Saturday, February 28, 2009
In a nutshell, the tea party is about protesting the government's extravagance with our money- specifically the stimulus package. Begun by Rick Santelli, several smaller rallies all over the country are being held- including one in DC at the White House!- are being held before a large rally in Chicago this summer.
I think they should hold it in DC, on the Capitol steps. That would really send a message. Maybe. I do think that even this is probably useless. President Obama isn't going to listen to any voice of reason, because he's trying to further his goals of socialism. He's an insane Communist, hot on the trail of bringing America, the 'Land of the Free and Home of the Brave' to her knees with globalization.
And we're letting it happen. So, even though these 'tea parties' probably won't do anything really, I still feel better participating- I feel like I'm doing something.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:
I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not
All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.
Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.
Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?
My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
As you can see, this gentleman (who is well spoken, but typically spouting Communist propaganda), starts off with an impressive first paragraph. Yes, he's very impressive. But even in his first paragraph several problems instantly present themselves with his logic- and history.
"Empires have consistently failed due to one group of people, the wealthy, oppressing and exploiting another, the poor."
Woah, woah, wait. Let's count down the empires that have fallen.
- Greece. Greece fell after Sparta took Athens in the Peloponnesian War and began being very, very picky about how their people lived. Point 1 to free society.
- Rome. Rome fell several emperors after Catholicism began, and after their theocracy began messing around in how their subjects should live. In fact, the only high point of this period was Emperor Julian- the only non-Christian emperor after Constantine I. Point 2 to free society.
- Britain. Britain hasn't completely fell apart- but she made a pretty good start with America. The US declared her independence after Britain began foisting unfair taxes, trying to tell us what to do- we fought for what we believed in.
- USSR. The USSR fell because she was Communist, pure and simple. The government got overwhelmed. And people got tired of being bossed around constantly.
So, my point in that is this- history shows that only when a regime becomes excessively repressive does a civilization begin to fall apart. More government involvement is not going to help us, it will hurt us. Badly.
" The alternative to this all-too-familiar scenario is mandatory redistribution of wealth within a nation or empire"
Read my lips. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Oh yeah, it's the answer for the leaders, who 'redistribute' the wealth...right into their pockets. It's what happened in China after Mao took over. Yeah, the communists 'redistributed' wealth alright- they redistributed it right into the government's coffers!
"Democratic governments take power away from the wealthy and reinvest this power in the poor. This reinvestment in the poor is also known as socialism."
I could go on about this for more space than I have here. Socialism does not work. Period. No where has it worked, despite the politicians' almost psychotic worship of the ideology. Socialism always end up with the power being vested- not in the poor- but in the leaders who make themselves rich off of redistribution.
"And so a combination of socialism and free trade is needed for the survival of any civilization."
Wha...? No. An adamant no. All a mixture of socialism and free trade gives us is a wonderful mess, like oh, banks failing and mortgages falling into the commode. Doesn't work. Never has, never will.
"Without government intervention in the U.S. economy, child labor could easily make a comeback. This might sound outlandish, until we stop to consider that child labor was common practice in the United States until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and remains a common practice today in impoverished countries all over the world."
Ahem...this is America in the 21rst Century. People couldn't hire children if they wanted to, because- most- parents wouldn't let their kids work when they were little! Now, I'm going to get all homeschooler on you for a moment.
On the website/blog The Rebelution, the authors present an interesting theory about the rise of the 'Kidult'. In short, the government made laws about things like child labor. At the time, these were good laws, needed laws. Now...not so much. The Harris's propose that such laws abolished the free, entrepreneurial, working society we once had. Kids were no longer allowed to work, so they failed to create character and learn how to work. So, they didn't work.
I said all that to say this- is 'child' labor really a bad thing? Should we have to wait until we're 17 to work? Would help our generation- and subsequent generations- rise up above this kidult fad we've fallen into. Anyway, on to the next fun quote!
"Left to itself, a free' market will naturally create a more and more pronounced divide between rich and poor, until there are only two classes: the extremely rich and the extremely poor."
Quick economic lesson: Communist China. Communism is supposed to be so great, right? Wrong. In China, there are only two classes- extremely rich and extremely poor. There was no middle class until about 15 years ago, when Deng Xiaoping began his reforms- and Americans began going over there to start up businesses.
The capitalists are reforming China's economy, and the Chinese are better off for it! (That could be debated by some, but I think it's true. :P )
"In order for people with less power to feel as if they have some control over their own lives, they need assistance from their government. "
This one is...well, pretty outrageous. If people need assistance from the government to 'feel' in control, then they have no control. None, zilch, nada.
