic stimulus doesn't work for the same reason. Economic stimulus is based on the same kind of thinking people who use drugs to stimulate their bodies for a prolonged time. It's based on a completely wrong notion of what spurs prosperity.
Liberals are now using a short time span graph, to illustrate that new European austerity programs (actually the ending of artificial stimulants to the economy), are actually hurting their economy. Have you ever seen a drug addict and what happens when the drugs are cut off whether by benevolent hospitalization, or by self-induced privation? They don't look or feel good, in fact for a period of time it is much harder and worse for them than if they had stayed on the drugs. Would anybody argue that the short term hardship, pain, and misery the drug addict suffers during rehabilitation is worse than continued drug dependence, which inevitably leads to self destruction.
Government stimulus through deficit spending does the same thing for the economy that stimulants do for the body. It takes value-added production that serves markets that want the goods and are able to purchase them to maintain real healthy and sustainable economic growth. When for various reasons not enough of that is happening, economic growth will slow or regress for a short period of time. Nobody enjoys that period of time, but necessary corrections are a necessity from time to time.
We sometimes refer to the economy as an engine. Adding nitrous-oxide and a performance exhaust to a car engine that has leaky valve or two may give that weakening engine temporarily power boost, but will also lead to far greater damage taking a far longer downtime to recover from needing to totally rebuild the engine than if the time was taken to do the more minor head work.
Drink too much on New Year 's Eve and you have a hangover New Year's Day. You can avoid that hangover if you stay drunk. Eventually you have to sober up, failing to do so is self destructive. The government is replacing the value-added, market-serving production that generates true economic growth with the superfluous spreading of borrowed money. Just like staying drunk to avoid a hangover, it doesn't work.
Not only our economy but the world's economy is past the point where a small temporary stimulus will provide an energy boost to get over the hump. Our federal government can "stimulate" our economy back to health. That's why Bush's TARP, and Obama's $862 billion stimulus were both boondoggles. Effective and lasting economic health will not return until we release the productive sector of the economy. The productive sector of our economy is the business sector, investing, taking risk, and succeeding and failing based on how they serve the people. The government needs to quit trying to pick economic winners and losers; to get out of the way of energy production; to cut taxes on businesses and individuals; and to stop treating everyone who earns a profit like a felon.
Our economy on stimulus is only getting us a federal debt now larger than the size of our entire economy, and a government addicted to spending, just like an addict is addicted to drugs.
From one of the most famous and memorable PSA's ever created came the phrase "Your brain on Drugs." The first version of this PSA, created in 1987, showed a man who held up an egg and said, "This is your brain," before picking up a frying pan and adding, "This is drugs." He then cracks open the egg, fries the contents, and says, "This is your brain on drugs." Finally he looks up at the camera and asks, "Any questions?" It was later shortened to this:
An economy running on borrowed money used to create unproductive artificial stimulus is analogous to your brain on drugs. Self destruction is the inevitable result if we don't stop; just look at Greece.
"Any Questions?"
Liberals tout the seasonally adjusted employment numbers being improved as proof of the success of government economic stimuli. They conveniently ignore the fact that many more millions of people are "permanently" out of work so are no longer counted as unemployed, than there have been new jobs created. The fact is that the government "adjusts" the numbers to send the correct political message. The simple fact is that we have more people living in the USA than we did when Obama took office, and the total number of people employed is significantly lower. That is not job growth, Period. The method the government uses to count employment, etc. are continuously changed to reflect the political message the government wants to portray. If you want real numbers and an honest comparison look at the numbers and data from John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics. The basic problem we have is not that there isn't enough government stimuli but that the ruling elite are addicts. They are addicted to spending money they don't have.
What is needed is solid foundational jobs, production, and consumption based on real economic availability and demand. Artificial demand won't increase availability, nor entice those who produce to produce more.
People have been taking and using artificial stimulants longer than we have been recording history. Whether it be cocoa leaves or cocaine, coffee or amphetamines, drugs to keep energy levels unnaturally high have been used by people forever. They are not bad in and of themselves, a temporary stimulus to complete a task is not a bad thing, provided you don't continuously use them in place of food or sleep.
Consider cocaine, it can give you a short-term boost, but it can also cause your hart to race so intensely that it explodes. There is no nutritional value to artificial stimulants. They just accelerate the consumption of energy reserves that your body would not normally use if left to natural metabolic mechanisms. It does not create those reserves; replenish those reserves; sustain those reserves; it just uses them up. To be health you need normal amounts of food and sleep. When stimulants wear off, you either crash or take more. The long term effects are usually very bad, a wasted withered body that needs slow long term, and costly, recovery, or worse yet death. Nobody would claim or accept that being strung out on coke or amphetamines is healthy, wise, or effective way to live.
Economic stimulus doesn't work for the same reason. Economic stimulus is based on the same kind of thinking people who use drugs to stimulate their bodies for a prolonged time. It's based on a completely wrong notion of what spurs prosperity.
Liberals are now using a short time span graph, to illustrate that new European austerity programs (actually the ending of artificial stimulants to the economy), are actually hurting their economy. Have you ever seen a drug addict and what happens when the drugs are cut off whether by benevolent hospitalization, or by self-induced privation? They don't look or feel good, in fact for a period of time it is much harder and worse for them than if they had stayed on the drugs. Would anybody argue that the short term hardship, pain, and misery the drug addict suffers during rehabilitation is worse than continued drug dependence, which inevitably leads to self destruction.
Government stimulus through deficit spending does the same thing for the economy that stimulants do for the body. It takes value-added production that serves markets that want the goods and are able to purchase them to maintain real healthy and sustainable economic growth. When for various reasons not enough of that is happening, economic growth will slow or regress for a short period of time. Nobody enjoys that period of time, but necessary corrections are a necessity from time to time.
We sometimes refer to the economy as an engine. Adding nitrous-oxide and a performance exhaust to a car engine that has leaky valve or two may give that weakening engine temporarily power boost, but will also lead to far greater damage taking a far longer downtime to recover from needing to totally rebuild the engine than if the time was taken to do the more minor head work.
Drink too much on New Year 's Eve and you have a hangover New Year's Day. You can avoid that hangover if you stay drunk. Eventually you have to sober up, failing to do so is self destructive. The government is replacing the value-added, market-serving production that generates true economic growth with the superfluous spreading of borrowed money. Just like staying drunk to avoid a hangover, it doesn't work.
Not only our economy but the world's economy is past the point where a small temporary stimulus will provide an energy boost to get over the hump. Our federal government can "stimulate" our economy back to health. That's why Bush's TARP, and Obama's $862 billion stimulus were both boondoggles. Effective and lasting economic health will not return until we release the productive sector of the economy. The productive sector of our economy is the business sector, investing, taking risk, and succeeding and failing based on how they serve the people. The government needs to quit trying to pick economic winners and losers; to get out of the way of energy production; to cut taxes on businesses and individuals; and to stop treating everyone who earns a profit like a felon.
Our economy on stimulus is only getting us a federal debt now larger than the size of our entire economy, and a government addicted to spending, just like an addict is addicted to drugs.
