.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Milton J. Madison - An American Refugee Now Living in China, Where Liberty is Ascending

Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-

Thursday, April 28, 2011

China Financial Markets » The dollar, the RMB and the euro?

The critical problem in China and the reason that it will be difficult to open the economy to the real world is that the banking system is still so backwards that it will have to be completely changed before this can actually happen.....
but for now it is worth pointing out that the Chinese banking system is one of the least efficient in the world when it comes to assessing risk and allocating capital, and would be bankrupt without repressed interest rates and the implicit (and sometimes explicit) socialization of credit risk. Beijing accepts this because of the tradeoff that gives it banking stability.

Beijing greatly values this stability, even at the expense of capital misallocation, and is in no hurry to give it up by opening up the financial markets and, what’s more, for political reasons I think local governments will resist ferociously any further corporate governance reform. Remember that the phrase “corporate governance reform” in the banking context is just another way of saying that credit decisions will be made on the basis of economic considerations, and not on the basis of government preference. That particular reform will be politically contentious.
Without a true free market, there has to be gigantic misallocations of resourses that will not generate real income or value for its citizens. Big government solutions to real world problems never work. Socialism does not create value, it only reallocates resources and many times this creates other destructive behavior.

China Financial Markets » The dollar, the RMB and the euro?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

YouTube - אולי סרטון ההסברה הטוב שנעשה על ישראל (תרגום: ישראל שלי)

Take 5 minutes and see the Middle-East problem in a nutshell.

YouTube - אולי סרטון ההסברה הטוב שנעשה על ישראל (תרגום: ישראל שלי)

States face $1.26 trillion shortfall in funds to pay retiree benefits - The Washington Post

Governments constantly make economic promises that they just cannot keep....
The report, which is based on state financial reports, found that states faced a $660 billion pension funding gap. Meanwhile, retiree health-care liabilities — which most states handle on a pay-as-you-go basis — totaled $604 billion, the report said.
This funding gap represents around $4,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation. And this is just for STATE retirees. This excludes any other important State responsibilities such as care for the poor, police, education, etc. that are the responsibilities of the State.

This is just another example of why the promises of socialism is an opiate that deludes most everybody. Officials promised to deliver employees retirement income to large swathes of individuals and not only did not plan out how to reasonably fund it, they could not since it would be impossible to do so, but kept offering those benefits to employees at the time since these promises cost them little or nothing. They kicked the can down the road and its another example of a demographic indulgence that faces almost every Western nation. The problems at the States are an example of problems at the Federal level where even more extravagant promises have been made to a much broader group of people that also will not be paid.

But the insidious problem facing the central government is definitely more troublesome. If a State has a problem, and tries to seize citizens assets to meet these obligations, the rational person would leave the State, many will and many leave high tax states now for less hostile environments. When the central government runs into problems and decides to seize the assets of people to meet all of these problems, then only the super wealthy will be able to leave. Most of us will be trapped in the nation and will have a difficult time exiting.

However, there are untold numbers of American citizens that take their money, move to another nation and will never be heard from again. It is quite easy to do this, If you have enough cash, leave. Become a citizen of another nation and one does not have to officially renounce citizenship, just disappear Stop filing tax returns. The American government does not own you despite it acting like it does. No need to go back to the US since the world is your oyster. But a fine example of how Washington thinks that they own you or people that want your money for their lives think that they own you....
I have previously explained the onerous 2008 “exit tax” the U.S. Congress and George Bush imposed on those who exercise their constitutional right to end citizenship. The only other countries that imposed a tax on those citizens who sought to expatriate were Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and apartheid South Africa.
If you want to learn more about getting the heck out of place that will only become more-and-more hostile to those that work, save and are the most productive members American society, see this. Good luck.

States face $1.26 trillion shortfall in funds to pay retiree benefits - The Washington Post

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Seattle school renames Easter eggs 'Spring Spheres' - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

Coffee, toast and 2 spring spheres over easy. The secularization of American life, where government is attempting to wipe any trace of Christian hertigage from daily life is completely appalling. This is the kind of life that Democrats and secular progressives have in store for the neo-socialist America.

