Boy am I confused about this group. They say they represent the 99%. Um, I doubt that. They certainly don't represent me. I have enough sense to know that capitalism works. That is, unless you inject politicians into the mix who want to help their buddies get ahead or cater to any certain group of people to "buy" their votes. Yeah, that's what it is folks. So, these various OWS groups around the country are an interesting bunch. They really can't all decide what they want. Looking from the outside they seem like a largely young group. Ideological. Fresh out of college. Yes, I know there are others, but I'm looking at the majority. Fortunately, we all know that our education system has no political agenda. Oh wait. Could this be a coincidence? I doubt it. One name: Alinsky. It doesn't take long to connect the dots.
Okay, so they are a group. And they are mad about a whole list of things. And all rich people are evil (except the ones who support them financially). And all banks are evil (except the ones they use to collect donations). And all CEO's are evil (except ones who support green energy, support their agenda, and the late Steve Jobs because who knows where they would be without their Iphones.) And all Tea Partiers are evil (because they are racist (that has been proven, right Herman Cain?) and they want to take away their social security (remember the age group? Yeah. 90% of them will never see a check from social security) and they don't want rich people to pay more taxes (even though they love for the celebrities to come down and take pictures with them). And all politicians are evil (who can argue with that???) And the police are evil (for enforcing the laws. They believe the law should be able to relax when it suits their needs (Oh, except for those police when they represent a union)).
So, let's make everybody equal and start over? Is that what they would like? That would be wonderful. In a few years, the same people that have money now would have money again, and the same people crying about it now would be crying about it again! Why you ask? Because the people who have money have done something to earn it most of the time!!!! They don't sit around crying about being entitled to this or that. If they want something, they work for it. They don't look for a handout!
Okay, so my other point about this group is I am very curious how they are supported by women's groups. Yes, I am serious. There have been multiple reports of sexual assaults in multiple locations. This group, is several locations, has decided to keep these crimes "in house." Meaning, no charges will be pressed against the perpetrators. WOW. Oh, and these folks are proud of the protests overseas known as the "Arab Spring." Hmmmm. Anybody remember a story in Egypt about a CNN reporter being gang-raped by a bunch of those protesters?
Thankfully, these people don't have a problem with breaking laws. I mean, those things just get in the way. Most of the citizens of this great country would be appalled at what happens in these camps. And again, they get upset with police and politicians for enforcing laws. When most groups want to protest, they have to complete the paperwork, get approval, pay the fees, get insurance, provide security, etc. These folks have just shown up and continuously broken the law claiming First Amendment rights. Yeah. You can say what you want, but you can't do it while trampling on the rights of others. RESPECT. Learn it. It is earned not given. Understand that there are 2 sides to every coin. If you don't like the laws, VOTE and get them changed. That's how things get done. Whining is just annoying.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Moody's, please lower the credit rating for the US
Yep, they are threatening to change our credit score. Do you blame them? I would have done it during the Bush administration. We have run up the bills to a place that we will be struggling for decades to recover from this. I am sure they have been debating whether to change it for the last year or two, but are taking advantage of the current situation and using it as an excuse or to put pressure on the government so they don't lose money themselves. They want to be able to sell their bonds to anyone and every other country who might stupidly buy them. If our credit rating is solely based on whether or not the US will default on their loans, then it should be on the verge of being changed with the current state of the economy, debt, and disagreements in Washington. If it is anything like a consumer credit rating, then it should have lowered years ago. Again, these bond sellers are looking out for their own interests here. Shocking, I know. I've never heard of this. It's almost like there is collusion between the banks and the government. Oh. Wait. Different topic.
Okay, so back on topic. I want our credit score raised. It's not like the debtors can go back and change the interest rate on our current deals. It's about future loans. If these politicians realize that we really can't get a low interest loan anymore, they will have to think differently. They have always had this cushion. They can just keep spending, Congress will raise the debt, and we will borrow more money from China, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela. That's how we reached this point of borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. And how our debt payments are in the top five costs for this country. People and the President say they want more money for infrastructure, schools, teachers, police, firefighters, and everything else. Look at how much our debt payments cost us every month. You can think of a myriad of ways that money can be better spent.