"People with fewer resources and opportunities than the super-rich need a chance to get a good education, to have access to nutritious food and proper healthcare, and to move up the economic ladder, away from poverty and powerlessness."
- People can get education. You know all that time before public, standardized schooling? People were much smarter than they are now. Literacy in the US was over %90 for white males. It is now barely %80. For blacks, during World War I, it was over %80. It is now %68.
- Everyone had nutritious food once upon a time. Back before private enterprise was basically outlawed, everybody grew their own food, then sold the extras. Now, you can't do that because there are so many government regulations.
- My argument above applies to 'proper healthcare'. Back before home healthcare was outlawed, before midwives were vilified, every woman knew how to take care of her family's health. She knew how to sew up a cut, how to make a bandage, what herbs to treat with. Now it's a rare woman that knows how to dose Tylenol, much less what lavender can be used for.
- Poverty? Give me a break. Know what the poverty level in America is? $9,979 annually. The Iraq poverty line, which is the next lowest, is $8,900. Lowest poverty rate in the world? $600, in Somalia. All Americans have food regularly. If they didn't, how come we have the largest obese population in the world?
We have come to the end of this exercise in socialist learning. Please distribute a donation of no less than $10.00 in the box on your way out. Guards are watching the box. Thank you.
Like I said before- no businessman, CEO, or regular citizen should want this. It's insane to trust all your money to the same government that can't keep it's own coffers in the black, much less someone else's!
The government is going to start so-called 'stress tests' on the banks this week by pumping $100 billion in asset form into them to see how much money they actually need. From the article- "Companies deemed to need more money will be required to raise it from private sources, or else accept additional government investments. "
Wha'? Now the banks can't make it unless the government helps them by 'investing'? What happened to the bold entrepreneur who didn't need any help?
He's gone, that's where. He's been snuffed out, extinguished by stupid laws made by our very dear investing government. He's been thrown into exile by the forbidding of just opening a business. We've outlawed the grannies that want to open a restaurant in their old age.
But people are perfectly okay with this. The government has lulled them into a sense of security, safety and- dare I say it?- even freedom! Yes, they have us fooled, thinking we are free. In reality, we are in the worst type of bondage- that put upon us by our own willingness to accept what the government wants to do with our lives.
So should I really be surprised that places like CitiGroup are willingly going the way of nationalization? Why only one option for regaining the upper hand in the market exists- accepting government help?
No, I shouldn't. So why am I?
I don't know. Maybe because I still value freedom? After all, I am a crazy, greedy Libertarian.
Yeah, that's definitely it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Please tell me this is a joke. Please. Seriously, this just freaks me out. Just a little. A world organization for Obama?
For the 'world'- this is my country. Not yours. Yeah, she might have quite a few problems. But is it really any of your business? Yes, the President might make a lot of decisions about the rest of the world- I've dealt with this before, so you all know my feelings on that subject- but should we care what the rest of the world thinks of our president?
No. Oh, and here's another one. These people are crazy. Messiah Obama has the entire world up in arms for his cause. It's crazy.
Anyway, I'm so utterly disgusted over this that I'm not waxing particularly eloquent. I better stop before I start frothing at the mouth, LOL.
P.S.- for all of you are following me...sorry for flooding your 'Latest Posts' box yet again with my rants. I just couldn't help it with this one. :D
I can just see the TV ads now: The announcer gets up there... "Comrades! Our valiant leader, the Messiah, Obama, has a brilliant offer to give you! Just join the Socialist Bucks for Shares, and let us take care of your business! You can have that resort trip you've always wanted! It won't be the Bahamas, but hey- Socialist Society Resort is so much better! We'll turn your profits into deficits, just like with everything else we've ever handled! Just call 1-800-Soc-iety for your share in this extraordinary, payed-by-you-and-other-taxpayers offer today!"
Sometimes I crack myself up...
Anyway- do people really, seriously think this is a good thing? You'd think these businesses would be falling all over themselves to get away from the government's help, not the other way around!
Considering the government's lousy money handling record- that would put any five year old to shame- I really don't understand this push for the government to handle everything.
Maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe I'm too Libertarian. Maybe I'm just greedy.
Yeah, that's probably it.
(Know why the Liberals jingle? Cuz all they have left is 'change'. Hahahaha...I thought it was funny. :P)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Now guess which one Obama isn't proposing. That's right- we're going to keep bailing people out while we simultaneously decrease the national debt. Uh-huh. Sure.