Seattle school renames Easter eggs 'Spring Spheres' - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

The greatness of the presidency of the Obamessiah....

I have to say that one definitely has to look at the Presidency of the Obamessiah as some kind of watershed event. His election, not so much popularly historic since it marks the first time (we think... Warren Harding?) that a mixed race non-white man has been elected as the nation's President but more importantly in that massive government economic economic intervention programs failed miserably in achieving what they were designed and sold to the public as to what they will do.

Let's have a look at the various massive and wasteful government fiscal and monetary stimulus programs that have failed:
1. Fiscal stimulus: We have had 2 different programs over the past few years....
a. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (enacted February 13, 2008) The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008. This gave funds in the form of government checks directly to people (excluding the 'rich' since it was means tested) with the express intent on bolstering economic growth. It obviously did not work.

b. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009). The measures are nominally worth $787 billion, much larger than the previous one since it was argued that previous one was too small. It was designed to funnel government funds into the various hands of people that would spend, invest or preserve current jobs and this was to have the effect of employing more people. It was a complete and total failure. I think it would be difficult to argue that it had any impact at all.
2. Monetary stimulus: Massive pumping in of monetary stimulus through the creation of high powered banking reserves known as Quantitative Easing or QE1 and QE2 in television journalism vernacular. The stated goal was to pump cash into the economy (largely since fiscal policy rarely works since fiscal policy only redirects spending and investment) where excess funds are shoved into the banking system and banks will be forced to lend these funds into the economy. From a functional perspective, the central bank buys government securities from the market an this cash fins its way into the banking system. See, as we have discussed before, fiscal spending only shifts spending around, monetary policy monetizes debt and actually creates new money that is then dropped directly into the economic engine.

However, what has happened is that some of this excess money is being sold for foreign currencies and people are investing overseas since they are relatively more attractive. As a result of this shift, we can observe that the US dollar has declined and that prices of goods, particularity imported ones such as fuel, have risen dramatically in price inside of the US. The central bank is only shifting the tax burden from tax payers to consumers through higher prices. If monetary policy prescriptions such as this were an intelligent approach to solving a nation's problems, then Zimbabwe, that embarked on this path recently an whose currency went to trillions to the currency got canceled (no one accepts the currency anywhere including in Zimbabwe), would be an economic powerhouse.

Both of these programs were complete and total failures in their objectives.

So, can one argue, with a straight face, that fiscal spending and profligate monetary policy works? Is there a difference between reckless, somewhat reckless and perfectly targeted central government intervention? I argue no. Government intervention in the theater of economics rarely works and I argue that many times, that this intervention actually has a negative impact.

Considering this, the simple thought comes to mind is can the government actually deploy resources that are more effective than the market place can particularly in very short-term time frames. If one argues that fiscal stimulus is a policy that is designed just to increase confidence, a fairly weak premise, why doesn't the government say that they will intervene and then actually never do so? Get the positive benfits without ever doing the wasteful spending part of the transaction.

Does fiscal stimulus actually work or is it a feckless government trying to prove their economic worth? I think that the government actually uses fiscal stimulus measures as false proof of their economic relevance. Generally, economies turn around on their own. Economies adjust to changes and this takes some time. And considering that if an economy naturally turns around, then the government does intervene, and no matter how useless the intervention, they can claim that their 'stimulus' was the driving force behind this economic improvement. Nice trick.

But lets look at what this guy says and how truly idiotic this whole stimulus stuff is......
Most of my arguments come from simply asking where the money is going to come from, simple arithmetic. Why are so many economists said to support fiscal stimulus? Am I some sort of radical? No. In fact economics, as written in professional journals, taught to graduate students and summarized in their textbooks, abandoned fiscal stimulus long ago.
So, most economists argue that fiscal stimulus doesn't work but still support it? Huh? Is this science or some kind of religious faith? Religious faith in government intervention? Idiotic.

