A Cow-Based Economics Lesson

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows.

No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you

want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

No-one believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

You have two cows.

The one on the left looks very attractive.

The Markets Are Failing

And, of course, the sole reason is that our Federal Reserve and other central banks aren't printing enough money. Or that governments won't help the big banks. Or both. Probably both. As a NYTimes article says:

"It is the fear that governments may not ride to the rescue that seems to have unnerved markets."

Ah, so now we have it. The government is no longer forming a (nearly nonexistent) safety net for the banks - the same banks that make risky investments on purpose, overextending themselves and keeping little money actually in hand so they can make more money, and then depend on the taxpayer when they inevitably begin to fail.

The fact is that, if banks would make better business decisions, they would have nothing to worry about. If they would just learn to say "no" when a risky investor came along, they would get into far less trouble. Sadly, the profit motive is too much of...well, a motive. But I see no reason why they shouldn't pay the price.

The Weird and Weirder

So after realizing that I've fallen sorely behind on blogging, I decided to do another combined post! I know, I know. I use these to excuse my lack of posting far too often, and I apologize. But today, I even come prepared with a theme! That theme is things that really make me go: O.o

So, without further ado:

Number one : The solution to national debt

It will never cease to amaze me how the first response to the phrase "we need to reduce the national debt" is "let's just raise taxes!"

Am I the only one who just flat doesn't get that?

I mean, I understand. We need more revenue coming in before we can pay off our debt. That would probably be a good thing. What isn't a good thing is assuming that's going to be the only answer...as we start spending even more money...and keep borrowing money from China...because any ten year old will tell you that if you keep borrowing, you're never going to pay off your debt. It doesn't work very well.

Of course, any ten year old would probably also be able to tell you that if any household managed their finances like the US government does, they'd be sent to jail. But I digress.

I suppose what gets me is that the "let's raise taxes" solution isn't accompanied by anything more concrete, like...reducing the astronomically large offense - ahem, I mean, defense - budget, or reducing/restructuring medicaid benefits, or cutting off/reducing planned social security payments to the upcoming generation, since there isn't really any money there, anyway. There a million places we could cut funding, yet...the first idea that comes to mind to reduce the debt is...spend more, but raise taxes to sort-of compensate. Not promote fiscal responsibility, and live within our means, but instead live just like we did before, and hope we can make more money to pay for it.

This makes tons of sense.

Number two : The Republicans

I've been consistently puzzled by the quandary formed by the Republican party. They seem incapable of finding a candidate that can actually compete in the national elections.

I mean, I'm beginning to think that it's like some sort of rite that goes on every election at the RNC. All of the super-rich people who make decisions in political parties like that get together around a table, stare at each other for a minute, and then say, "Okay, we have here the list of prospective candidates for our party. Now which one is completely incapable of doing anything but spouting talking points and looking stupid?"

I'm not a Republican. You know this. But still. I'd like to at least have some sort of somebody that I could cheer on and not sound like an utter loser. So really, GOP, would it be too difficult to nominate someone who's actually smart and has the ability to talk without sounding like an idiot? You know, like...Ron Paul. Or Gary Johnson. Or both of them together. (That combination, by the way, would be something close to political dynamite. I'm just saying.)

But I think it's pretty safe to say that people like Newt Gingrich (who is a laugh), Mitt Romney (who is a socialist), Herman Cain (who, from what I hear, is nothing but a warmongering talking-point machine), Sarah Palin ('nuff said) aren't really helping the conservative cause.

Number three : Osama bin Laden is Dead. Long Live the TSA.

I suppose it was rather idealistic of me to expect my freedom to come back when we killed the Big Bad. Perhaps it's just because I'm used to stories where, when we kill the bad guy, things go back to the way they were before. Yeah, that's probably it.

But it seems that in the aftermath of the death of the Biggest Threat to Mankind Anywhere, we have to increase security, not calm down because he's dead.

...

But isn't the single threat to America dead?

Oh, that's right. Bin Laden wasn't the only one. That's right. I remember now. Really, there's this faceless horde that he's been training, just waiting for the day when they can strike. Somehow. Hopefully not with bombs that don't work, because those are just too easy to laugh off.

