Funny. I just noticed in my blog called "Heaven help us all," that I kept referring to the president's plan as a plan to "cut spending." That's the way it was heralded by the White House.
Silly me. A "cut spending" program that proposes $3.6 TRILLION in social programs and other b.s.? Jeez, gotta be so careful in quoting anything that comes from a federal agency. I should know better.
I still haven't processed all aspects of the GIGANTIC MONSTER SPENDING BILL (Obama's Budget Plan), either. But I can tell you one thing for sure -- that budget proposal is not going to make life easier for most Americans. And here's one way, just one for now, that it's going to cost all of us a lot more.
Here's a Dec. 2008 column on cap and trade in Europe from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1
And this is from information provided last year by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., of Wisconsin, who was Ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:
“Under cap-and-trade, a total cap is placed on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, and economy-wide allocations are given or sold to emitters. Companies that are able to keep their emissions under their allocation can sell their savings, or credits, to companies that could not. Year after year, the total cap will be ratcheted down, with the goal being lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
“It sounds simple. It is not. And it has the potential to do significant harm to Wisconsin.
“As the cap on greenhouse gas emissions is brought lower and lower, it will cause electric rates in many places to go higher and higher, especially places that rely on coal for electricity generation. Guess what? Wisconsin gets nearly two-thirds of its electricity from coal.
“Cap-and-trade will punish states like Wisconsin for their coal use, and the punishment will be delivered in the electric bills of every home and business in the state. For example, in a regional cap-and-trade system, states like Illinois which has higher energy supply from coming from non-fossil fuels would receive benefits from states like Wisconsin."
That is, Wisconsin would probably be buying emissions credits from Illinois -- as long as Illinois or anyplace else has any credits left over. Being from Illinois, it's pretty damn hard to imagine this state having a surplus of anything apart from blockheaded and/or corrupt politicians.*
There is so-called "clean coal" technology. But how much does that cost? Where do energy companies get the money to pay for re-tooling? The feds, no doubt, which means taxpayers. After all, where would private investors come from to fund a start-up energy company? The stock market is still in free-fall. Maybe our good friend, the Peoples' Republic of China?
Coal has been viewed as a fuel that could help the US reduce it's reliance on foreign oil. It's the most abundant fossil fuel in the USA. So does it make a lot of sense to raise the cost of burning coal? Yet if it's cheaper to burn oil than coal... You figure it out. Would you rather be in hock to the Arabs or to Communist China?
Energy companies don't have a secret stash of money to buy a starter batch of credits or to purchase more, or to re-tool. Energy companies get their money from their customers. If the price of energy goes up, their customers pay for it. Their customers are you and me, the stores we patronize, and the manufacturers of the products and services we buy. The price will go up for everyone, so all their prices will go up because all of their energy costs will go up. Sort of like gasoline costing $4.00 a gallon, only worse because it affects absolutely everything we do.
How's that for a "multiplier effect"?
A clapboard shack in the hinterlands of Montana is looking more and more attractive every day. Of course, then you'd probably be burning wood, and heaven only knows what kind of a permitting and cap-and-trade process you'd have to go through.
Should be noted, too, that energy companies in many places are government-supported monopolies. In order to keep that status, these companies already are heavily regulated; they can't raise rates or alter service without some kind of approval from the local government, which decides what a "fair" price is.
So if energy companies' costs go up, and City Hall doesn't want to tick off the voters with a rate hike, what happens? The companies shut down... Or, more than likely, the local government acquires them and operates them. That is to say, taxpayers end up funding them.
On the other hand, as Obama sees it, taxpayers are an absolutely endless source of funds, so maybe it will all work out....
Any way you look at it, though, there goes any benefit the average American may get from $400 dollars a year in tax cuts.
Something I thought was funny: Last year Americans got a $600 credit on their income tax. Michelle Obama scoffed at that, saying it represented nothing more than a new pair of earrings. (Obviously, she doesn't shop at the same flea markets I do.)
Scale it down, Michelle. Forget the earrings. That $400 probably won't cover the increase in your electric bill.
'Course, ol' Michelle and Barack don't pay electric bills anymore. As long as they occupy the White House, they're on the taxpayer's dime. So for them, talk is very, very cheap.
*Want to make a slight correction. I found out my US Rep, who's a Democrat, voted against the $410 billion pork bill. So there's at least one politician in Illinois who's enlightened on at least one issue. We went to the same university -- probably not at the same time -- maybe that has something to do with it.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Out of the frying pan...
Wasn't going to take time for this because I really have a lot of paying work to do. However, I've just picked myself up off the floor following the Rock Star President's unveiling of his budget -- yeah, took 24 hours to return to consciousness -- and I just can't keep my mouth shut.
Perhaps ominously, at about the same time Obama was revealing his Master Plan, I heard something like a sonic boom and all the power in my house went out. CommEd suggests it was a blown transformer. I asked if anyone else had reported it. They said they couldn't violate my neighbors' privacy. What? Anyway, obviously, the power has been restored. Wish I could say as much for the nation as a whole.
What can one say about a $3.6 TRILLION budget? Following $1.5 TRILLION in "Stimulus" and $450 BILLION in pork (no quotes around that one)? And this prez has been in office for only a few days over one month. And the nation's supposedly in one of the worst economic situations it has been in since Jimmy Carter.
I love it when Obama looks at the audience with a disengenuous half-smile and says, "Isn't this what you voted for last November?"
No, sir, that isn't what I voted for last November. And as I recall, no one really had a very good idea of exactly what the now-prez was promoting before the election. Couldn't nail him down. Just a feel-good "We can do it!" platform, and pretending he had inherited the mantle of Abraham Lincoln.
Joe the plumber seems to have gotten the closest to the truth of it when he asked Obama if he was a socialist. Obama looked at him with that disengenuous half-smile and changed the subject to something like, "Aren't you thrilled that you get to stand next to me?"
Joe didn't seem thrilled.
I'm not either.
One could reasonably expect that our illustrious congress could provide a check on the prez. After all, the legislative branch has as much power as the executive branch. But do you think they will? I doubt it. Apparently they're afraid of losing any opportunity to bask in the light that surrounds Mr. Miracle-Man in the oval office.
The Republicans are ticked off. Apparently a quantum leap toward socialism is required to remind them of what the USA is supposed to be all about and why they're in office. They apparently had forgotten much of this while they had a majority.
And the two silly twits from Maine -- why do they remind me of Cary Grant's fatuous aunts in "Arsenic and Old Lace"? -- and Arlen Specter -- who, after all, watched the SuperBowl at the White House, so owes Obama a big one -- will go skipping down the halls of the Capitol, hand-in-hand with Pelosi and "Give-'em-pork Harry" Reid. And just in case the Idiot Triplets back out, congress circumvented the US Constitution yesterday and gave the District of Columbia a vote in the Senate.
What has the US become? This is a disgrace. This is an offense against humanity.
One reason the US attracted so many immigrants is because the world appears to understand that if the bullshit gets too thick in their own countries.... Well, there's always America.
Guess what? There's no more America.
Perhaps ominously, at about the same time Obama was revealing his Master Plan, I heard something like a sonic boom and all the power in my house went out. CommEd suggests it was a blown transformer. I asked if anyone else had reported it. They said they couldn't violate my neighbors' privacy. What? Anyway, obviously, the power has been restored. Wish I could say as much for the nation as a whole.
What can one say about a $3.6 TRILLION budget? Following $1.5 TRILLION in "Stimulus" and $450 BILLION in pork (no quotes around that one)? And this prez has been in office for only a few days over one month. And the nation's supposedly in one of the worst economic situations it has been in since Jimmy Carter.
I love it when Obama looks at the audience with a disengenuous half-smile and says, "Isn't this what you voted for last November?"
No, sir, that isn't what I voted for last November. And as I recall, no one really had a very good idea of exactly what the now-prez was promoting before the election. Couldn't nail him down. Just a feel-good "We can do it!" platform, and pretending he had inherited the mantle of Abraham Lincoln.
Joe the plumber seems to have gotten the closest to the truth of it when he asked Obama if he was a socialist. Obama looked at him with that disengenuous half-smile and changed the subject to something like, "Aren't you thrilled that you get to stand next to me?"
Joe didn't seem thrilled.
I'm not either.
One could reasonably expect that our illustrious congress could provide a check on the prez. After all, the legislative branch has as much power as the executive branch. But do you think they will? I doubt it. Apparently they're afraid of losing any opportunity to bask in the light that surrounds Mr. Miracle-Man in the oval office.
