Slap slap.....

The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

Blam, both barrels. From here. Its has always been all about him.

Here's how the thinking goes, when the Obamessiah shows up at the party, just through sheer force of will and a blinding aura, all problems will be solved as he lays hands on it. Messiah like. And then all those people yapping about how great his speeches are.... Simple little me, half of the time, has no idea what this fellow is talking about. Chances are, he has no idea what he is talking about either since he just the face of the leviathan.

Of course, he is proving to be the most feckless, least capable, lacking of necessary experience and incapable person to ever hold that office.

The campaigner-in-chief looks like a cardboard cutout.....

Its amazing like he is a machine or some kind of stuffed doll. If this is the case, then can we now call him a dummy?

Remembering William Safire....

Back in my good old liberal days, when I was young and stupid, I happily read the dishonest New York Times, regularly. I loved reading William Safire's sprightly Sunday column, On Language, that focused on grammar, usage, and etymology of the English language.

Also, he was a regular commentator on 'Meet the Press.' In one particualry memorable discussion, where I remember that some of the commentators were exasperated by the blatant dishonesty of MIT economist Paul Krugman and his use of false and deceptive statistics, William Saifre came to his defense explaining that Krugman was not a reporter but a pundit and that pundits are not bound to rules to write the truth but only to support one's column position. This epiphany and the reality that columnists and opinion writers are not bound by holding to the truth or covering multiple facets of an issue but can actually say anything in support of their positions is something that people need to understand and digest whenever reading any editorial or op-ed

In case you didn't know.....

According to Harry Reid, income taxes in the US is voluntary. However, if you do not 'voluntarily' pay your taxes, you will be fined and/or go to jail. So the question is, how the income tax system then voluntary?



The semantic silliness to support despotic government is just dumbfounding.

According to this congressional representitive.....

Violence is justified against others in certain circumstances when not threatened with violence themselves. This fits with my family members belief that violence is justified when people are scared. This, of course, is violence by leftists against conservatives.....



The Congressman paid a $45,000 settlement for taking and erasing this interviewer's tape since this kind of stupidity where violence is justified against conservatives can not be reasonably argued.

Tax cuts and labor deregulation wins in Germany!!!!

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she’ll press ahead with tax cuts and labor-market deregulation after winning re-election with enough support to govern with the pro-business Free Democrats.

With Germany struggling to recover from the deepest economic slump since World War II, voters spurned plans by Merkel’s Social Democratic challenger to raise taxes on top earners. Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s SPD had its worst postwar result in what he called a “bitter day” after sharing power with Merkel for four years and governing for the previous seven.

From here. High tax Germany is realizing that their socialist utopia needs some fuel, so they voted for tax cuts and labor deregulation in this weekends election. Europe is moving in the exact opposite direction to the increasingly interventionist and Marxist leftward lurching united States. United Stares, please meet Zimbabwe.

Let them eat cake.......

In typical despotic style, the US government has commanded every business in the nation to pay its workers a certain pay level at minimum no matter what they are worth. Although this level that now stands at $7.25 seems paltry to some, what happens to a worker if one is really only generates $5.00 an hour in wealth? Well, what happens is that that particular economic activity never happens. In some situations, the demand for the final product exists and therefore the production of this good takes place overseas and then the good is imported to the US. Or, if the end product or service is still in demand, then prices rise to the end the consumer. And also, under what power does the US Congress have the right to interfere in the pricing of labor? Commerce clause? What if a business operates completely inside one state, does the Federal government have the right to intervene in this business?

One of the insidious results of America's completely misguided intervention into private employment decisions is that it has a large effect on teenage and young workers...

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

From here.

The overlooked in this grandiose scheme are the first time seekers of employment. Like a student that goes to school and learns the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic where the student does not get paid for learning, sometimes the hand-holding and the on-the-job training that is necessary for a young person to gain experience in their first jobs can cost the employer more than they gain from the employment.

As a result, young people are not employed and the 52.2% unemployment rate of these these young workers is a testament that they are being priced out of the market. But even more insidious is that the US central government meddles in this by setting their employment price clearly above their value. Furthermore, these people do not have the liberty to lower their price to potential employers since the level is set by law. Why shouldn't a young person be able to offer their service at a lower rate since their benefit is not only the monetary compensation gained from this employment but also gaining skills that they need that gets their working life started. Why shouldn't a young person be able to offer their services to an employer at say $2.00 an hour until they prove their value to that employer and then after which the employer can pay what they are really worth. More employers will take a chance at hiring a young person if their price is lower. Additionally, it can have an impact where new businesses are started since the price of labor will be lower.