Anyway- this new budget our very dear President Obama is proposing will help cut the annual budget deficit down to only $533 billion instead of $1.3 trillion by 2013. They're going to accomplish this by cutting back on war spending, taking away tax breaks for people who make $250,000 or more, and 'streamlining government'.
Three reasons why those things aren't going to work.
1) The government's involved in it
2) The government loves to break promises
3) No way is that same government going to 'streamline' itself! (I'd love to do it's 'streamlining' for it, but that's another blog post.)
For starters, I really don't see how in the world we can cut back on spending in Iraq and the Middle East when we're sending yet more troops into say, Afghanistan. Doesn't make much sense, now does it? Sending more people, by the very nature of the action, costs more money. You have to pay for those soldiers to be transported, pay for them to be fed, housed, clothed...paid! Yeah. Not buying it.
Taking away tax breaks is going to hurt us much more than it's going to help us. $250,000 annually- let's face it- actually isn't that much nowadays. That's a pittance in places like New York City, where often rent for a decent place is usually $3,000 or more monthly! Yeah, it might sound like a lot, but it really isn't. And besides, those people who make more than that are often investors. If the investors can't invest because they don't have money, guess what's going to happen? Businesses are going to go under because they won't have money to stay in business anymore.
Thirdly- streamlining government? Gimme' a break. Congress will never streamline itself- at least, not for real- because then they wouldn't have as much power! If you take away some of those very, very, very important positions like, say, the Administration on Aging or the Endangered Species Committee, then Congress wouldn't have as many stooges to boss around- not to mention not half as many cool options to play around with!
Anyway- I'm really not buying this. It seems silly, to think that doing such things (that won't really get done, or won't achieve the desired result), will actually help or better anyone.
I have an idea to lower the national deficit. Let's cut down on all of the programs we're funding. Let's cut out foreign aid, stop giving bailouts, stop giving loans, stop all this stupid, wasteful spending...then I do believe our problem would be solved.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
We're sending more soldiers over there. It's stupid. Let's bring our boys back home- from everywhere- and leave the rest of the world to it's business. They're sovereign countries, as strange as that concept may seem, and we have no business interfering with their business.
But,of course, we're much to civilized and rich to just sit here!! Right?
No. We're much to indebted and problem-overwhelmed here at home to be running off to help the entire world 'stabilize'. Eventually someone will rise up and bring some semblance of order to the Middle East. We hope. And, if they don't...well, then they'll all kill each other.
It's how it's been over there for thousands of years. Helping them regain stability (which they've never had, so 'regain' is a misnomer), giving them money so they can research, isn't going to do anything but help them figure out more efficient, deadly ways to kill each other.
Just like in Africa. Those people are constantly fighting among themselves. Let's not give them technology so they can figure out more weapons. More efficient, clean weapons, at that. Yeah, that's smart.
Sometimes it's just so stupid. Why in the world do we need to be messing in everybody's else's business?
Mr. President, didn't your mother ever tell you to mind your business?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama lied, democracy died
Posted: February 16, 20091:00 am Eastern
The lies are piling up after only 30 days.
The campaign promises are being broken so fast, it is making the American people's heads spin.No one is capable of compiling them all.
And most of my colleagues in the media have no desire to do so.
But let's just take one big one that is likely to be broken tomorrow.
Late Friday, the Senate passed the $790 billion so-called "stimulus package," which discerning American citizens realize is nothing but the same old-fashioned, pork-laden, redistribution-of-wealth, spending bills for which the Democratic Party is infamous.
Let's go back in time, for those who care, to June 22, 2007. Obama was in Manchester, N.H., campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.
He said government would be different with an Obama administration."When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it," he said. His campaign called the idea the "sunshine before signing promise."
You can watch the video of that speech captured below – if you have the stomach.Guess what?
Tomorrow, exactly one business day after the approval of the bill, Obama has signaled he will sign it. (Remember, today is a national holiday – and Washington government offices will be as empty as the noggins of Obamaniacs.)
But that's not all.In that same speech, Obama promised there would be no more pork!He promised there would be "no more secrets."
Yet, as we all know, this 1,000-plus-page piece of legislation was passed without being read by a single member of Congress. It was posted online in a form that could not be keyword searched.So much for the promise of "transparency," too.
Not that I expected Obama to keep his word.
In fact, for my money, he's keeping far too many promises in far too little time. This administration is acting like it wants to bankrupt the country, convert it to an entirely socialist economy and end all meaningful debate about it before the year is out.
But, just for the record, he did lie – big time. And while no one has yet died as a result of his actions to date, they will.