The Republicans are ticked off. Apparently a quantum leap toward socialism is required to remind them of what the USA is supposed to be all about and why they're in office. They apparently had forgotten much of this while they had a majority.
And the two silly twits from Maine -- why do they remind me of Cary Grant's fatuous aunts in "Arsenic and Old Lace"? -- and Arlen Specter -- who, after all, watched the SuperBowl at the White House, so owes Obama a big one -- will go skipping down the halls of the Capitol, hand-in-hand with Pelosi and "Give-'em-pork Harry" Reid. And just in case the Idiot Triplets back out, congress circumvented the US Constitution yesterday and gave the District of Columbia a vote in the Senate.
What has the US become? This is a disgrace. This is an offense against humanity.
One reason the US attracted so many immigrants is because the world appears to understand that if the bullshit gets too thick in their own countries.... Well, there's always America.
Guess what? There's no more America.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's Reichstag Fire?
Listened to the president's address to congress tonight. Seems pretty much like all his other campaign speeches. I'm not impressed.
He seems like a good salesman, that's all -- and selling some pretty used merchandise: high-spending social programs recycled from the 1930s. What a yawn. They didn't work then; they won't work now.
I listened to the speech on ABC Radio. Am I hearing things, or is reporter Anne Compton in l-o-o-o-o-o-v-e? Good grief, I thought she would positively swoon describing poor Barack and the heavy-duty challenges he faces. Michelle Obama, beware! Don't let this woman sit in the front row at any presidential news conferences. She may not be able to keep her hands off him.
I almost never listen to network news, and when I do, the bias really stands out. It's really shocking. Like, I went on a salt-free diet for a couple days, and when I started eating normal food again, everything tasted so incredibly salty. You're not aware of how much junk people dump into your food or media until you stay away from it for a few days.
Anyway, I don't know why, but I always want to smack Pelosi across her silly face. At least she managed to stand up and sit down a couple times tonight without tripping over her own feet or toppling off the podium. I'll bet she practiced that all afternoon. Is she constantly smiling, or is it simply that her front teeth don't fit inside her mouth? Hard to tell. Didn't that hairstyle go out with the old Dick Van Dyke Show? She's wearing pants suits, though: Hilary Clinton's contribution to American politics.
On a more serious note, does anyone remember the Reichstag Fire? A guy named Adolf Hitler had been elected as chancellor of Germany. Then one night the Reichstag burned down. That was the German capitol building.
Hitler was quick to blame the fire on the communists. He claimed they were trying to start a revolution, and he seized more or less totalitarian command of the German nation to protect it and keep it safe. However, curiously enough, Hitler marched the German army not against the communists, but into Austria and then Poland. He said the Germans needed "liebesraum," and I'm probably not spelling that right, but it means the equivalent of "elbow room." In reality, it was probably the Nazis -- that's short for National Socialists, Hitler's political party -- who set the fire.
And... the rest is history. For the uninformed with earbuds permanently impairing their intelligence, Hitler went on to destroy nearly the whole world, including frying 11 million people in death chambers carefully designed to optimize murder, make it quick, easy, efficient. Half of those who perished were Jews, only because they were Jews; the rest were mainly political enemies, or anyone who didn't comply with Hitler's executive orders.
Somehow the Reichstag Fire reminds me of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual, saying that a crisis presents a wonderful political opportunity.
Looks like Obama's making as much hay out of this economic crisis as he possibly can. He's apparently going to nationalize and socialize and redistribute every Goddamn thing he can get his hands on. And all by the end of this year, probably. Before the American public wakes up and discovers that not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but neither do they anymore.
And it's all for our own good. And he's going to make sure there's no corruption. (Sorry, I'm rolling on the floor laughing, Diet Pepsi shooting out my nose.) He really does believe he's magic. Yeah, President Rock Star. But it's dangerous to surrender your grip on reality and begin believing your own press releases.
Actually, though, isn't Rahm Emanual Jewish? Or isn't his family Jewish? Man, you think he'd be extra careful about seizing upon a crisis the magnitude of the Reichstag Fire and jamming through a bunch of bullshit programs to "fix" it. Maybe he doesn't know history.
Haven't we seen this all before?
Another quote: "Those who refuse to heed the lessons of history are condemned to relive it." That's from Santayana (no, not the musician.)
He seems like a good salesman, that's all -- and selling some pretty used merchandise: high-spending social programs recycled from the 1930s. What a yawn. They didn't work then; they won't work now.
I listened to the speech on ABC Radio. Am I hearing things, or is reporter Anne Compton in l-o-o-o-o-o-v-e? Good grief, I thought she would positively swoon describing poor Barack and the heavy-duty challenges he faces. Michelle Obama, beware! Don't let this woman sit in the front row at any presidential news conferences. She may not be able to keep her hands off him.
I almost never listen to network news, and when I do, the bias really stands out. It's really shocking. Like, I went on a salt-free diet for a couple days, and when I started eating normal food again, everything tasted so incredibly salty. You're not aware of how much junk people dump into your food or media until you stay away from it for a few days.
Anyway, I don't know why, but I always want to smack Pelosi across her silly face. At least she managed to stand up and sit down a couple times tonight without tripping over her own feet or toppling off the podium. I'll bet she practiced that all afternoon. Is she constantly smiling, or is it simply that her front teeth don't fit inside her mouth? Hard to tell. Didn't that hairstyle go out with the old Dick Van Dyke Show? She's wearing pants suits, though: Hilary Clinton's contribution to American politics.
On a more serious note, does anyone remember the Reichstag Fire? A guy named Adolf Hitler had been elected as chancellor of Germany. Then one night the Reichstag burned down. That was the German capitol building.
Hitler was quick to blame the fire on the communists. He claimed they were trying to start a revolution, and he seized more or less totalitarian command of the German nation to protect it and keep it safe. However, curiously enough, Hitler marched the German army not against the communists, but into Austria and then Poland. He said the Germans needed "liebesraum," and I'm probably not spelling that right, but it means the equivalent of "elbow room." In reality, it was probably the Nazis -- that's short for National Socialists, Hitler's political party -- who set the fire.
And... the rest is history. For the uninformed with earbuds permanently impairing their intelligence, Hitler went on to destroy nearly the whole world, including frying 11 million people in death chambers carefully designed to optimize murder, make it quick, easy, efficient. Half of those who perished were Jews, only because they were Jews; the rest were mainly political enemies, or anyone who didn't comply with Hitler's executive orders.
Somehow the Reichstag Fire reminds me of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual, saying that a crisis presents a wonderful political opportunity.
Looks like Obama's making as much hay out of this economic crisis as he possibly can. He's apparently going to nationalize and socialize and redistribute every Goddamn thing he can get his hands on. And all by the end of this year, probably. Before the American public wakes up and discovers that not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but neither do they anymore.
And it's all for our own good. And he's going to make sure there's no corruption. (Sorry, I'm rolling on the floor laughing, Diet Pepsi shooting out my nose.) He really does believe he's magic. Yeah, President Rock Star. But it's dangerous to surrender your grip on reality and begin believing your own press releases.
Actually, though, isn't Rahm Emanual Jewish? Or isn't his family Jewish? Man, you think he'd be extra careful about seizing upon a crisis the magnitude of the Reichstag Fire and jamming through a bunch of bullshit programs to "fix" it. Maybe he doesn't know history.
Haven't we seen this all before?
Another quote: "Those who refuse to heed the lessons of history are condemned to relive it." That's from Santayana (no, not the musician.)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By your own lights
I titled the last blog "Heaven help us." The thing is, though, I'm not terribly religious. I do have a definite set of principles and beliefs that I live by; they just aren't part of any organized religion.
If you're an American, or want to live free, you absolutely require a religion or a philosophy because you've got to be able to make up your own mind about what's good for you, what's wrong, what's fair in your dealings with other people, and all of that. You've got to do this for yourself, or you end up giving up your own mind, your own talents, and your own future, to whomever or whatever you allow to think for you and make decisions for you. In essence, you become their slave.
The USA was set up so that the government would NOT be the ultimate moral authority in society. The phrase the Founding Fathers used over and over again was that this government would allow people to "Live by their own lights."