But, some people are outside of the law or write laws that benefit themselves. They want you to do as they say not as they do.....



Let them eat cake.

G-20 interview.....

I was watching TV and heard of couple of the protesters arguing for their wealth distribution social policy agenda using the phrase 'empowering government.' Their argument is that government should be empowered to take away all earnings above a certain amount and redistribute it to those that have less, particularly focusing on delivering funds to pay for people's healthcare.

Here is my problem with the concept of 'empowerment'; one cannot empower government to do anything more than what governments are capable of doing. One cannot no matter how much one wishes, 'empower' a ham sandwich to build a bridge or to fly to the moon. A ham sandwich can only perform a limited number of functions such as providing lunch and sustenance to a person that consumes it or a limited number of other functions such as taking space in the refrigerator or as trash if not consumed inside of the time in which it is fresh.

Governments also have a limited number of functions in which thy are uniquely designed to perform. I wrote at length on the five functions of a federal government, here. They are:

1. Monetary system: I can just imagine going into a Wal-mart and trying to pay with Glenzo money. I am not too sure who would be willing to take it other than my kids. Additionally, imagine the confusion and problems if there was a New York City or New York State currency (not allowed under the Constitution) and trying to use it in Pennsylvania or in Arizona where the currencies will be different. The framers realized that this is a problem. It makes sense to have a unit of exchange that can be efficiently used around the nation and recognized around the globe. Good idea!!!!
2. National defense: I am capable of defending myself in my home since I have the right to own a firearm under my 2nd Amendment rights. However, it would be very difficult for a nation to defend itself in the event of attack if there is no standing army that is trained in the art of self defense. This is allowed for in the Constitution and is just plainly a good idea.
3. International diplomacy: Imagine if there were a million Americans holidaying in Europe during the summer requesting access to government officials or representatives of the 50 states looking to negotiate with foreign nations to propel their own interests forward on their own. It makes sense to combine these efforts into a singular front to achieve national goals. This task is embedded in the Constitution. Its a good idea.
4. System of law: Although each of the 50 states have a system of law, there is a recognized need to have similarities and those issues that effect all where there is a need for uniformity. Also, there is a recognition that not all law is beneficial and in the best interest of the nation. Therefore, law can be created and destroyed through judicial review. A good idea.
5. Allowance for interstate commerce: One of the problems with these imaginary lines drawn between states and nations is the desire of people in those places to try to benefit themselves over others. Lets say, for example, that egg producers want a higher price for their product and fight to disallow eggs from other states from entering their markets. This allows them to raise prices without the effects of competition on price from outside producers. This costs everyone that consume eggs within that territory for the benefit of a small number of producers. So in order to allow for efficiencies and competition, Congress can regulate interstate commerce with the intent that states do not arbitrarily restrict competition to benefit the few at the cost at the many. This is a good idea.

Anything beyond these functions are the portfolio of the states.

If.....

If you oppose the current President's policies, then you must be a racist. Mark Steyn in his typical funny, sarcastic, cool and cutting style, hits the nail on the head here.

George W. Bush, the idiot and the Obamessiah, the brilliant one.....

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and referred to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day; would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11.

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major on going political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry – the world is beginning to see that he is an IDIOT looking for a village.

He's done all this in 7 months -- so you'll have three years and five months to come up with an answer.

Iran is a disgrace, and we give them a podium to spew their particular brand of religious based hate.......

The Iranian madman, Ahmadinejad, spoke at the UN yesterday. Nice that they give these clowns a forum for their unique brand of hate. These are some of the wonderful things he has said in the past.....

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the
Islamic countries due to their need.”

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism.”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

“The fighting in Palestine is a war between the (whole) Islamic nation and the world of arrogance, ... Today, Palestinians are representing the Islamic nation against arrogance.”

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim,"

"Confronting the Zionist regime (Israel) is a national and religious duty."

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end,"

And of course this kind of behavior should be recognized for what is is....

A speech was given at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday that was full of hateful anti-Semitic rhetoric. It was a shameful display before a body whose very charter is premised on the need for co-operation and harmony in pursuit of peaceful co-existence between nations. Such talk was especially abhorrent coming as it did during the Jewish High Holidays. The world community must speak with one voice in declaring anti-Semitism and all forms of intolerance and racism utterly unacceptable. There is no place in the community of peace-loving nations for those who traffic in hate or deny the terrible atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust.

-Sarah Palin-

I am glad that the Israeli PM was allowed a chance to rebut the crazy Iranians. I used to not be a fan of Netanyahu, since I thought that he was unnecessarily brutal but have come to respect his views and support them.

