When did the basis of our country’s economy become multiple choice? We do not operate under a free market, capitalist system just for the hell of it. We do so because it is the only system that follows the laws of economics. Now let me clarify something here; the laws of economics exist and remain true whether you subscribe to them or not, much like the laws of physics. Hard core liberals love to tell people of faith (really just Christians and Jews) that they must give up their foolish beliefs and devote themselves to the definitive realities of science. Yet, just as easily as they cling to Darwin and other scientific theories and facts, they dismiss the laws of economics.
Our forefathers (who happened to be the same type of “god fearing lunatics” that many liberals despise) designed this country under the concept that we all were entitled to liberty and the pursuit of private property and wealth. This capitalist and free market mindset has enabled this country to grow from a group of abusively taxed, under class, farmers and tradesmen to the greatest economic and military superpower the world has ever seen, in considerably less than 200 years.
Now I ask you, where has embracing a socialist style of governance (specifically in economic policy) ever benefited any nation the way free market capitalism has benefited ours? Can’t think of one country that practices socialist style economic policy that is better off than us? Shocker! Now tell me how many free market societies have found themselves underfoot of a totalitarian regime while staying true to the practice of capitalism and democracy? Oh, that’s right, the answer is zero! Yet how many times in our world’s history has socialism lead to totalitarian, fascist regimes? Even with a liberal college education you couldn't deny the disastrous results of socialism. And to those who have some examples of successful socialist countries I would offer that those places are “successful” in spite of themselves due to a small docile population.
Why then is the United States embracing more and more socialist policies every week? The answer is simple. The President of the United States as well as the majorities of both the House of Representatives and the Senate fully subscribe to a liberal socialist ideology. They feel, and govern, quite unapologetically that the way to solve all of the world's ills is to have gigantic government apparatus that oversees and/or controls just about everything. They have no faith in the free market and they have no faith in you.
Some folks say that corrupt capitalists allowed to run amuck by an administration that was asleep at the wheel are to blame for our current economic crisis. To counter that point (and it is a good one on its face) I would argue that the government’s interference in the free market was the true catalyst for the corruption. I can’t absolve the previous administration from not creating or maintaining the appropriate oversight, but I can explain why that lack oversight wouldn’t have been as big a problem had our government not meddled with the private sector to being with.
Once upon a time the reputable banks in this country operated under strict self imposed guidelines regarding the lending of money. They would only enter into transactions with borrowers who met certain criteria such as having collateral and being able to demonstrate that they could regularly pay down their debts with interest and someday pay off the loan in its entirety. I don’t know about you but that looks like a pretty sound way to do business. You really do have to admit that it makes a lot of financial sense to operate a bank this way, don’t you? Granted, in this system, if you could not afford something (i.e. a home) you were unable to get it. But that doesn’t sound so bad does it? I’m sure you can think of a handful of things that you want but can’t have because you can’t afford them. And, if you’re a reasonable person, you don’t think that you’re entitled to those things and let the absence of those possessions make you bitter and angry with the world. However, if you’re a liberal, progressive, socialist ideologue you have a major entitlement issues not just for yourself, but on behalf all those who you feel have been let down by the cold dispassionate capitalist system.
Enter the government. Some liberal democrats had the happy pink bunny rabbit idea that everyone should be able to “own” a home no matter how little income they had. So they applied pressure on the banks to make bad loans to unqualified borrowers. Much of this started with the Jimmy Carter era’s “Community Reinvestment Act.” President Clinton signed into law further legislation that helped beef up Carter’s act and made bad loans even more accessible to people who had no business being in the housing market. Now I’m all for people having a decent place to live and raise their children, but a family can live in an apartment or a small house as opposed to their dream home if that’s what their financial situation dictates. If you have an issue with slum lords and/or the condition of low income housing (and we certainly do), laws should be passed to deal with those problems directly rather than lowering the bar for home ownership in general.