At the time of the American Revolution, the colonies already were occupied by a jumble of different religious groups. Some colonies had been founded by the British monarchs, and in those colonies, residents were compelled by law to pay a tax to support Evangelical ministers -- the king's religion. Non-Evangelicals didn't like this at all.
In addition, the 13 original colonies didn't have much inter-communication with each other. Trade and other interaction was more often between, say Massachusetts colony and the King, or South Carolina colony and the King, etc. Sam Adams -- a relative of the now more famous John Adams -- played a key role in establishing the Committees of Correspondence among the colonies. And mostly what they discussed were their grievances against the King and Parliament. This exchange of correspondence bound the colonies in common cause and eventually evolved into the Continental Congress.
Anyway, freedom of religion and free speech were two key elements in bringing about the American Revolution. Sam Adams and everyone else clearly understood all this, and to the credit of the Founding Fathers, they enshrined the lessons they learned in the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Don't you love those guys? They not only managed to successfully rebel against what was one of the world's greatest powers, but they passed along to later generations the tools to make their own rebellions. They believed absolutely in the idea of individual liberty. I wish they were still around.
The most important underlying principle behind the First Amendment is that it guarantees that all kinds of information is available to everyone. Sounds pretty damn simple-minded and silly, huh?
No. Information is what each individual needs to form a concept of the world around them and to make reasonable and responsible decisions about it for themselves.
In a free country, every citizen needs to do this for him or herself, or there is no freedom. We each must be our own authority. The Founding Fathers made the government subordinate to every citizen's honest commitment and interpretation of righteousness and virtue. That is precisely what makes us free.
In the USA, the government doesn't have the final say on what's right or wrong. We all decide these things for ourselves, either by consulting our religious leaders or philosophical gurus, or whomever. But the decisions are up to us. We live by our own lights.
Are you willing to give this up for a job that might last a year or two? Or to get out of paying your mortgage? Or maybe just because you're lazy and don't want to have to think too much. Maybe you're just scared that you might make a mistake. So, everyone makes mistakes, and you learn a whole lot more from failure than from success.
And funny how this idea caught on all around the world. You can assess the power of it even in the negative reactions to it. Like, I'd be a little suspcious of religious leaders who are jealous of individual freedom, as they are in some nations (or terrorist states) that shall remain nameless.
But now citizens of the USA seem pretty interested in giving up this capacity to live by their own lights in favor of food stamps, the promise of security, and other forms of government aid.
Just kill me, OK. It would be a little less painful than watching the spectacle of trading liberty for this specious promise of security.
Today is Quote Day. Another one that's been attributed to Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Amen to that.
If you're an American, or want to live free, you absolutely require a religion or a philosophy because you've got to be able to make up your own mind about what's good for you, what's wrong, what's fair in your dealings with other people, and all of that. You've got to do this for yourself, or you end up giving up your own mind, your own talents, and your own future, to whomever or whatever you allow to think for you and make decisions for you. In essence, you become their slave.
The USA was set up so that the government would NOT be the ultimate moral authority in society. The phrase the Founding Fathers used over and over again was that this government would allow people to "Live by their own lights."
At the time of the American Revolution, the colonies already were occupied by a jumble of different religious groups. Some colonies had been founded by the British monarchs, and in those colonies, residents were compelled by law to pay a tax to support Evangelical ministers -- the king's religion. Non-Evangelicals didn't like this at all.
In addition, the 13 original colonies didn't have much inter-communication with each other. Trade and other interaction was more often between, say Massachusetts colony and the King, or South Carolina colony and the King, etc. Sam Adams -- a relative of the now more famous John Adams -- played a key role in establishing the Committees of Correspondence among the colonies. And mostly what they discussed were their grievances against the King and Parliament. This exchange of correspondence bound the colonies in common cause and eventually evolved into the Continental Congress.
Anyway, freedom of religion and free speech were two key elements in bringing about the American Revolution. Sam Adams and everyone else clearly understood all this, and to the credit of the Founding Fathers, they enshrined the lessons they learned in the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Don't you love those guys? They not only managed to successfully rebel against what was one of the world's greatest powers, but they passed along to later generations the tools to make their own rebellions. They believed absolutely in the idea of individual liberty. I wish they were still around.
The most important underlying principle behind the First Amendment is that it guarantees that all kinds of information is available to everyone. Sounds pretty damn simple-minded and silly, huh?
No. Information is what each individual needs to form a concept of the world around them and to make reasonable and responsible decisions about it for themselves.
In a free country, every citizen needs to do this for him or herself, or there is no freedom. We each must be our own authority. The Founding Fathers made the government subordinate to every citizen's honest commitment and interpretation of righteousness and virtue. That is precisely what makes us free.
In the USA, the government doesn't have the final say on what's right or wrong. We all decide these things for ourselves, either by consulting our religious leaders or philosophical gurus, or whomever. But the decisions are up to us. We live by our own lights.
Are you willing to give this up for a job that might last a year or two? Or to get out of paying your mortgage? Or maybe just because you're lazy and don't want to have to think too much. Maybe you're just scared that you might make a mistake. So, everyone makes mistakes, and you learn a whole lot more from failure than from success.
And funny how this idea caught on all around the world. You can assess the power of it even in the negative reactions to it. Like, I'd be a little suspcious of religious leaders who are jealous of individual freedom, as they are in some nations (or terrorist states) that shall remain nameless.
But now citizens of the USA seem pretty interested in giving up this capacity to live by their own lights in favor of food stamps, the promise of security, and other forms of government aid.
Just kill me, OK. It would be a little less painful than watching the spectacle of trading liberty for this specious promise of security.
Today is Quote Day. Another one that's been attributed to Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Amen to that.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Heaven help us all.
Listening to Fox News today and they announced that President Obama is unveiling a program the end of this week to cut spending. Other news sources confirm it.
The provisions of this program include raising taxes on businesses and "the rich," and cutting defense spending.
You know, I'm from Illinois. I first became aware of Barack Obama when he ran for the US Senate. He's very charismatic. Years ago I was telling people that he'd probably run for president one day because he was about the best potential candidate the Democrats had. But I don't agree with him and never did. And he really needed more experience in the US Senate before taking on the presidency. I think his lack of experience is showing. He seems to believe that if he can "sell" an idea with a feel-good talk, or scare the hell out of all us by claiming the economy may be an irreversible loss, that that will "heal" the nation.
Actually, that and $4.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.
And, I'm sorry, this program to cut spending is just.... stupid. Yet the president is not a stupid man. Maybe he has stupid advisors. People who believe in pie-in-the-sky b.s. that sounds real good but isn't viable in the real world. That about sums up the Ivy League -- where our president got his academic credentials.
In any case, the president couldn't do more damage to the economy if he used a chainsaw on it.
My God, I can't imagine what the stock market is going to look like tomorrow. I'll probably have to sell what I've got left in my IRAs just to recover something before they lose their total value.
The "Stimulus" bill pumps a lot of hot air into government spending (read "deficit"), while a tax on business discourages private enterprise and economic growth.
Doesn't he get it? He's only digging a much bigger economic hole. He's ruining the country.
Business is what generates cash and economic growth.
The rich may not be very well-liked by the envious, but most of them live on only a small percentage of their incomes and they invest the rest -- and their investments fund business.
As far as cutting defense spending. Jeez, I don't know. I was traumatized by 9/11. I still haven't got over it. And deep in my heart, I'm not sure that the federal government has any greater priority than providing national defense.
This breaks my heart. America was such a good idea.
Good-bye to human Enlightenment. Hello pack of snarling dogs fighting over each other's bones.
I'm so very sorry. And I don't want to have to live through what's coming.
Mr. President, you've destroyed all my hope.
The provisions of this program include raising taxes on businesses and "the rich," and cutting defense spending.
You know, I'm from Illinois. I first became aware of Barack Obama when he ran for the US Senate. He's very charismatic. Years ago I was telling people that he'd probably run for president one day because he was about the best potential candidate the Democrats had. But I don't agree with him and never did. And he really needed more experience in the US Senate before taking on the presidency. I think his lack of experience is showing. He seems to believe that if he can "sell" an idea with a feel-good talk, or scare the hell out of all us by claiming the economy may be an irreversible loss, that that will "heal" the nation.
Actually, that and $4.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.
And, I'm sorry, this program to cut spending is just.... stupid. Yet the president is not a stupid man. Maybe he has stupid advisors. People who believe in pie-in-the-sky b.s. that sounds real good but isn't viable in the real world. That about sums up the Ivy League -- where our president got his academic credentials.
