I remember watching the Brady Bunch as a kid. It was on for an hour every night between 5 and 6 or 6 and 7. Something like that. 2 Episodes back to back. I must have seen every episode at least a million times. I was thinking recently about a particular episode, it may have even been a 2-parter. It was the one where Greg met a girl who thought he was a great singer. She introduced him to a record producer and they were going to make an album. The catch was, they wanted him as a solo artist. Greg was already in a band with his brothers and sisters. What would he do? Should he turn his back on his family for what may be his only shot at stardom? It turns out that he did. He was going to be the next Johnny Bravo. But when he heard the record, it didn't sound anything like him at all. The girl and the producer only wanted him because he fit the suit. When he started making noises about his own songs and his own talent and artistic integrity, they told him to get with the program or get out.
What does this have to do with Barack Obama? I'm glad you asked. Obama was plucked from obscurity, an unknown community organizer from Illinois, and thrust into the vanguard of the Democratic party for a reason. He was a liberal from a liberal state, but he was palatable to the mainstream of America. A smooth talking, articulate, attractive man with the right pedigree and the right connections, he was the perfect choice to lead the left-wing of the party into the future. He was introduced to all the right people and said all the right things. He managed to beat back Hillary Clinton in the primary and routed McCain in the general election. Along with growing majorities in the house and the senate, this was proof to the moonbats that they finally had a mandate from the American people to institute the kind of policies they had been dreaming about for a century, and they had just the guy to lead them.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialist utopia. The American people woke up. They began to see through the fancy rhetoric and telegenic looks. They started to look at what was being shoved through congress and decided that this was not what they voted for. We wanted change, but not like this. The Tea Party became a bonified movement, and many independents saw in it an alternative answer to the problems we are facing as a nation. They began to abandon the Good Ship Obamapop in droves. Young people followed quickly behind, not necessarily to the Tea Party, but away from the Democrats. The election in November was as much a referendum on America's youth as the incumbents who were voted out. Young people were either disillusioned, disenfranchised, or had simply moved on to the next cool thing. Obama and his party were a passing fad, like the hula hoop or the pet rock. When the bloom came off the rose, most of them buried their faces back into their Iphones or Ipads or whatever other gadgets they all have to have. The true believers felt like they had been lied to. When you tell someone in their early 20's that they are the ones they've been waiting for, and that your election will signal the oceans to recede and the earth to begin to heal, they tend to believe you. When you don't deliver, they tend to get upset.
So now Obama no longer holds the majority in both houses to push through his far-left agenda. The clearest demonstration of this was his inability to pass a compromise bill to extend the Bush tax cuts to all but the wealthiest Americans in the senate, even in a lame-duck session. It looks like the tax rates will stay the same for the foreseeable future. But now Obama is in a tight spot. The far left is unhappy with him. They are the true idealogues. They are starting to realize that Obama is really a politician first, and a moonbat second. The only idealogy that matters to politicians is their own self-preservation. If Obama wants to be re-elected, he'll have to pull a Clinton and move toward the center, but if he does that, the kooks will lose their minds. They are already making noises about a challenge in the primary in 2012 from the left. He keeps pleading for patience. They seem to be saying that if Obama can't do what needs to be done, they'll find someone who can. After all, the only reason they chose him is because he fit the suit.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Call me crazy, but I think I finally understand Joe Biden. Not entirely, but at least his economic beliefs. I heard him say not too long ago, that we had to keep spending money to keep from going bankrupt. I thought to myself, "Huh?" It didn't make any sense to me at all. You can't keep spending money if you are out of money, can you? Well, no. You can't, and I can't, but that's because, unlike the federal government, we can't just print more money when we run out. They can. Whether or not they should is another question entirely.
I understand the theory though. It's basically a dumbed-down version of Keynesian economics. The theory goes that, in tough economic times people are not spending the money that they have. This lack of monetary circulation creates a drag on the economy. With little money being invested by private interests, there is little growth, which leads to stagnation and a deepening of the recession, depression, whatever you want to call it. Biden and his ilk believe that it is the government's responsibility to stimulate the economy by infusing it with cash. With more money circulating, more people will be led to invest and spend their own money. This will jumpstart the economy. When the crisis is over, the government can then suck the excess money back out of circulation by raising interest rates, leaving behind a much stronger and growing economic situation.