He goes on further to describe the fallacies behind feckless government intervention. And it truly amazes me to read this material....
the net effect of fiscal stimulus is exactly zero, except to raise future tax distortions. The classic arguments for fiscal stimulus presume that the government can systematically fool people
No one can be less surprised by this statement than me. Government's job is to "fool people." So, should the government be in business in trying to assist the economy at all? Fiscal stimulus as he argues is based on the following fallacies..........
Most fiscal stimulus arguments are based on fallacies, because they ignore three basic facts.

First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both1 . This form of “crowding out” is just accounting, and doesn't rest on any perceptions or behavioral assumptions.

Second, investment is “spending” every bit as much as is consumption. Keynesian fiscal stimulus advocates want money spent on consumption, not saved. They evaluate past stimulus programs by whether people who got stimulus money spent it on consumption goods rather than save it. But the economy overall does not care if you buy a car, or if you lend money to a company that buys a forklift.

Third, people must ignore the fact that the government will raise future taxes to pay back the debt. If you know your taxes will go up in the future, the right thing to do with a stimulus check is to buy government bonds so you can pay those higher taxes. Now the net effect of fiscal stimulus is exactly zero, except to raise future tax distortions. The classic arguments for fiscal stimulus presume that the government can systematically fool people.
Good luck USA. As long as you look to government to solve your economic problems, you will be disappointed. So, this is why i like the Obamessiah who has taken extraordinary economic intervention measures that have failed miserably. Maybe now, people in the US will realize that socialism even an American socialism just will not work. It won't work in China either.


The PC rules of the world affect us all......

Apparently it's no longer politically correct to direct a joke at any particular racial or ethnic minority, so try this one:

An Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Welshman, a Latvian, a Turk, an Aussie, a German, a Yank, an Egyptian, a Jap, a Mexican, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Pole, a Lithuanian, a Swede, a Finn, an Israeli, a Romanian, a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Singaporean, an Italian, a Norwegian and an African went to a night

The bouncer said: "Sorry, I can't let you in without a Thai"

Monday, April 25, 2011

Pajamas Media » Maxed Out America: Coming Sooner Than You Think

Maxed out? Come on, this is the USA. So certain people or entities can never be maxed out as far as their credit card is concerned? Sorry, but there is a limit to the ability of USA to borrow money. WE just are not exactly sure where that is. However, keep borrowing $1.5 trillion per year and we will find out pretty soon. Good luck USA, you have no idea what your profligate spending that you have convinced yourselves is necessary will cost you. What did you get for the whacked out spending? nothing, what will it cost? A while heck of a lot. The real world is that there is no free lunch but your politicians have been selling this idea for decades.

Pajamas Media » Maxed Out America: Coming Sooner Than You Think

RealClearPolitics - The Unhappy President

Just more leftist whining?
The president has always had a gift for self-pity. And blame-shifting. "It's Bush's fault" could be the subtitle of his presidency.
Sniveling empty suit.

RealClearPolitics - The Unhappy President

Thursday, April 21, 2011

S&P Cuts Fannie, Freddie, FHLB, Farm Credit Outlooks After US Cut - WSJ.com

More downgrades of American financial governmental institutions follow the downgrade of the American debt credit.....
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services cut its outlooks on Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FMCC), the Federal Home Loan Bank system and the Farm Credit System in correlation with its recent move of lowering its outlook on U.S. debt.

S&P said the outlook changes reflect its revision of the outlook on the U.S. from stable to negative--a move S&P made Monday that roiled markets.
According to the credit rating agencies, the US government creditworthiness is no longer as solid as it has been in the past. Spend beyond your means and one can expect that that creditor will eventually default on debt. But there is hope.....
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
-New American Standard Bible-
Maybe, as the leftists try to spend the nation into Utopian oblivion, this is God's way to reconnect to Godless Democrats.