From one of the most famous and memorable PSA's ever created came the phrase "Your brain on Drugs." The first version of this PSA, created in 1987, showed a man who held up an egg and said, "This is your brain," before picking up a frying pan and adding, "This is drugs." He then cracks open the egg, fries the contents, and says, "This is your brain on drugs." Finally he looks up at the camera and asks, "Any questions?" It was later shortened to this:
An economy running on borrowed money used to create unproductive artificial stimulus is analogous to your brain on drugs. Self destruction is the inevitable result if we don't stop; just look at Greece.
"Any Questions?"
Friday, February 10, 2012
Psalm 2012
Psalm 2012
Obama Is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me
Beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Libertarian party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party’s sake.
Yea, Though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has Anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
Obama Is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me
Beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Libertarian party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party’s sake.
Yea, Though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has Anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Moral Value of Effort
By Tom Rhodes, 12/7/2011
Imagine you are a mildly disabled couple with no employment, if you apply you are currently eligible to receive more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. Not only is there is no requirement to show your net worth and assets, but they are not considered, the only thing considered to be eligible is your income. Wages not wealth are what we tax, and use measure a person's ability to pay.
Wages are not considered a person's own but your labor is considered the government's who determines what part of those wages you are allowed to keep. Our whole system is based on taxing the labor of those who work; it is assumed if you don't work you have no access to money. This is why the average person living on welfare has color TV, Cable, AC and Heat, Microwaves, a car, and lives in an apartment or house with more square feet per person than the average middle class European. Significant numbers of people on welfare are better off living on the dole than trying to live on the wages commensurate with their skills, and can and do live without working better than if they worked, the incentive to work and increase their skills is not there. We reward those with no skills or ambition. This is not to say that there are not people truly in need, but that number is far less than the numbers of people who actually live on the dole.
Actually being needy is not a requirement for government "charity." Consider this couple, they live in a million dollar mansion, etc, and have huge amounts of accumulated wealth, can afford to give to charity and travel the world, yet receive tens of thousands of dollars from the government a year because their income indicates that they live in poverty. No not everybody is abusing the system this much, but why are we giving money to anybody who can support themselves but won't. Our current welfare system is immoral.
The reason why the US and Germany are arguably the most successful in the world, is they share as societies a basic moral value. These values can be summed up as follows: Effort should lead to reward as often as possible. People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity but not a guarantee. People should be rewarded monetarily based on enterprise, merit, and effort. People should be rewarded for exercising self-control while sloth and envy should not be rewarded. Our government and other institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness and shame irresponsibility and favoritism.
However there are a large group of people who see things through poorly shaded lenses that cloud their vision with an image of a permanent class war. They do not think it matters how people conduct themselves, they only consider the final outcome of who has and does not have wealth. Rather than expect a person to be self-reliant they assume any person who does not have wealth is poor because a person of wealth purposefully withheld either opportunity or property. They do not consider the effort put into creating and accumulating wealth to have any more value than breathing. These people are generally liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, etc, and all firmly believe that resistance to redistribution of wealth is greed and avarice and treated with outrage.
Our current financial crisis came from bankers buying off politicians and both getting rich off of securing mortgages to people who were not qualified to repay them. Even now the government is requiring banks to grant loans to people who cannot repay them, in order to be "fair." We still reward sloth and envy those who legally acquire wealth. We know this yet, the left, our press, the government, and the banks refuse to even talk about letting the people who caused the crisis to be held responsible. Our massive debt is the problem, not a lack of taxes, yet the left never even considers any strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. Because the basic structural problems plaguing our economy are not attended to, nor does our current leadership, regardless of party, appear to be willing to address them, as we currently see, the result is that the United States suffering from a horrible crisis of trust. The result of this lack of trust is crippling slowdown in growth, a paralyzed government, and the strangest direction of politics in modern history.
Business is sitting on massive wealth, but will not invest it because the uncertainty of whether they will be allowed to grow those investments. If investment and labor cannot be reasonably assured to produce prosperity, while government cronyism and theft are visibly rewarded and while we routinely provide for those who can but don't provide for themselves, you cannot expect people to work and invest with such uncertainty and obvious moral corruption. The very moral fabric that created the most prosperous and generous country the world has ever seen is being torn apart by power hungry collectivists who seek to redistribute the wealth of this nation not based on the idea that effort should lead to reward as often as possible, but based on the idea that regardless of effort everybody should receive the same rewards, and the ruling elite should receive a lot more.
We cannot subsidize behaviors that make us poorer, and penalize behaviors that make us richer and expect people to choose to behave in a manner that enriches themselves and the country. If you want people who have legally acquired wealth, to invest that wealth (not hoard and protect it), you cannot penalize the profits from investing and take away the fruits of their labor to such an extent that they are better off doing nothing with their labor and wealth than they are to exploit both for their and their communities betterment. Why would a person or company make an investment whose efforts are taxed to such an extent that if they simply purchased gold or other commodity and did nothing, they would make more off the increase in value due to inflation, than the profits from investing?
Here is an example; we need massive expansion to our aging power grid. Power companies are regulated extensively but guaranteed a profit (about 10%). If you have money to invest and after you pay the taxes on your dividends the real profit from investing in a power company is a modest but because power companies are government protected monopolies such investments are fairly safe. This investment would allow the power company to expand and make improvements. Now if you invested that same money in gold, you have an even safer haven for your wealth and the return is greater than the investing in a power company. There is not growth, but the wealth is protected against inflation; the growth and payout from the power company doesn't even cover real inflation. Obviously the incentive is no longer to invest but to protect wealth and assets. It is the government regulation that severely restricts the profit that can be made by power companies, and takes the profit that can be made by investors, and inflates the value of dollars, which has made conditions such that those with wealth are better off sitting on it that putting it to work. Since we now punish people who invest and work hard, and reward hoarding wealth and doing nothing, people are no longer investing and working hard, but are doing everything they can to protect what assets (wealth) they have.
Eliminating those who would protect the very moral fabric of our society is essential for liberals and the Wall Street - Government Complex. The ruling elite do not garner wealth through effort but by graft. They make the less fortunate dependent upon the largess of the ruling elite to buy their votes so they may remain in power and suck the wealth and labor from those who labor. Explain why congress and its employees are exempt from insider trading laws. Explain why the ruling elite guaranteed known bad mortgages, and rewarded bankers and themselves with massive amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayer. Explain why it is acceptable to have generations of people living on the dole. Explain why with more and more spending and more and more government control that the actual output of government education continues to get worse not better, especially for those who live dependent upon the government for their every need. Explain why they have restructured and tried to change the purpose of government to supply the needs of everybody, rather than provide protection for the rights of all individuals equally. Explain why we reward sloth and envy and punish self-reliance and effort. Obviously those who would return the US to a system where effort, enterprise, productivity, and self-discipline were rewarded and bad governance, sloth, and envy were not rewarding, would result in the ruling elite losing both wealth and power. The protection of individual liberty, although historically prove to enhancing a societies overall wealth and well being, diminishes central control and power, the ruling elite would rather all lose liberty than they have less power.
It took a little while longer than I expected but the ruling elite in DC have succeeded in eliminating or silencing all the presidential candidates who are willing to address the true problems facing this country. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and all the third party candidates have effectively been disqualified by the media and ruling elite in Washington. Even though Ron Paul, is still taking 2nd place in polls, and the people resonate with his message, the press and ruling elite will not address the issues he and others running who represent half of Americans who don't live off the government. All these candidates the collectivists don't want you exposed to share a common belief. They believe it is moral and just, and have a willingness, to hold the government accountable for its spending and seek to reestablish the basic moral formula that made this country great, based on moral values that has historically proven to provide the highest standard of living for the most people, a moral formula that so called progressives hate and refuse to acknowledge or address. That moral formula is simple, Effort should lead to reward as often as possible.