This all goes back to the idea, I believe, that we have to be tremendously frightened at any given time that something is going to come and kill us, even when nothing is. And that something, of course, has to hate us simply because we're free, not because oh, they disagree with us ideologically, or they think our actions are imperialistic in nature and arguably illegal.

So, in order to feel safe from this mysterious threat, we have to continue our security efforts in our airports, and maybe even expand those security efforts to train stations, subways, and even your local grocery store. Because, after all, we can't ever be truly safe. You never know when bin Laden will come back to life.

So yes. Three things that make absolutely no sense to me.

Randomness

Well. It's been awhile since I posted, and for that I'm (sort of) sorry. Life has been nuts for me. ^.^ My mom and I attended a Students for Liberty conference in Austin, Texas on the 6th, which was awesome...except for the eight-hour drive to get there. Thank God for iPods and big books. (In addition, I'm participating in NaNoWriMo, and planning for another missions trip next year...and trying to raise money....but that's a whole 'nother subject, and we won't go into it.)

In any case, I figured I'd be a good blog author and post some stuff, just because I think that would help make my blog more interesting...and stuff.

The Pentagon has decided that repealing DADT would do practically nothing to the nature of our conflicts overseas and the makeup of the military. Really now? How surprising. Imagine that..."people are people, no matter how..." uh.... "strange." There we go. There are some pretty strange people in the world, let me tell you. Anyway, I don't think this study comes as a surprise to much of anybody except people who think gays are a literal abomination and that they should all be railroaded out of the military, along with Muslims.

In other news, a couple people in Washington are beginning to see that, hey, if we want to cut spending...we're going to have to give up some stuff! Like, we might have to stop handing out money like it grows on trees, or something. Huh, imagine that. That's...weird. I'm wondering when more people will catch onto the truth that we're not going to be able to have a utopia where we spend tons of money and reduce the deficit. Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way. So, future retirees, buckle up and start saving money, because you're going to need it if you want to retire. Kids, save for college. Single mothers, find a good guy and settle down. Because this isn't going to be pretty, and people are going to be hurt in the short term. Loss and having to live a less exorbitant lifestyle sometimes is part of life. Get used to it.

However- and this is a big however- it would be far better to both cut $200 billion (or more) from our budget....but not increase taxes and "squeeze" an extra $100 billion out of Americans. Because people aren't going to like it. It's not going to go over well. "Yeah, we're cutting spending...but we need more money to do it!"

....Right.

My favorite quote of this whole article? "It would stabilize borrowing within the next three years, balance the budget by 2040 and bring the debt more in line with historical norms."

We're going to stabilize borrowing. Not stop borrowing. Stabilize it. Yeah. We're going to stabilize the Titanic after that.

Oh, and don't forget this one: "Spending cuts outweigh revenue increases by about three to one, a ratio Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called lopsided."

Wait. Isn't that...the point? That...you don't have enough revenue. So you're cutting spending. Yeah. Wouldn't that be sort of the purpose of this venture?

Well, there you go. Your daily spurt of cynicism.

In other news, today is Veteran's Day! In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I'd copy my Facebook status from this morning relating to it:

A thank-you to all our veterans. Your sacrifice is appreciated, even if our politicians are dingbats and have put you (and are putting the current generation) in unnecessary danger.

Free Market?

Only so long as companies stay here. If they want to leave, forget it. We hate them and we hate the elected representatives who gave them the freedom to leave.

It will never cease to amaze me, the hypocrisy here. Especially on the Republican side. Republicans, sit down and think about this for a minute. The free market is good. The free market is our friend. The free market regulates corporate behavior and makes sure that companies go where profits are. In the end, everybody's well off. But now the free market is taking businesses to China. Bad. The government should stop them because only the government can fix the free market, even though the government can't fix the free market so they should get out of it.

....Riiiight....

Recomputing.

Now, on the Democrat side. Obviously, giving companies an incentive to be here (tax breaks) means they're going to outsource and lay off workers here. But if we just...raise their taxes...and make it astronomically expensive to operate here in the States, they'll stay here.

Mm-hmm.

What planets are you all living on, again?