It's time to set this country on a different path. One of responsibility. One that tackles the problem and doesn't force my children and grandchildren to pay for our laziness, fear, and political correctness.
Okay, so back on topic. I want our credit score raised. It's not like the debtors can go back and change the interest rate on our current deals. It's about future loans. If these politicians realize that we really can't get a low interest loan anymore, they will have to think differently. They have always had this cushion. They can just keep spending, Congress will raise the debt, and we will borrow more money from China, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela. That's how we reached this point of borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. And how our debt payments are in the top five costs for this country. People and the President say they want more money for infrastructure, schools, teachers, police, firefighters, and everything else. Look at how much our debt payments cost us every month. You can think of a myriad of ways that money can be better spent.
It's time to set this country on a different path. One of responsibility. One that tackles the problem and doesn't force my children and grandchildren to pay for our laziness, fear, and political correctness.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
One man's solution to the debt ceiling
I know all of you have been waiting impatiently for this blog, so here it comes. I have a possible solution and parts of it may surprise you. In basic terms, I believe we need an all of the above approach. Here is the plan with the explanation of each below:
1) Raise the debt ceiling
2) Cut ALL spending
3) Pass a balanced budget amendment
4) Make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling in the future
5) Get rid of all subsidies
6) Flat tax
Yes, I actually say we need to raise the debt ceiling. However, I want this to be the last time it is done. This country should never be this far in debt. It is too late in the game to not raise the debt ceiling. It will help to keep things in order to raise it this time, then work on making the debt clock start rolling backwards.
Yep, cut all spending. Everything needs to be rolled back. Spending has skyrocketed over the last few decades in every single way. Defense, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and on down the line. It's not like they can't afford it. No business could have survived this long running on the model of our government.
Passing a balanced budget amendment has a real chance in the current conditions of our country. People are waking up to realize that having all of this debt is a terrible thing for our country and our security.
Amend the current law so that raising the debt ceiling in the future requires a 2/3rds majority in both chambers of Congress. This will change their approach to the debt ceiling. Until now, it has always been easily assumed that Congress will raise the debt limit without much of a fight. Some politicians will vote against it just to be against the sitting President, or even on principle. But, if they can no longer assume it will be raised, they will have to change their attitudes about spending. That's never a bad thing when someone else is spending your money.
Get rid of all subsidies means exactly what it says. Democrats don't want their pet projects cut and Republicans don't want their pet projects cut. Why don't we just make them all mad and cut all federal money to businesses? With subsidies, the government picks the winners and losers. If your company has the right lobbyist(s) and can get in good with enough members of Congress, then you can get the government to help you do anything you want to do and it lessens your risk as a company or individual. However, it puts the government in control of too many things. They decide what farmers can and can't grow or if they can even grow crops each year. They decide what medicines will be further researched and developed and which one go by the wayside, and not due to bad ideas, but lack of lobbying power. If you think subsidies are a good idea, then remember that they will cost you even more in the end. First, they are taking your money and giving it to someone or something else that may or may not benefit you. Second, they don't always study or understand or believe the secondary benefits of the subsidies. My prime example is ethanol. Are you paying more for food right now? You can thank ethanol. Ethanol is a losing deal unless the government subsidizes the project. However, that has raised the price of corn which is used in numerous applications. So, everything that has to do with corn has gotten more expensive. Yet, the government is okay with you paying more for hundreds of products so they can keep one industry and their lobbyists happy. I don't think that's a good deal for us, the American taxpayer.
Why would anyone be against a flat tax? I can't figure it out unless you are an accountant or an attorney. Flat tax means just that: you pay a straight percentage of whatever money you make. Everyone pays the same amount. No write-offs. No loopholes. No special treatment. If you make minimum wage, you pay the minimum taxes. If you make millions, you pay a lot. You would be shocked at the increase in revenue the government would see coming into its accounts.
This is a time in our history to turn the tide on our debt. The people are awake and aware. Hopefully, they are getting themselves educated. Let's get headed the right way. This is as good a time as any. Don't put it off on the next group because of worries of getting re-elected. Do it now!