Imagine you are a mildly disabled couple with no employment, if you apply you are currently eligible to receive more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. Not only is there is no requirement to show your net worth and assets, but they are not considered, the only thing considered to be eligible is your income. Wages not wealth are what we tax, and use measure a person's ability to pay.
Wages are not considered a person's own but your labor is considered the government's who determines what part of those wages you are allowed to keep. Our whole system is based on taxing the labor of those who work; it is assumed if you don't work you have no access to money. This is why the average person living on welfare has color TV, Cable, AC and Heat, Microwaves, a car, and lives in an apartment or house with more square feet per person than the average middle class European. Significant numbers of people on welfare are better off living on the dole than trying to live on the wages commensurate with their skills, and can and do live without working better than if they worked, the incentive to work and increase their skills is not there. We reward those with no skills or ambition. This is not to say that there are not people truly in need, but that number is far less than the numbers of people who actually live on the dole.
Actually being needy is not a requirement for government "charity." Consider this couple, they live in a million dollar mansion, etc, and have huge amounts of accumulated wealth, can afford to give to charity and travel the world, yet receive tens of thousands of dollars from the government a year because their income indicates that they live in poverty. No not everybody is abusing the system this much, but why are we giving money to anybody who can support themselves but won't. Our current welfare system is immoral.
The reason why the US and Germany are arguably the most successful in the world, is they share as societies a basic moral value. These values can be summed up as follows: Effort should lead to reward as often as possible. People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity but not a guarantee. People should be rewarded monetarily based on enterprise, merit, and effort. People should be rewarded for exercising self-control while sloth and envy should not be rewarded. Our government and other institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness and shame irresponsibility and favoritism.
However there are a large group of people who see things through poorly shaded lenses that cloud their vision with an image of a permanent class war. They do not think it matters how people conduct themselves, they only consider the final outcome of who has and does not have wealth. Rather than expect a person to be self-reliant they assume any person who does not have wealth is poor because a person of wealth purposefully withheld either opportunity or property. They do not consider the effort put into creating and accumulating wealth to have any more value than breathing. These people are generally liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, etc, and all firmly believe that resistance to redistribution of wealth is greed and avarice and treated with outrage.
Our current financial crisis came from bankers buying off politicians and both getting rich off of securing mortgages to people who were not qualified to repay them. Even now the government is requiring banks to grant loans to people who cannot repay them, in order to be "fair." We still reward sloth and envy those who legally acquire wealth. We know this yet, the left, our press, the government, and the banks refuse to even talk about letting the people who caused the crisis to be held responsible. Our massive debt is the problem, not a lack of taxes, yet the left never even considers any strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. Because the basic structural problems plaguing our economy are not attended to, nor does our current leadership, regardless of party, appear to be willing to address them, as we currently see, the result is that the United States suffering from a horrible crisis of trust. The result of this lack of trust is crippling slowdown in growth, a paralyzed government, and the strangest direction of politics in modern history.
Business is sitting on massive wealth, but will not invest it because the uncertainty of whether they will be allowed to grow those investments. If investment and labor cannot be reasonably assured to produce prosperity, while government cronyism and theft are visibly rewarded and while we routinely provide for those who can but don't provide for themselves, you cannot expect people to work and invest with such uncertainty and obvious moral corruption. The very moral fabric that created the most prosperous and generous country the world has ever seen is being torn apart by power hungry collectivists who seek to redistribute the wealth of this nation not based on the idea that effort should lead to reward as often as possible, but based on the idea that regardless of effort everybody should receive the same rewards, and the ruling elite should receive a lot more.
We cannot subsidize behaviors that make us poorer, and penalize behaviors that make us richer and expect people to choose to behave in a manner that enriches themselves and the country. If you want people who have legally acquired wealth, to invest that wealth (not hoard and protect it), you cannot penalize the profits from investing and take away the fruits of their labor to such an extent that they are better off doing nothing with their labor and wealth than they are to exploit both for their and their communities betterment. Why would a person or company make an investment whose efforts are taxed to such an extent that if they simply purchased gold or other commodity and did nothing, they would make more off the increase in value due to inflation, than the profits from investing?
Here is an example; we need massive expansion to our aging power grid. Power companies are regulated extensively but guaranteed a profit (about 10%). If you have money to invest and after you pay the taxes on your dividends the real profit from investing in a power company is a modest but because power companies are government protected monopolies such investments are fairly safe. This investment would allow the power company to expand and make improvements. Now if you invested that same money in gold, you have an even safer haven for your wealth and the return is greater than the investing in a power company. There is not growth, but the wealth is protected against inflation; the growth and payout from the power company doesn't even cover real inflation. Obviously the incentive is no longer to invest but to protect wealth and assets. It is the government regulation that severely restricts the profit that can be made by power companies, and takes the profit that can be made by investors, and inflates the value of dollars, which has made conditions such that those with wealth are better off sitting on it that putting it to work. Since we now punish people who invest and work hard, and reward hoarding wealth and doing nothing, people are no longer investing and working hard, but are doing everything they can to protect what assets (wealth) they have.
Eliminating those who would protect the very moral fabric of our society is essential for liberals and the Wall Street - Government Complex. The ruling elite do not garner wealth through effort but by graft. They make the less fortunate dependent upon the largess of the ruling elite to buy their votes so they may remain in power and suck the wealth and labor from those who labor. Explain why congress and its employees are exempt from insider trading laws. Explain why the ruling elite guaranteed known bad mortgages, and rewarded bankers and themselves with massive amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayer. Explain why it is acceptable to have generations of people living on the dole. Explain why with more and more spending and more and more government control that the actual output of government education continues to get worse not better, especially for those who live dependent upon the government for their every need. Explain why they have restructured and tried to change the purpose of government to supply the needs of everybody, rather than provide protection for the rights of all individuals equally. Explain why we reward sloth and envy and punish self-reliance and effort. Obviously those who would return the US to a system where effort, enterprise, productivity, and self-discipline were rewarded and bad governance, sloth, and envy were not rewarding, would result in the ruling elite losing both wealth and power. The protection of individual liberty, although historically prove to enhancing a societies overall wealth and well being, diminishes central control and power, the ruling elite would rather all lose liberty than they have less power.
It took a little while longer than I expected but the ruling elite in DC have succeeded in eliminating or silencing all the presidential candidates who are willing to address the true problems facing this country. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and all the third party candidates have effectively been disqualified by the media and ruling elite in Washington. Even though Ron Paul, is still taking 2nd place in polls, and the people resonate with his message, the press and ruling elite will not address the issues he and others running who represent half of Americans who don't live off the government. All these candidates the collectivists don't want you exposed to share a common belief. They believe it is moral and just, and have a willingness, to hold the government accountable for its spending and seek to reestablish the basic moral formula that made this country great, based on moral values that has historically proven to provide the highest standard of living for the most people, a moral formula that so called progressives hate and refuse to acknowledge or address. That moral formula is simple, Effort should lead to reward as often as possible.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Truth - Liberals Don't Tolerate It.