S&P Cuts Fannie, Freddie, FHLB, Farm Credit Outlooks After US Cut - WSJ.com

Let the Rich Get Richer | Hoover Institution

As the Obamessiah crafts his vision for a communist nation, we are no longer allowed to debate the limits of the leviathan central planning government but as to the level of serfdom to it. As we observe that the nation demands more-and-more from a small sliver of its citizens to support the many others, I also think that we should ask that as people embrace this attitude and this entitlement gets embedded in the psyche of Americans, will there be those that also will feel that they can forcibly take it like vigilantes, too? When I offered this concern in Africa when I lived there, when certain groups in society were vilified as scapegoats for their endemic problems, people laughed and told me that I did not understand the nation and my concerns were unfounded. They told me that the people had too much to lose being one of the most successful sub-Saharan African nations. Cote d'Ivoire has now been racked by a civil war and for many years despite all that they supposedly would never want to lose, ultimately did. This is the what will happen to the United States if we continue down this path.

The Obamessiah vision of the penultimate power of the leviathan deploys sleezy slight of hand as one listens to classic liberal philosophy of liberty turned into a screed for Utopian wealth redistribution.....
At this point, ambiguity in the idea of "security" turns the social contract theory of John Locke and David Hume on its head. By Locke and Hume’s conception, every person was required to renounce force in order to increase his own security from the aggression of other individuals. It is hard to think that anyone, no matter how powerful, is left worse off by this one trade-off.

Under Obama’s more aggressive agenda, however, security includes "Social Security" so that each person has to undertake to support his fellow citizens who are not able to support themselves, even if unthreatened by others. Put otherwise, no longer is a successful individual just under a duty not to take advantage of the less fortunate by use of force and fraud; now that duty extends to supplying financial support to all individuals against the vicissitudes of life—without offering any explanation as to why they are unable to undertake that task for themselves.
There is no end to the trade-offs that the leviathan can justify and force is being deployed but through the central government. One cannot step out of the path without renouncing ones citizenship to the nation. Once one starts down the path towards this infectious socialism, each small step is justified by the justification of the previous step. I am of the opinion, that the nation has already reached the point of no return where we have too many people that are now dependent upon this sickening 'contract.' We are on the slippery slope towards complete socialism and it only took a little shove by the feckless Obamessiah for the nation to lose control. Good luck USA, like the Africans in Cote d'Ivoire that told me that I did not understand that the prospects for civil war are impossible to comprehend, I expect similar blood in the streets justified by people now thinking that they are entitled to fruits of other's labor.

Let the Rich Get Richer | Hoover Institution

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Review & Outlook: Caesar in Beijing - WSJ.com

Crackdown on Christians in China. Internal power struggle in Beijing or just more central planning blundering?

Review & Outlook: Caesar in Beijing - WSJ.com

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Thought of the day....

A leviathan state is injurious because of its effect on civic character, because it undermines self-reliance and creates dependency. And this, in turn, results in an enervation of the entrepreneurial spirit that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.

The Incredible Shrinking Obama | The Weekly Standard

Monday, April 18, 2011

S&P Cuts U.S. Ratings Outlook to Negative - WSJ.com

Fiscal deterioration in the US is so severe that the credit rating agencies have put the credit rating outlook of the USA on negative. This implies a 1 in 3 chance of an actual credit rating downgrade. No surprise to me and should be no surprise to anyone else if the US gets downgraded and the credit worthiness of the nation continues to deteriorate. The nation's central government, through the making magnificent promises to its citizens, have covenanted massive payments to the 'something-for-nothing' crowd that seem to have convinced themselves that if they are born on this certain piece of soil, that they deserve a certain level of income and lifestyle financed by a small sliver of others.....
In explaining its decision to put the U.S. credit rating on negative watchm S&P said the U.S. deficit "ballooned" to more than 11% of GDP in 2009 from a range of 2% to 5% from 2003 to 2008. It noted the gap between both Republicans and Democrats about how to cut the deficit "remains wide." Even if an agreement is found between both sides, "there is a reasonable chance that it would still take a number of years before the government reaches a fiscal position that stabilizes its debt burden," S&P said.
Best of luck. This will not end pretty. Socialism never works no matter what the country is that engages in it.

Here one of the symptoms of the great American disease where the leech class lives off the others by getting the leviathan to is it evil work. The leviathan, that gains power as more-and-more leeches become dependent upon the blood of others is happy to accommodate to keep their new serfs in line.....