It makes sense on paper. But just like most things on paper, including the money we are printing, it doesn't pass the smell test. The problem is that, and I may be wrong on this, the government doesn't create or produce anything by itself, that means that the money has to come from somewhere. If they continue to monetize their own debt - quantitative easing as they call it, lending themselves money to pay themselves back as I call it - the value of the dollar will necessarily decline. Basically, your money will buy you less stuff. This is called inflation. Inflation is not always a bad thing, but when the dollar is overcirculated to the point that it is literally not worth the paper it's printed on, that may be bad. So the money to pay for all this will have to come from taxes. Since only the wealthiest people in America actually pay taxes now, and no politician is going to propose making the rest of the country pay more, we will go after the rich. They can afford it, so let's soak them.
That's where Biden and his buddies have it wrong. The whole point of stimulating the economy is to convince people to invest their own money so the government can get theirs back. No one invests money to lose money, you invest to make more money than you started with. The more, the better. But if, in order to pay for all this, the government has to take more of the money we earn, what incentive is there to try to earn more money? Don't kid yourself, the wealthy are not stupid. They got rich for a reason. They aren't going to risk taking a loss if they aren't sure how much of their gain they'll actually be able to keep. And so they will continue to sit on their money.
FDR tried to go after the rich during the great depression, because they were greedily hanging on to the money that they earned, instead of trying to increase their wealth so he could take it from them. This class warfare, in addition to the onerous tariff laws passed in the late 20's, actually put the "Great" in the great depression. Let's not make the same mistake again. If we go after the wealth-creators, they will stop creating wealth, and then we all lose.
I understand the theory though. It's basically a dumbed-down version of Keynesian economics. The theory goes that, in tough economic times people are not spending the money that they have. This lack of monetary circulation creates a drag on the economy. With little money being invested by private interests, there is little growth, which leads to stagnation and a deepening of the recession, depression, whatever you want to call it. Biden and his ilk believe that it is the government's responsibility to stimulate the economy by infusing it with cash. With more money circulating, more people will be led to invest and spend their own money. This will jumpstart the economy. When the crisis is over, the government can then suck the excess money back out of circulation by raising interest rates, leaving behind a much stronger and growing economic situation.
It makes sense on paper. But just like most things on paper, including the money we are printing, it doesn't pass the smell test. The problem is that, and I may be wrong on this, the government doesn't create or produce anything by itself, that means that the money has to come from somewhere. If they continue to monetize their own debt - quantitative easing as they call it, lending themselves money to pay themselves back as I call it - the value of the dollar will necessarily decline. Basically, your money will buy you less stuff. This is called inflation. Inflation is not always a bad thing, but when the dollar is overcirculated to the point that it is literally not worth the paper it's printed on, that may be bad. So the money to pay for all this will have to come from taxes. Since only the wealthiest people in America actually pay taxes now, and no politician is going to propose making the rest of the country pay more, we will go after the rich. They can afford it, so let's soak them.
That's where Biden and his buddies have it wrong. The whole point of stimulating the economy is to convince people to invest their own money so the government can get theirs back. No one invests money to lose money, you invest to make more money than you started with. The more, the better. But if, in order to pay for all this, the government has to take more of the money we earn, what incentive is there to try to earn more money? Don't kid yourself, the wealthy are not stupid. They got rich for a reason. They aren't going to risk taking a loss if they aren't sure how much of their gain they'll actually be able to keep. And so they will continue to sit on their money.
FDR tried to go after the rich during the great depression, because they were greedily hanging on to the money that they earned, instead of trying to increase their wealth so he could take it from them. This class warfare, in addition to the onerous tariff laws passed in the late 20's, actually put the "Great" in the great depression. Let's not make the same mistake again. If we go after the wealth-creators, they will stop creating wealth, and then we all lose.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
I've been doing some thinking lately about little-known Austrian economist Joseph Stumperer. I know, most people thinking of Austrian economists think of Ludwig Von Mises or Frederic Hayek. Most people don't think of Austrian economists at all, and the only Hayek they think of is Selma, but I do, and that is my cross to bear. At any rate, Stumperer opined that the logical result of capitalism was socialism, not through revolution but through evolution. He, unlike Marx, felt that over time, capitalism would in effect, peter out, leaving in it's wake some form of socialistic, bureaucratic takeover of the economy. Through it's own success, capitalism would, in effect, kill itself. The entrepeneurs, who are the lifeblood of any free enterprise system, would finally morph into, basically, clerks. After all the good ideas are used up, and there are no more avenues to 'Industrial empires',we will all end up working for the man. He is one of the only economists that I have read who expound on the virtues of socialism that even take human nature into account. He seems to feel that, in the absence of untold riches and wealth, capable people will opt for the security of a steady job. If you can't beat em...join em.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and I look forward to reading more of his work, but in the meantime I wonder. If the logical result of capitalism is socialism, and the result of socialism is, if history has shown us anything, poverty, chaos, and misery. What does that mean for us? Or more importantly, what does that mean for me? No offense, but I don't care much about anything but myself and my family right now. We are, as I'm sure you are, struggling just to make ends meet. But it's a hard, hard world out there, and our problems don't amount to a hill of beans blah blah blah. So where do we go from here?