The actions, thoughts and ideas that Democrats have about Obama are like parents at their kids' first piano recital, regardless of how their child actually plays the parents are convinced it's great and will lie to everybody including the child about how wonderful the child did. Every time Obama speaks, liberals think they're listening to a combination of the Gettysburg Address and the Dr. Kings “I have a Dream” speech. Just look at their name-calling and ad hominem attacks every time anybody criticizes Obama, while never addressing the reason, logic, and substance of the criticism. Objective truth about Obama is tolerated by liberals the same way helicopter parents tolerate bad grades; they attack the truth teller.
Obama called for an adult conversation about the budget and entitlements; Paul Ryan's release a budget for 2012 that addressed both in real substantive ways. Now that they have got their adult conversation, they can't handle it. Typically they are calling it and him, mean, radical, extreme, but have offered no alternative. Ryan's budget is well considered thought out carefully and restrained. It makes sure that no one who is vulnerable is hurt by the undeniably necessary changes proposed. This is a far more adult method of dealing with our problems than Obama's budget which is irresponsible and does not address any entitlement changes at all.
I’d like some liberal to explain to me how reducing the budget to below 2008 levels, restoring it to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout spending, is extreme. Ryan’s budget would decrease Federal spending to below 20% of GDP, similar to the long-run, postwar, historical level, by 2015. That is the same level of federal spending that prevailed on average for 60 years since World War II. What part of the government spending as a portion of GDP roughly the same as it did from Truman to Clinton, is radical, irresponsible, and extreme? Leaders and the press that are saying so are unprofessionally irresponsible and misleading.
If we adopt Ryan's budget we will see a reduction in the national debt by nearly $5 trillion relative to the President's budget in the first 10 years alone. This would result in the national debt being reduces as a percent of GDP every year, until the national debt is zero. In contrast O Obama's budget would double the national debt in his first term alone, and triple it by 2021. Which would you says is radical, irresponsible, and extreme?
Some economists say that Ryan's budget if implemented would result in about 1 million private sector jobs created next year, a drop in the unemployment rate to 4% by 2015, and by the end of the decade, the economy would be creating 2.5 million jobs a year. We have seen the real results when Obama’s ideas are implemented, instead of not letting unemployment reach 8%, the news seems joyous when it’s dropped to 9%.
The truth is that the liberals do not want an adult conversation about the budget, they are willing to turn the US into Greece, and destroy our way of life, and any objectivity about the money available to the budget from the taxpayer, and the spending by the government will not be tolerated. And they wonder why the Tea Party exists, why they have such low approval ratings. Governors, congressmen, and all sorts of politicians were elected based on promises to return this country to solvency, reduce the size of government, and gut government spending. The liberals are completely intolerant of these newly elected officials actually doing what they promised. The liberals are intolerant of these newcomers not “understanding” how government works. They really can’t tolerate liberty, and will use any means they can legal, illegal, immoral, and even unconstitutional, to keep power, and force their failed utopian socialist agenda on the people of this country.
The government might get shut down (temporarily) in a couple days, I can’t think of a single person who pays more in taxes than he receives in government handouts that will be more than mildly affected. Email will still be delivered, Stores will be open, electricity will flow, my local police will catch criminals, my local schools will teach children, churches will marry couples, and hospitals will help the injured. The people crying and gnashing their teeth will be those who live off the taxpayer, and have their needs and wants met by the government rather than in fair trade with their fellow citizen. This truth will greatly upset liberals.
Obama called for an adult conversation about the budget and entitlements; Paul Ryan's release a budget for 2012 that addressed both in real substantive ways. Now that they have got their adult conversation, they can't handle it. Typically they are calling it and him, mean, radical, extreme, but have offered no alternative. Ryan's budget is well considered thought out carefully and restrained. It makes sure that no one who is vulnerable is hurt by the undeniably necessary changes proposed. This is a far more adult method of dealing with our problems than Obama's budget which is irresponsible and does not address any entitlement changes at all.
I’d like some liberal to explain to me how reducing the budget to below 2008 levels, restoring it to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout spending, is extreme. Ryan’s budget would decrease Federal spending to below 20% of GDP, similar to the long-run, postwar, historical level, by 2015. That is the same level of federal spending that prevailed on average for 60 years since World War II. What part of the government spending as a portion of GDP roughly the same as it did from Truman to Clinton, is radical, irresponsible, and extreme? Leaders and the press that are saying so are unprofessionally irresponsible and misleading.
If we adopt Ryan's budget we will see a reduction in the national debt by nearly $5 trillion relative to the President's budget in the first 10 years alone. This would result in the national debt being reduces as a percent of GDP every year, until the national debt is zero. In contrast O Obama's budget would double the national debt in his first term alone, and triple it by 2021. Which would you says is radical, irresponsible, and extreme?
Some economists say that Ryan's budget if implemented would result in about 1 million private sector jobs created next year, a drop in the unemployment rate to 4% by 2015, and by the end of the decade, the economy would be creating 2.5 million jobs a year. We have seen the real results when Obama’s ideas are implemented, instead of not letting unemployment reach 8%, the news seems joyous when it’s dropped to 9%.
The truth is that the liberals do not want an adult conversation about the budget, they are willing to turn the US into Greece, and destroy our way of life, and any objectivity about the money available to the budget from the taxpayer, and the spending by the government will not be tolerated. And they wonder why the Tea Party exists, why they have such low approval ratings. Governors, congressmen, and all sorts of politicians were elected based on promises to return this country to solvency, reduce the size of government, and gut government spending. The liberals are completely intolerant of these newly elected officials actually doing what they promised. The liberals are intolerant of these newcomers not “understanding” how government works. They really can’t tolerate liberty, and will use any means they can legal, illegal, immoral, and even unconstitutional, to keep power, and force their failed utopian socialist agenda on the people of this country.
The government might get shut down (temporarily) in a couple days, I can’t think of a single person who pays more in taxes than he receives in government handouts that will be more than mildly affected. Email will still be delivered, Stores will be open, electricity will flow, my local police will catch criminals, my local schools will teach children, churches will marry couples, and hospitals will help the injured. The people crying and gnashing their teeth will be those who live off the taxpayer, and have their needs and wants met by the government rather than in fair trade with their fellow citizen. This truth will greatly upset liberals.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Elephant in the Room
Oops! We’re far worse than we thought; official numbers released yesterday show that last year’s budget deficit will be larger than previously projected, not $1.4Trillion but $1.65Trillion. The truth is we are actually worse off, because that $1.4Trillion does not include the unfunded off-budget items like bailouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, student loans, and other stuff the press and government aren’t telling us. The actual debt of the US is around $20.7 trillion. Do some simple math and you see that for each and every one of the 310 Million people in the US there is a $69,000 bill that must be paid. Ouch! It’s worse than that as only about $100 million of us are wage earners paying income and social security taxes, the rest are unemployed, children, or senior citizens. That means that every person earning a wage has to repay just over $2,000,000.
By law the US cannot go much if any further into debt without a new law extending the US Debt Ceiling. The latest poll from Investor’s Business Daily shows 70 percent of Americans opposed to raising the debt limit. “Even a majority of Democrats — 55% — say raising the limit is a bad idea. Some 86% of Republicans and 74% of independents agree.”