In any case, its become fashionable now to bash one's opponent in a midterm election race with the fact that they'll "send jobs overseas." Seeing as that's the one thing they all can agree on- that the other side is going to make jobs disappear overseas- I say we just get rid of all of them.

Economic Woes

The economy is still failing- at least, if you measure the success or failure of that sector by unemployment rates, which still stand at over 9 percent. This rate is increasing amongst high-tech skilled workers, who are getting laid off due to lack of work- and then their jobs are being given to younger people fresh out of college. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that many of these jobs are now being sent overseas, where there is a burgeoning job market for these kinds of talents, and where workers will do the same work for less than Americans.

As we know, high-tech positions and workers aren't the only ones being hurt by this recession, but I think there is some credibility to the argument that they are sometimes hurt more than less skilled laborers. If an electrician gets laid off, he can get a job somewhere else relatively easy, even if it isn't electrical. But if there is a drop from somewhere like Hewlett-Packard as a computer engineer to fast food...well, that just isn't good.

But you know, don't worry. Our fearless leader has a plan. He's calling for $50 billion to be put into a new infrastructure fund and for there to be a push to upgrade the roads and railroads of America, thereby creating jobs.

It's about time, if you ask me. Some of the stretches of interstate highway I've seen are absolutely disgraceful. (Still better than some stretches of highway between Lusaka and Livingstone in Zambia, Africa, but still pretty bad. ^.^)

This is one measure I think I could potentially agree with President Obama on. Our road and railroad system is due for an overhaul, and this seems like a good idea. It may or may not be wise during a time of economic upheaval as we're in, but at least it's Constitutional. I also think some of the logic behind the plan, that of hoping to prevent earmarks headed for transportation projects, is good. It might make our lawmakers more focused on important things. Or wait...maybe we don't particularly want that.

In any case (and all jokes aside), at least they're still trying. But there's one area that some are saying shouldn't be maintained, and they should stop trying.

That's the housing market. From this article:
"As the economy again sputters and potential buyers flee — July housing sales sank 26 percent from July 2009 — there is a growing sense of exhaustion with government intervention. Some economists and analysts are now urging a dose of shock therapy that would greatly shift the benefits to future homeowners: Let the housing market crash. When prices are lower, these experts argue, buyers will pour in, creating the elusive stability the government has spent billions upon billions trying to achieve."

In the Texas town where I live, house sales are crazy. You drive down a residential street, and you're almost guaranteed to see a house for sale. And these houses aren't selling. They're just sitting there on the market, waiting for someone with enough money to come along.

And as the article above pointed out, despite the billions of dollars the government has pumped into the industry, it hasn't helped. The housing market is still failing. Further, the government insured thousands of loans and credit for mortgages on new houses, and now those people are defaulting, costing us even more money.

Personally, I agree that they should just leave it alone. Experience shows us that oftentimes, when an industry like this goes down, it springs back up soon after. People have to have houses to live in, one way or the other, and they'll continue to buy them, just as they will food or clothes.

Current Events

So, a pastor in Florida is going to sponsor a Qur'an burning at his church on September 11.


I can't stand people who want to burn books. I don't care what book it is. You have to be some kind of crazy person to intentionally burn a book. For real.


Further, where exactly is this man's church going to get the Qur'ans they are going to burn? Buy them? Um...wait. We're going to spend money...just so that we can summarily burn it. Right. Why not just sponsor a burning of Fed money? Because that would make just about as much sense.

Anyway, in further news. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is in trouble. Turns out that, under 501(c)3 status, a company/foundation/organization cannot make any explicitly political statements. For instance, they can't bash certain policies of certain people we all know. To Tim Phillips, I'd just like to say- "voter education" doesn't include bashing just the opposite party's platform. That's telling the voters what we wish they'd think. How about we just let Fox News handle that, hmm?

Also, the Presidential family went on vacation (again). Not that I really care. Wish I had time to go golfing. Oh wait, I do, but I'm not the President. Right. I still don't care. What, you're saying it's wrong of him to spend his salary on what he wants? Really? How does that work?