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we follow Europe. If you pay attention to the news, you know there is chaos in western europe right now. Riots in the streets, blood on the tracks, and anarchy at the doorstep. This is happening in France because the government is suggesting raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. Really? 2 years is worth burning the nation to the ground? This from a people that couldn't surrender fast enough to the Germans. They gave it up faster than Snooki gave up Jwoww on Jersey Shores, and yet, try to take away their free stuff, and all of a sudden, the French grow a spine. The Greeks are taking to the streets like, well, Greeks take to sheep, all because their government is realizing that there is no pot of gold at the end of the socialist rainbow. The only thing left the morning after this one-night stand is regret, a hangover, and a huge bar tab at the China Lotus.
So several European nations are saying no more. Albeit in quiet, almost apologetic tones. No more can we afford to postpone the bill. The tab needs to be payed. No more rounds for the house. The sad part is, America has been footing the bill for their outrageous entitlement spending since the advent of the cold war, and they're still out of money. We have been protecting them for 60 years, to the point where they can no longer protect themselves. What happens to them if we can no longer afford to be the policeman to the world? Who cares? We all should. If capitalism logically morphs into socialism, and socialism leads to misery, than the only hope for mankind is a third way. What is that way? I don't know, but if it ends in ism, I'm against it. Call it principle, call it stupid, stubborn, or simple-mindedness, but I'm sick and tired of isms, unless it's Anti-ism-ism. Then I'm all for it. When someone comes up with that platform, call me. Until then, I'm out.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and I look forward to reading more of his work, but in the meantime I wonder. If the logical result of capitalism is socialism, and the result of socialism is, if history has shown us anything, poverty, chaos, and misery. What does that mean for us? Or more importantly, what does that mean for me? No offense, but I don't care much about anything but myself and my family right now. We are, as I'm sure you are, struggling just to make ends meet. But it's a hard, hard world out there, and our problems don't amount to a hill of beans blah blah blah. So where do we go from here?
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we follow Europe. If you pay attention to the news, you know there is chaos in western europe right now. Riots in the streets, blood on the tracks, and anarchy at the doorstep. This is happening in France because the government is suggesting raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. Really? 2 years is worth burning the nation to the ground? This from a people that couldn't surrender fast enough to the Germans. They gave it up faster than Snooki gave up Jwoww on Jersey Shores, and yet, try to take away their free stuff, and all of a sudden, the French grow a spine. The Greeks are taking to the streets like, well, Greeks take to sheep, all because their government is realizing that there is no pot of gold at the end of the socialist rainbow. The only thing left the morning after this one-night stand is regret, a hangover, and a huge bar tab at the China Lotus.
So several European nations are saying no more. Albeit in quiet, almost apologetic tones. No more can we afford to postpone the bill. The tab needs to be payed. No more rounds for the house. The sad part is, America has been footing the bill for their outrageous entitlement spending since the advent of the cold war, and they're still out of money. We have been protecting them for 60 years, to the point where they can no longer protect themselves. What happens to them if we can no longer afford to be the policeman to the world? Who cares? We all should. If capitalism logically morphs into socialism, and socialism leads to misery, than the only hope for mankind is a third way. What is that way? I don't know, but if it ends in ism, I'm against it. Call it principle, call it stupid, stubborn, or simple-mindedness, but I'm sick and tired of isms, unless it's Anti-ism-ism. Then I'm all for it. When someone comes up with that platform, call me. Until then, I'm out.
Monday, October 11, 2010
This could be the greatest year in the history of this nation. Greater than 1776, or 1787. It could have more impact on our future than 1860 or 1929. It could be the beginning of the new beginning of the United States of America. But it will only be the beginning. November 2nd, 2010 may be remembered by future generations as the day we got our groove back. The day the American people demanded that their country got back to the principles upon which it was founded. But it will only be the beginning.
Why, in the midst of the worst economic situation since the great depression, with federal deficits through the roof and unfunded liabilities at mindboggling levels, is there any reason for optimism? Look at the political scene unfolding around us. Look at the politicians, and I use that term very loosely, that stand to take advantage of the current dissaffection with Washington. Do any of them look like politicians? Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Palladino? Do any of them look familiar? To me, they look like a changing of the guard, a new breed of citizen-statesman. The kind that the founding fathers first envisioned when they launched this noble experiment.