Now about that elephant in the room, it’s not the stupidity of borrowing more money when the amount owed by every man woman and child in the country far exceeds the ability of wage earners to repay. It’s not that congress is acting against the will of over 2/3rds of the populations. It’s that Republicans hold all the cards. I wish it was us libertarians but it’s not it’s the GOP. They can stop all new deficit spending without any help of the Democrats right now. In fact all the power is in the control of the Republicans in the house.
Although Rand Paul is talking some serious cuts in the budget, most of the reality about “cuts” is not actually about “cuts” but about a slowing of the expansion in spending. Just look at Obama’s proposed budget. In truth because of the big majority the Republicans have in the house all they have to do is vote NO on extending debt ceiling and the government will be forced to cut spending. You are going to hear lots of scare tactics from the Democrats and Republican leadership, as to why we must allow the government to go deeper into debt. The fact is they don’t have to, they don’t have to expand the government is already too big. The GOP is in total control to stop the expansion of government, and can force the democrats to work with them on what must be really cut, not just rubber stamp expansion.
That’s the elephant in the room that the press, the GOP, and especially the Democrats won’t talk about. Republicans have the power to actually stop the expansion and possibly reduce the size of government NOW, not next year, next decade, but NOW. The question is will they? Since I don’t believe that there is any true difference between either the Democrats or Republicans, I can safely predict that the GOP will go along to get along and vote to expand government and put you and I further into debt.
Want to make me eat crow and prove me wrong? That's Easy. Contact every Republican congressman and let them know that you don’t want any further expansion of government, that you don’t want any more debt, that you want them to vote NO on raising the debt ceiling. If enough people do this and the will of the people is made clear to Washington, we can stop this mad raging elephant what continues to spend beyond our means.
Tom Rhodes, Vice-Chair Libertarian Party of Citrus County, 2/15/2011
By law the US cannot go much if any further into debt without a new law extending the US Debt Ceiling. The latest poll from Investor’s Business Daily shows 70 percent of Americans opposed to raising the debt limit. “Even a majority of Democrats — 55% — say raising the limit is a bad idea. Some 86% of Republicans and 74% of independents agree.”
Now about that elephant in the room, it’s not the stupidity of borrowing more money when the amount owed by every man woman and child in the country far exceeds the ability of wage earners to repay. It’s not that congress is acting against the will of over 2/3rds of the populations. It’s that Republicans hold all the cards. I wish it was us libertarians but it’s not it’s the GOP. They can stop all new deficit spending without any help of the Democrats right now. In fact all the power is in the control of the Republicans in the house.
Although Rand Paul is talking some serious cuts in the budget, most of the reality about “cuts” is not actually about “cuts” but about a slowing of the expansion in spending. Just look at Obama’s proposed budget. In truth because of the big majority the Republicans have in the house all they have to do is vote NO on extending debt ceiling and the government will be forced to cut spending. You are going to hear lots of scare tactics from the Democrats and Republican leadership, as to why we must allow the government to go deeper into debt. The fact is they don’t have to, they don’t have to expand the government is already too big. The GOP is in total control to stop the expansion of government, and can force the democrats to work with them on what must be really cut, not just rubber stamp expansion.
That’s the elephant in the room that the press, the GOP, and especially the Democrats won’t talk about. Republicans have the power to actually stop the expansion and possibly reduce the size of government NOW, not next year, next decade, but NOW. The question is will they? Since I don’t believe that there is any true difference between either the Democrats or Republicans, I can safely predict that the GOP will go along to get along and vote to expand government and put you and I further into debt.
Want to make me eat crow and prove me wrong? That's Easy. Contact every Republican congressman and let them know that you don’t want any further expansion of government, that you don’t want any more debt, that you want them to vote NO on raising the debt ceiling. If enough people do this and the will of the people is made clear to Washington, we can stop this mad raging elephant what continues to spend beyond our means.
Tom Rhodes, Vice-Chair Libertarian Party of Citrus County, 2/15/2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
John Stossel: State of the Union
My State of the Union address
By John Stossel
Posted: January 26, 2011
President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty and gave his report on the state of the union last night. Here's mine:
We're in deep trouble.
You know why. Our debt has passed $14 trillion, and yet our current spending plans will make that worse. The U.S. debt will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.
But do not despair. If we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn't just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Henry David Thoreau had it right when he "accepted(ed) the motto ... that government is best which governs least."
So what should we get rid of?
We start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. Education ought to be in the free market. It's insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.
Next, we should close the Department of Housing and Urban Development: $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created. Let's get government out of that business.
Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can't count the votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. Trade should be free. Free trade creates prosperity. And since trade should be free, we should eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means: agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and subsidies for public broadcasting. None of these is needed.
I propose selling Amtrak. Taxpayers will save money, and riders will get better service. Why is government in the transportation business? Let's have private companies compete to run the trains.
And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook, the war on drugs. The drug war is really a war on our own people. The ends do not justify the means.
Now the biggest cuts. Republicans propose to cut discretionary nonmilitary spending. Good. But why stop there? That's only 15 percent of our budget. We must cut more. That means cutting Medicare, Social Security and the military.
I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular, but they are unsustainable. We must privatize Social Security and slowly replace Medicare with vouchers.
And that brings me to Obamacare. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. Then we must do more: We must repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. All that impedes competition.
Now, military spending. Do you recall what candidate Obama said about the war in Iraq?
"I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don't be confused."
But I am confused. We're two years past 2009, but we still have 48,000 troops in Iraq. We must shrink the military's mission to truly national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the entire world. We can't afford it, and it's not right.
Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that's not enough. We also need economic growth.
Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don't know what the rules – or taxes – will be tomorrow. This discourages hiring.
All destructive laws must go. I again propose the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.
We need to progress to an America that cherishes individual freedom. That means a government limited by the Constitution, one that protects our shores and our persons but otherwise stays out of our way. We should take seriously the words of another president, Thomas Jefferson, and embrace "a wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government."
That's my State of the Union address.
originally posted at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255649#ixzz1C8zNTnb5
By John Stossel
Posted: January 26, 2011
President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty and gave his report on the state of the union last night. Here's mine:
We're in deep trouble.
You know why. Our debt has passed $14 trillion, and yet our current spending plans will make that worse. The U.S. debt will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.
But do not despair. If we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn't just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Henry David Thoreau had it right when he "accepted(ed) the motto ... that government is best which governs least."
So what should we get rid of?
We start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. Education ought to be in the free market. It's insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.
Next, we should close the Department of Housing and Urban Development: $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created. Let's get government out of that business.
Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can't count the votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. Trade should be free. Free trade creates prosperity. And since trade should be free, we should eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means: agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and subsidies for public broadcasting. None of these is needed.
I propose selling Amtrak. Taxpayers will save money, and riders will get better service. Why is government in the transportation business? Let's have private companies compete to run the trains.
And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook, the war on drugs. The drug war is really a war on our own people. The ends do not justify the means.
Now the biggest cuts. Republicans propose to cut discretionary nonmilitary spending. Good. But why stop there? That's only 15 percent of our budget. We must cut more. That means cutting Medicare, Social Security and the military.
I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular, but they are unsustainable. We must privatize Social Security and slowly replace Medicare with vouchers.