They will die because of scarcity and rationing of medical care.
They will die because of unrestrained abortion and infanticide.
Eventually, I believe, they will die because of hunger and exposure brought on by a collapsed economy ravaged by command-and-control centralization.
But what has clearly died already – after just 30 days – is the very "democracy" Obama championed and pledged throughout his campaign.
This isn't "democracy," not that democracy should ever be the goal of any true American who reveres the Constitution. It's just the old-fashioned "dictatorship of the proletariat" – a Communist euphemism for a war on workers not directly in servitude to the state.
Let's examine some jaw-dropping numbers reported exclusively by WND:
* Before this bill is signed, actual federal obligations are already $65.5 trillion – exceeding the gross domestic product of the entire world.
* The Obama administration economic stimulus package is going to force the Treasury to borrow approximately $2.5 trillion in 2009 and another $4 trillion in 2010, with the result of increasing the current $10 trillion national debt by 65 percent in just two years. If the Obama administration increases the national debt by 65 percent every two years, the debt will be $16.5 trillion in 2010 and $27.225 trillion by 2012, the year of the next presidential election. Let's consider the real meaning of these numbers, courtesy of WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi, a trained economist:
* If you had gone into business on the day Jesus was born, and your business lost a million dollars a day, 365 days a year, it would take you until October 2737 to lose $1 trillion.
* $1 trillion dollars divided by 300 million Americans comes out to $3,333 per person.
* One trillion $1 bills stacked one on top of the other would reach nearly 68,000 miles into the sky, about a third of the way from the Earth to the moon.
* Earth's home galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to contain about 200 billion stars. So, if each star cost $1, $1 trillion would buy five Milky Way galaxies full of stars. But you don't need to know all that.
Just let the "experts" in Washington figure it all out for you – the ones who are not even reading the bills, the ones who lied to you last year when they campaigned for office, the ones who are hiding this information from you even today.
After all, as Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., explains: The American people don't care.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
The bill was passed in the House 246 to 183, in the Senate 60 to 38. They didn't pass this bill until almost 11 pm. Why? They were waiting for a democrat senator to get back. Leave him and vote, I say. But, the bill needed 60 votes to either pass or not. Before the senator got back, the vote stood at 59 to 38. So, here comes the senator from Ohio, and casts his vote in favor.
Wonderful. The bill is expected to go to Obama's office this Monday. When he'll sign it. For his 'quick jolt' to the economy. His four-year 'quick jolt'. I'm so proud of my lawmakers in Washington. Not.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Senate is probably going to vote on this bill today or tomorrow. And the Republicans got what they wanted and are probably going to go along with it. Again.
Anyway. The liberal senators who drafted the bill got a bunch of their social projects passed. And the three Republicans that joined the bandwagon negotiated them down 100 billion. Or tried.
According to the news story, the bill has three major targets of interest: tax cuts for civilians and businesses, investments in alternate energy and health care, funding for government infrastructure programs, and aid to both state and local governments...including aid to individuals who are unemployed.
And our tax dollars are going to do...what again? None of those things are any of the government's business. Except maybe the infrastructure. The tax cuts- well, taxes such as we pay now should never have been instituted in the first place. Let's abolish 'em. Alternate energy? A private sector issue. Let the energy companies deal with it if you're so manic about it, and leave my tax dollars where they belong. Health care? Sorry, that isn't my problem. Or the Senator's from Ohio. Yeah. Aid to state and local governments? This one...well, I guess it is sort of the government's job to take care of their underlings. But isn't that what marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and all that other cool stuff they make money off of for?
And aid to people that are unemployed. And lack health care. They'll find a job someday. It may take awhile, but if they're good workers, why are they unemployed? It isn't the government's job to take care of them with money that doesn't even exist except in somebody's mind.
Nancy Pelosi said on the subject- "We have come to an agreement with the Senate as to how we will go forward and I think people are happy about that. There are some provisions we wish that were still there, but the fact is that there's plenty there to create nearly 4 million jobs that the president has set as our goal." (emphasis mine)
OK. Yeah. Sure Mrs. Speaker. We're all behind you! Not.
Once again, the congress is not listening to their constituency. Remind you of...oh, I don't know...a repressive regime under a King, and a parliment that didn't listen? Yeah...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Bailout- Another check we write. We like to say this one also helps 'Main Street'. Rarely does, though. Also see 'stimulus'.
Bill- The fetus of a law. We like bills, especially ones we draft ourselves!
Bipartisanship- Something we love, because it means we don't have to pretend we're different anymore!