I don't know much about any of these candidates, but I don't need to, I'm not in their districts. What I do know is that they all have a chance to win. And I hope that they all do. But that will be just the beginning. Eternal vigilance by a well-informed populace is the only thing that can keep democracy from the inexorable slide into tyranny. We need to watch these people as if they were paroled convicts hired to manage our bank accounts. They don't look like normal politicians, and it's up to us to ensure that they don't act like them. Looks can be deceiving but not always.
For example, let's look at Chris Christie and Scott Brown. I like Christie. I'll admit, I don't know much about him, but everything I've seen is good. He doesn't pull punches, he doesn't back down, and he never passes up an opportunity to speak his mind. He doesn't strike me as the type of person that tests the direction of the populist winds before he gives his opinion on any subject. I like that. I like honest, straightforward people that don't worry too much about what other people think. If something is right to you, do it and let the chips fall where they may. If I'm going to make a mistake, I'll err on the side of my own principles, not on the latest Rasmussen polls. Keep an eye on Christie.
Now let's look at Brown. He is the anti-Christie. He looks like he just stepped out of a men's fashion magazine where Christie looks like he just stepped out of a Dunkin Donuts on his way to a Honeydew with a pit stop at Mcdonalds in between. Christie is trying to balance the budget of New Jersey, while Brown looks like he spent the budget of New Jersey on his haircut. But Brown is a republican just like Christie. Really? Brown is a Massachusetts republican, which is a little like being the least racist guy at a Klan rally, or to keep the focus on Christie, the thinnest guy at fat camp. Brown is a politician first, a conservative second. Christie is Christie first, Christie second, and thirds on the chocolate cake please. But that is what I like about him. He is unapologetic, brash, and loud. He is a Jersey Guy, governing the state of New Jersey. Brown is a Massachusetts guy, deciding the fate of people in North Dakota, Iowa, and South Carolina.
The federal government is too far removed from, and has too much power over the entire country. There is no reason why a governor in New Jersey, duly elected by the citizens of his state, should have to defer to the wishes of a senator from Massachusetts in any matter pertaining to the well-being of the state of New Jersey. That is not how this government was designed, but that is what it has become. This year could be the beginning of the end of that. Let's all hope that the unconventional "Politicians" that are preparing to move into power are exactly what they seem. Let's hope that they return to the doctrine of self-determination that made this nation great in the first place. The idea that the unwashed masses, in all their ignorance, knew their own interests more than the elites in Washington. That is was up to the people to decide, for good or ill, the direction of their lives. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that the era of big government is over for real this time, and we can all get back to the business of our own lives.
Why, in the midst of the worst economic situation since the great depression, with federal deficits through the roof and unfunded liabilities at mindboggling levels, is there any reason for optimism? Look at the political scene unfolding around us. Look at the politicians, and I use that term very loosely, that stand to take advantage of the current dissaffection with Washington. Do any of them look like politicians? Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Palladino? Do any of them look familiar? To me, they look like a changing of the guard, a new breed of citizen-statesman. The kind that the founding fathers first envisioned when they launched this noble experiment.
I don't know much about any of these candidates, but I don't need to, I'm not in their districts. What I do know is that they all have a chance to win. And I hope that they all do. But that will be just the beginning. Eternal vigilance by a well-informed populace is the only thing that can keep democracy from the inexorable slide into tyranny. We need to watch these people as if they were paroled convicts hired to manage our bank accounts. They don't look like normal politicians, and it's up to us to ensure that they don't act like them. Looks can be deceiving but not always.
For example, let's look at Chris Christie and Scott Brown. I like Christie. I'll admit, I don't know much about him, but everything I've seen is good. He doesn't pull punches, he doesn't back down, and he never passes up an opportunity to speak his mind. He doesn't strike me as the type of person that tests the direction of the populist winds before he gives his opinion on any subject. I like that. I like honest, straightforward people that don't worry too much about what other people think. If something is right to you, do it and let the chips fall where they may. If I'm going to make a mistake, I'll err on the side of my own principles, not on the latest Rasmussen polls. Keep an eye on Christie.