And that brings me to Obamacare. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. Then we must do more: We must repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. All that impedes competition.
Now, military spending. Do you recall what candidate Obama said about the war in Iraq?
"I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don't be confused."
But I am confused. We're two years past 2009, but we still have 48,000 troops in Iraq. We must shrink the military's mission to truly national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the entire world. We can't afford it, and it's not right.
Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that's not enough. We also need economic growth.
Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don't know what the rules – or taxes – will be tomorrow. This discourages hiring.
All destructive laws must go. I again propose the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.
We need to progress to an America that cherishes individual freedom. That means a government limited by the Constitution, one that protects our shores and our persons but otherwise stays out of our way. We should take seriously the words of another president, Thomas Jefferson, and embrace "a wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government."
That's my State of the Union address.
originally posted at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255649#ixzz1C8zNTnb5
Thursday, December 23, 2010
2010 Census vs. Income Taxes
2010 Census results are out. America voted with her feet. Americans free to move from state to state, and immigrants free to choose where to live have made a decision. The Northeast is no longer growing, people are escaping it and it's liberal laws.
California once the fastest growing state in the union was stagnant over the last decade. For the first time in it's history it has not gained a house seat as the result of a census.
Texas grew grew 21 percent, its business-friendly regulations, diversified economy, and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states.
Here at home in Florida, we picked up two of New York's house seats. Where ever people can, they are moving away from high-tax pro-union states to low-tax pro-work states.
South Dakota and New Hampshire had the fastest growth in their regions although not as fast as the seven other states which do not have income taxes. The other seven of the nine states all grew faster than the national average. In total 35% of the nations total population expansion occurred in the 9 states without income taxes. These states in 2000 only had 19% of the nations population.
I think the power of the Northeast and industrial Midwest in winning the presidency is waning. The people of this country when given a choice, choose no income taxes. Next election will prove very interesting.
California once the fastest growing state in the union was stagnant over the last decade. For the first time in it's history it has not gained a house seat as the result of a census.
Texas grew grew 21 percent, its business-friendly regulations, diversified economy, and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states.
Here at home in Florida, we picked up two of New York's house seats. Where ever people can, they are moving away from high-tax pro-union states to low-tax pro-work states.
South Dakota and New Hampshire had the fastest growth in their regions although not as fast as the seven other states which do not have income taxes. The other seven of the nine states all grew faster than the national average. In total 35% of the nations total population expansion occurred in the 9 states without income taxes. These states in 2000 only had 19% of the nations population.
I think the power of the Northeast and industrial Midwest in winning the presidency is waning. The people of this country when given a choice, choose no income taxes. Next election will prove very interesting.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Republicans Will Betray the TEA Party
I usually don’t make predictions, I hope and pray that I am wrong but I do not believe we will see much if any change in our government even if there is a GOP landslide tomorrow. The mainstream press has convinced the majority of the American electorate that there is a right-left struggle going on between the Democrats and Republicans. They even favor the left. They have it wrong. The struggle in the USA is between a few ruling elite (regardless of party) and the average person. The Democrats headed by President Obama are openly socialistic, and make no bones about taking away individual liberty for the good of society (better known as their corporate sponsors). The Republicans pay lip service to being conservative, but their actions are far from it. They simply put a conservative spin on their fascist and socialist policies dictated by their corporate sponsors.
Observing the actions of both parties, one would almost suspect that they would prefer feudalism, with themselves as the benevolent ruling elite. None of the actions of either party reflect a belief that the government is or should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Look at the viscous attacks made at average people who dare to run against the ruling elite. The response of the GOP to O’Donnell and Angle are prime examples. You can feel the disdain from the party for the people who would dare not choose the ruling elite’s anointed candidate. Make no mistake about it the Republicans and Democrats are run by bluebloods who do not want and will actively attempt to stomp out any opposition that isn’t from their ruling elite club (or at least bought and paid for by the bluebloods).
The TEA Party, is an honest grass roots uprising of the American populace that originated as a non-partisan tax revolt targeted at too much government spending. Voxday in is weekly column said “The tea partiers are political innocents, for the most part, which is why they are now being so easily co-opted by a Republican establishment that has expertly harnessed the energy of tumult among the grassroots in decades past.” He also predicts that the TEA Party may be one of the GOP’s biggest enemies by 2012. I agree, because the GOP has repeatedly shown that it is only loyal to the dollar and keeping power and not to principle.
I predict that the Republicans will betray the TEA Party once they are back in power because they will not address the most pressing problems facing the nation; namely the restoration of individual private property rights, root causes of our economic down turn, rule of law, immigration, and our constant state of war. I believe they may exacerbate many of the problems facing the nation.
1) Private property rights. Republicans offer nothing on this, they can and will work to protect corporate property rights, but when it comes to individual rights they remain silent or worse yet rule against the individual. They routinely support taking property from people without due process, where it is cash (which they say must be drug money with no proof), or excessive regulations which limit what you can do with your property, they do not stand for individual property rights. Their lips say they support your rights but their deeds say they support more government.
2) The economy. Republicans voice nothing but empty and meaningless double talk. There is not a single word from a Republican leader on the secrecy of the Fed, pension-fund shortages and state bankruptcies. With a rare exception of Ron Paul the GOP does not support a fiscally sound dollar, and it appears that they plan on printing more money to pay off the national debt. Do you believe that the Republicans will let California go bankrupt, let the tens of thousands of California government workers lose their pensions, and use it as an example for other states to adopt smaller government and lower tax models like Texas’ or do you believe they will work with the Democrats to find some way to have the federal taxpayer (that’s you) bailout California, and the other states which are technically bankrupt?
3) Rule of Law. The Republicans defense of big banks when caught committing massive mortgage fraud, is a clear indicator that the GOP will actively protect the big banks from being forced to suffer the clear legal consequences of their criminal actions. They do not support the rule of law. They are no different in acting like elitist snobs who consider themselves above the law, than the Democrats. They have been just as likely as the Democrats to exempt themselves and their cronies from laws that everybody else must follow.
4) Immigration. Clearly the Republicans are talking out both sides of their mouth. They won’t vote for securing the border, or for limiting social welfare programs for immigrants, or support enforcing existing immigration laws. The GOP wants open borders for a differ reason than the Democrats, but the result is the same. The GOP want to keep a surplus of low skilled labor in the country to keep labor prices down for their corporate sponsors, while the Democrats want more low income people to add to the government dole eager to increase voters who support bigger government. Although theoretically open borders is the most libertarian of ideas, the reality is that no country that doesn’t defend its borders and control immigration lasts for long. Its enemies have easy access and its will lose its cultural identity, and those who immigrate who don’t have a culture of libertarian ideas, will soon suppress liberty. The message on what immigrants who want to be successful in America should do is “Learn English and adopt American Values.” The old model of a melting pot was superior to and more successful than the current “cultural diversity” model.