So people got loans they could never pay back. More and more homes were built and sold. Home values went up and up so the people who couldn’t afford these houses to begin with were able to borrow more money against the value of their home to buy more things they couldn’t afford. On and on it went until the real estate bubble burst and everything came tumbling after.
Now I promised earlier that I would show you how corrupt capitalism played a role in this as well, so here it goes. Once forced into poor banking practices the bankers found a way to profit immensely of off these bad loans (capitalism at work). They decided to lend people all the money they needed, even more than they needed actually. They would then collect their commissions on the loans upfront rather than waiting for the “investment” to prove viable or god forbid turn a profit. Because after all, one bad banking/financial policy deserves another (I think this statement is at the top of Barney Frank’s stationary). And with little to no federal oversight from the lefts favorite punching bag, President Bush, this greedy exploitation of a terrible yet feel good government policy went unchecked.
Now you know what really happened and how the largest fault lies in our government’s intervention in matters that are way above its pay grade. A control/power hungry rabble comprised mostly of lawyers and career politicians stuck their nose where it didn’t belong and now we have the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. The good news is that their plan to save us from it is more of the same big government nationalization nonsense. It relies almost entirely on big brothers abilities rather than the free markets. If you objectively look at both of their track records I think you’ll see that we’d be better off betting on the Knicks to go to the NBA finals this year than putting all of our eggs in the government’s basket. But chin up, the government now owns a 40% stake in Citibank (by the way you can say that’s not the nationalization of bank all you want, but that doesn’t make it so). And the best news yet has to be that Vice President Joe Biden, another career lawyer/politician with little to no real business experience, is in charge overseeing the execution/implementation of this massive “stimulus” package.
Somewhere in heaven George Washington, Ayn Rand, and Ronald Reagan must be crying on each other’s shoulders.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Bloodshed Biryani
I went online to check the headlines Monday morning and this is what I found:
“PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The government agreed to impose Islamic law and suspend a military offensive across a large swath of northwest Pakistan on Monday in concessions aimed at pacifying a spreading Taliban insurgency there.” (Associated Press)
Now let me see if I understand this properly. The Taliban has been gallivanting across Pakistan leaving a trail of severed heads in their wake and they are rewarded by getting exactly what they wanted, the imposition of Shariah Law. How this any different giving a two year old the cookie he’s been whining about for over an hour because he just punched you in the nuts? How is it any better then neighborhood shopkeepers paying the mobster that terrorizes them for protection money? What differentiates this from letting a date rapist get away with it because if you don’t he says he’ll come back and hurt you again? The answer is NOTHING!!! This is the very complacency that the Islamic extremists count on.
We saw what Taliban rule had to offer Afghanistan. We’re seeing what a Taliban resurgence is doing to the people of Afghanistan and the men and women of our brave military deployed there. Now think of the Taliban as a hockey team and Afghanistan is their home ice. Now imagine that team USA came into town and hit them hard against the boards. As a result the Taliban plays dirty and ends up being sent (retreating) to the penalty box (Pakistan) to sit it out for a while. So instead of sitting quietly in the penalty box awaiting their chance to make it 5 on 5 again, they move to take over the penalty box and stage attacks on the ice while doing so. Using the hockey analogy almost makes it sound cute and fun. The one big problem is that the penalty box that the refs are so ready to capitulate is nuclear armed and the ice has our soldiers on it.
No quality parent handles their child’s tantrums by purchasing for them the most expensive toy they desire. No good wife combats her husband’s philandering by inviting her sultry bisexual friend over for some hot three way action. Likewise, there should be no country, no matter how battered, that abdicates their jurisdiction in an effort to appease those who are insatiable in their quest for dominance. To do so makes a mockery of the governing body itself and opens the door for further coups of greater degree. I fear that this is just beginning of the capitulation in Pakistan. What’s scarier still is what might happen when nuclear armed India starts contemplating what it would be like to live next door to a nuclear armed Pakistan that’s under Taliban control.
“PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The government agreed to impose Islamic law and suspend a military offensive across a large swath of northwest Pakistan on Monday in concessions aimed at pacifying a spreading Taliban insurgency there.” (Associated Press)
Now let me see if I understand this properly. The Taliban has been gallivanting across Pakistan leaving a trail of severed heads in their wake and they are rewarded by getting exactly what they wanted, the imposition of Shariah Law. How this any different giving a two year old the cookie he’s been whining about for over an hour because he just punched you in the nuts? How is it any better then neighborhood shopkeepers paying the mobster that terrorizes them for protection money? What differentiates this from letting a date rapist get away with it because if you don’t he says he’ll come back and hurt you again? The answer is NOTHING!!! This is the very complacency that the Islamic extremists count on.
We saw what Taliban rule had to offer Afghanistan. We’re seeing what a Taliban resurgence is doing to the people of Afghanistan and the men and women of our brave military deployed there. Now think of the Taliban as a hockey team and Afghanistan is their home ice. Now imagine that team USA came into town and hit them hard against the boards. As a result the Taliban plays dirty and ends up being sent (retreating) to the penalty box (Pakistan) to sit it out for a while. So instead of sitting quietly in the penalty box awaiting their chance to make it 5 on 5 again, they move to take over the penalty box and stage attacks on the ice while doing so. Using the hockey analogy almost makes it sound cute and fun. The one big problem is that the penalty box that the refs are so ready to capitulate is nuclear armed and the ice has our soldiers on it.
No quality parent handles their child’s tantrums by purchasing for them the most expensive toy they desire. No good wife combats her husband’s philandering by inviting her sultry bisexual friend over for some hot three way action. Likewise, there should be no country, no matter how battered, that abdicates their jurisdiction in an effort to appease those who are insatiable in their quest for dominance. To do so makes a mockery of the governing body itself and opens the door for further coups of greater degree. I fear that this is just beginning of the capitulation in Pakistan. What’s scarier still is what might happen when nuclear armed India starts contemplating what it would be like to live next door to a nuclear armed Pakistan that’s under Taliban control.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Keep the Change
Last week we chatted about how partisan the House version of the economic “stimulus” bill was and how simulative it wasn’t. This week we’ve seen the Senate attempt to shave a hundred billion or so off the bill after public opinion on the “stimulus” package started slipping. We’ve also been privy to some bipartisanship, but not from the man that promised it. Instead of strong bipartisan leadership, President Obama gave us all a dose of what the left used to call Bush style fear tactics and a load of partisan rhetoric.
President Obama opined in the Washington Post that if this stimulus bill is not passed soon we could face a deeper and potentially irreparable recession. He wrote the following, “And, if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years ... our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.” Now I’m not a professor of literature, but that sentence sure sounds like it’s meant to persuade those who do not support this bill by inspiring fear of a “deeper” or “irreversible” recession. Many Obama supporters used to accuse President Bush of being a fear monger when he would address his detractors by warning of the dangers inherent in having weak national defense policies. It shouldn’t take Kreskin to guess whether or not the same will be said of Obama now that he is employing the same tactics. The only difference is that Bush was right. There is a direct correlation between being more susceptible to attack and having less stringent defense measures. The same correlation does not exist between the absence of Obama’s “stimulus” plan and an enduring economic recession or depression.