One should listen to all 4 parts of the Israeli Prime Minister's speech and rebuttal to the Iranian madman....

Homeless men and beggars fun signs.....

From here.

The only difference between God and the Obamessiah is that God doesn't think that he is Obama.

I cannot believe that this clown is serious....

Soon there will not be anything left of the Constitution......

Its amazing to listen to this. Congress is telling companies what they can post on their websites about the pending healthcare plans and is not allowing them to express their opinion on how it will affect them and their clients. Congress is squashing debate, freedom of speech and what will be next? So they are doing this so that they can ram this down the American people's throats. I can hear all the lefties gaggling now, 'its for your own good. So STFU.'

I think that it is time for violence against all the people in Washington. As my pacifist family member once explained to me that it is understandable and I suppose therefore justified that if one is worried then violence is an acceptable option. But of course this violence is only acceptable for liberals against conservatives. Time to take the country back. do not pay your taxes. do not do what they tell you. do not go to work. Throw rocks at them. Its our nation and our lives not theirs.

Sickening headline.....

Senators spar on health bill's effect on seniors

From here. Who the hell are these people to decide such things? Under what rights does a central government get involved in deciding who gets what when it comes to a good or service? Is there government intervention in who gets what when it come to the production or delivery of say something like food, arguable much more important to life then healthcare. So, why not food? Should or does the government restrict seniors access to food? Is there some overriding social policy need to decide who gets what in the production of food in the US?

Government intervention in the production and delivery of healthcare promises to create large populations of losers and winners as government decides who gets what and those others that will pay for all of this nonsense.

Good luck Americans, there will be so very many that suffer miserably as government will eventually completely screw up the production and delivery of healthcare. I, for one, will not subject myself to this nonsense and honestly do not feel any connection to that nation. The nation has lost its way and is fast becoming just another sclerotic euro state.

Quote of the day....

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

- John Stuart Mill, author, economist and philosopher. Wrote must read book "On Liberty"

However, in contrast to classic liberals like Mill, where the value of liberty out-trumps the benefits from intervention, we have neo-liberals that absolutely know what is better for you than you do. But I view neo-liberalism as laziness, one and two.

The Obamessiah isn't paying attention.....

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

I know that ACORN is getting funds so how could it be that he not know. The reason he says that he isn't paying attention to this is that this is where he comes from, these are the clowns that elected him and he cannot afford to be connected to them now. Now we not only have the least capable person to ever hold the office of President, we also have one that is arrogant that says there are more important things he is working on and maybe thinking 'don't bother me you little people'.

Consider this, is he just lying or is completely incompetent? How is it that he didn't even know that ACORN was getting Federal money when there was a very public fight back in January when Congress actually tried to give hundreds of millions of dollars to ACORN as I certainly recall when the pork-u-lus bill was being debated....

Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

From here. ACORN is an advocacy group for Democrats and does groundwork for their election. How reasonable is it to directly fund groups from taxpayers money that advocates one political party over another? Something like this should not happen in a democracy. Its a disgrace.

Another 419 scam?

Dear Potential Partner,

My name is Mr. Barry Huckster Obama, the President of the United States of America. I got your contact address in my search for a capable, reliable and trustworthy individual that will assist me secure my nation's healthcare future.

During the current war against the radical right and unpatriotic protesters we are seeking individuals that can assist us in collecting vast sums of money. As proof that we can actually execute on this plan we secured $787 billion ($787,000,000,000) in funds for various silly and useless projects across the nation including the creatively named cash-for-clunkers program. We are now seeking those that can assist us in tackling a multi-trillion dollar takeover of the American healthcare system.

We seek an trusted individual like you that we can trust in transferring the multi-trillion dollars in funds from the individual in the United States to us in the amount of the sum of US$2.9 Trillion (Twenty Nine Million Million United States Dollars or whatever) per decade. Proceeds come from various sources including; directly taxing people, reducing elderly benefits, a whacky cap-and-trade energy tax plan, forcing younger healthy people to buy expensive healthcare plans that they do not need, taxing such ubiquitous items such of soda pop and potato chips, the sky is the limit to create sources of funds.

This program is completely without risk and is completely guaranteed.

However, due to resistance from everyday normal Americans I have decided to contact you so that you will assist me to move this money out of the United States Treasury and the common people's pocketbooks into my unaccountable hands. I am not presently allowed to operate any bank account for this endeavor so I seek your assistance on this.