In any case, the president couldn't do more damage to the economy if he used a chainsaw on it.
My God, I can't imagine what the stock market is going to look like tomorrow. I'll probably have to sell what I've got left in my IRAs just to recover something before they lose their total value.
The "Stimulus" bill pumps a lot of hot air into government spending (read "deficit"), while a tax on business discourages private enterprise and economic growth.
Doesn't he get it? He's only digging a much bigger economic hole. He's ruining the country.
Business is what generates cash and economic growth.
The rich may not be very well-liked by the envious, but most of them live on only a small percentage of their incomes and they invest the rest -- and their investments fund business.
As far as cutting defense spending. Jeez, I don't know. I was traumatized by 9/11. I still haven't got over it. And deep in my heart, I'm not sure that the federal government has any greater priority than providing national defense.
This breaks my heart. America was such a good idea.
Good-bye to human Enlightenment. Hello pack of snarling dogs fighting over each other's bones.
I'm so very sorry. And I don't want to have to live through what's coming.
Mr. President, you've destroyed all my hope.
What's Wrong with Socialism, Part Deux
Based on my personal experience, I used to hate labor unions. I worked in a factory for almost three years and the place was unionized. Closed shop, which means if you don't join the union, you don't work there.
We used to take products off the end of the assembly line, count them, and pack them. I found out my life became a whole lot easier if I went down to the plant floor two or three minutes early and set up a couple packing cartons.
The union stewardess, who was a very nice lady, chewed my ass out over that one. Couldn't I read a clock? Who the hell did I think I was impressing? I wasn't getting paid anymore for doing that, and if I did it, everyone would have to do it. So instead I had to work twice as hard for the whole eight hours and never get caught up.
Another woman on our shift was from Poland. You'd think the Poles would know something about labor unions, wouldn't you? Poland was still communist then, and maybe she believed she'd have more freedom in the USA. This lady was just a manic worker. One of the most productive on our shift. She said staying busy kept her weight down. She knit a sweater on her breaks in a couple days. I mean, she was compulsive.
On the really fast production lines, two people worked at the same work station -- one to take the stuff off the line, count it, and pack it, and a second one to form the cartons. Then the company got these machines for sticking the product into plastic bags instead of corrugated cartons.
This Polish woman was one of the first people in the plant to work with the plastic bagger. She'd pull stuff off the line, count it, and bag it, all by herself. No need for a second carton-maker.
Well, I worked on the other end of the line, but after a couple weeks or so, even I noticed that this Polish lady was being ostracized. No one would talk to her. Anyone who did talk to her -- even to change a dollar for her for the pop machine -- got an elbow nudge or dirty looks from everyone else. I didn't know what this woman had done. The union stewardess explained: She was "taking jobs away."
OK.
Another thing about being in this union. Didn't matter if you were good or bad at your job. We all got paid the same, with raises on the same schedule, based entirely on seniority. Same thing with overtime -- all based on seniority. One co-worker (not the Polish woman) was about six months from retirement, had worked at the plant for 20 years or so, and she was always asked first, by the union stewardess, if she wanted to put in a couple extra hours, at time-and-a-half pay, of course. Unless the place was crammed to the rafters with orders, you didn't get any overtime until the "oldies" had gotten theirs.
At another job I was in a different union, this time doing office work. Same old, same old -- seniority over skill and brains, and even willingness-to-work. I was working 5:00 pm to 1:00 am, when the company announced its Christmas Party. The party was scheduled for the evening hours, and the day shift complained that the night shift was getting an unfair freebie because we could go to the Christmas Party instead of working. So the company made it mandatory for the night shift to go to the Christmas Party, or you got docked for that evening, plus we had to work another shift over the weekend or we wouldn't get paid for the holidays. I guess that made the day shift happy. They shut up about it, anyway.
I complained about it. I even talked to one of the bosses about it, and my co-workers shunned me for that. You're not supposed to make waves.
Since then, I've read quite a bit of history and no longer despise labor unions. They were established for a reason -- because labor was being royally screwed on wages, work weeks were about 60 hours, and many people worked in genuinely horrendous and dangerous conditions. Labor unions truly have provided benefits for American workers. It would be nice if they were optional, though, as they are in right-to-work states.
But I don't want to focus on the positive-negative debate over unions. I only use my experience with them as an example of what life is like under socialism.
In the USA, we all have equal rights under law, but that doesn't mean one size fits all. We're not all equal in our interests, talents, capabilities, or dedication to our jobs. I've always admired people who so love data entry or packing products that they cheerfully devote all their energy to it, and devise ways of doing it better, and stick with it year after year. I get bored, and when I get bored, I get sloppy. I shouldn't be paid as much as them for that kind of work. They actually deserve more than me because they're better employees.
On the other hand, being an independent contractor, I take enormous risks with my income -- and with no safety net. (And end up paying 15+% in Social Security taxes, to boot.) It's not tremendously rewarding financially, but I get bored easily. I'm willing to dork around writing blogs and such for no remuneration as long as I'm my own boss, rather than putting nose to grindstone in someone else's office with the promise of healthcare benefits and a 401(k). It's my choice. I'm happy to live with it. But I wouldn't recommend it for the faint of heart, or for people with young children.
I'm so very appreciative that I have that choice.
You don't get that choice with socialism. You get what everyone else gets. The government -- or whoever runs things -- finds a medium and lops off the top and the bottom. Sure, you could put in extra effort, but you get paid the same as those who don't. The government will pay you what it believes you need. Your personal opinion doesn't matter.
Is this "equality"? Only one twisted version of it.
And the upshot is, there's no incentive to excel. I can tell you from my experience at union shops -- there's no reason to do any more than you have to. Very often people end up doing less, fooling around, wasting time, because, why work? You get paid the same anyway.
The other aspect is the democracy of it. The whole society gets to vote to determine what you want and need -- or at least your congressmen do, or whatever kind of "czar" they appoint to make the decisions. Give the government the power to make those decisions, and you can't decide it for yourself anymore. And it's pretty likely that others will make damn sure that you're not getting any more of anything than they're getting. Because we're all equal, right? We're all the same.
Socialists look at the economy like it's a pie. To them, "fairness" is cutting the pie into equal slices and passing these out. The trouble is, for everyone to get an equal slice, each slice gets tinier and tinier and tinier.... Pretty soon you run out of pie, and people begin to turn on each other.
England tried socialism for a time. Eventually every couple weeks the nation suffered a major labor strike of some kind -- the pie was so damn small, and everyone believed they should have more -- so it was just about impossible to get on with everyday life. Look it up. It happened. Margaret Thatcher is famous for putting an end to it.
Now take that same pie and give it to capitalists, and their solution is to make it bigger. They'll take a bigger slice for themselves because maybe they worked a little harder in the kitchen, but there's also more for everyone else. Work a little harder yourself, and you get more. And you can even bake your own pie.
Of course, with socialism, there's the problem of enforcement, too. Suppose you have a swimming pool in your back yard and you're the only person on the block who does. Well, that's not fair. You'll have to lose the pool or "donate" it to the neighborhood for public use. You don't want to give up your private afternoons sunning beside the pool? Well, we'll have to call the police, then. I mean, who died and made you king over the swimming pool?
We're all different. We have different tastes, different interests, different talents and capabilities. Socialism pretends we're little cookie-cutter products, interchangeable. What's "good" for one is "good" for the other.
If you don't comply, you'll probably get a couple gentle warnings or maybe be ostracized. But if you create a big enough problem, and other people are tempted to rebel by your example, I guarantee, you'll end up in jail. Or some kind of Siberia.
This isn't speculation. This is how socialism operates. This is how it has worked (or not worked) everywhere it's been put into practice.
You like that? Make you wonder about the motives of the folks who promote it? Personally, I can't figure out why anyone wants this kind of system -- except so that maybe they could slack off and still get paid for it.
Or unless they regard themselves as victims, ignorant, stupid, incompetent, unable to make their own decisions, and looking for someone else to take care of them. (See my blog, Thus Oprah hath made victims of us all.)
Or unless they believe that they themselves will be running things, and they'll get to decide what's "good" for everyone. It's different when you're the boss, even under socialism. (See my blog on Power.)
Don't believe it? Check it out. Look especially at European history in the 20th century. Plenty of examples. Many are still ongoing.