1) Raise the debt ceiling
2) Cut ALL spending
3) Pass a balanced budget amendment
4) Make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling in the future
5) Get rid of all subsidies
6) Flat tax
Yes, I actually say we need to raise the debt ceiling. However, I want this to be the last time it is done. This country should never be this far in debt. It is too late in the game to not raise the debt ceiling. It will help to keep things in order to raise it this time, then work on making the debt clock start rolling backwards.
Yep, cut all spending. Everything needs to be rolled back. Spending has skyrocketed over the last few decades in every single way. Defense, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and on down the line. It's not like they can't afford it. No business could have survived this long running on the model of our government.
Passing a balanced budget amendment has a real chance in the current conditions of our country. People are waking up to realize that having all of this debt is a terrible thing for our country and our security.
Amend the current law so that raising the debt ceiling in the future requires a 2/3rds majority in both chambers of Congress. This will change their approach to the debt ceiling. Until now, it has always been easily assumed that Congress will raise the debt limit without much of a fight. Some politicians will vote against it just to be against the sitting President, or even on principle. But, if they can no longer assume it will be raised, they will have to change their attitudes about spending. That's never a bad thing when someone else is spending your money.
Get rid of all subsidies means exactly what it says. Democrats don't want their pet projects cut and Republicans don't want their pet projects cut. Why don't we just make them all mad and cut all federal money to businesses? With subsidies, the government picks the winners and losers. If your company has the right lobbyist(s) and can get in good with enough members of Congress, then you can get the government to help you do anything you want to do and it lessens your risk as a company or individual. However, it puts the government in control of too many things. They decide what farmers can and can't grow or if they can even grow crops each year. They decide what medicines will be further researched and developed and which one go by the wayside, and not due to bad ideas, but lack of lobbying power. If you think subsidies are a good idea, then remember that they will cost you even more in the end. First, they are taking your money and giving it to someone or something else that may or may not benefit you. Second, they don't always study or understand or believe the secondary benefits of the subsidies. My prime example is ethanol. Are you paying more for food right now? You can thank ethanol. Ethanol is a losing deal unless the government subsidizes the project. However, that has raised the price of corn which is used in numerous applications. So, everything that has to do with corn has gotten more expensive. Yet, the government is okay with you paying more for hundreds of products so they can keep one industry and their lobbyists happy. I don't think that's a good deal for us, the American taxpayer.
Why would anyone be against a flat tax? I can't figure it out unless you are an accountant or an attorney. Flat tax means just that: you pay a straight percentage of whatever money you make. Everyone pays the same amount. No write-offs. No loopholes. No special treatment. If you make minimum wage, you pay the minimum taxes. If you make millions, you pay a lot. You would be shocked at the increase in revenue the government would see coming into its accounts.
This is a time in our history to turn the tide on our debt. The people are awake and aware. Hopefully, they are getting themselves educated. Let's get headed the right way. This is as good a time as any. Don't put it off on the next group because of worries of getting re-elected. Do it now!
The reality of the debt ceiling debate
First, let me clarify that I am no financial expert of any kind. I'm not a tax attorney or anything at all as far as economics goes. I just want to be open and honest and realistic about the debt ceiling debate and things that can happen. There are numerous reporters and writers out there who are spreading things that just aren't true. I am not going to write about public opinion, but mine, and a lot of factual information.