Our President also wrote the following in last weeks op-ed piece in response to the criticism the bill has received, “I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long.” Again, I’m no Mensa candidate, but that doesn’t exactly sound like someone that’s embracing the opposition, or reaching across the aisle. What it sounds like to me is some highly partisan rhetoric reminiscent of when he was on the campaign trail. In truth, the Republicans over the last eight years were not fiscally conservative. They spent big time, and it’s a large factor in why their ranks have dwindled and they’ve suffered so many losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections. They did offer tax relief and that did help the economy, but not enough to fend off the inevitable bursting of the housing market bubble and the subsequent credit freeze. I’m not trying to absolve the Republicans of any guilt in this nations current economic woes, but I will contend that this crisis is a culmination of overall government failure. For some reason everyone is supposed to be ready to let the federal government mortgage the future to get us out of this hole through pork spending, increases in entitlements, and some tax refunds? Why? Because the new guys are so much better and more worthy of our trust then the old guys? Sorry, I just don’t buy that.
In the meantime, while Mr. Obama was writing his Washington Post op-ed designed to scare everyone into supporting Pelosi and his bogus bill before any of the pork could be slashed, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) were actually demonstrating some bipartisan leadership by heading up an effort to clean up this bill and make it more palatable for Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats (yes, there are a few). Now I am still by no means in support of the bill, but this week showed me that I should no longer attempt to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt as I did last week. He proved himself to be every bit the partisan he claimed he wasn’t. He also showed himself to be willing to act quite similarly (if you subscribe to the left’s rhetoric) to the man he spent his entire campaign denigrating, President George W. Bush.
In the end there’s only one stimulus that’s guaranteed to work and that’s giving the taxpayers their money back. If every taxpayer was given a chunk of what is now $827 billion, there is literally nothing they could do with the money that wouldn’t stimulate the economy other then burying it in the yard like some kind of suburban pirate. If they put it in the bank to bolster their savings, the economy gets stimulated. If they spend all the money, the economy gets stimulated. If they invest it in the stock market, it stimulates the economy. If they use the money to pay off some or all of their debts, the economy gets stimulated. The list goes on, but I think you get the point. Unless they light the money ablaze, the result of giving the taxpayers the money will be 100% economic stimulus. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure burning money is how those spoiled douche bags used to start the bonfires on Laguna Beach.
President Obama opined in the Washington Post that if this stimulus bill is not passed soon we could face a deeper and potentially irreparable recession. He wrote the following, “And, if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years ... our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.” Now I’m not a professor of literature, but that sentence sure sounds like it’s meant to persuade those who do not support this bill by inspiring fear of a “deeper” or “irreversible” recession. Many Obama supporters used to accuse President Bush of being a fear monger when he would address his detractors by warning of the dangers inherent in having weak national defense policies. It shouldn’t take Kreskin to guess whether or not the same will be said of Obama now that he is employing the same tactics. The only difference is that Bush was right. There is a direct correlation between being more susceptible to attack and having less stringent defense measures. The same correlation does not exist between the absence of Obama’s “stimulus” plan and an enduring economic recession or depression.
Our President also wrote the following in last weeks op-ed piece in response to the criticism the bill has received, “I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long.” Again, I’m no Mensa candidate, but that doesn’t exactly sound like someone that’s embracing the opposition, or reaching across the aisle. What it sounds like to me is some highly partisan rhetoric reminiscent of when he was on the campaign trail. In truth, the Republicans over the last eight years were not fiscally conservative. They spent big time, and it’s a large factor in why their ranks have dwindled and they’ve suffered so many losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections. They did offer tax relief and that did help the economy, but not enough to fend off the inevitable bursting of the housing market bubble and the subsequent credit freeze. I’m not trying to absolve the Republicans of any guilt in this nations current economic woes, but I will contend that this crisis is a culmination of overall government failure. For some reason everyone is supposed to be ready to let the federal government mortgage the future to get us out of this hole through pork spending, increases in entitlements, and some tax refunds? Why? Because the new guys are so much better and more worthy of our trust then the old guys? Sorry, I just don’t buy that.