Now let's look at Brown. He is the anti-Christie. He looks like he just stepped out of a men's fashion magazine where Christie looks like he just stepped out of a Dunkin Donuts on his way to a Honeydew with a pit stop at Mcdonalds in between. Christie is trying to balance the budget of New Jersey, while Brown looks like he spent the budget of New Jersey on his haircut. But Brown is a republican just like Christie. Really? Brown is a Massachusetts republican, which is a little like being the least racist guy at a Klan rally, or to keep the focus on Christie, the thinnest guy at fat camp. Brown is a politician first, a conservative second. Christie is Christie first, Christie second, and thirds on the chocolate cake please. But that is what I like about him. He is unapologetic, brash, and loud. He is a Jersey Guy, governing the state of New Jersey. Brown is a Massachusetts guy, deciding the fate of people in North Dakota, Iowa, and South Carolina.
The federal government is too far removed from, and has too much power over the entire country. There is no reason why a governor in New Jersey, duly elected by the citizens of his state, should have to defer to the wishes of a senator from Massachusetts in any matter pertaining to the well-being of the state of New Jersey. That is not how this government was designed, but that is what it has become. This year could be the beginning of the end of that. Let's all hope that the unconventional "Politicians" that are preparing to move into power are exactly what they seem. Let's hope that they return to the doctrine of self-determination that made this nation great in the first place. The idea that the unwashed masses, in all their ignorance, knew their own interests more than the elites in Washington. That is was up to the people to decide, for good or ill, the direction of their lives. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that the era of big government is over for real this time, and we can all get back to the business of our own lives.
Friday, May 21, 2010
grassroots Mcarthy
Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the house of representatives or senate? This is the question we must ask of everyone in November. If the answer is yes, vote for the other guy. I don't care if the opponent is a convicted felon. At least they've been convicted of their crimes and payed their debt to society. That would imply at least a semblance of self-reflection. Perhaps some humility and acceptance of the fact that you can't get away with it.
Look at the people that are now inhabiting the corridors of power in our nation. Look at what they've done. Ask yourself if you are okay with it. Ask yourself if this is what you elected them to do. If so, congratulations. You're winning. If not, do something about it.
Don't look at the letter in front of the name. It doesn't make any difference to them, why should it to you? They're all after the same thing, another term feeding at the public trough. None of them have ever done anything, produced anything, created anything in their lives. They are the very definition of 2nd raters - They are uncomfortable in their own uselessness, but hate anyone that has any use or purpose in life. "I can't do it, so I don't like anyone that can and I'm gonna take my ball and go home." Really? Please do. The only time they unhook the feedbag is when they want to lie to you to get you to vote for them...hello Scott Brown.
Here's the thing, It doesn't matter who represents you if they don't represent YOU. So look at the candiates, not the parties. Find out whatever you can about them. Don't listen to what they say when the microphones are on, look at what they do when they're not. For instance, would Nancy Pelosi survive a trip into a church of any kind? My mom once told me that if the devil set foot in a church, he would probably croak. And yet, here she is, talking about the importance of "The Word". What word is that Nancy? To my mind, the word is no, as in no more. No more shenanigans, no more ballyhoo.
Look at your choices, the democrat, the republican, the independent, and then look at people you know. Someone in your family, your church, your neighborhood. Think of someone that you admire. Ask yourself who would be a better representative for you, a career politician or someone that has actually had to fight and struggle to survive in the real world. Someone that has spent their entire adult life hiding from the reality that we face every day, that is to succeed or fail on your own merits, or someone that has embraced and thrived in that atmosphere. Think about who better understands your fate, your issues, your circumstance. Who would you like to speak for you?
I remember laughing at the story of my mom, who wrote in a vote for a candidate not even on the ballot. "What a waste of a vote" I thought. But isn't that the true essence of a vote. We give our support to a candidate. Shouldn't we get to choose that candidate? Isn't every vote a strike at the establishment, a cry in the darkness? Shouldn't we relish the opportunity to voice our opinion, whatever that may be? Was her vote any more a waste than my vote for Mccain? Was it an empty statement? No more than voting for empty promises from an empty suit. A vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.
This is a remarkable time, in a remarkable nation. People that spew nonsense have an audience of millions. People that make sense have their reputations ruined. Which will you be? Will you bear the scars of a battle honorably lost, or the fruits of someone else's labor? Will you stand for what you believe in, or will you sit and watch as others you don't believe in speak for you? Will you determine your own destiny, or let someone else choose your fate? All you have is your voice, your choice, your vote. Don't waste it.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who can, and those who wish they could. Which are you? Can you make a difference, or do you just wish you could? I wish I could, and I still believe I can. I will do everything in my power to save my country, for I believe it is worth saving. I believe in the ideas that were unleashed on the world in 1787. The simple and core truths that were embraced and expounded on by the founders of our nation, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, not guaranteed equal results. It's a hard world that we live in, and it takes a hard person to thrive in it. So be hard, live hard, and in the words of the immortal Dewey Cox, "walk hard"
TFD
Look at the people that are now inhabiting the corridors of power in our nation. Look at what they've done. Ask yourself if you are okay with it. Ask yourself if this is what you elected them to do. If so, congratulations. You're winning. If not, do something about it.