5) Constant State of War. The Republicans use a constant state of war, whether real or artificially created, to justify massive expenditures, and intrusive control of the US population. They support invading and occupying other nations regardless of the cost, and rationale. It is better to fight terrorism outside US borders, but nation building is not and should not be the goal of our country. If the people of another country want liberty and democracy, they let them get it the same way we got it; Fight for it themselves. Our military should be given clear military objectives, not social engineering objectives. The military’s job is, and should be limited to, defending the USA and its allies, or conquering our enemies. Nation building, social engineering, and other non-military objectives should not be a part of our Military. The Military is a tool of FORCE, period. If the objective is not to use FORCE then it should not be the Military’s job. They are not called the armed FORCES for nothing. The constant state of war, is not only hugely expensive, but provides an excuse to trample the rights of the American people. The Republicans who brought us the unPatriot Act are not going to try and end our constant state of war which gives them so much power.
The Republicans don’t have a Philosophy of Liberty anymore than the Democrats. Their loyalty is to their power and the good of their sponsors, this will become evident in due time. Because their loyalty is not to the people of the USA, my prediction is the result of tomorrows election will put the GOP in control of congress which will tehn betray the TEA Party who elected them. When they do, ask your self is there a political party of principle? Is there a political party that believes you know what’s best for you, not some ruling elite in Washington? Is there a political party that actually espouses the values that this country was originally founded?
Please watch this video The Philosophy of Liberty. If Liberty and what it means is something you believe in and would rather have than some “Nanny State” taking care of you; then support your local TEA Party (which is not a political party) and examine the platform and beliefs of some of the third parties, and help end the Republican and Democrat strangle hold on American politics. The Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same big government coin, and like that coin are becoming worth less and less. The Republicans will betray you, I for one hope that after you see that GOP has betrayed you that you look at the party of principle, the Libertarian Party.
Since when you vote tomorrow your individual vote is not of any real significance (no one person’s vote can or will change an election), then why not vote for your heart ,take a principled stand and vote for anybody besides a Democrat or Republican, preferably a Libertarian. But send a personal one vote message to both major parties that you’re fed up with them, and vote for a third party, the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, an independent, - Hell, vote for the “Rent is Too Damn High” party. Just don’t vote Republican or Democrat if you have a choice, you’ll feel better for sending the message. You don’t need to feel guilty, sense it’s obvious that the Republicrats and Demicans don’t worry about you, you don’t need to worry about them.
Observing the actions of both parties, one would almost suspect that they would prefer feudalism, with themselves as the benevolent ruling elite. None of the actions of either party reflect a belief that the government is or should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Look at the viscous attacks made at average people who dare to run against the ruling elite. The response of the GOP to O’Donnell and Angle are prime examples. You can feel the disdain from the party for the people who would dare not choose the ruling elite’s anointed candidate. Make no mistake about it the Republicans and Democrats are run by bluebloods who do not want and will actively attempt to stomp out any opposition that isn’t from their ruling elite club (or at least bought and paid for by the bluebloods).
The TEA Party, is an honest grass roots uprising of the American populace that originated as a non-partisan tax revolt targeted at too much government spending. Voxday in is weekly column said “The tea partiers are political innocents, for the most part, which is why they are now being so easily co-opted by a Republican establishment that has expertly harnessed the energy of tumult among the grassroots in decades past.” He also predicts that the TEA Party may be one of the GOP’s biggest enemies by 2012. I agree, because the GOP has repeatedly shown that it is only loyal to the dollar and keeping power and not to principle.
I predict that the Republicans will betray the TEA Party once they are back in power because they will not address the most pressing problems facing the nation; namely the restoration of individual private property rights, root causes of our economic down turn, rule of law, immigration, and our constant state of war. I believe they may exacerbate many of the problems facing the nation.
1) Private property rights. Republicans offer nothing on this, they can and will work to protect corporate property rights, but when it comes to individual rights they remain silent or worse yet rule against the individual. They routinely support taking property from people without due process, where it is cash (which they say must be drug money with no proof), or excessive regulations which limit what you can do with your property, they do not stand for individual property rights. Their lips say they support your rights but their deeds say they support more government.
2) The economy. Republicans voice nothing but empty and meaningless double talk. There is not a single word from a Republican leader on the secrecy of the Fed, pension-fund shortages and state bankruptcies. With a rare exception of Ron Paul the GOP does not support a fiscally sound dollar, and it appears that they plan on printing more money to pay off the national debt. Do you believe that the Republicans will let California go bankrupt, let the tens of thousands of California government workers lose their pensions, and use it as an example for other states to adopt smaller government and lower tax models like Texas’ or do you believe they will work with the Democrats to find some way to have the federal taxpayer (that’s you) bailout California, and the other states which are technically bankrupt?
3) Rule of Law. The Republicans defense of big banks when caught committing massive mortgage fraud, is a clear indicator that the GOP will actively protect the big banks from being forced to suffer the clear legal consequences of their criminal actions. They do not support the rule of law. They are no different in acting like elitist snobs who consider themselves above the law, than the Democrats. They have been just as likely as the Democrats to exempt themselves and their cronies from laws that everybody else must follow.
4) Immigration. Clearly the Republicans are talking out both sides of their mouth. They won’t vote for securing the border, or for limiting social welfare programs for immigrants, or support enforcing existing immigration laws. The GOP wants open borders for a differ reason than the Democrats, but the result is the same. The GOP want to keep a surplus of low skilled labor in the country to keep labor prices down for their corporate sponsors, while the Democrats want more low income people to add to the government dole eager to increase voters who support bigger government. Although theoretically open borders is the most libertarian of ideas, the reality is that no country that doesn’t defend its borders and control immigration lasts for long. Its enemies have easy access and its will lose its cultural identity, and those who immigrate who don’t have a culture of libertarian ideas, will soon suppress liberty. The message on what immigrants who want to be successful in America should do is “Learn English and adopt American Values.” The old model of a melting pot was superior to and more successful than the current “cultural diversity” model.
5) Constant State of War. The Republicans use a constant state of war, whether real or artificially created, to justify massive expenditures, and intrusive control of the US population. They support invading and occupying other nations regardless of the cost, and rationale. It is better to fight terrorism outside US borders, but nation building is not and should not be the goal of our country. If the people of another country want liberty and democracy, they let them get it the same way we got it; Fight for it themselves. Our military should be given clear military objectives, not social engineering objectives. The military’s job is, and should be limited to, defending the USA and its allies, or conquering our enemies. Nation building, social engineering, and other non-military objectives should not be a part of our Military. The Military is a tool of FORCE, period. If the objective is not to use FORCE then it should not be the Military’s job. They are not called the armed FORCES for nothing. The constant state of war, is not only hugely expensive, but provides an excuse to trample the rights of the American people. The Republicans who brought us the unPatriot Act are not going to try and end our constant state of war which gives them so much power.
The Republicans don’t have a Philosophy of Liberty anymore than the Democrats. Their loyalty is to their power and the good of their sponsors, this will become evident in due time. Because their loyalty is not to the people of the USA, my prediction is the result of tomorrows election will put the GOP in control of congress which will tehn betray the TEA Party who elected them. When they do, ask your self is there a political party of principle? Is there a political party that believes you know what’s best for you, not some ruling elite in Washington? Is there a political party that actually espouses the values that this country was originally founded?
Please watch this video The Philosophy of Liberty. If Liberty and what it means is something you believe in and would rather have than some “Nanny State” taking care of you; then support your local TEA Party (which is not a political party) and examine the platform and beliefs of some of the third parties, and help end the Republican and Democrat strangle hold on American politics. The Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same big government coin, and like that coin are becoming worth less and less. The Republicans will betray you, I for one hope that after you see that GOP has betrayed you that you look at the party of principle, the Libertarian Party.