We have agreed to offer you 10% of the total sum for your assistance (or $290 billion per decade), 5% will be mapped out for any expenses that may actually be incurred in the course of providing this healthcare benefit to ordinary Americans for this transaction and 85% will be for those others such as bureaucrats to administer this deal, large corporations that expect to receive a huge benefit out of this in return for their support, unions without whom I would never had become President and expect to receive gigantic returns and benefits, multitudes of others connected to me and you, my trusted associate.

Please dear, this is the reason I am contacting you as to play the role of my partner. Help me and I will never forget you as long as this life is concerned.

Since I got this address, its true that I did not know you in person, I don’t know why I have such interest in you. I still thank God because I will like to have you as my ever partner in life, when I come to you for your invaluable assistance.

I, Barry, have much to discuss with you but it will be when I get your response. reply me on this address: flag@whitehouse.gov for more details and modalities of this business.

Thanks and God bless.

Regards,

Barry Huckster Obama

Please provide me with the following information in order for you to receive your undeserved compensation:
Your full name:_______________
Your Social Security number:________________
Your bank account numbers:_______________
Your address:_______________

If its not racism, then what is it?

The weaklings in the Axelrod administration are a bunch of sissies....

"To them, everything is personal, I got to tell you, they are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."

-Chris Wallace, Fox News commentator, formerly of ABC news, whose father is Mike Wallace from 60 minutes. Not a conservative but a real professional that seems to call them like he sees them (Happy new year Chris!)-

Trying to isolate Fox News is like trying to blot out the sun, the light of truth is impossible to cover forever.

Shiver me timbers!!!!!!!

I cannot believe that I missed 'talk like a pirate day' again.

Yikes.......

Wow, a crusher against Jimmie Carter.

Solution to global warming.....depopulate the earth?

Maybe I am being a little reactionary, but as I have seen, global warming hysteria basically give liberals an excuse for all kinds of opportunities to meddle into the lives of people. As this UN clown explains, poorer countries need to create less people since the addition of these people supposedly has a negative impact on the climate....

CONTRACEPTION advice is crucial to poor countries' battle with climate change, and policy makers are failing their people if they continue to shy away from the issue, a leading family planning expert said.

Leo Bryant, a lead researcher on a World Health Organisation study on population growth and climate change, said the stigma attached to birth control in both developing and developed countries was hindering vital progress.

"We are certainly not advocating that governments should start telling people how many children they can have," said Mr Bryant, an advocacy manager at the family planning group Marie Stopes International, who wrote a commentary in the Lancet medical journal.

Mr Bryant said 200 million women across the world want contraceptives, but cannot get them.

From here. Hysterical global warming adherents are nothing more than misguided Malthudians. Certainly, liberals and neo-Marxists would never tell people what to think or how to behave, yea right. Global warming hysteria will eventually lead these neo-Marxisits to try to do all kinds of idiotic things. How about genocide? If we execute a billion or so people, won't that help global warming? What a great idea. If we completely eliminate all human life then the planet can return to some other natural state or steady state without humans. And what the heck will that achieve?

Ha ha ha ha......

The idiots that run the New York Times must be pleased about this.....

Whom do Democrats trust more for news: Fox News or the New York Times? With all the vitriol directed against Fox News, one would think that it is a no brainer. But a new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll shows that it is Fox News. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent of Democrats feel the same way about the New York Times.

Of course among Republicans or Independents it isn't even a close contest. 72 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Fox News compared to only 16 percent who have a favorable view of the New York Times. Almost twice as many independents have a favorable view of Fox than the New York Times.

From here. They must be so pleased that they have traded their reputation in order to support Democrats and their progressive agenda instead of doing their job of reporting news. RIP New York Times.

Not a conspiracy, just stupidity and politics.....

There has been a lot of yackity yack over what appears to be severe moral decay inside of the advocacy group ACORN as revelations that several representatives advised people on setting up illegal enterprises and activiites. This decay at ACORN is emblematic of the decay within American society where compromising traditional American values are being substituted for 'progressive' ones. The troubling revelations with this organization that involved advice on tax evasion and child prostitution is no surprise to me since these are 'progressive' values. One only has to look to the Obamessiah's cabinet picks and Democrats in Congress to find a coterie of tax cheats.

But the existence of an group like ACORN is even more insidious than the the somewhat nebulous 'values' argument that I use above. This group, one that laudably was an advocate for poor and 'oppressed', is also an advocacy group whose role is to support the Democrat political party and their candidates.