In the meantime, while Mr. Obama was writing his Washington Post op-ed designed to scare everyone into supporting Pelosi and his bogus bill before any of the pork could be slashed, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) were actually demonstrating some bipartisan leadership by heading up an effort to clean up this bill and make it more palatable for Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats (yes, there are a few). Now I am still by no means in support of the bill, but this week showed me that I should no longer attempt to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt as I did last week. He proved himself to be every bit the partisan he claimed he wasn’t. He also showed himself to be willing to act quite similarly (if you subscribe to the left’s rhetoric) to the man he spent his entire campaign denigrating, President George W. Bush.
In the end there’s only one stimulus that’s guaranteed to work and that’s giving the taxpayers their money back. If every taxpayer was given a chunk of what is now $827 billion, there is literally nothing they could do with the money that wouldn’t stimulate the economy other then burying it in the yard like some kind of suburban pirate. If they put it in the bank to bolster their savings, the economy gets stimulated. If they spend all the money, the economy gets stimulated. If they invest it in the stock market, it stimulates the economy. If they use the money to pay off some or all of their debts, the economy gets stimulated. The list goes on, but I think you get the point. Unless they light the money ablaze, the result of giving the taxpayers the money will be 100% economic stimulus. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure burning money is how those spoiled douche bags used to start the bonfires on Laguna Beach.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
I Feel Stimulated
We are currently going through a major economic recession. House values have plummeted, thousands of jobs are being lost every week, and the credit markets are still frozen solid in spite of all the money given to the banks from that ingenious TARP fund. Last week the House passed an economic “stimulus” bill that would cost $819 billion. The vote was straight across party lines. Not one Republican, despite Obama’s out stretched hand, voted for the legislation. That might be because the bill, like every spending bill before it, is loaded with pork. This one however is probably the most partisan and deceptive spending bill I’ve ever seen.
Let’s start the evaluation by discussing how partisan this bill is. This bill wasn’t just passed entirely by the Democrats, it was written solely by the Democrats. This is something that Nancy Pelosi proudly pointed out when she said, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” But her arrogance didn’t end with that statement, the Speaker and her fellow House Democrats began celebrating the bills passage before the vote even took place (it must be nice to have that comfy majority). My biggest problem here is that Obama promised bipartisanship and he made good on that by reaching out to the House Republicans (for all the good it did). I guess Pelosi and the rest of this bills architects didn’t get the memo because there is absolutely nothing bipartisan about the way this bill was written or passed.
Now let’s get into the pork. After President Obama promised us change, government transparency, and an end to “politics as usual,“ the Democrats push through a bill that has so much pork in it that to read it is like watching a lesbian porno staring Miss Piggy and Paula Dean. Here is a list of just some items you’ll find in this “stimulus” bill according to the Wall Street Journal:
- $81 billion for Medicaid.
- $66 billion for education.
- $36 billion for unemployment benefits.
- $30 billion for COBRA insurance extensions.
- $20 billion for food stamps.
- $8 billion for renewable energy funding.
- $7.5 billion for public housing.
- $7 billion for the modernization of federal facilities.
- $2.4 billion for carbon capture demonstration projects.
- $1 billion for Amtrak.
- $650 million for digital TV converter box coupons.
- $600 million for new cars for the federal government.
- $400 million for global warming research.
- $150 million for the Smithsonian.
- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Which one of the items listed above is going to unfreeze the credit markets and allow existing companies to stay in business while new companies open? Can’t find one? Don’t feel bad, neither could I.
Which one of the items listed above is going to create new jobs and/or assure that more jobs won’t be lost? You could make a pretty shallow argument for a couple of them, but at the end of the day, the ones you have in mind probably benefit the federal government in the long term more then they help anyone else even in the short term.
Oh, I almost forgot. Which one of these is going to secure the value of your home and the equity you have in it? I know, I’m just being a wise ass. The answer is clearly none of them.
My detractors will most likely argue that I’m picking on just part of the “stimulus” bill and they would be correct. But then my counter argument would be, why is there anything in the “stimulus” bill that doesn’t have the express purpose of stimulating the economy? If the Democrats feel that these items are important and merit spending billions on while in this economic climate then they should have the courage to propose them in other bills rather then hiding them in what is supposed to be a life line for our economy (remember we were promised transparency and an end to “politics as usual” by President Obama).