So, now that this is prefaced, let's look at this thing. First, I am sure that most people understand that we have borrowed as much money as we are legally allowed to as a country. It's just the same as hitting your limit on your credit card. And it seems both take an act of Congress to get that limit raised. It's a complex thing that has been raised countless times and it isn't normally a big thing. However, this time is different. Here are some facts: First, WE WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULT ON OUR DEBT AUGUST 3RD. We will not default on our debt unless people stop paying their taxes. You must understand that businesses pay their taxes quarterly and when you have taxes taken out of your check, it goes to the government coffers in a timely manner. So, there is over $200,000,000 coming into the federal "checking account" every month at this time. The 14th Amendment states that the service on our debt must be the first check written. Period. No debates. No questions. IT MUST BE PAID. That's why we can't default unless the President decides to go against the Constitution. Next, you must understand that Congress actually decides where all of our taxpayer money is spent, not the President. He has to agree to it, but they make the decisions. However, in this case, the decisions of what gets paid goes to the Treasury Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. So, the President, Treasury Secretary, and any and all cabinet members and advisers have to pick and choose what bills will be paid and what can be put off for some time. So, the question is will people get their Social Security checks. That depends on what the President decides. It is completely his decision. Will the Border Patrol get furloughed? Again, it is his decision. These are real possibilities. He has been chosen to lead this country and that gives him the right to decide who gets paid and who doesn't. It's that simple. The money will be there to cover many functions of this country: the interest payments on the debt that MUST be made, defense spending, Social Security, and other things. What the President is asking to do is to borrow more money so that he doesn't have to decide what to pay and what not to pay. He wants to be able to pay everything and not upset anyone. The Republicans have chosen to take a stand at this juncture in our history. They see an opportunity to basically hold the President hostage. They have an important card that he wants and they aren't going to hand it to him without some guarantees of less spending and they also want to start the process of adding a "Balanced Budget" Amendment to the Constitution. They would like for this to be the last time the debt ceiling is raised. They see this as a chance to start decreasing our deficit instead of just allowing the limit to be raised again and again. This makes for conflict since the President feels that this would hurt the economy by limiting the amount of money the government can use to help people and companies get through this difficult time. This makes for a whole lot of politicians in Washington that are on very unstable footing with their constituents. That means you will hear each side blaming the other and trying to tell you the horror stories of what might happen if their side doesn't "win" this debate.
It seems both sides want to lessen the amount of money we have to borrow. The difference seems to be in how they want to reach this goal. Democrats and Republicans are both open to cutting spending. This includes the President. The difference is what each wants to cut and how much. The Democrats want to lessen our need for borrowing by increasing revenue. Republicans are split on this in some ways, but most agree that raising taxes is the wrong way to address the problem. It all boils down to philosophical, basic differences between the parties and the American people. Both sides are dug in to their positions. In normal times, this would be a long, drawn out battle. In this situation, there is a definitive time that could change the rules. The debt ceiling can still be raised at a later day. Depending on when and if that happens, there are a myriad of possibilities for outcomes to this whole thing.
I have tried to stay completely unbiased in this analysis. My next planned blog will be my opinion on answers, so don't judge me yet for not having any ideas on what to do. I just want to have separate entries for each one so there is no confusion between what is fact and what are my thoughts and ideas. Please feel free to ask any questions or post any comments.
So, now that this is prefaced, let's look at this thing. First, I am sure that most people understand that we have borrowed as much money as we are legally allowed to as a country. It's just the same as hitting your limit on your credit card. And it seems both take an act of Congress to get that limit raised. It's a complex thing that has been raised countless times and it isn't normally a big thing. However, this time is different. Here are some facts: First, WE WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULT ON OUR DEBT AUGUST 3RD. We will not default on our debt unless people stop paying their taxes. You must understand that businesses pay their taxes quarterly and when you have taxes taken out of your check, it goes to the government coffers in a timely manner. So, there is over $200,000,000 coming into the federal "checking account" every month at this time. The 14th Amendment states that the service on our debt must be the first check written. Period. No debates. No questions. IT MUST BE PAID. That's why we can't default unless the President decides to go against the Constitution. Next, you must understand that Congress actually decides where all of our taxpayer money is spent, not the President. He has to agree to it, but they make the decisions. However, in this case, the decisions of what gets paid goes to the Treasury Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. So, the President, Treasury Secretary, and any and all cabinet members and advisers have to pick and choose what bills will be paid and what can be put off for some time. So, the question is will people get their Social Security checks. That depends on what the President decides. It is completely his decision. Will the Border Patrol get furloughed? Again, it is his decision. These are real possibilities. He has been chosen to lead this country and that gives him the right to decide who gets paid and who doesn't. It's that simple. The money will be there to cover many functions of this country: the interest payments on the debt that MUST be made, defense spending, Social Security, and other things. What the President is asking to do is to borrow more money so that he doesn't have to decide what to pay and what not to pay. He wants to be able to pay everything and not upset anyone. The Republicans have chosen to take a stand at this juncture in our history. They see an opportunity to basically hold the President hostage. They have an important card that he wants and they aren't going to hand it to him without some guarantees of less spending and they also want to start the process of adding a "Balanced Budget" Amendment to the Constitution. They would like for this to be the last time the debt ceiling is raised. They see this as a chance to start decreasing our deficit instead of just allowing the limit to be raised again and again. This makes for conflict since the President feels that this would hurt the economy by limiting the amount of money the government can use to help people and companies get through this difficult time. This makes for a whole lot of politicians in Washington that are on very unstable footing with their constituents. That means you will hear each side blaming the other and trying to tell you the horror stories of what might happen if their side doesn't "win" this debate.