S&P Cuts U.S. Ratings Outlook to Negative - WSJcom

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

As of late, we have heard new salvos of bombs fired at the high income earners in the US. "Tax the rich" we continue to hear from the Democrats and the left. However, there is a serious problem with this since we also know that.....
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Why is that such as large swath of Americans completely get off of paying any taxes? Of course these people are going to swing for the fences and ask to tax others for their own benefit!!! Is this shared sacrifice? Not! We are not hearing squeals from this nearly 50% of American taxpayers saying that 'this is unfair that we are taxed nothing.' I wonder why this is??

I think that most of all of this 'tax the rich' nonsense can be summed up in this amazing and insightful quote,
"Tax the rich is the lazy man's approach to government"
-Glenzo, 2011-
Additionally, the IRS tracks and releases information on the 400 highest income earners in the US. The latest data released is from 2007 where the average income for these people was $345mm each. And also, we see that that the average tax rate for these super high income earners has fallen from 26% to 17% over the period from 1992 to 2007 (we are not evaluating the absolute levels of taxes being paid just the rates on this income). The primary reason that tax rates have fallen is that taxes on dividends and capital gains are much lower. But lets assume that we can magically raise taxes on these people back to 1992 levels, and assume that they will not change their behavior at all to change their income profile, then the US treasury will increase the funds available for wasteful government spending instead of where these high income earners allocate it by 345mm x 0.09 x 400 = 12.42 billion. This is less than 1% of the current deficit and less than 1/10 of 1% of the total government debt.

But we also know....
More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent.
So, what is the logic of continuing to concentrate more an more of the nation's tax income into a smaller group of people? And also, the arguments that I hear over-and-over is that these super wealthy can afford to pay more. Of course they can but also the regular folks can afford to pay more too. Its their government too and once you remove them from paying for this, removing them from responsibility, then I think that the nation will never get its fiscal house in order.

This just illustrates the complete silliness of the current debate. Raising taxes on the high income earners is the least difficult thing to do for politicians but it will not even be close to effective. People will change their behavior leading to lower incomes and taxes collected then absolute rates imply. Furthermore, the additional taxes paid by these superwealthy will be diverted from investments that they would normally make. The national will shift investment from these initiatives to those directed by the central planning government, probably not as productive for the nation. Also, higher taxes makes a nation less competitive by raising the cost of capital and this moves jobs, income and opportunity to other nations where the business environment is more favorable. This is not a positive for the nation.

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama Transforms Tax Hikes Into Spending Cuts - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

This description of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's fiscal plan reflects the president's view that people have whatever money they have only by the grace of government, which has the legal and moral authority to rearrange it at will. Hence declining to raise taxes to pay for open-ended, ruinously expensive health care entitlements is the same as robbing the poor to pay the rich. These dueling perspectives have a Randian ring.
This is the distilled version that we heard the Obamessiah argue in his recent budget speech, but one must consider the underlying philosophy to this position, it is that the government gives to you, not you that gives to the government, in order to pay for those essential services that only government can deliver. In typical communist fashion, you are not a sovereign individual within a society, but one of the society group, where this group is the focus objective and that society or group has the standing over the individual from a performance objective from the leviathan.

But lets get a little deeper into this conceptual framework that the communist Obamessiah is toying with here....

Besides, in typical communist secular fashion, dropping the mention of the creator from the quote from the "Declaration of Independence" the Obamessiah also changes a specific term....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by certain inalienable Rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The actual document.....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Listen to the Obamessiah and read the above again closely, it is clear to me that he uses inalienable instead of unalienable. So, you may ask, what is the big problem with this? Well, he made 2 unnecessary changes in the quotation from the original document. So lets have a look a the the differences between inalienable and unalienable....
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally philosopher Locke used the word property. However property such as land, buildings and personal goods can be considered a limited universe of physical goods, Jefferson and others broadened the limited word property to include opportunity and to pursue all endeavors that promote an individual's portfolio of satisfying behavior by using pursuit of happiness) are clearly unalienable rights, those conferred from God and those that we are endowed with by the simple fact that we are human. However, the Obamessiah cleverly changes this. He is saying that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) are rights that are conferred upon you by the government. When one accepts that premise, that these are rights are those that are given then it naturally argues that these rights can therefore be taken away.