Don't look at the letter in front of the name. It doesn't make any difference to them, why should it to you? They're all after the same thing, another term feeding at the public trough. None of them have ever done anything, produced anything, created anything in their lives. They are the very definition of 2nd raters - They are uncomfortable in their own uselessness, but hate anyone that has any use or purpose in life. "I can't do it, so I don't like anyone that can and I'm gonna take my ball and go home." Really? Please do. The only time they unhook the feedbag is when they want to lie to you to get you to vote for them...hello Scott Brown.
Here's the thing, It doesn't matter who represents you if they don't represent YOU. So look at the candiates, not the parties. Find out whatever you can about them. Don't listen to what they say when the microphones are on, look at what they do when they're not. For instance, would Nancy Pelosi survive a trip into a church of any kind? My mom once told me that if the devil set foot in a church, he would probably croak. And yet, here she is, talking about the importance of "The Word". What word is that Nancy? To my mind, the word is no, as in no more. No more shenanigans, no more ballyhoo.
Look at your choices, the democrat, the republican, the independent, and then look at people you know. Someone in your family, your church, your neighborhood. Think of someone that you admire. Ask yourself who would be a better representative for you, a career politician or someone that has actually had to fight and struggle to survive in the real world. Someone that has spent their entire adult life hiding from the reality that we face every day, that is to succeed or fail on your own merits, or someone that has embraced and thrived in that atmosphere. Think about who better understands your fate, your issues, your circumstance. Who would you like to speak for you?
I remember laughing at the story of my mom, who wrote in a vote for a candidate not even on the ballot. "What a waste of a vote" I thought. But isn't that the true essence of a vote. We give our support to a candidate. Shouldn't we get to choose that candidate? Isn't every vote a strike at the establishment, a cry in the darkness? Shouldn't we relish the opportunity to voice our opinion, whatever that may be? Was her vote any more a waste than my vote for Mccain? Was it an empty statement? No more than voting for empty promises from an empty suit. A vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.
This is a remarkable time, in a remarkable nation. People that spew nonsense have an audience of millions. People that make sense have their reputations ruined. Which will you be? Will you bear the scars of a battle honorably lost, or the fruits of someone else's labor? Will you stand for what you believe in, or will you sit and watch as others you don't believe in speak for you? Will you determine your own destiny, or let someone else choose your fate? All you have is your voice, your choice, your vote. Don't waste it.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who can, and those who wish they could. Which are you? Can you make a difference, or do you just wish you could? I wish I could, and I still believe I can. I will do everything in my power to save my country, for I believe it is worth saving. I believe in the ideas that were unleashed on the world in 1787. The simple and core truths that were embraced and expounded on by the founders of our nation, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, not guaranteed equal results. It's a hard world that we live in, and it takes a hard person to thrive in it. So be hard, live hard, and in the words of the immortal Dewey Cox, "walk hard"
TFD
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, these include..." a well-paying job, a nice home, and free health care.
What, that's not right? Isn't that what Madison meant by inalienable rights? If you merely substitute the creator with the government, you get what this administration is driving towards. In fact, it has been the goal of the progressive movement to replace God with government since the turn of the 20th century. And so today is the date of their greatest victory. The government has bestowed another right on it's people. Never mind that rights can only come from God, however you refer to Him (or Her, or It). But wait, the government is now God. Or God is dead, according to Neitschke, He's been dead for a long time. According to Marx, we have no need for Him in the industrial age. According to democratic , and some republican, politicians, they are Him.
Let's get a few things straight. First of all, the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away. That's what this health care reform bill is about. They are not giving citizens the right to health care, they are taking away the property rights of millions of Americans in order to play God. It's called redistribution of wealth. Maybe they believe it's the right thing to do. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi cares deeply about the plight of the downtrodden in this country, as do all of her fellow democrats. That's why they give so much of their money to charity. What? They don't give money to charity? Oh, they only give our money to charity. Well, at least it's going to a good cause. 16,000 more IRS agents. That'll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. That's almost one half of 1,000th of a percent of the country. This is about jobs after all. Never mind the 30 million jobs that will be lost in the next year. What will they say when unemployment hits 20 percent? Can they still blame Bush? What's the statute of limitations on that?