Seeing as we, the American people, do have to pay our President, and said President does have alternate sources of income (his wife still has her own income, I believe), he can spend his money however he wants. If I had as much money as he seems to, I'd be taking trips to Martha's Vineyard, too. Of course, it might be hypocritical for him to counsel us to tighten our belts, then go on a vacation. But then again, Obama doesn't have the monopoly on bad advice. Remember Bush, telling us to "go shopping" in response to 9/11...and we all know where that brought us.

Wall Street is defecting to the Republicans, moving away from their normal ally, the Democrats. Odd, that.

So Democrats are using it as a campaign talking-point, that Republicans are, fundamentally, friends of big business, and not to be trusted as, obviously, big business must be paying off Republicans to try to repeal the stimulus/etc. if Republicans want to do so. Does that have logical validity? Sure. Is it likely? Probably. But Democrats have also been bought off in times past, and still are, so there you go.

So anyway. Americans are still concerned with things that aren't really important, a la Cordoba House, Republicans (and Democrats) are being bought off by Wall Street, and lots of other people, and our political system is still just as messed up as ever.

In other words, just another day in the life.

Competing Currencies?

An act proposed by Senator Ron Paul (R-Texas) would "legalize competing currencies."

I agree with Senator Paul on many issues, including his stance on the Federal Reserve. But this time...well, I just don't see how this would do us any good.

For one, it seems unconstitutional to me. Congress is supposed to print money, and regulate it. So Congress needs to take up their duties like they ought, buck up, and be men. Also, I think it would just create a lot more chaos than we have now. What happens if you go into Walmart, and they use Fed bills, but you use a different currency? What then? How do we determine exchange rates? That was one of the reasons the 'money clause' was put into the Constitution. States were making their own money, and it was causing tons of havoc.

I also think with this bill, we're asking for trouble because people will start counterfeiting, further inflating our money supply, and using this bill to justify it. We'll shoot ourselves in the foot with this thing, IMO. Letting people 'mint private money'...um, yeah, we're just asking for trouble. That would cause inflation as well, I would think. With gold, there's also the problem of exchange rates. How do we set a rate? How do we know what a certain bit of gold is worth?

I think a better, more permanent solution would be for a) Congress to do their job and start printing money- US legal tender- as they ought. b) This money should be available for exchange at any bank. This exchange would work by people bringing in their Fed bills and receiving an equal amount of USLT. (An exchange rate would have to be worked out. Right at the beginning, perhaps one for one.) Alternately, we could also just start issuing USLT, and let the Fed bills work their way out of the system, but that might also cause more problems than good

So there's just my thoughts on that. Anyone else?

The Executive Powers

With the recent things going on, I thought it would be worth it to take a peek at the powers the executive branch holds.

From the US Constitution-
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In light of this, some of the things going are recently are pretty interesting. Like President Obama's speech lately, outlining policy for Congress, vs. the 'recommendation' that is provided for in the Constitution.

Or setting rules for Wall Street.

Or the 'Obama Stimulus Plan'.

Or his 'preventive detention' plan.

Or the plethora of other things that Obama has said and done. You only have to read his book to see that he has an overinflated idea of his own power.

The Obama administration doesn't measure up. (Or should that be 'down'?)

If Government Pays...

If Government Pays, they Dictate

Just how stupid can Americans be? Evidently, it hasn't occurred to them that if the government is paying the bill, they can dictate the terms of your behavior, or deny the service. If you owe a debt to someone, you are indebted to them and they technically own you and can set the terms of repayment as well as your behavior, as long as there is a remaining balance on the debt.

When a person borrows money to buy a home or a car, take a look at the fine print in the contract. Every word, every line, every sentence and every paragraph is written in favor of the lender and it is written by high-paid lawyers who have a long history of tying people up into legal knots. If you violate the terms of the contract, you can end up in a peck of trouble that could cost you thousands to "fix". And this is just a private lender. Just think if it was the government you were beholden to?

So why in God's name would anyone trust the government to pay for anything that they might need, especially one of the most private portions of their lives, health care?

Have you ever dealt with a Medicaid patient? We have! Have you seen the mountain of paper work you have to fill out on their behalf, or the proof and justification of the patient's entire life's financial and medical history, in order to get on Medicaid? But not just the patient's history, but yours as well. Have you seen the bill (in the tens of thousands) that Medicaid sends to the executor of your estate after you die, in order to collect what they have paid out, even though your estate was bled to death before Medicaid took over? We have!