Child Protection Acts- A wonderful way to get all your pork passed, all at once! Child protection- everyone loves these bills, regardless of whether they have children or not. It's for the children, after all.
Civil Rights- A term we just love to pass legislation on! You see, no one objects if you pass a law under the guise of it helping the poor, beleagured African-American working-class man!
Constituency- An abstract concept we don't quite understand. We left them behind a long time ago, and every now and then we get e-mails from them. Also see 'voters'.
Constitution- We're not quite sure what the use of that musty old document is. However, we do know that the voters love hearing about it, so we have to throw it in there.
Crisis- In other words- we're trying to drum this up to sound really, really bad.
Democrat- Someone who also likes stimulus.
Employment- A handy keyword we use when we try to distract people from what we're really doing.
Federal Reserve- The people that made up the Fed were truly enlightened. Oh, and all that business about the 'Creature from Jekyll Island'? Pure hogwash.
Global Warming and/or Climate Change- Since no one really knows what's going on, we're able to keep people fighting among themselves over global warming. And more check-writing!
Gun control- Another gimmick that we love to pull on the voters. Second amendment rights are a hot topic- and one that handily distracts everyone from what we're actually doing, all behind closed doors!
Immigration- Especially illegal immigration- a great way to distract attention...and oh! More checks!
Main Street- Really means 'Wall Street', but you're not supposed to know that. Also see 'stimulus'.
Presidential Race- Something we all like to participate in. After all, the more we agree with the President, the more cool things we can get passed!
Pork- Ah, pork. We could write sonnets on the subject. Pork allows us to do everything we ever wanted to do- get more salary, help our constituency and pay for it with their taxes...oh, there's nothing to compare to the power of pork. Also, its a nice dish with some green beans and cranberry sauce.
Promptly- Really means 'slowly and as inefficiently as possible'...unless of course, we're trying to pass a pet bill, in which case 'promptly' really means as quickly as possible, with no time to take a breath.
Republican- Someone who likes stimulus.
Rights- We enjoy giving people rights. By telling people what they can and cannot do, we have supreme power, resting right where it should be.
Sanctity of Marriage, Marriage Equality- Another of those wonderful gimmicks to distract you, the average voter! And it works! Better and better!!
Stimulus- We need to stimulate the big businesses so they'll stimulate our pockets. And an excuse to write a check!
United Nations- The organization we all kowtow to. You see, the UN is our main authority now, and we require permission from them to do nearly everything, including wage war and manage our citizens. Oh, and it's a nice excuse for another check! Yay! Of course, we can always ignore the UN if they aren't convenient.
Veto- Ah yes, the dreaded veto. If the president vetoes our pet bill, we will hate him forever. Hence why he rarely vetoes our pet bills.
Vote- Something we enjoy doing so we can pass our bills that don't really benefit Main Street.
Voters- Abstract people we can't buy off, hence of no value to us. Also see 'constituency'.
The first remarks came from President Obama. The second came from Nancy Pelosi. At Obama's press conference last night, he focused mainly on jobs and economics.
So, he used one of the most unemployed cities- Elkhart, Indiana- to prove his point that everyone (and I mean everyone!! Mass panic!!) is losing their jobs! I mean, Elkhart has a 15.3 unemployment rate! (And a population of 52,700 according to a 2008 estimate, but that's neither here nor there.)
So let's just push this bill through, despite the economic ramifications. Something that pushes us another $800+ billion into debt can't be good. Period. What happened to Obama's campaign promises of getting us out of debt, and stopping government spending?!
Apparently, they went the way of the dinosaur, because he's sure not trying to uphold that now.
And this $800 billion 'jolt' he's talking about? Isn't happening. Number one, it's not even going to be all out there until almost four years into his term. Second, it's not going to individual people- you know, that 'main street' he's so concerned about? Yeah, isn't coming to us. It's going to big business...again. At least with Bush's first stimulus package, he had the decency to send it to the real main street.
Anyway: this bill went forward 61 to 36 in the senate. Didn't do so well in the House though, and enough people held it back that it's going to have to go through extensive porking to make it through.
So there's my rant for the day. Oh, and yes, the '500 million jobs monthly' deal is real. See second link below.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Does no one besides me see anything just a little, um, odd about this? Apparently, the bigwigs in Washington are partly depending on private companies besides banks, such as hedge funds, equity funds, and insurance companies to help out with the stimulus package by buying up 'contaminated assets'.
The aim with this move? To reduce citizen's fears that they will bear the brunt of these assets in their taxes. But, of course, they probably still will, despite the government's best intentions.
See the entire story here