I wanted to remind my future self of what is going on today in regards to debt talks, etc..., in Washington these days. The democrats are shouting from the mountain-top that we must reach a "compromise" in meeting the countries fiscal obligations. They want us to raise taxes and cut spending.
We have been spending wildly for some time now (as a nation), and have accrued debt surpassing 14 trillion, about to be raised to 16 or so trillion dollars. We constantly spend more than we raise in tax revenue...regardless of what that tax revenue is.
Are we to believe that taking more money from the taxpayers (either rich or poor) will somehow fix the spending problem that exists today?
So many people today are unable to see what is really going on. Much of the media is a willing participant, being spoon-fed by our elected leaders, claiming that the smoke and mirrors that we all see is in fact, fact. Even the most conservative Americans may approve tax-hikes some day, when our leaders show us that they have some idea on how to spend it with wisdom and prudence.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A look at Socialism
"Freedom is choice, choice requires responsibility." -Yuri Maltsev
Yuri presents a fascinating view of the socialist regime in Soviet Russia revolving around the agriculture system. It is interesting to see that the soviets were basically forcing people to farm for free and give away all their food. The soviets would basically kill as many people as necessary to keep the rest of the peasant motivated to continue working. The false propaganda that we heard and acted on in regards to the agricultural problems in the Soviet Union is staggering. Great piece on how socialism works.
http://mises.org/media/6357/What-Soviet-Agriculture-Teaches-Us
Yuri presents a fascinating view of the socialist regime in Soviet Russia revolving around the agriculture system. It is interesting to see that the soviets were basically forcing people to farm for free and give away all their food. The soviets would basically kill as many people as necessary to keep the rest of the peasant motivated to continue working. The false propaganda that we heard and acted on in regards to the agricultural problems in the Soviet Union is staggering. Great piece on how socialism works.
http://mises.org/media/6357/What-Soviet-Agriculture-Teaches-Us
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Stimulus Report
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 - SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
The report above, released by the White House on July 1 shows some interesting data. Two key elements stand out:
1) Estimates say that between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs have been funded by the stimulus. Having that large of a range shows me that they probably just guessed, and I have seen many reports showing that they double-counted and all kinds of shenanigans to get this number. Suffice it to say that the low end is pretty optimistic, but let's assume that it is accurate for now.
2) Total expenditures so far have reached $666,300,000,000...that's 666.3 billion.
That means that the government has spent between $185,083 and $277,625 (depending on which number you choose to believe for each job created/saved.
Couple these numbers with the New York Times report that Executive pay has risen 23% over the last year while middle-income earnings have remained stagnant and you begin to see a pattern.
There are a few patterns that MAY be connected to each other over the same time frame:
- Increased government (debt) spending
- Increased pay inequality among the rich and poor
- Increasing number of beauracrats blaming each other for fiscal problems while they continue to grow the size and spending within government
This shows me once again that "intentions" don't equal results. I have no problems with extreme cost-cutting measures that will force legislators to start deciding where to cut spending. Maybe those cuts will lead to extremely positive results in the real world of income and expenses that most of us live in.
The report above, released by the White House on July 1 shows some interesting data. Two key elements stand out:
1) Estimates say that between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs have been funded by the stimulus. Having that large of a range shows me that they probably just guessed, and I have seen many reports showing that they double-counted and all kinds of shenanigans to get this number. Suffice it to say that the low end is pretty optimistic, but let's assume that it is accurate for now.
2) Total expenditures so far have reached $666,300,000,000...that's 666.3 billion.
That means that the government has spent between $185,083 and $277,625 (depending on which number you choose to believe for each job created/saved.
Couple these numbers with the New York Times report that Executive pay has risen 23% over the last year while middle-income earnings have remained stagnant and you begin to see a pattern.
There are a few patterns that MAY be connected to each other over the same time frame:
- Increased government (debt) spending
- Increased pay inequality among the rich and poor
- Increasing number of beauracrats blaming each other for fiscal problems while they continue to grow the size and spending within government
This shows me once again that "intentions" don't equal results. I have no problems with extreme cost-cutting measures that will force legislators to start deciding where to cut spending. Maybe those cuts will lead to extremely positive results in the real world of income and expenses that most of us live in.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sorry, I've been busy raising my personal debt ceiling
I have been absent from writing for a while, I guess the business of life kept me away. There are too many distorting stories out about the debt ceiling and republicans walking away from choices that supposedly have to happen.
First read this powerful quote again:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.
...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.
Contrast that with the actions of today.