Second, and most importantly, this is not about health care at all, it's about power. It's about the government getting it's claws into your life, and never letting go. Everything in your life can be regulated through the prism of healthcare. What you eat, where you live, how many children you have, what you name them, how you raise them, etc. You get the idea. Once they are in, we can't ever get them out. Who knows a politician courageous enough to vote against social security, or medicare, or medicaid. They certainly won't repeal this entitlement. Once people get a taste of free stuff, woe to the man that tries to take it away. Take a look at what's happening in Greece. That's our future. I only hope that I'm not alive to see it. It's hard enough to look my children in the eyes knowing the kind of future they have in store for them. We've seen where huge government leads, and it ain't pretty. I'd tell you to ask 30 million Russians and 70 million Chinese, no to mention 5-6 million Jews, but they're all dead.
My mother asked me today what I disliked about the bill..."Not emotionally, but the actual bill" I can't answer that without the emotion, because I don't know what's in the bill. No one does. All I know is, they are destroying this country, step by step, and we're letting it happen. They are taking over the car industry, the banking industry, and now the health care industry. What's next, the carnival industry? It seems to me that most of the politicians we have elected would fit right in selling tickets to gawk at the bearded lady and the goatboy. We can rest easy though, at least now they'll have free health care.
What, that's not right? Isn't that what Madison meant by inalienable rights? If you merely substitute the creator with the government, you get what this administration is driving towards. In fact, it has been the goal of the progressive movement to replace God with government since the turn of the 20th century. And so today is the date of their greatest victory. The government has bestowed another right on it's people. Never mind that rights can only come from God, however you refer to Him (or Her, or It). But wait, the government is now God. Or God is dead, according to Neitschke, He's been dead for a long time. According to Marx, we have no need for Him in the industrial age. According to democratic , and some republican, politicians, they are Him.
Let's get a few things straight. First of all, the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away. That's what this health care reform bill is about. They are not giving citizens the right to health care, they are taking away the property rights of millions of Americans in order to play God. It's called redistribution of wealth. Maybe they believe it's the right thing to do. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi cares deeply about the plight of the downtrodden in this country, as do all of her fellow democrats. That's why they give so much of their money to charity. What? They don't give money to charity? Oh, they only give our money to charity. Well, at least it's going to a good cause. 16,000 more IRS agents. That'll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. That's almost one half of 1,000th of a percent of the country. This is about jobs after all. Never mind the 30 million jobs that will be lost in the next year. What will they say when unemployment hits 20 percent? Can they still blame Bush? What's the statute of limitations on that?
Second, and most importantly, this is not about health care at all, it's about power. It's about the government getting it's claws into your life, and never letting go. Everything in your life can be regulated through the prism of healthcare. What you eat, where you live, how many children you have, what you name them, how you raise them, etc. You get the idea. Once they are in, we can't ever get them out. Who knows a politician courageous enough to vote against social security, or medicare, or medicaid. They certainly won't repeal this entitlement. Once people get a taste of free stuff, woe to the man that tries to take it away. Take a look at what's happening in Greece. That's our future. I only hope that I'm not alive to see it. It's hard enough to look my children in the eyes knowing the kind of future they have in store for them. We've seen where huge government leads, and it ain't pretty. I'd tell you to ask 30 million Russians and 70 million Chinese, no to mention 5-6 million Jews, but they're all dead.
My mother asked me today what I disliked about the bill..."Not emotionally, but the actual bill" I can't answer that without the emotion, because I don't know what's in the bill. No one does. All I know is, they are destroying this country, step by step, and we're letting it happen. They are taking over the car industry, the banking industry, and now the health care industry. What's next, the carnival industry? It seems to me that most of the politicians we have elected would fit right in selling tickets to gawk at the bearded lady and the goatboy. We can rest easy though, at least now they'll have free health care.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Get the barney
I guess Barney Frank is at it again. I read an article in the Herald that Barney is pushing for banks to lend more money. If they don't, he is threatening to give more lending power to credit unions. I have no problem with easing the restrictions on credit union lending. In fact, I think it's a good idea. The problem, as I see it, is Barney Frank having any say at all in who lends money to whom.