What is troublesome is that an organization like ACORN, that had been supported by groups such as the Catholic church(they dropped their support in 2008), where a real need was identified by caring people, is also getting significant amounts of funding directly and indirectly from the Federal Government. Not only has the government funded them with 10's of million of dollars of direct grants, but also has forced private companies to give funds to these groups in order to get favorable treatment when decisions are being made at the Federal Government level. How appropriate is it, that a group whose political position is to support Democrats and their election be supported through taxpayer dollars? Its one thing if they are supported by private donations but quite another when the funding comes from government coffers.

The deeper problem is also much more profound. For example, during the Clinton years, when there were a large number of mergers of financial institutions, the administration's justice department only allowed these mergers if the banks could prove that they lent mortgage money to ACORN's advocacy clientele and/or funded them directly with grants from these very banks.

As a requirement, these financial institutions had to own a certain amount of the well-known 'sub-prime' mortgages that are typical financing tool within the poorer communities...

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.

So, lenders had to suspend typical standards in order to meet governmental social engineering goals. Of course, bankers do not make money by losing money on bad credits. Banks, generally loan money to home owners and then sell off most of the loans to the GSE's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but these organizations were unable or unwilling to buy these new low quality loans since they did not meet their statutory standards. So what did the government do, they changed the rules for the GSE's and required them to buy and hold these loans.....

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis.

However, Pandora's box was already open. There was created a market for these loans, demand for financing using these loans increased and there was a need to recycle this kind of lending into investors hands since neither banks nor the GSE's were able to hold all of the loans generated through this pipeline so Wall Street securitized these products and distributed them. Everyone was happy; the government moved towards its social engineering goals, Wall Street made money distributing these products and the housing market was booming that increased employment. But all of this happened at a very big cost.

I also want to be clear here, the sub-prime market was not the cause, in my opinion, of the recent financial crisis, but government meddling in a market place that was efficient and effective in providing financing to home buyers definitely contributed to the problem. This meddling has been going on for 70 years, ranging from the creation of the GSE's to the mortgage interest income tax deduction leading to over investment in housing relative to other areas of the economy.

Quotes from here.

Quote of the day.....

“The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right.” - James Madison

Today marks the 222nd anniversary of the formation and signing of our Constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the greatest founding documents in history because it charted a bold new path in the realm of political theory. Not only does the Constitution establish checks and balances within the federal government, it also divides power among the federal government, the states, and the people. The Founders understood that it is the nature of government to grow at the expense of the people’s liberty; and with that in mind, they established a form of government that would be limited in scope and power in order to maximize power to the people.

Today, let’s also take the opportunity to thank our armed forces. The weight of defending our liberty rests on their shoulders, and because of their efforts and sacrifice, we can celebrate the 222nd anniversary of the formation of our Constitution.

- Sarah Palin, facebook post-

My lovely readers continue to flatter me.....

I used to love stopping here once and a while to tell you what an idiot you are because I thought you wrote this blog as a joke and appreciated my humor. I am starting to think you believe your own shit and concocted rationals for your greed and moral vacuum. The article was about how individuals profit off the engineered misery of others you jackass. The authors belief of being rewarded for providing opportunity and value sounds good to me. Individuals, market makers, raped the economy. Please tell me this blog is your satiristic humor and not for real. p.s.- You're still an idiot, racist, traitor. Bye til next time.

Sorry that you misunderstood my intentions here and made you feel stupid. However, your flattery will get you everywhere. Come back and continue to make your enlightened comments anytime you like. And with all my experience with moral vacuums, greed, being an idiot, a traitor and engineering misery for others, do you think that I too could get a job at ACORN and become a community organizer?

The Obamessiah, just a narcissist or a malignant narcissist?

If you speak your mind......

If you speak your mind and these thoughts and words do not jive with the Obamessiah's current Marxist plans for your life and well being, then you must be a racist. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Yes, I knew that this would happen, when the least capable person in many generations gets highest political office in the land, the only fall back to defend his oddball positions is to scream racism.....

Not surprisingly, the pace of racial accusations has picked up as opposition has grown. Just in the past few days the usual and not-so-usual suspects have been seeking to out-do each other in making accusations of racism including Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, Jimmy Carter, Rep. Hank Johnson, Chris Matthews, a wide range of Democratic politicians, and of course, almost all of the mainstream media.

From here.

So all of you white folks that deign to raise your voice on the political and economic issues of the day that do not happen to be on the same side with the Marxist campaigner-and-chief can therefore justifiably be called a racist. OK, then so be it, I am a racist.

The news on embeded white racism here....



And the idiotic former President and mind-reader Jimmy Carter thinks that opposition to the Marxist plans are due to him being a black man....



Oink oink. What a pig.

Not only do we have to conform to the politically correct speech code that lefties have formulated over the past couple of decades but also you whities need to STFU about everything.