We used to take products off the end of the assembly line, count them, and pack them. I found out my life became a whole lot easier if I went down to the plant floor two or three minutes early and set up a couple packing cartons.
The union stewardess, who was a very nice lady, chewed my ass out over that one. Couldn't I read a clock? Who the hell did I think I was impressing? I wasn't getting paid anymore for doing that, and if I did it, everyone would have to do it. So instead I had to work twice as hard for the whole eight hours and never get caught up.
Another woman on our shift was from Poland. You'd think the Poles would know something about labor unions, wouldn't you? Poland was still communist then, and maybe she believed she'd have more freedom in the USA. This lady was just a manic worker. One of the most productive on our shift. She said staying busy kept her weight down. She knit a sweater on her breaks in a couple days. I mean, she was compulsive.
On the really fast production lines, two people worked at the same work station -- one to take the stuff off the line, count it, and pack it, and a second one to form the cartons. Then the company got these machines for sticking the product into plastic bags instead of corrugated cartons.
This Polish woman was one of the first people in the plant to work with the plastic bagger. She'd pull stuff off the line, count it, and bag it, all by herself. No need for a second carton-maker.
Well, I worked on the other end of the line, but after a couple weeks or so, even I noticed that this Polish lady was being ostracized. No one would talk to her. Anyone who did talk to her -- even to change a dollar for her for the pop machine -- got an elbow nudge or dirty looks from everyone else. I didn't know what this woman had done. The union stewardess explained: She was "taking jobs away."
OK.
Another thing about being in this union. Didn't matter if you were good or bad at your job. We all got paid the same, with raises on the same schedule, based entirely on seniority. Same thing with overtime -- all based on seniority. One co-worker (not the Polish woman) was about six months from retirement, had worked at the plant for 20 years or so, and she was always asked first, by the union stewardess, if she wanted to put in a couple extra hours, at time-and-a-half pay, of course. Unless the place was crammed to the rafters with orders, you didn't get any overtime until the "oldies" had gotten theirs.
At another job I was in a different union, this time doing office work. Same old, same old -- seniority over skill and brains, and even willingness-to-work. I was working 5:00 pm to 1:00 am, when the company announced its Christmas Party. The party was scheduled for the evening hours, and the day shift complained that the night shift was getting an unfair freebie because we could go to the Christmas Party instead of working. So the company made it mandatory for the night shift to go to the Christmas Party, or you got docked for that evening, plus we had to work another shift over the weekend or we wouldn't get paid for the holidays. I guess that made the day shift happy. They shut up about it, anyway.
I complained about it. I even talked to one of the bosses about it, and my co-workers shunned me for that. You're not supposed to make waves.
Since then, I've read quite a bit of history and no longer despise labor unions. They were established for a reason -- because labor was being royally screwed on wages, work weeks were about 60 hours, and many people worked in genuinely horrendous and dangerous conditions. Labor unions truly have provided benefits for American workers. It would be nice if they were optional, though, as they are in right-to-work states.
But I don't want to focus on the positive-negative debate over unions. I only use my experience with them as an example of what life is like under socialism.
In the USA, we all have equal rights under law, but that doesn't mean one size fits all. We're not all equal in our interests, talents, capabilities, or dedication to our jobs. I've always admired people who so love data entry or packing products that they cheerfully devote all their energy to it, and devise ways of doing it better, and stick with it year after year. I get bored, and when I get bored, I get sloppy. I shouldn't be paid as much as them for that kind of work. They actually deserve more than me because they're better employees.
On the other hand, being an independent contractor, I take enormous risks with my income -- and with no safety net. (And end up paying 15+% in Social Security taxes, to boot.) It's not tremendously rewarding financially, but I get bored easily. I'm willing to dork around writing blogs and such for no remuneration as long as I'm my own boss, rather than putting nose to grindstone in someone else's office with the promise of healthcare benefits and a 401(k). It's my choice. I'm happy to live with it. But I wouldn't recommend it for the faint of heart, or for people with young children.
I'm so very appreciative that I have that choice.
You don't get that choice with socialism. You get what everyone else gets. The government -- or whoever runs things -- finds a medium and lops off the top and the bottom. Sure, you could put in extra effort, but you get paid the same as those who don't. The government will pay you what it believes you need. Your personal opinion doesn't matter.
Is this "equality"? Only one twisted version of it.
And the upshot is, there's no incentive to excel. I can tell you from my experience at union shops -- there's no reason to do any more than you have to. Very often people end up doing less, fooling around, wasting time, because, why work? You get paid the same anyway.
The other aspect is the democracy of it. The whole society gets to vote to determine what you want and need -- or at least your congressmen do, or whatever kind of "czar" they appoint to make the decisions. Give the government the power to make those decisions, and you can't decide it for yourself anymore. And it's pretty likely that others will make damn sure that you're not getting any more of anything than they're getting. Because we're all equal, right? We're all the same.
Socialists look at the economy like it's a pie. To them, "fairness" is cutting the pie into equal slices and passing these out. The trouble is, for everyone to get an equal slice, each slice gets tinier and tinier and tinier.... Pretty soon you run out of pie, and people begin to turn on each other.
England tried socialism for a time. Eventually every couple weeks the nation suffered a major labor strike of some kind -- the pie was so damn small, and everyone believed they should have more -- so it was just about impossible to get on with everyday life. Look it up. It happened. Margaret Thatcher is famous for putting an end to it.
Now take that same pie and give it to capitalists, and their solution is to make it bigger. They'll take a bigger slice for themselves because maybe they worked a little harder in the kitchen, but there's also more for everyone else. Work a little harder yourself, and you get more. And you can even bake your own pie.
Of course, with socialism, there's the problem of enforcement, too. Suppose you have a swimming pool in your back yard and you're the only person on the block who does. Well, that's not fair. You'll have to lose the pool or "donate" it to the neighborhood for public use. You don't want to give up your private afternoons sunning beside the pool? Well, we'll have to call the police, then. I mean, who died and made you king over the swimming pool?
We're all different. We have different tastes, different interests, different talents and capabilities. Socialism pretends we're little cookie-cutter products, interchangeable. What's "good" for one is "good" for the other.
If you don't comply, you'll probably get a couple gentle warnings or maybe be ostracized. But if you create a big enough problem, and other people are tempted to rebel by your example, I guarantee, you'll end up in jail. Or some kind of Siberia.
This isn't speculation. This is how socialism operates. This is how it has worked (or not worked) everywhere it's been put into practice.
You like that? Make you wonder about the motives of the folks who promote it? Personally, I can't figure out why anyone wants this kind of system -- except so that maybe they could slack off and still get paid for it.
Or unless they regard themselves as victims, ignorant, stupid, incompetent, unable to make their own decisions, and looking for someone else to take care of them. (See my blog, Thus Oprah hath made victims of us all.)
Or unless they believe that they themselves will be running things, and they'll get to decide what's "good" for everyone. It's different when you're the boss, even under socialism. (See my blog on Power.)
Don't believe it? Check it out. Look especially at European history in the 20th century. Plenty of examples. Many are still ongoing.
Friday, February 20, 2009
What's wrong with socialism? Part I
I had the opportunity to see a detailed list of the spending items in the so-called "Stimulus Bill." I'd paste it in here, but it may be copyrighted and heaven knows, I don't want to get sued. Try this: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fc_c=1364098x2834949x65837977&FuseAction=RightNow.Home&ContentRecord_id=712c5899-802a-23ad-46dc-3d0e032c78cc
Forget about pork for the moment, all the spending -- except for the tax cuts, which can be counted as "spending" -- goes to government and government-sponsored programs. Well. OK. Better that than the government seizing control of the banks, right? Or doing other things to fiddle with privately-owned companies.
The thing is, though... the government is not a cash-generating operation. That is, the government can and will hire private companies to help build roads (to nowhere?), a monorail between L.A. and Vegas -- as a matter of fact LOTS of stuff in Nevada, which just happens to be the home state of the Senate Majority Leader.
Anyway, as these government projects are implemented, they will provide jobs for private contractors and their employees, and no doubt federal, state and local governments will hire more people onto their payrolls to manage these projects. But when these projects are done, there's no more income from them, except perhaps usage fees that might fund their maintenance... or not.
How is this different from private enterprise? A private commercial company builds an operation that offers a product or service and generates sales, income, and profits. More often than not, a large percentage of the income and profits are re-invested in the company to fund its growth. Privately-owned companies are little profit- and job-creating engines. That's just how they behave all on their own, without any goading or direction from the feds or anyone else.