Let me explain the latest economic crisis in a nutshell. This is a simplistic version, but I am a simple man. Basically, the housing market was booming. Barney and his pals decided that everyone should own a home, whether they could afford it or not. He started pushing banks to lend money to people that had no way of repaying the loans. He used his power as congressman to rewrite the laws so that it would be easier for people to obtain credit. Banks were forced to write loans to people who , again, COULD NOT REPAY THEM. Mortgage companies and wall street investment firms caught on and a new market was created. Mortgage-backed securities were all the rage. I'm not too clear on what this means, but basically, people bought mortgages in bundles from banks and tried to dump them before they went bad. It was a race against time. Everyone knew these were bad investments, but it was a game of high-stakes hot potato. Whoever was left holding the bag at the end of the game, lost. When the adjustable rates started adjusting, people simply walked away. Meanwhile, instead of a seller's market, real estate became a buyer's market. Housing prices had been artificially inflated by the infusion of buyers (created by Mrs. Frank) and when the pool of buyers shrank, so did the value of the houses. Simple economics. Supply and demand. But in this case, the government, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, were waiting at the end of the rainbow to catch all the falling debris. When Freddy and Fanny were the ones at the end, we all lost. In spite of Barney's protestations, he told the world that Fanny and Freddy were in great shape while in fact, they were on the brink of collapse. Of course, he denies this. How can he be the smartest man in the world if he admits to a mistake?
The truth is, he didn't make a mistake. He still believes that everyone should own a home, whether they can afford it or not. And this is the problem. According to Barney, we as a nation are responsible for everyone's miscalculations. The rich should pay for the poor's overreaching. Big Daddy government should ensure this, even if Big Daddy government, in the person of Barney Frank, is the cause. Barney Frank is a gay politician in a state and district that believes it is their civic duty to elect and re-elect, and re-elect again a gay politician, no matter the consequences for the rest of the nation. Make no mistake, I have no problem with gay politicians, as long as they are elected on their accomplishments, not their sexual preferences. Barney Frank has been a disaster on the same level as the Titanic. He has done more harm to the nation's economy than the attacks of 9/11. And yet he will be re-elected without a challenge in his district of gray-haired, ponytailed, trustfund hippies. Something is wrong with this. Something is wrong when even an idiot like Bill O'Reilly can see that the real cause of the economic collapse is the kind of leadership given to us by Barney Frank and his ilk. And the supposed liberal elitists can't see it. It is in your hands, citizens of Newton. You can vote for Frank, or get the Barney. remember, the whole world is watching.
TFD
Let me explain the latest economic crisis in a nutshell. This is a simplistic version, but I am a simple man. Basically, the housing market was booming. Barney and his pals decided that everyone should own a home, whether they could afford it or not. He started pushing banks to lend money to people that had no way of repaying the loans. He used his power as congressman to rewrite the laws so that it would be easier for people to obtain credit. Banks were forced to write loans to people who , again, COULD NOT REPAY THEM. Mortgage companies and wall street investment firms caught on and a new market was created. Mortgage-backed securities were all the rage. I'm not too clear on what this means, but basically, people bought mortgages in bundles from banks and tried to dump them before they went bad. It was a race against time. Everyone knew these were bad investments, but it was a game of high-stakes hot potato. Whoever was left holding the bag at the end of the game, lost. When the adjustable rates started adjusting, people simply walked away. Meanwhile, instead of a seller's market, real estate became a buyer's market. Housing prices had been artificially inflated by the infusion of buyers (created by Mrs. Frank) and when the pool of buyers shrank, so did the value of the houses. Simple economics. Supply and demand. But in this case, the government, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, were waiting at the end of the rainbow to catch all the falling debris. When Freddy and Fanny were the ones at the end, we all lost. In spite of Barney's protestations, he told the world that Fanny and Freddy were in great shape while in fact, they were on the brink of collapse. Of course, he denies this. How can he be the smartest man in the world if he admits to a mistake?
The truth is, he didn't make a mistake. He still believes that everyone should own a home, whether they can afford it or not. And this is the problem. According to Barney, we as a nation are responsible for everyone's miscalculations. The rich should pay for the poor's overreaching. Big Daddy government should ensure this, even if Big Daddy government, in the person of Barney Frank, is the cause. Barney Frank is a gay politician in a state and district that believes it is their civic duty to elect and re-elect, and re-elect again a gay politician, no matter the consequences for the rest of the nation. Make no mistake, I have no problem with gay politicians, as long as they are elected on their accomplishments, not their sexual preferences. Barney Frank has been a disaster on the same level as the Titanic. He has done more harm to the nation's economy than the attacks of 9/11. And yet he will be re-elected without a challenge in his district of gray-haired, ponytailed, trustfund hippies. Something is wrong with this. Something is wrong when even an idiot like Bill O'Reilly can see that the real cause of the economic collapse is the kind of leadership given to us by Barney Frank and his ilk. And the supposed liberal elitists can't see it. It is in your hands, citizens of Newton. You can vote for Frank, or get the Barney. remember, the whole world is watching.
TFD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