Let's take the "cash for clunkers" deal that government recently offered. They put up $3,000,000,000 and it lasted about 3 weeks, because Americans just can't resist a "free" lunch. It never occurs to them that it "ain't" free. Did you know that to qualify, the dealer had to fill out twenty pages of gobble-d-gook that then had to be faxed to the government bureaucracy handling the program, before the deal could be approved and consummated and the bureaucracy will take weeks-stroke-months, to process the paper work and pay the dealer?

Oh, but the nasty little secret is the money that you never received from the government for your "clunker" is taxable and is added to your gross income. It could put you in the next tax bracket if you aren't careful, or know how to manipulate the tax code like Tim Geitner and Tom Daschle.

But that's not all. The dealers, who were so excited about this "deal", are having a real hard time getting the "cash" out of the government they advanced to make the deal. Some are running out of cash and their banker won't float them until the government forks over. Big surprise there. Who received the greatest profits from this grandiose government "scheme"? Foreign car manufacturers like Toyota, not GM, not Ford, not Chrysler.

And it gets worse. The clunker you turned in for the new car, which normally would have been a used car to sell to another customer, was fed some "juice" to ruin the engine and then sent to the scrap yard for a "big crunch". The remainder of the mangled car is then shipped to China so that they can re-cycle it into new steel and sell it back to the Americans in what is called "dumping", thereby competing with American steel manufacturers and driving them out of business. Why was this done? For insane environmental reasons, that's why!

Oh, and one more thing. You turned in your old "clunker" that was probably paid for and exchanged it for a $20,000 to $30,000 debt, evidenced by an iron-clad contract that was drafted by high-paid lawyers that know how to tie you into legal knots. Remember what we said about being indebted to someone? They own you.

Now let's advance to Medicare. The government sets the premium for all who are on Medicare and dictates how much they will pay for any given medical treatment. To save money, (because they won't clamp down on the billions in Medicare waste, fraud and abuse) they start pinching on what they will pay, thus resulting in doctors and other health care professionals not wanting to treat Medicare patients. Can you blame them? Now, seniors, who are aging quickly and on fixed incomes, suddenly discover they can't find a doctor to treat them. That's enforced rationing, if not government-assisted suicide. If government pays - they dictate!

Everything that government touches gets screwed up. From health care, to environmental and land use regulations, to energy control, to food control, to water control, to money control. They not only make sure that whatever they do costs way more than it should, (need we mention $700 hammers) but separates you from any liberties you thought were guaranteed to you by our Constitution. We thought it was the government's job to preserve, protect and defend your rights under the Constitution, not separate you from them? That is what there real duty is, not controlling you. And did you notice that they lie repeatedly, or keep changing their story on purpose, to confuse you?

Given the government's grossly negligent history in almost everything they do, why on Earth would anyone trust them to control and deliver health care to the masses, where somehow the current quality is maintained, more people are added to the system, (millions more) and the claim that government will somehow reduce the cost of it all? That's not only ludicrous, it is insane! If you believe it, we have a bridge over the Hudson we will sell you.

Medicare now costs nine (9) times more than was originally forecasted and is going broke. Medicaid is going broke. Social Security is going broke. Nationalized health care will surely go broke and doom what is left of the now financially unstable and fragile American economy. When the dollar slides to zero because of hyper inflation because government spends more than it takes in, then you will go broke and all that going broke means.

Government's dirty little fingers are in every aspect of your life, from the moment you are born (social security number and a DNA sample) to the day you have the good fortune of transiting from the Socialist Republic of America to the resounding silence and quiet peace of eternal death, where your life-time shackles are finally broken.

The shackles will remain on the living as long as Americans reach out to government to solve their problems for them, problems they can solve themselves. The simple truth is, that if you ask someone to do something for you that you can do for yourself, or pay a price that you should pay, that someone OWNS you. Government has done a very good job of turning once-free Americans into brain-dead dolts, who feed at the government pig trough and never think about freedom, unless the pig trough runs dry. The sad part is, these dolts get to vote.