It seems both sides want to lessen the amount of money we have to borrow. The difference seems to be in how they want to reach this goal. Democrats and Republicans are both open to cutting spending. This includes the President. The difference is what each wants to cut and how much. The Democrats want to lessen our need for borrowing by increasing revenue. Republicans are split on this in some ways, but most agree that raising taxes is the wrong way to address the problem. It all boils down to philosophical, basic differences between the parties and the American people. Both sides are dug in to their positions. In normal times, this would be a long, drawn out battle. In this situation, there is a definitive time that could change the rules. The debt ceiling can still be raised at a later day. Depending on when and if that happens, there are a myriad of possibilities for outcomes to this whole thing.
I have tried to stay completely unbiased in this analysis. My next planned blog will be my opinion on answers, so don't judge me yet for not having any ideas on what to do. I just want to have separate entries for each one so there is no confusion between what is fact and what are my thoughts and ideas. Please feel free to ask any questions or post any comments.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Back to blogging
I have decided it's time to take my thoughts back to blogging. I have stopped following all of the activities and goings-on with Facebook. I still have lots and lots of thoughts on the world today, but I don't want to feel like I am subjecting everyone to them without giving them the choice of whether or not they want to read them. So, I have decided to give this blogging thing another shot. I can post my thoughts, then forward it on to FB and Twitter and let folks decide for themselves if they actually care what I have to say. So, to the 3 or 4 people who might read this, I thank you for being bored. :)
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Dependency
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/07cutbacksWEB.html?hp
I found this article and I am not sure that my thoughts are what the author was trying to stir in his readers. I believe the writer was looking for sympathy for folks. I don't have it. I see it as there are some communities figuring it out. Folks are depending on the government to provide them a service and do it cheap. The government can do that, for a limited amount of time. Then, it goes into debt. Period. Why? Because the government over-pays for everything and everyone. Remember all of the old jokes about the $10,000 hammer at NASA? It's not too far off. Just this week, there was a report about government employees and CDL drivers who were working and drawing disability payments at the same time. It only added up to a couple million dollars a month. And that's just the ones that reporter found. Have you ever done work for the government? Anyone that has can tell you that you ALWAYS give them a higher bid than you would any other business. So, the government wouldn't choose that bid right? Wrong. They are all on the same page. Everyone knows that the government wastes money. The bigger the government, the bigger the waste. Shrink the government, shrink the waste. Oh, and a newsflash folks: businesses are in business to make money! I know you find that shocking, but it is true.
Second thing I got out of this article: the bailout is working....temporarily. I know, shocking, again. Nobody ever saw that coming. I mean, surely the money would be there after the government money ran out, right? It had to just show up from somewhere. Oops. The recovery isn't going to happen overnight. It will take time. The stimulus and bailout are temporary help to hold things up. Now, one of two things has to happen: get more money from the government or make the cuts necessary to save money that should have been made before.
The US government is trying to create a society where the majority of people rely on the government for much of their lives. They are taking over businesses. Think about the bailouts for banks and autos. This tells these companies that they are too big to fail and the government will be there again if they fall down. So, do you think this will affect the way they run their companies? If you had to cross a high wire, would a net make a difference in how you approached it? Same thing. These same businesses are free to take huge chances and not have a bit of concern because they are assured that, no matter what, they will never go away. Now, had we let some of those big banks go under and let GM go under, it would have scared the crap out of businesses around the country. They would have seen the example and cleaned up their acts. Instead, they just sit back and laugh, knowing they have a huge safety net that you and I are holding up. Personally, I would love to pull it out from under them when they fall.