Maybe Joe Wilson is right or FBAR is FUBAR.....

The everyman unrepentant racist, Joe Wilson, may have been correct in calling the Obamessiah a liar. The campaigner-in-chief, the face in front of the Axelrod administration, claims that doctors are supporters of the administration plans to inject government more-and-more into the delivery of health services to typical Americans when, in-fact, they may not be.

Additionally, this cannot be be good for the the American health delivery system....

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

From here. So how is the healthcare system going to cope when these resources will become unavailable to meet the grandiose plans of the new Marxists in American government? As Democrats contemplate in healthcare, 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' excepting of course, those that choose to go out playing golf everyday.

This is where the dead hand of government always gets it wrong; one cannot force people to do things that they do not want to do or that in which they are forced to take less than market rates for services that they perform. People will decide that the effort is not worth the compensation offered by the government and chose to do something else or in some cases, nothing at all.

Its called voting with your feet. Its time to leave. Additionally, its time to give up American citizenship if one has the ability to do so. I went to a meeting presented by the IRS today on the upcoming deadline for filing of a somewhat brand new form and filing requirement called the FBAR (foreign bank account report- someone mistakenly but appropriately called it FUBAR, a military term meaning f**ked up beyond all recognition) where American citizens have to report all foreign bank accounts and the maximum amount in each account during the previous calendar year. Obviously, most people living abroad have to have bank accounts and this current hassle will probably turn into a nightmare reporting requirement in the future. And I have never been treated with so much hostility and the IRS people were just short of accusing each American citizen there of being cheaters on our taxes and to 'come clean'. And they told us that they ONLY are following the requirement of Congress and its not their fault. I say to shoot the messenger. Its time to tar and feather the clowns that supposedly represent us in Washington. They do not deserve our respect and they surely shouldn't be trusted with or entitled to fruits of our labors.

Yuperooo.....

Thought of the day....

“We’re going into an extended period of weak economy, of economic malaise,” Stiglitz said. The U.S. will “grow but not enough to offset the increase in the population,” he said, adding that “if workers do not have income, it’s very hard to see how the U.S. will generate the demand that the world economy needs.”

The Federal Reserve faces a “quandary” in ending its monetary stimulus programs because doing so may drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, he said.

“The question then is who is going to finance the U.S. government,” Stiglitz said.

From here. All of this means, is that the standards of living for the typical American will decline for the foreseeable future.

70 years of creeping socialist government policy is to blame and has created an environment where the economy gets more-and-more brittle as the government takes control over larger-and-larger swaths of the American economy. As the increasing involvement in the US markets has taken place over the past 7 decades whether direct or indirectly, has this resulted in a more stable economy? I think not as the following quote illustrates from the head of Harvard's medical school.....

This employer-based system arose not by thoughtful design but as an unforeseen result of price controls during World War II and subsequent tax policy. How this developed and persisted despite its unfairness and maladaptive consequences is a powerful illustration of the law of unintended consequences and the fact that government can take six decades or more to fix its obvious mistakes.

From http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/09/flier-on-health-reform.html.

O ne
B ig
A wful
M istake
A merica

Quote of the day......

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 2nd President of the United States-

John Stossel again weighs in on healthcare.....

This fellow John Stossel is on that everyone should read when one can, here.

Taxes or forcing Americans to allocate resourses to something that they may not want......

If one CHOOSES to not acquire health insurance, then the government plans to levy a special tax on you. They call it "fees" but how are fees any different than taxes?

Under the plan, people who earn between 100% and 300% of the poverty level (or between about $22,000 a year and $66,000 a year for a family of four) would face fees ranging from $750 to $1,500 a year.

For taxpayers with incomes above 300% of poverty, the penalty starts at $950 a year and reaches as high as $3,800 for families. Nearly 12 million people fit in this category, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management.

From here. Who gave them the right to do this? Force us to acquire health insurance. Who the F**k do they think that they are? The reality is that the government cannot reallocate resources without levying huge taxes on the population. What better place to get tax revenue but those healthy people that do not want to waste money on buying health insurance....

The idea behind the penalty is that those who can afford insurance but don't buy it are imposing costs on the entire health system. Under the proposal, nearly 12 million people who currently have no insurance could be subject to such fines, according to figures compiled by the National Institute for Health Care Management.