If the House Democrats really believed in Obama’s message, the way 53% of the electorate did, they would have worked with the House Republicans when writing this bill. They also would have put forth their spending/social agenda in separate bills. Especially if they truly felt that the people who elected them would be proud to see this money spent this way while in the midst of a global recession.
All this “stimulus” bill really did was assure me of my worst fears when it became clear that Obama was going to win the White House. I was never concerned about the man himself, only those whom his presidency would empower (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Boxer, Murtha, Kerry, etc.). I am very concerned that in an effort to elect someone that truly wanted to change Washington, those that voted for Obama merely insured that it would only get worse.
Let’s start the evaluation by discussing how partisan this bill is. This bill wasn’t just passed entirely by the Democrats, it was written solely by the Democrats. This is something that Nancy Pelosi proudly pointed out when she said, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” But her arrogance didn’t end with that statement, the Speaker and her fellow House Democrats began celebrating the bills passage before the vote even took place (it must be nice to have that comfy majority). My biggest problem here is that Obama promised bipartisanship and he made good on that by reaching out to the House Republicans (for all the good it did). I guess Pelosi and the rest of this bills architects didn’t get the memo because there is absolutely nothing bipartisan about the way this bill was written or passed.
Now let’s get into the pork. After President Obama promised us change, government transparency, and an end to “politics as usual,“ the Democrats push through a bill that has so much pork in it that to read it is like watching a lesbian porno staring Miss Piggy and Paula Dean. Here is a list of just some items you’ll find in this “stimulus” bill according to the Wall Street Journal:
- $81 billion for Medicaid.
- $66 billion for education.
- $36 billion for unemployment benefits.
- $30 billion for COBRA insurance extensions.
- $20 billion for food stamps.
- $8 billion for renewable energy funding.
- $7.5 billion for public housing.
- $7 billion for the modernization of federal facilities.
- $2.4 billion for carbon capture demonstration projects.
- $1 billion for Amtrak.
- $650 million for digital TV converter box coupons.
- $600 million for new cars for the federal government.
- $400 million for global warming research.
- $150 million for the Smithsonian.
- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Which one of the items listed above is going to unfreeze the credit markets and allow existing companies to stay in business while new companies open? Can’t find one? Don’t feel bad, neither could I.
Which one of the items listed above is going to create new jobs and/or assure that more jobs won’t be lost? You could make a pretty shallow argument for a couple of them, but at the end of the day, the ones you have in mind probably benefit the federal government in the long term more then they help anyone else even in the short term.
Oh, I almost forgot. Which one of these is going to secure the value of your home and the equity you have in it? I know, I’m just being a wise ass. The answer is clearly none of them.
My detractors will most likely argue that I’m picking on just part of the “stimulus” bill and they would be correct. But then my counter argument would be, why is there anything in the “stimulus” bill that doesn’t have the express purpose of stimulating the economy? If the Democrats feel that these items are important and merit spending billions on while in this economic climate then they should have the courage to propose them in other bills rather then hiding them in what is supposed to be a life line for our economy (remember we were promised transparency and an end to “politics as usual” by President Obama).
If the House Democrats really believed in Obama’s message, the way 53% of the electorate did, they would have worked with the House Republicans when writing this bill. They also would have put forth their spending/social agenda in separate bills. Especially if they truly felt that the people who elected them would be proud to see this money spent this way while in the midst of a global recession.
All this “stimulus” bill really did was assure me of my worst fears when it became clear that Obama was going to win the White House. I was never concerned about the man himself, only those whom his presidency would empower (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Boxer, Murtha, Kerry, etc.). I am very concerned that in an effort to elect someone that truly wanted to change Washington, those that voted for Obama merely insured that it would only get worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)