These inalienable rights are a conceptual framework that is the foundation of communist philosophy....
But the communist revolution does not end with the negation of individual liberty and equality ("collectivism"), but with the "negation of the negation": "individual property" in the capitalist regime is in fact the "expropriation of the immediate producers.
From Wikipedia, here. As long as there is individual property, and that capital uses labor to unlock the value of this property, collectivism cannot exist by definition. However, if the government by definition, owns the rights of ones property that comes from labor and capital then it is achieving albeit by a roundabout path, the capital and therefore is achieving communist collectivism.

Obama Transforms Tax Hikes Into Spending Cuts - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Thought of the day....

Contrary to all the class-warfare demagoguery pouring forth from Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself), conservatives do not oppose tax increases because we are beholden to the rich. Rather, the question is whether wealth does more good when it is invested in the private sector, to create jobs and economic growth, or surrendered to the federal government as taxes to support the metastatic growth of a pestiferous bureaucracy.
From here. This supports what I have been saying for quite sometime. Implicit in government spending is that this spending provides more value than than where the funds were drawn from through borrowing or taxes. I do not think that this has been objectively proved.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Limits to federal power written by Jefferson and Madison.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with the government debt......

The problem isn't really with the government debt. Excess debt hurts but so does excess taxes. The real problem is that the US government spends too much money and has promised too many goodies to too many people without the ability to pay for them.

Implicit in big government spending types is that somehow government spending is more effective and more efficient than allowing people with the resources to allocate it themselves. We know from the last massive pork spending bill at the beginning of the Obamessiah's presidency that these things just may not be what they are promised to be. It did not improve employment and one cannot objectively argue that it increased economic activity. See, the money that government allocates has to come from somewhere. It either has to come from people that save and consume in the form of taxes or from investors in the form of borrowing. Investors would have allocated the funds somewhere and probably in areas that the government were not focused on. So, one cannot prove that the funds that government allocated to their spending priorities was better than the spending and investment priorities that the people that originally had the money.

The biggest problem with the American central government is that it is proving to be a failure in all of these promises that it is making. The socialists are now arguing that we can straighten this out painlessly by seizing the assets of the wealthiest Americans. Like the failed stimulus, this too will fail miserably.

The stupidity of leftist 'tax the rich' strategy....

For a long time now, I have heard over-and-over that the solution to generating more revenue for the central government is to 'tax the rich.' It is typical socialist attitude parroted by most Democrats. There are several issues with this:
1. Who is rich?
2. How to tax them.
3. Can you actually achieve more revenue with this strategy?
4. They already pay most of the income taxes now.
5. By relying more-and-more on a narrow population of people to pay the bills, what if these people leave or the earning power goes to overseas people?
6. Isn't this just a lazy approach to taxes? By targeting just a small sliver of the American population, does this try to imply that most people will not have to suffer nor share in the pain for supposedly benefits to all?
This is just a lazy populist approach and will ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. A Democrats solution to every single problem is to 'tax the rich.' Good luck with that. You will only create more rish people in China and less rich people in the USAc

Obama outlines his deficit-reduction policy - Washington Times

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The dollar will never collapse? REad the book "Black Swan" by Talib....

I think that the we will see a default in the obligations of the US Government first.

This is what you get when the government runs a business....

Soem people are obviously very worried that the US Government will collapse the economy....

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson-
Be prepared.

From a few years ago.....

Entitlements such as social security and Medicare are promises the US government will find impossible to fulfill.....

These programs were an demographic indulgence where people created economic value for themselves through legislation and have left the bill to children, grandchildren and to those yet unborn. It is probably one of the most amazing examples of greed ever seen by humans.

Soros: main obstacle to stable & just world order is USA. It's time for very serious adjustment

Just a lovely person....
Soros also fosters cultural degeneracy by supporting abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage etc. Soros funded Barack Obama's campaign and often visits the White House.