The government and government-owned operations consume money, but they don't make more of it, except via the printing press. Generating a profit is not what the government is supposed to do.
So, in regard to the "Stimulus" bill, looks like some people will have jobs for as long as that money lasts, then.... it's gone.
The money is also gone from the pockets of all US citizens, whose kids and grandkids eventually will have to fund "Stimulus" spending. This can take the form of tax increases, which are extremely unpopular and probably won't be done by a congress that hopes to be re-elected 18 months from now. So, the answer will more than likely be inflation.
But inflation is something your congressman can just shrug his shoulders and tell his constituents, "Heck I don't know where this is coming from. Perhaps we should spend more money to fix it." But you and me will pay for it.
I remember the "stagflation" of the 1970s.... Bacon was about $ .89 per lb. on one shopping trip. Got my next paycheck two weeks later, went to the store, and bacon was $1.69 per lb. Everything was like that -- prices up across the board and rising a lot faster than my salary was. The thing is, you didn't get any more value for the money you spent; you got a lot less. In Germany between the World Wars, people were wheeling paper currency around in wheelbarrows, and one whole load just might be enough to pay for a loaf of bread... today. Tomorrow, two wheelbarrows. The central bank had people working the printing presses 24/7 and couldn't keep up with demand. And the notes weren't worth anything.
This whole economic collapse is the result of government-inspired inflation in the housing and banking industries. After 9/11 and ever since then, the Federal Reserve steadily lowered prime interest lending rates to stimulate the economy. This actually works, if it's used wisely. However, it wasn't used wisely.
With interest rates lower than they had been in decades, housing developers and banks went beserk lending. They couldn't hand out the money fast enough. They made many high-risk loans that they wouldn't have made otherwise. A lot of these rather shaky-looking mortgages ended up in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools. These organizations bundle mortages into something like a mutual fund, then they sell shares of the fund to investors to spread the risk around. It's likely the loans will lose money, but if the risk is shared by thousands of investors, each individual only loses a little, and maybe they can use it as a tax write-off. And if more of the mortgages are paid than go into default, everyone wins.
Well, the housing bubble collapsed. Too much money chasing too few goods first inflated prices, and then money pumped into new construction generated much more supply than demand. Wanna buy a house? I hear you can get them for a song in Arizona and Nevada. Personal credit (charge cards) went out to people who really weren't very good risks and they defaulted, too, which was probably pretty predictable from the gitgo.
I find it funny when people claim it was private enterprise or capitalism that created this mess. It was private enterprise encouraged and underwritten by the federal government that created this mess. No capitalist in his right mind and using his own money would go so hog-wild, extending credit and mortages to the unemployed and unemployable unless Uncle Sam was behind him saying, "Go ahead. I've got your back. We want everyone to own their own home."
Here's a column from Thomas Sowell that explains this further:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/upside-down-economics.html
So now I'm sitting here watching my IRAs evaporate as the Dow drops like a rock -- or really, more like a feather, just sort of gently but steadily wafting ever-downward. Do I keep the money in the stock accounts -- even after they've lost something like 30% -- or do I cash out, take the penalties, and stuff all the cash into my mattress? And will cash be worth anything next year this time?
The "Stimulus" Bill is pumping more than $1 trillion into the economy, deliberately inflating it. Hey, isn't that exactly what they did with the housing market? And look at the results.
One thing's for sure: the federal government does not know its ass from its elbow in the field of economics. Do you really want the fed to "fix" things? Do you really believe they can?
Or are you just an average citizen, confused, worried, and ultimately screwed because you just don't have a handle on what's going on, and have bought the line that the federal government is all-seeing, all-powerful and is here to help you?
But my biggest question is: Why the hell would a politican or anyone else for that matter, support this stuff? It's charitable to say they're simply ignorant. Very charitable. Let's just say, they are not very Enlightened.
Forget about pork for the moment, all the spending -- except for the tax cuts, which can be counted as "spending" -- goes to government and government-sponsored programs. Well. OK. Better that than the government seizing control of the banks, right? Or doing other things to fiddle with privately-owned companies.
The thing is, though... the government is not a cash-generating operation. That is, the government can and will hire private companies to help build roads (to nowhere?), a monorail between L.A. and Vegas -- as a matter of fact LOTS of stuff in Nevada, which just happens to be the home state of the Senate Majority Leader.
Anyway, as these government projects are implemented, they will provide jobs for private contractors and their employees, and no doubt federal, state and local governments will hire more people onto their payrolls to manage these projects. But when these projects are done, there's no more income from them, except perhaps usage fees that might fund their maintenance... or not.
How is this different from private enterprise? A private commercial company builds an operation that offers a product or service and generates sales, income, and profits. More often than not, a large percentage of the income and profits are re-invested in the company to fund its growth. Privately-owned companies are little profit- and job-creating engines. That's just how they behave all on their own, without any goading or direction from the feds or anyone else.
The government and government-owned operations consume money, but they don't make more of it, except via the printing press. Generating a profit is not what the government is supposed to do.
So, in regard to the "Stimulus" bill, looks like some people will have jobs for as long as that money lasts, then.... it's gone.
The money is also gone from the pockets of all US citizens, whose kids and grandkids eventually will have to fund "Stimulus" spending. This can take the form of tax increases, which are extremely unpopular and probably won't be done by a congress that hopes to be re-elected 18 months from now. So, the answer will more than likely be inflation.
But inflation is something your congressman can just shrug his shoulders and tell his constituents, "Heck I don't know where this is coming from. Perhaps we should spend more money to fix it." But you and me will pay for it.
I remember the "stagflation" of the 1970s.... Bacon was about $ .89 per lb. on one shopping trip. Got my next paycheck two weeks later, went to the store, and bacon was $1.69 per lb. Everything was like that -- prices up across the board and rising a lot faster than my salary was. The thing is, you didn't get any more value for the money you spent; you got a lot less. In Germany between the World Wars, people were wheeling paper currency around in wheelbarrows, and one whole load just might be enough to pay for a loaf of bread... today. Tomorrow, two wheelbarrows. The central bank had people working the printing presses 24/7 and couldn't keep up with demand. And the notes weren't worth anything.
This whole economic collapse is the result of government-inspired inflation in the housing and banking industries. After 9/11 and ever since then, the Federal Reserve steadily lowered prime interest lending rates to stimulate the economy. This actually works, if it's used wisely. However, it wasn't used wisely.
With interest rates lower than they had been in decades, housing developers and banks went beserk lending. They couldn't hand out the money fast enough. They made many high-risk loans that they wouldn't have made otherwise. A lot of these rather shaky-looking mortgages ended up in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools. These organizations bundle mortages into something like a mutual fund, then they sell shares of the fund to investors to spread the risk around. It's likely the loans will lose money, but if the risk is shared by thousands of investors, each individual only loses a little, and maybe they can use it as a tax write-off. And if more of the mortgages are paid than go into default, everyone wins.
Well, the housing bubble collapsed. Too much money chasing too few goods first inflated prices, and then money pumped into new construction generated much more supply than demand. Wanna buy a house? I hear you can get them for a song in Arizona and Nevada. Personal credit (charge cards) went out to people who really weren't very good risks and they defaulted, too, which was probably pretty predictable from the gitgo.
I find it funny when people claim it was private enterprise or capitalism that created this mess. It was private enterprise encouraged and underwritten by the federal government that created this mess. No capitalist in his right mind and using his own money would go so hog-wild, extending credit and mortages to the unemployed and unemployable unless Uncle Sam was behind him saying, "Go ahead. I've got your back. We want everyone to own their own home."
Here's a column from Thomas Sowell that explains this further:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/upside-down-economics.html
So now I'm sitting here watching my IRAs evaporate as the Dow drops like a rock -- or really, more like a feather, just sort of gently but steadily wafting ever-downward. Do I keep the money in the stock accounts -- even after they've lost something like 30% -- or do I cash out, take the penalties, and stuff all the cash into my mattress? And will cash be worth anything next year this time?
The "Stimulus" Bill is pumping more than $1 trillion into the economy, deliberately inflating it. Hey, isn't that exactly what they did with the housing market? And look at the results.
One thing's for sure: the federal government does not know its ass from its elbow in the field of economics. Do you really want the fed to "fix" things? Do you really believe they can?