I found this article and I am not sure that my thoughts are what the author was trying to stir in his readers. I believe the writer was looking for sympathy for folks. I don't have it. I see it as there are some communities figuring it out. Folks are depending on the government to provide them a service and do it cheap. The government can do that, for a limited amount of time. Then, it goes into debt. Period. Why? Because the government over-pays for everything and everyone. Remember all of the old jokes about the $10,000 hammer at NASA? It's not too far off. Just this week, there was a report about government employees and CDL drivers who were working and drawing disability payments at the same time. It only added up to a couple million dollars a month. And that's just the ones that reporter found. Have you ever done work for the government? Anyone that has can tell you that you ALWAYS give them a higher bid than you would any other business. So, the government wouldn't choose that bid right? Wrong. They are all on the same page. Everyone knows that the government wastes money. The bigger the government, the bigger the waste. Shrink the government, shrink the waste. Oh, and a newsflash folks: businesses are in business to make money! I know you find that shocking, but it is true.
Second thing I got out of this article: the bailout is working....temporarily. I know, shocking, again. Nobody ever saw that coming. I mean, surely the money would be there after the government money ran out, right? It had to just show up from somewhere. Oops. The recovery isn't going to happen overnight. It will take time. The stimulus and bailout are temporary help to hold things up. Now, one of two things has to happen: get more money from the government or make the cuts necessary to save money that should have been made before.
The US government is trying to create a society where the majority of people rely on the government for much of their lives. They are taking over businesses. Think about the bailouts for banks and autos. This tells these companies that they are too big to fail and the government will be there again if they fall down. So, do you think this will affect the way they run their companies? If you had to cross a high wire, would a net make a difference in how you approached it? Same thing. These same businesses are free to take huge chances and not have a bit of concern because they are assured that, no matter what, they will never go away. Now, had we let some of those big banks go under and let GM go under, it would have scared the crap out of businesses around the country. They would have seen the example and cleaned up their acts. Instead, they just sit back and laugh, knowing they have a huge safety net that you and I are holding up. Personally, I would love to pull it out from under them when they fall.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The NOT so United States
Are we stupidly fighting against a division of the United States? It's a question I ponder. Look at this country and it is very easy to divide it up into at least 3 parts and even better if you do 5 or 6. Yes, we are all Americans, but I think that someone from Texas sees that differently than someone from California, who sees it differently from someone in Massachusetts. I am not stereotyping here. It's not just politically either. It's attitudes and approaches to life. I am reminded of a caller to a radio show that I heard while Bush 43 was in office. She didn't understand why the Democrats in Washington, DC, weren't cooperating with Bush. She said the ones in Texas had been much more agreeable. Well, yeah, because the Democrats serving in the Texas Congress are different than those serving in DC. We have Blue Dog Democrats, most of whom are from the Southeastern US. There are Liberal Democrats in the West and Progressive Democrats in the East. There are Progressive Republicans in the East as well. The center of the country is super Conservative. It's so blatantly obvious. Like minded people flock together the majority of the time. It's difficult to fit in when you feel differently from 90% of the people around you. The problem is that the big government in DC would never, ever allow anything like this to happen. It attacked the Confederate states when they seceded. It wants to weaken the powers of individual states. Yet, at the same time, it comes down on Russia for invading Georgia and backs the separation of Serbia along religious lines. Does this make sense to anyone? Georgia was nothing more than a former state in the USSR. It would be the same thing as Florida saying, "We don't see things the same way and we are moving out", then being invaded by the US. That is a restriction of freedom here at home and encouraging freedom on the other side of the globe. It reminds of the folks on "Whale Wars." They want to save whales which is highly commendable. Yet, they chug around in a diesel burning boat, dumping trash and a boat into the ocean, and endangering the lives of their own crew and those of other boats. Human lives at the expense of whales? Really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)