At 81, taking down America appears to be his final challenge. "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. The time has come for a very serious adjustment," he said.
Good luck. Maybe can take down a government but cannot take down a people. We can fight back and should.

Soros: main obstacle to stable & just world order is USA. It's time for very serious adjustment

Lowest approval of the term......

You can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time....

Those that strongly approve his performance has fallen to 19%. Boo hoo. The Obamessiah, that couples arrogance with a profound lack of capability is an icon for empty suits everywhere.

Big government on the brink - The Washington Post

The American central government has been having trouble for decades by not actually focusing on the business of governing. There is a disconnect between what government can do and should do since there are limited capabilities in a socialist central planning platform that benefit a nation as a whole. What big government has become, is a leviathan comprised of several things; a feeding trough for those that do not want to do or create on their own, a mechanism for 'brilliant people' that could never convince people otherwise to force changes of their behavior to their favored patterns, a mechanism for some kind of strange new racial/social recalibration that requires the disposal of merit based systems in favor of one that is based on the color of one's skin, a non-economic seizure of property (earnings of individuals) for the dispersement to others based on political power. The list can go on-and-on. But the particle below outlines the problem succinctly.....
“Once politics was about only a few things; today, it is about nearly everything,” writes the eminent political scientist James Q. Wilson in a recent collection of essays (“American Politics, Then and Now”). The concept of “vital national interest” is stretched. We deploy government casually to satisfy any mass desire, correct any perceived social shortcoming or remedy any market deficiency. What has abetted this political sprawl, notes Wilson, is the rising influence of “action intellectuals” — professors, pundits, “experts” — who provide respectable rationales for various political agendas.
The United States has drifted away from a place that promotes and protects individual liberty and has become one that is a morass of publically funded interests that add very little value to nation. Its just a place now that punishes and denigrates producers for mad fighting for that money. Its truly disgusting and Americans should not tolerate it any longer. Take to the streets and take back what is yours. Who is going to stop you?

Big government on the brink - The Washington Post

Monday, April 11, 2011

Democrats will yield on everything but abortion | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner

The deal breaker for Democrats had been the rider cutting off federal funds for Planned Parenthood. As a "senior Democratic source" told the Huffington Post on Friday, "The cuts will be hard for us to swallow, but we won't bend on Title X" -- that is, federal funding of Planned Parenthood. "Reid doesn't even have to go back to the caucus to ask on that one."
As I said before, the only thing that the Democrats stand for is the elimination of life in the womb. It is the blue blood that breathes life into the Democratic party. These people are not just stupid but bad people that normal humans should not respect. Shame shame shame.

And the Obamessiah is the big ringleader of this cult of death....
On all the big fights during Obama's presidency, Planned Parenthood has gotten what it wants: abortion subsidies in Obamacare, two Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade, and staunchly pro-choice Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services, among other things.
So, what is all of this about. The codeword is 'woman's health' but it is really the arbitrary elimination of human life for nihilists. As we know nihilism is...

noun /ˈnīəˌlizəm/  /ˈnē-/

1. The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless

2. Extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence

3. The doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c.1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order

* a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own sake

* nihilistic delusion: the delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal

* complete denial of all established authority and institutions

* Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. ...

* Extreme skepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence; The rejection of all moral principles; (capitalized by protagonist Turgenev) A Russian anarchistic revolutionary doctrine (1860-1917) holding that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction ...

* nihilist - someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief
The real story here is the last line. Democratic nihilists are those many people that we see that reject or are hostile to religion and traditional social order such as families and local communities in favor of central control in Washington. These people are in favor of progressive values that are completely and totally centered on the self, "just live for today" could very well be their motto. It is a philosophy that is completely and totally self centered. disgusting.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/democrats-will-yield-everything-abortion#ixzz1JDzEaezt

Democrats will yield on everything but abortion | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner

Saturday, April 09, 2011

Looming US Government shutdown....

If the US government shuts down, hopefully we can get it from starting back up again.