Since when you vote tomorrow your individual vote is not of any real significance (no one person’s vote can or will change an election), then why not vote for your heart ,take a principled stand and vote for anybody besides a Democrat or Republican, preferably a Libertarian. But send a personal one vote message to both major parties that you’re fed up with them, and vote for a third party, the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, an independent, - Hell, vote for the “Rent is Too Damn High” party. Just don’t vote Republican or Democrat if you have a choice, you’ll feel better for sending the message. You don’t need to feel guilty, sense it’s obvious that the Republicrats and Demicans don’t worry about you, you don’t need to worry about them.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Inflation and Government Lies
For the last two years, Social Security recipients were denied cost-of-living adjustments because of the systematic underreporting of inflation. The reason is that the government claims the cost of living didn’t go up. Seniors are justifiably pissed. They look at the cost of their food, medicine, fuel, etc. and the amount of money left at the end of the month and they know that the cost of living has gone up, even if the government says it hasn’t.
How can the government claim the cost of living hasn’t gone up compared to the reality we all feel in our wallets? That is an easy answer; the US government, to make inflation numbers look good, has simply changed the rules on how they calculate the cost of living. The people at Shadowstats.com have created this interesting graph. It compares the reported cost of living index by the government as now calculated, with the methodology used in 1980. The numbers don’t match.
Just look at the cost of commodities used in everyday products. Corn is up 45 percent in the last three months. Cotton prices have reached historic levels. Rice, sugar and soybeans are up. Oil is up. Gold, copper and silver are up. So are coffee and cocoa. Beef prices are up. Almost every commodity is up by double digits. All of these things are costing more yet the government claims inflation is low or non-existent. Is it any wonder that polls show that the people don’t trust politicians and that the approval rating for congress is at all time lows? There is no escaping the fact that our government is not to be trusted.
"John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics" is an electronic newsletter service that exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic and financial conditions, without financial-market and political hype. Visit Shadowstats.com and learn more.
How can the government claim the cost of living hasn’t gone up compared to the reality we all feel in our wallets? That is an easy answer; the US government, to make inflation numbers look good, has simply changed the rules on how they calculate the cost of living. The people at Shadowstats.com have created this interesting graph. It compares the reported cost of living index by the government as now calculated, with the methodology used in 1980. The numbers don’t match.
Just look at the cost of commodities used in everyday products. Corn is up 45 percent in the last three months. Cotton prices have reached historic levels. Rice, sugar and soybeans are up. Oil is up. Gold, copper and silver are up. So are coffee and cocoa. Beef prices are up. Almost every commodity is up by double digits. All of these things are costing more yet the government claims inflation is low or non-existent. Is it any wonder that polls show that the people don’t trust politicians and that the approval rating for congress is at all time lows? There is no escaping the fact that our government is not to be trusted.
"John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics" is an electronic newsletter service that exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic and financial conditions, without financial-market and political hype. Visit Shadowstats.com and learn more.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Auto Bailout Dollars go to Foreign Manufacturing
Again Bailout of US automaker goes to foreign jobs not US Jobs. Chrysler announced that it will be selling the little Italian Fiat 500 in major cities. This is an efficient mini-car that may do well in today economy, except . . .
The Fiat 500 will be built in Toluca, Mexico.
I'm sorry, but like I said about GM, I will not purchase any Chrysler product again. After we bailed them out they start and expand new productions in another country. If Subaru, Honda,Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, and Mercedes can all build cars for a profit in America without US tax dollars to bail them out then I expect Chrysler to do the same. The US government shouldn't be borrowing money, that will have to get repaid with my tax dollars, to create jobs in foreign countries.
The Fiat 500 will be built in Toluca, Mexico.
I'm sorry, but like I said about GM, I will not purchase any Chrysler product again. After we bailed them out they start and expand new productions in another country. If Subaru, Honda,Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, and Mercedes can all build cars for a profit in America without US tax dollars to bail them out then I expect Chrysler to do the same. The US government shouldn't be borrowing money, that will have to get repaid with my tax dollars, to create jobs in foreign countries.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Bailed Out GM expands production - In Mexico not USA
The American people in the middle of a historic economic down turn bail out GM, how does GM repay the American people? Expand their production in Mexico. Somebody please explain to me how the stimulus and bailout of GM is saving US Jobs. August 3rd GM announced its plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle.
The government now owns 61% of GM, so I’m trying to figure out how expanding plants in Mexico keeps US unemployment under 8% as promised. I just don’t get it. Why did we bail out GM, if its expansion is going to be in Mexico not the US. Maybe it’s because Government Motors doesn’t want to hire illegal Mexicans in the US, so to hire them at significantly less than a UAW worker, they are expanding in Mexico. That way the Mexicans they hire are not illegal, and they can pay them what they would pay an illegal in the States, and avoid all that messy UAW employment rules.
It’s funny how Kia just opened a new plant in Georgia, that’s making money and crossovers with 10 year warranty. Isn’t it odd how foreign car companies have expanded in America; Hyundai and Mercedes are making cars in Alabama, and BMW in building sports cars in South Carolina, but GM expands in Mexico. If Kia, BMW, Mercedes, and Hyundai think building plants in the USA without federal government funding is profitable, why doesn’t GM with government funding think they can be profitable manufacturing in the USA? If they thought that they could then wouldn’t they be building and expanding in the USA. Obviously there is something I don’t understand.
Somebody explain to me in the middle of a recession why the government owned car company is expanding in a foreign country. I don’t care how good GM vehicles become, as long as they are owned by the government, and keep expanding in foreign countries abandoning the American worker I won’t buy their product. I’d rather buy a Kia, BMW, Hyundai, or Mercedes, foreign companies that are willing to invest in America, than a GM product made by a company investing in Mexico.
The government now owns 61% of GM, so I’m trying to figure out how expanding plants in Mexico keeps US unemployment under 8% as promised. I just don’t get it. Why did we bail out GM, if its expansion is going to be in Mexico not the US. Maybe it’s because Government Motors doesn’t want to hire illegal Mexicans in the US, so to hire them at significantly less than a UAW worker, they are expanding in Mexico. That way the Mexicans they hire are not illegal, and they can pay them what they would pay an illegal in the States, and avoid all that messy UAW employment rules.
It’s funny how Kia just opened a new plant in Georgia, that’s making money and crossovers with 10 year warranty. Isn’t it odd how foreign car companies have expanded in America; Hyundai and Mercedes are making cars in Alabama, and BMW in building sports cars in South Carolina, but GM expands in Mexico. If Kia, BMW, Mercedes, and Hyundai think building plants in the USA without federal government funding is profitable, why doesn’t GM with government funding think they can be profitable manufacturing in the USA? If they thought that they could then wouldn’t they be building and expanding in the USA. Obviously there is something I don’t understand.
Somebody explain to me in the middle of a recession why the government owned car company is expanding in a foreign country. I don’t care how good GM vehicles become, as long as they are owned by the government, and keep expanding in foreign countries abandoning the American worker I won’t buy their product. I’d rather buy a Kia, BMW, Hyundai, or Mercedes, foreign companies that are willing to invest in America, than a GM product made by a company investing in Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