Well folks, the pig trough is about to run dry and it appears that some Americans are actually beginning to pull their pabulum-covered faces out of the pig trough and look up to freedom. Amazing! There may be hope for America after all.

It is an inescapable axiom. If government pays - they can and do dictate your behavior! Free choice is out the window. Get it?

By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright September 8, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Telling us what's good...

President Obama is instituting a new reform related to the banking industry! These new regulations will make sure that "[banks] become smaller, more stable and less likely to need the sort of massive federal bailouts that have defined the current economic crisis."

Nice.

Furthermore- "Regulators would require all financial firms to hold larger capital reserves against unexpected losses. The largest firms would be forced to set aside even greater reserves, the rough equivalent of requiring a racehorse to carry more weight."

Oh wonderful.

Let's just let the government tell the banks how to manage their money. Oh yeah, that makes sense. The government that is ELEVEN TRILLION in debt. If the banks got that far into the hole, their CEOs would be in jail.

"Administration officials say that large financial firms can offer important benefits to customers, such as the convenience of a one-stop shop for multiple services..."

Oh. They 'can'. "We're allowing you to run your business in such-and-such a way! But you don't have the freedom to be stupid. Because that would be...stupid."

"Unlike other key parts of the president's reform agenda, the new standards would not require approval by Congress. "

Oh nice. Let's just bypass the checks-and-balances here...that sounds smart.

Americans and Spending

The American people are finally figuring out that you can't just spend as much money as you want.

Too bad the government isn't taking a cue from them.

Veteran and Rep Brian Baird

Only problem I see with this very well-spoken veteran's logic- the Nazis were not only leftist. Actually, in some of their ideology, they were quite Conservative! They absolutely adored their military, and they were obsessively patriotic. They wanted everyone to work- their basic philosophy was "If you don't work for it, you don't have it." (Something I do agree with.)

And let us not forget that it was the Republicans (the 'right wingers') that sparked this beautiful nationalization, what with Bush's bailout. Republicans voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

All these positions are things that were set up in the Nazi Programme of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Let us give credit where credit is due for the mess we're in right now. Both Republicans and Democrats have contributed. Let us not forget that we have, for the past eight years, been under the jurisdiction of a Republican President and a Republican Congress. I do think this mess has been building for the past several decades, and I think that Clinton basically left a ticking time bomb on Bush's hands- but let's not ignore the Republican's part in this.

Both parties have been bad. Let's just throw them all out!

PS- other than that little thing, I thought this gentleman's 'speech' was exceptional. He shared what he wished to say very well. And I think Rep Baird could have handled it with a bit more grace. ;)

A Solution to Bankruptcy

"And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially. We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Okay. I never knew one could spend as much money as they wanted...and not go bankrupt. Where is the line here? Of course, the fact that America is already bankrupt (and has been, for quite awhile), is something to consider.

But guess what, Vice President Biden? When one is in debt up to their eyeballs, and has absolutely NO money, it isn't wise to keep spending.

I wish it were, though. I mean, just think of what I could buy...and operating on that logic, never have 'no' money left!

Unemployment and Debt

Well, despite all the media hype about how President Obama was going to pull us out of the recession, more people are still losing their jobs. The unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 this past month, and where oh where has all the money gone?!

Well, let's see...billions to foreign aid. Billions to welfare. Trillions to our crummy public education system. And the Fed continues to print more Monopoly money, so be assured that the weekly 'Free Parking' truck will be around quite soon!

Now, perhaps I'm being unfair. But I don't think so. The government seems to think that the only way to achieve prosperity (a rather shallow goal, at the best of times), is to get in debt. We have a President who apparently worships debt, hailing it as the end-all to economic success.

Somebody needs to hit them all upside the head with a great big dose of reality.

Debt doesn't bring prosperity. The only thing it brings is 'Stupid tax' as Dave Ramsey phrases it. America is paying a lot of stupid tax. Or, they would be, if the government was actually trying to pay off their debt instead of let it fester and accrue interest...and be there so China can own us in a few years.

Debt does not equal economic success. Like I said, it only brings with it more spending. If my family had not bought a house that was too expensive, and hadn't bought so much stuff on credit, we would be comparatively well off right now. Yeah, we might not be living in the best neighborhood, but we wouldn't have to worry about where food was coming from next week.