They are not costing anyone else a penny, the claim in the previous passage is just stupid. They are just not wasting their money on a service, maybe not in every single case but in aggregate, and that they deem this expense to be unnecessary. This is just robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and so very sad. I lived without health insurance for many years. The reason being is that the cost of normal healthcare for the young is a lot higher than the benefits received so in essence I self insured. I figured that the cost of the premiums and the deductibles was more than what I would pay for the times that I did need to see the doctor. And I was completely correct. i saved myself money and had to decide what instances warranted seeing a physician or not.

Those motivational slides.....

Government taking over and running all of "your companies" to create the perfect utopia.....

Democrats are socialists and this is their agenda. Be very careful, we are on teh verge of losing our liberties at their hands.

Some of the same depression mistakes being made again....

The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

From here. But serious higher taxes, more inefficient government intervention and make work programs promise very little towards the creation of wealth that economic activity promotes. Instead, we will find ourselves losing bright people to other places where they will not be hamstrung by taxes, regulation and codified inefficiencies.

But also, one has to question why it took WWII to get the economy going again when the government was throwing resources at it without success. Maybe the 1930's is the perfect example of what to expect for government economic adventurism.

Quote of the day.....

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
-Thomas Sowell, conservative philosopher-

I do not understand the furor over the plans of the Obamessiah to address school children....

This is probably something that presidents should have been doing since the electronic media has been available to execute such a show.

But, the furor of this President's plan to address the nations children shows me just how disappointed people are in this man. Campaigning as a centrist, he has proven to be nothing more than a lame Marxist and this is the antithesis of the core of American life. His complete misread of the American people and their desire to create another worthless sclerotic European like state shows that this fellow is naive and not as smart as people may have thought him to be. And his famed ability to speak publicly in a campaign speech setting has not translated very well into an ability to communicate the necessity of government intervention into numerous aspects of Americans lives. He just cannot sell ice to Eskimos.

As this fellow write succinctly.....

Following recent Townhall gatherings across the nation Americans who protested against Obama's health care proposals were labeled as domestic terrorists, professional protestors, unruly trouble makers and rioters. What stroke of genius is needed to see that after calling citizens by these names they may not want their children drawn aside against their will and addressed by the same contingent that thinks so badly of them? Even the school children about to be addressed might react with a, duh.

I guess that Marxists like the Obamessiah just cannot fathom those that do not want to be subjects under that kind of political and social system.

Now that we have a President that has the lightest portfolio of experience and capabilities of any elected official in high office, his only valued added is in a venue such as this where we give our children hope that you too can be a vapid worthless Marxist too.

Dragnet's Jack Webb and Harry Morgan.....

"Hang in there. Don't try to build a new country, make the old one work. It has for over 400 years."



Yes, Obamessiah, the problems in the nation do need some fixing. Government intervention in housing and retirement savings have created lot of inefficiencies and non-market incentives that allocate resources to less than optimal uses, investment and consumption areas. There is absolutely no way that the government can meet all of the obligations that they have promised to people and its totally ludicrous that there is so much more intervention planned.

Harry Morgan (born Harry Bratsberg) is around 96 years old. Jack Webb, the gravely voice in radio and TV smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and died in 1982 at the age of 62.

As usual, John Stoessel has some great points to consider.....

Generally, he is saying that because Americans have healthcare coverage and the structure of that coverage, there is no consumer price discovery and incentive for efficiency or innovation to drive prices lower. Using the analogy of food insurance, if one paid for food as a fixed price, what incentive is there to substitute products or to try to get product at the lowest price? People will eat steak everyday instead of hamburger not matter what the price is.

However, in those procedures that are not generally covered by health insurance, such as Lasik eye surgery, there is price discovery, price competition and prices have actually fallen over the years.

Government spending reduces a nations wealth.....

Government spending reduces a nation's wealth, decreases its aggregate levels of long-term employment and reduces economic opportunity....



Thanks to Carpe Diem, a daily read of mine.

There are certain things that national governments do well but spending money on pet projects under the guise of economic development is not one of them. Some argue that government spending is important to the smoothing out of economic cycles as one can read in John Kenneth Galbraith's work but I would argue that in addition to the difficultly in identifying what times to actually smooth the exact opposite happens and economic booms are propelled further making the declines stronger and only creating excess volatility and risk.

Additionally, governments, as we know, tend to spend all tax revenues in good times and not only do not decrease that spending during bad times due to weakened tax revenues but tend to further increase it both in nominal terms as-well-as a percent of GDP. This is done in order to 'prime the pump' under these economic management programs to stimulate the consumption or investment. This exercise creates a buildup of debt for this spending or 'investments' that is ultimately less productive then the spending or investment decisions made in the private sector. Government make work programs rarely create many usable goods and services but also this indulgent spending has very few negative consequences for the decision makers in Congress. Whereas business and personal spending decisions do affect those private decision makers that potentially may ultimately end in bankruptcy or being forced to liquidate or recycle economic assets into more productive uses. There is real risk in private spending and investment decisions but no such negative feedback mechanism exists in government programs so there is little incentive for restraint and to do what makes sense except to get reelected.