Friday, April 08, 2011

The loving husban

A man had two of the best tickets for the Super Bowl.

As he sits down, another man comes along and asks if anyone is sitting in the seat next to him.

"No," he says, "the seat is empty."

"This is incredible!" said the man, "who in their right mind would have a seat like this for the Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event of the football world and not use it?"

He says, "Well actually, the seat belongs to me. My wife was supposed to come with me, but she passed away. This is the first Super Bowl we haven't been to, together, since we got married."

"Oh . . . I'm sorry to hear that. That's terrible. I guess you couldn't find someone else, a friend or relative or even a neighbor to take the seat?"

The man shakes his head . . .

. . . "No. They're all at the funeral."

An email going around.......













The bottom line is that the American press just cannot be trusted. They are in the tank for Democrats and are not doing the work that they are paid to do.

Quote of the day.......

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

-Robert Heinlein-
The US Government and American leftists are trying their absolute best to bring back poverty upon their people through some kind of imperial government, like monarchies of the past that decide for the simple people, take the product of their labor, decide how these resources are spent and live so very well themselves.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

The Obamessiah is running again.....

Enjoy the new campaign video......

The Obamessiah is an awesome god....

I could have heard this from any number of quarters when I was back visiting New York a few weeks ago.

I was chatting with a Canadian fellow from the Frasier Institute, a free market think tank, visiting Hong Kong since this place routinely ranks number 1 or 2 on their freedom index. However, at lunch, he was horrified when I stated that the only reason that the Obamessiah was elected President of the United States was that he is considered ethnically black. I further clarified my statement that he definately was not elected due to merit or any indication of proven ability but a Hail Mary pass by Americans and by those that believe in socialism over free markets. He retorted that the election of the Obamessiah was an American reaction to George W. Bush and so, I suppose, this is something else that liberals, progressives and leftists can blame on W. So if this is the case, then can we blame the Obamessiah when Donald Trump gets elected?

It will be nice to get rid of the Obamessiah, probably the worst President of my lifetime. Affirmative Action can get you there but just doesn't prepare one when there ia an actual need to perform.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

No fried food: Health Dept. workers cringe at new rules restricting foods, fragrances, decorations

New York's nanny state is gone completely overboard. Its time to open a McDonalds across the street and to hold donut eating parties on the front steps of this monstronsity.

No fried food: Health Dept. workers cringe at new rules restricting foods, fragrances, decorations

Monday, April 04, 2011

Veena Malik’s smackdown of a mullah.......

Why Veena Malik’s smackdown of a mullah was a seminal moment for feminism « Hot Air

Just another story of a feckless media that is either not interested or scared to cover the stories regarding abuse of women and other groups, such as gays, at the hands of not just frothing-at-the-mouth Islamists but considerably more mainstream Muslims. Its embarrassing where leftist political correctness has taken us. Media are now self censoring news in order to continue to promote their multicultural narrative? This multiculturalism must be some kind of replacement for morals offered by religion that leftists just can no longer tolerate. Democrats and their leftist brothers are just completely and totally tiresome and dangerous.

Why Veena Malik’s smackdown of a mullah was a seminal moment for feminism « Hot Air

Measuring Force - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

Economist Thomas Sowell's assessment of the current President's performance up to now.....
Disappointing? No. Disgusting? Yes. The only disappointment is with voters who voted their hopes and ignored his realities.

Measuring Force - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

Friday, April 01, 2011

Gasoline up 100% under Obama - Washington Times

I remember that when gas prices were rising in the USA during the Bush administration how many people were angry about the crazy prices, however, we now see that gas has risen in price by 100% since the Obamessiah has taken office.....
According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58.
Higher gas prices during Bushtimes, were met with accusations that this was Bushes plan to raise prices to benefit his Texas buddies. So why is it that we do not hear complaints from these same people now? Is it since it was people with bds (Bush derangement syndrome) and it actually had little to do with the actual reality of higher gas prices but with Bush himself? I suspect that that was political and very few people that complained about Bush would dare to complain about these things when a black man is President.

Gasoline up 100% under Obama - Washington Times