A lot of families are in that fix. Why? Because they've gotten themselves into debt.

Now, back to our original topic.

Why is 'creating jobs' the end-all? It isn't the government's job to create jobs. It never has been, and it won't be. Ever. But, somebody needs to tell that to our Smart and Smarter legislators in Washington. Oh, and to our President. (Somebody also needs to tell him lots of other things, but that's another post.)

I truly think that if the government would back off and let the economy run it's course, we'd see an improvement. The people who run these businesses know what they're doing. They're trying to make money. Having to kow-tow to the government doesn't make them money. Firing or laying off people doesn't make them money.

Neither do unemployment taxes, or social security taxes, or any of the other dumb taxes they have to pay to the government. It isn't profitable to run their businesses. So, they'd be pretty silly if they stayed in a business that wasn't making them money.

The government needs to back off already. Seriously.

Debt, Aid, and Zimbabwe

Why, you ask, are we sending money overseas when our own country is in a mountain chain of debt?

I don't know.

Ask our President.

Of course, he's likely to tell you that "we continue to be concerned about consolidating democracy, human rights, and rule of law", so we have to help people overseas, too!

Let's forget the fact that the US is trillions of dollars in debt, China virtually owns us, every single country in the world hates us, we're single handedly funding the UN, and people hate what our government is doing.

Forget all that, because after all, we have to help others!

I'm all for helping others, but let's let private citizens and charities do so; not the government of the United States of America!!

Financial 'Watchdog'

Whole story here

Yet more government agencies are coming our way, with the proposed creation of a regulatory commission that would oversee the bad financial decisions of dumb people.

But, of course, that's not what they're calling.

Oh no. It would have 'broad authority' to 'protect consumers' from various financial matters, such as mortgages, credit cards, and mutual funds.

Great. I always wanted to be sheltered from such things. I mean, I know that I'm just too stupid to know that a mortgage costs on average $1,000 a month. I'm also too stupid to know that credit cards are horrible, and should never be used by the irresponsible.

Yes, I'm just soo stupid Big Brother! Help me! Save me from my own stupid mistakes!!

Give me a break. This is just another excuse to eat up taxpayer money, and to usurp yet more authority over the people of America.

From the article- "The proposal could centralize enforcement of existing laws and create a vehicle for imposing tougher rules."

Um...and this is a good thing? Apparently so, especially when you're a Fascist Centralist. Or Globalist.

These laws and agencies are stupid. Like I said, these are just excuses to expand government power, and bring us more under it's sway. That is the goal here. Not to 'protect' us. Not to keep us safe. It is to bind us.

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither, and will lose both."

Benjamin Franklin

Credit Cards and Emissions

Credit Card Regulations

Now the government is putting caps on how the credit card companies can punish the people who don't pay them.

Oh beautiful.

And, since the companies can't go after those who they should be going after- those that don't pay, and hence cost them money- they're going to raise everyone's interest rates.

Wow. I like it.

Now, I don't like credit cards. I am not going to get a credit card if at all possible, since I think it's dumb to put yourself in that much debt for something you could just as easily buy outright. But it's wrong to go after credit card companies, and in turn pass on more costs to the consumer.

Furthermore, it's unconstitutional. It's wrong to go after a market force like credit cards or the companies that give them out, even if what they're doing is kind of unethical. It's the consumer's fault for getting the credit card in the first place, then filling it up with thousands of dollars of debt.

Regulations on Car Exhaust Emissions

Yes, you read that right.

Our wonderful President Obama wants to put regulations on how much exhaust can come out of your tailpipe, to reduce greenhouse gases, y'know. This will go wonderfully with Cap and Trade, since CAT will discourage people from driving period, and this will just reinforce that!

Next, they propose to increase the fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg for passenger cars and pickups by 2016.

Oh joy. Let's just burden the car companies even more.

Fuel efficiency ratings are rising. Without the government's help. You know why? Because the market wants it. It's the same reason why McDonalds has started selling apples and salads- the consumer wants it, those products are popular, and so they are sold.