However, the things that national governments are better suited to do are those where states, localities or individuals will either be incapable of or inefficient at performing. These include:

1. Monetary system: I can just imagine going into a Wal-mart and trying to pay with Glenzo money. I am not too sure who would be willing to take it other than my kids. Additionally, imagine the confusion and problems if there was a New York City or New York State currency (not allowed under the Constitution) and trying to use it in Pennsylvania or in Arizona where the currencies will be different. The framers realized that this is a problem. It makes sense to have a unit of exchange that can be efficiently used around the nation and recognized around the globe. Good idea!!!!
2. National defense: I am capable of defending myself in my home since I have the right to own a firearm under my 2nd Amendment rights. However, it would be very difficult for a nation to defend itself in the event of attack if there is no standing army that is trained in the art of self defense. This is allowed for in the Constitution and is just plainly a good idea.
3. International diplomacy: Imagine if there were a million Americans holidaying in Europe during the summer requesting access to government officials or representatives of the 50 states looking to negotiate with foreign nations to propel their own interests forward on their own. It makes sense to combine these efforts into a singular front to achieve national goals. This task is embedded in the Constitution. Its a good idea.
4. System of law: Although each of the 50 states have a system of law, there is a recognized need to have similarities and those issues that effect all where there is a need for uniformity. Also, there is a recognition that not all law is beneficial and in the best interest of the nation. Therefore, law can be created and destroyed through judicial review. A good idea.
5. Allowance for interstate commerce: One of the problems with these imaginary lines drawn between states and nations is the desire of people in those places to try to benefit themselves over others. Lets say, for example, that egg producers want a higher price for their product and fight to disallow eggs from other states from entering their markets. This allows them to raise prices without the effects of competition on price from outside producers. This costs everyone that consume eggs within that territory for the benefit of a small number of producers. So in order to allow for efficiencies and competition, Congress can regulate interstate commerce with the intent that states do not arbitrarily restrict competition to benefit the few at the cost at the many. This is a good idea.

These allowances are embedded in the Constitution of the United States. All other rights and responsibilities are explicitly the portfolio of the states. A wise approach.

So, back to government spending that is intended to bolster employment or increase general business conditions (these are not specifically addressed except for the phrase 'general welfare' in the constitution but how is the general welfare served if Peter is robbed to pay Paul?); when the government borrows or taxes to stimulate the economy, it takes money out the pockets of people that either have to reduce their own spending or borrow money that would have been lent to other that would have spent it too. So, at the end-of-day, the only way that government creates wealth is if that spending creates more wealth than the spending that would have been experienced that was replaced by the central planned spending. Is the government spending more productive in aggregate than the private spending that it replaces?

So, as uncle Milton says above, it is nearly impossible for governments to spend money more efficiently or effectively than the private sector. I think that we can comprehend that decisions made by the thousands or millions make more sense than a singular decision made by a government bureaucrat that has no way of knowing every bit of relevant information. People make better decisions in aggregate than the government does due to the information gap between the millions and the single decision maker and allocate capital for efficiently for most economic tasks OTHER THAN FOR THOSE FUNCTIONS THAT A FEDERAL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO.

Furthermore, lets have a look at one issue the nation is debating now that is illustrative of what can be done to improve the lot of Americans that is not being addressed. Instead, the government wants and thinks that it is capable of completely taking over the healthcare business and system and make it cheaper, and more effective. One area that debatably has been open to intervention within the confines of the Constitution is health insurance. States, through regulation of health insurance, restrict insurance companies from offering plans if they do not include a certain or a multitude of procedures that a number of people want in that state. Its not a decision that people can choose a plan that suits them but the plan has to include procedures that I argue benefit the few at the expense of the many. The restriction of health insurance plans offered across state lines and the mandated coverage levels for these products increases costs by lowering consumer choice and innovation. This is something that Congress can actually impact by not allowing States to unfairly restrict access to markets by out-of-state offerers of health insurance but Congress has not addressed this. This, in my opinion, is the kind of problem that the commerce clause in the Constitution addresses and that is to allow for healthy interstate competition. Congress has not addressed this. I wonder why?

Proof of the existence of God......

How the fact that Bill Maher and Brad Pitt are on the face of this planet proves the existence of God, here.

Upcoming Kennedycare.....