Or are you just an average citizen, confused, worried, and ultimately screwed because you just don't have a handle on what's going on, and have bought the line that the federal government is all-seeing, all-powerful and is here to help you?
But my biggest question is: Why the hell would a politican or anyone else for that matter, support this stuff? It's charitable to say they're simply ignorant. Very charitable. Let's just say, they are not very Enlightened.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thus Oprah hath made victims of us all
A few years ago I was watching an Oprah show about dysfunctional families. What else? Anyway, it occurred to me: What would a "functional" family look like? I don't know.
I've seen families with drunken moms or dads, or drunken moms and dads, weird uncles who try to cop a feel from the neighbor kids, and many families with a brother or aunt who no one talks about or has heard from for several years. I've known families with kleptomanic kids, defiant and self-destructive kids, kids who throw raging temper tantrums, grandads who are registered child molestors, and one friend of mine had something like three suicides among five siblings.
I've never known a perfect family. Never. I think the whole concept came out of "Father Knows Best." I don't think it exists in real life. Come to think of it, I've never known a perfect person.
So? I wouldn't care or even think much about this, except that the dysfunctional family is something that apparently has made us all victims of... what, exactly? Reality? Are Oprah and her viewers really shocked to learn that nearly everyone has been raised with skeletons in the closet, or with a recollection of that one awful morning when Uncle Pete passed out drunk on the front lawn and the whole neighborhood saw him? I suppose you'll have to pay for that with a couple decades of therapy.
The thing is, Oprah has made it fashionable to be a victim. The whole theme of that show seems to be, "Show us your sores." A friend of mine was invited to be a guest on Oprah to comment about something or another, but never got on the air because an earlier guest started crying and they wanted to keep the camera focused on her. We made a joke of it at the time: All you have to do to get on Oprah is cry.
A long, long time ago -- I hardly remember it and I'm pretty old -- my mom used to watch this show called "Queen for a Day." Three or four contestants would come on. Each got a few minutes to talk about how her husband was out of work and they were facing eviction, or she didn't have money to keep her kids in shoes, or maybe Grandma had passed and Grandpa had no place else to go and was driving everyone nuts. Things like that. Usually, all the contestants ended up in tears.
At the end of the show, I believe the studio audience would pick a winner by applause, just like a talent show. Models would rush up and wrap her in a ratty-looking velvet robe, put a crown on her head, and fill her arms with a couple dozen roses. On top of that, she got a washer and dryer or a maybe new refrigerator.
She was rewarded for being pathetic, for being helpless, trapped, unable or maybe just unwilling to help herself, and for being a really effective whiner.
The US government also rewards victimization. You can get food stamps at least, maybe SSI disability pay, or a credit on your income tax for one thing or another. Of course the big winners are the neglected minorities (including women, who are not a minority), that stand to land government contracts for various products and services -- anything from printing jobs to building highways -- just for being Native-American, African-American, Hispanic, maybe a South Sea Islander or an Australian Aborigine. Who knows? That's another funny thing about America: Almost everyone is a member of one or another minority group. So maybe all this is just a moot point.
About 30 years ago this guy applied for medical school in California. It's tough to get into medical school. Just not enough open slots at US universities. This guy apparently made the grade in terms of his smarts, but he was denied entrance to the school when the last open slot went to an African-American under Affirmative Action.
So the guy sued. He was Jewish, so he sued on the basis of Jews having a history of misery and persecution equal to or greater than anything African-Americans had suffered through the ages. The trial must have been something of a contest of grief and sorrow, the "winner" being the minority group with the bloodiest wounds, the ugliest and most permanent scars, etc etc.
I can imagine the judge throwing up his hands and bellowing to both defense and prosecution, "Quit your damn whining, willya?"
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was declared moot. That is, there was no winner. The Supremes couldn't find any useful way to measure and compare the damage. And it took such a long time to wind its way through the state courts, the courts of appeal, and then the Supreme Court, that the guy who filed the case graduated from another medical school before he got the final verdict.
Here's some news: We've all felt pain. Some more than others. Should we be rewarded for that? "Look, I'm a total basket case. I have 14 kids and want more, even though I can't take care of them. Obviously, I'm barking mad. You have to help me!" Or like a Saturday Night Live take-off on the "Lethal Weapon" movies: "Look, I've got dynamite strapped to my waist and I'll blow myself up if you don't give me what I want."
So... blow yourself up. At least that will end your misery.
I think most self-proclaimed victims are just looking for an excuse to dump their lives on someone else or on the government. They don't want to be accountable for what they do. Like drunks or drug addicts. "Hey, I'm sorry I killed your family, but I was staggering drunk when I got into that car. The bartender should have called me a cab." How 'bout maybe you should curb your drinking or leave your car at home?
In college I had a class called "Images of Women in Art," which I took to get an art credit. We had two instructors, both rabid feminists. These women taught mainly that women had been the victims of men through the ages -- and they had the images to prove it. Therefore we're emotionally crippled, have been rendered helpless, and we should all get some kind of an income from the state. (I suppose so that we won't have to miss our soap operas.)
Trade Big Daddy for Big Government. Didn't make any sense to me.
Anyways, I'm bloody sick of these kind of victims. I have considerable compassion for people who are unquestionably disabled (oh, sorry, I guess that should be "differently-abled"), who really and truly can't take care of themselves. I'm willing to help them, and usually they're more than willing to prove how much they can actually do independently.
But I'm goddamn sick of enabling the whiners. A friend of mine observed once, "Isn't it funny how the anorexics always can afford to buy food?" Maybe if they had to make a living their days would be filled to the brim with more positive thoughts and they wouldn't worry so much about if their butts look fat.
I've seen families with drunken moms or dads, or drunken moms and dads, weird uncles who try to cop a feel from the neighbor kids, and many families with a brother or aunt who no one talks about or has heard from for several years. I've known families with kleptomanic kids, defiant and self-destructive kids, kids who throw raging temper tantrums, grandads who are registered child molestors, and one friend of mine had something like three suicides among five siblings.
I've never known a perfect family. Never. I think the whole concept came out of "Father Knows Best." I don't think it exists in real life. Come to think of it, I've never known a perfect person.
So? I wouldn't care or even think much about this, except that the dysfunctional family is something that apparently has made us all victims of... what, exactly? Reality? Are Oprah and her viewers really shocked to learn that nearly everyone has been raised with skeletons in the closet, or with a recollection of that one awful morning when Uncle Pete passed out drunk on the front lawn and the whole neighborhood saw him? I suppose you'll have to pay for that with a couple decades of therapy.
The thing is, Oprah has made it fashionable to be a victim. The whole theme of that show seems to be, "Show us your sores." A friend of mine was invited to be a guest on Oprah to comment about something or another, but never got on the air because an earlier guest started crying and they wanted to keep the camera focused on her. We made a joke of it at the time: All you have to do to get on Oprah is cry.
A long, long time ago -- I hardly remember it and I'm pretty old -- my mom used to watch this show called "Queen for a Day." Three or four contestants would come on. Each got a few minutes to talk about how her husband was out of work and they were facing eviction, or she didn't have money to keep her kids in shoes, or maybe Grandma had passed and Grandpa had no place else to go and was driving everyone nuts. Things like that. Usually, all the contestants ended up in tears.
At the end of the show, I believe the studio audience would pick a winner by applause, just like a talent show. Models would rush up and wrap her in a ratty-looking velvet robe, put a crown on her head, and fill her arms with a couple dozen roses. On top of that, she got a washer and dryer or a maybe new refrigerator.
She was rewarded for being pathetic, for being helpless, trapped, unable or maybe just unwilling to help herself, and for being a really effective whiner.
The US government also rewards victimization. You can get food stamps at least, maybe SSI disability pay, or a credit on your income tax for one thing or another. Of course the big winners are the neglected minorities (including women, who are not a minority), that stand to land government contracts for various products and services -- anything from printing jobs to building highways -- just for being Native-American, African-American, Hispanic, maybe a South Sea Islander or an Australian Aborigine. Who knows? That's another funny thing about America: Almost everyone is a member of one or another minority group. So maybe all this is just a moot point.
About 30 years ago this guy applied for medical school in California. It's tough to get into medical school. Just not enough open slots at US universities. This guy apparently made the grade in terms of his smarts, but he was denied entrance to the school when the last open slot went to an African-American under Affirmative Action.