That is the way things are supposed to be. It's the most perfect system ever conceived. Except, possibly, Communism, but that's because the government controls everything. And it would work great except for the fact that, oh, everyone's poor, except for those that control everything. Which would be about .000001% of the population.

These regulations will increase the cost of cars by almost $1,300. $600 of that would be purely from the increase cited above. The rest? The result of previous energy policy. (Bush, Clinton, etc.)

"Consumers can retain choice but for more fuel-efficient cars. Every single category of car will be more efficient." (Unnamed official in Washington)

Oh great!!! Just the choice I always wanted!

Now, it isn't that I don't mind fuel efficient vehicles. It's that I dislike being forced to choose one. It's wrong. The government has no right to determine what I can and cannot choose. Period.

Job Diversion

Our lovely President Obama released a statement this week that Wall Street was not going to play as big a part in the economy as formerly. Why? All in the interest of jobs, of course.

"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."

Don't people already go into those fields? You know where we're headed with this? A nuclear physicist being assigned to a knitwear mill, because 'We need you here!' (That was an actual case in China, by the way.)

This is a stupid idea. He has said things like this before. Assigning jobs, Mr. Obama, does not work. Never has, never will.

How to fix the economy...

1. Make credit more accessible
2. Bail out companies
3. Stimulate the economy
4. Help the auto industry
5. Prevent foreclosures
6. Extend unemployment aid
7. Take over failed banks

Say hello to President Obama's plan. Wonderful, isn't it?

Mr. Obama, let me tell you a couple things.

For starters, giving people more credit won't do a single thing! One cannot spend oneself out of debt. It doesn't work that way. Furthermore, one cannot borrow oneself out of debt. Period. Credit isn't going to do a single thing! We do not need to 'borrow' to fix the economy; that's what got us into this mess!

Let us look at the facts. President Clinton was the one who pushed banks to lend to 'high-risk' borrowers. These 'high-risk' borrowers hence defaulted, and many of their loans were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Sound familiar? Fannie and Freddy summarily went down the tubes because they weren't bringing in money.

Bailing out companies will do absolutely nothing. Hence why Chrysler (which was 'bailed out') is now failing. Bailing out does nothing but apply yet another bandaid to the gaping wound we've given our economy, starting with FDR's 'New Deal'. More bandaids will do zilch. Nada. Zero.

As I said before- lending money to people who will not pay it back is not the way to 'stimulate' the economy. Furthermore, it isn't the government's job to stimulate the economy! It is your job to print money, period. But, of course, since you've already given up that power, I suppose you need to feel like you have some say in what happens...

We've helped the auto industry. To the tune of $31 billion. Not that it did anything, since the companies are still failing. Some help.

Preventing foreclosures will, again, do nothing. People make mistakes. People make dumb mistakes. Buying a house when they couldn't afford one is a pretty dumb mistake. It's what Dave Ramsey calls Dum Math and StupidTax. Stupid Tax is the price you pay when you use Dum Math and make an even dumber decision.

It's the way of life. But giving these people money- which ultimately, is coming from their pocket anyway- isn't the way to fix the problem.

'Unemployment aid' is about the stupidest idea that ever graced the pantheon of business regulations. You know what? If you get 'unemployed'- your employer fired you- there was probably a reason. You know why you're unemployed? Probably because you did a shoddy job. Period.

No one is entitled to money. To get money, you have to work for it. That is the most basic of all beliefs that the American people have ever held dear. Do you think those Irish people came to America hoping to get a government handout and to live on 'easy street'. Of course not! They were glad to get their factory job!

The idea that somehow we as Americans are 'entitled' to everything, is false. We are not 'entitled' to anything but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. If your pursuit of happiness includes a house, go get a job and pay for it. Don't expect the rest of American society to foot the tab for you.

The government taking over banks? It's already happened, but it's a stupid idea, nonetheless. The idea that somehow the government- who has absolutely no money, and couldn't keep money in it's pocket if it tried- is qualified to handle the entirety of our money stores, is silly.

$10.43 trillion has been allocated to these programs. How much is a trillion? A lot. What is at the bottom of that page is what our government is throwing around. Pretty scary.

On that note, let us end this...Glorified Rant.