Don't buy in to the notion that Republicans are detroying the country by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Obama and the democrats setup rediculous tax cut scenarios that make people feel like they are deciding between feeding the homeless or subsidizing the purchase of a private jet. The US will only default on it's debt payments if it stops paying them, not because the debt ceiling has been reached. Currently, we still bring in more revenue than is required to just pay the debt.
Not raising the debt limit will simply force the government to stop spending money. Obama and the dems have been passing budgets that fall TRILLIONS of dollars over what we bring in each year and are acting like republicans are destroying the world by not voting to allow more debt spending. The current problem has been created by democrats and they seem to be getting away with blaming republicans for it. Oddly enough, Obama refused to vote for any debt ceiling increases while he was in the senate. He is trying to
Don't get me wrong, Bush and Republicans have overspent too, but let's stop blaming the past and focus on solutions. The policy of the current administration is to spend, spend, spend and hope that the economy starts clicking. It's not working.
First read this powerful quote again:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.
...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.
Contrast that with the actions of today.
Don't buy in to the notion that Republicans are detroying the country by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Obama and the democrats setup rediculous tax cut scenarios that make people feel like they are deciding between feeding the homeless or subsidizing the purchase of a private jet. The US will only default on it's debt payments if it stops paying them, not because the debt ceiling has been reached. Currently, we still bring in more revenue than is required to just pay the debt.
Not raising the debt limit will simply force the government to stop spending money. Obama and the dems have been passing budgets that fall TRILLIONS of dollars over what we bring in each year and are acting like republicans are destroying the world by not voting to allow more debt spending. The current problem has been created by democrats and they seem to be getting away with blaming republicans for it. Oddly enough, Obama refused to vote for any debt ceiling increases while he was in the senate. He is trying to
Don't get me wrong, Bush and Republicans have overspent too, but let's stop blaming the past and focus on solutions. The policy of the current administration is to spend, spend, spend and hope that the economy starts clicking. It's not working.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Pack a Lunch
People like the principal at the school in this story will end freedom as we know it. Hopefully we can keep them out of offices that affect more people. Here are a few highlights:
"Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria."
"Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices."
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
"...parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.""
I can only conclude that parents have no control over their children. Luckily one parent in the article made the argument that their child is too picky, and mandating that they eat the lunch at school is a not good. Wait a minute, even more proof that parents have no control over their children. What are we coming to that we even need to have this conversation? I suppose that we should all learn to rely on big-brother to provide us healthy meals, rather than learning to eat well on our own.
"Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria."
"Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices."
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
"...parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.""
I can only conclude that parents have no control over their children. Luckily one parent in the article made the argument that their child is too picky, and mandating that they eat the lunch at school is a not good. Wait a minute, even more proof that parents have no control over their children. What are we coming to that we even need to have this conversation? I suppose that we should all learn to rely on big-brother to provide us healthy meals, rather than learning to eat well on our own.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Oil
I have been amazed at the US involvement in Lybia. While waging two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it befuddled me to see a no fly zone being talked about, then enacted in Lybia. Apparently, Gadhafi is killing a lot of citizens in Lybia which is reason enough to involve ourselves in a war that is not ours....unless the country is Iraq and the leader's name is Hussein.
President Obama's words about 4 years ago seemed clear enough when discussing an attack on Iran: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." What changed?
Things became a little clearer a couple weeks ago when we hear that Lybia has some of the best oil (light and sweet) in the world. One democratic lawmaker is now making this known.
Unfortunately, while talking about the fact that we are involved in wars because of oil, he calls for a renewable energy plan. Renewable energy will never succeed until the private sector embraces a solution. If the government would get out of the way, we could make some progress.
The renewable energy plan sounds good, but it is disingenuous. If we are really fighting a war because of oil, then finding new oil is the current solution. I hear there is a lot of it in Alaska and other places in the US, but certain people in Washington our preventing companies from accessing that oil. Doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that we could save a lot of oil by not waging wars over oil and simply dig it up from our own back yard.
President Obama's words about 4 years ago seemed clear enough when discussing an attack on Iran: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." What changed?
Things became a little clearer a couple weeks ago when we hear that Lybia has some of the best oil (light and sweet) in the world. One democratic lawmaker is now making this known.
Unfortunately, while talking about the fact that we are involved in wars because of oil, he calls for a renewable energy plan. Renewable energy will never succeed until the private sector embraces a solution. If the government would get out of the way, we could make some progress.
The renewable energy plan sounds good, but it is disingenuous. If we are really fighting a war because of oil, then finding new oil is the current solution. I hear there is a lot of it in Alaska and other places in the US, but certain people in Washington our preventing companies from accessing that oil. Doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that we could save a lot of oil by not waging wars over oil and simply dig it up from our own back yard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)