So the guy sued. He was Jewish, so he sued on the basis of Jews having a history of misery and persecution equal to or greater than anything African-Americans had suffered through the ages. The trial must have been something of a contest of grief and sorrow, the "winner" being the minority group with the bloodiest wounds, the ugliest and most permanent scars, etc etc.
I can imagine the judge throwing up his hands and bellowing to both defense and prosecution, "Quit your damn whining, willya?"
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was declared moot. That is, there was no winner. The Supremes couldn't find any useful way to measure and compare the damage. And it took such a long time to wind its way through the state courts, the courts of appeal, and then the Supreme Court, that the guy who filed the case graduated from another medical school before he got the final verdict.
Here's some news: We've all felt pain. Some more than others. Should we be rewarded for that? "Look, I'm a total basket case. I have 14 kids and want more, even though I can't take care of them. Obviously, I'm barking mad. You have to help me!" Or like a Saturday Night Live take-off on the "Lethal Weapon" movies: "Look, I've got dynamite strapped to my waist and I'll blow myself up if you don't give me what I want."
So... blow yourself up. At least that will end your misery.
I think most self-proclaimed victims are just looking for an excuse to dump their lives on someone else or on the government. They don't want to be accountable for what they do. Like drunks or drug addicts. "Hey, I'm sorry I killed your family, but I was staggering drunk when I got into that car. The bartender should have called me a cab." How 'bout maybe you should curb your drinking or leave your car at home?
In college I had a class called "Images of Women in Art," which I took to get an art credit. We had two instructors, both rabid feminists. These women taught mainly that women had been the victims of men through the ages -- and they had the images to prove it. Therefore we're emotionally crippled, have been rendered helpless, and we should all get some kind of an income from the state. (I suppose so that we won't have to miss our soap operas.)
Trade Big Daddy for Big Government. Didn't make any sense to me.
Anyways, I'm bloody sick of these kind of victims. I have considerable compassion for people who are unquestionably disabled (oh, sorry, I guess that should be "differently-abled"), who really and truly can't take care of themselves. I'm willing to help them, and usually they're more than willing to prove how much they can actually do independently.
But I'm goddamn sick of enabling the whiners. A friend of mine observed once, "Isn't it funny how the anorexics always can afford to buy food?" Maybe if they had to make a living their days would be filled to the brim with more positive thoughts and they wouldn't worry so much about if their butts look fat.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Power
Power is interesting. On the idiot daytime talk shows, everyone rambles on about being "empowered." What the hell does that mean? If I get a nose job, does that do it? If the government agrees to fund my project, is that empowering? Why? Because it "allows" me to act? Why do I need all this crap in order to act on my own behalf? Why do I need someone else's permission?
Look at any master-slave relationship. And it really doesn't have to be that drastic. Think about you and your boss, or you and your professor, or you and a cop. These authority figures are really just people. Their authority doesn't turn them into something else or give them god-like supernatural powers. They have power over you because you give it to them. You agree to be the slave in the master-slave relationship.
These relationships can be based on recognizing another person's superiority -- "He knows more than I do." Or on a person's experience -- You may want to let Grandma tell you how to cook the turkey. Or because of socialization -- We learn to respect the law and law enforcement officers. (And besides that, they're armed.)
I've known some very messed up women in abusive relationships. Got an email from one that said, "Bob's at work, so now you don't have to be afraid to talk."
How odd that she was projecting her neurosis onto me. I was never afraid to talk. Bob understood, too, that if he raised a hand to me, or called me the names he called his wife, he'd probably get back a whole lot worse than he was giving. Bob left me alone pretty much. The difference between me and his wife was that she gave him power over her and I didn't.
What's the pay-off with this kind of arrangement? Bob paid the bills... sometimes, when he didn't drink or gamble away his paycheck. I suppose you could say Bob gave this woman a family and a home, although most nice guys are fertile, too, and personally, I'd rather live alone in a tent down by the river. Bob also had her convinced that she was stupid, incompetent, helpless without him, and had no capacity to make her own decisions. She must have believed this about herself to make herself Bob's willing slave.
In modern politics, it's the liberals mostly who seize the master role, regarding the general population as being rather stupid, unable to manage our own affairs, and with no capacity to make our own decisions. Therefore, they nobly assume the burden of "taking care" of us all, deciding "the public good."
(I once asked a friend, "Why the hell does Al Gore talk to us like we're all stupid and don't understand big words?" My friend said, "Well, that's how he sees us, isn't it?")
But the US was founded so that we could "live by our own lights" and each determine our own concept of "good." Religious freedom, freedom of speech and all that. That was the result of The Enlightenment.
Now Nancy Pelosi has decided that I need an ATV trail. Or need to build one. Or need to pay to build one. Wrong on all counts.
The state of New York was considering a bill to tax soda pop with sugar in it. It's for the citizens' own good, right? And maybe replaces some of the taxes they used to collect on tobacco, before wrecking that industry. But, hey, tobacco's bad for you. So are stairways, freeways, and lightning. What are they going to do about those? If you want, you could kill yourself on Vitamin D.
If you listen to this trash, and agree to pay for it, and even volunteer to help -- you're a little bit like my friend with the abusive husband.
You give them the power. You make yourself the slave. The only other way to get power over others is through terror and force, a method that has worked frighteningly well through much of human history...until The Enlightenment.
Gee, I hope this was empowering.
Look at any master-slave relationship. And it really doesn't have to be that drastic. Think about you and your boss, or you and your professor, or you and a cop. These authority figures are really just people. Their authority doesn't turn them into something else or give them god-like supernatural powers. They have power over you because you give it to them. You agree to be the slave in the master-slave relationship.
These relationships can be based on recognizing another person's superiority -- "He knows more than I do." Or on a person's experience -- You may want to let Grandma tell you how to cook the turkey. Or because of socialization -- We learn to respect the law and law enforcement officers. (And besides that, they're armed.)
I've known some very messed up women in abusive relationships. Got an email from one that said, "Bob's at work, so now you don't have to be afraid to talk."
How odd that she was projecting her neurosis onto me. I was never afraid to talk. Bob understood, too, that if he raised a hand to me, or called me the names he called his wife, he'd probably get back a whole lot worse than he was giving. Bob left me alone pretty much. The difference between me and his wife was that she gave him power over her and I didn't.
What's the pay-off with this kind of arrangement? Bob paid the bills... sometimes, when he didn't drink or gamble away his paycheck. I suppose you could say Bob gave this woman a family and a home, although most nice guys are fertile, too, and personally, I'd rather live alone in a tent down by the river. Bob also had her convinced that she was stupid, incompetent, helpless without him, and had no capacity to make her own decisions. She must have believed this about herself to make herself Bob's willing slave.
In modern politics, it's the liberals mostly who seize the master role, regarding the general population as being rather stupid, unable to manage our own affairs, and with no capacity to make our own decisions. Therefore, they nobly assume the burden of "taking care" of us all, deciding "the public good."
(I once asked a friend, "Why the hell does Al Gore talk to us like we're all stupid and don't understand big words?" My friend said, "Well, that's how he sees us, isn't it?")
But the US was founded so that we could "live by our own lights" and each determine our own concept of "good." Religious freedom, freedom of speech and all that. That was the result of The Enlightenment.
Now Nancy Pelosi has decided that I need an ATV trail. Or need to build one. Or need to pay to build one. Wrong on all counts.
The state of New York was considering a bill to tax soda pop with sugar in it. It's for the citizens' own good, right? And maybe replaces some of the taxes they used to collect on tobacco, before wrecking that industry. But, hey, tobacco's bad for you. So are stairways, freeways, and lightning. What are they going to do about those? If you want, you could kill yourself on Vitamin D.
If you listen to this trash, and agree to pay for it, and even volunteer to help -- you're a little bit like my friend with the abusive husband.
You give them the power. You make yourself the slave. The only other way to get power over others is through terror and force, a method that has worked frighteningly well through much of human history...until The Enlightenment.
Gee, I hope this was empowering.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Enlightenment
A few interesting things happened in the 1700s in Europe, chief among them an historic era called The Enlightenment.As the name suggests, the period was marked by a lot of new and revolutionary thought, like science based on actual observation rather than dreaming and speculation. Eventually, this translated into revolutionary activity: both the American and the French Revolutions took place near the end of the century. Both were the result of ideas promoted by people like Voltaire, John Locke, eventually Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
What was the big idea? That all people, simply by virtue of being human, had certain in-born capabilities, including the ability to think for themselves and make their own choices. These guys took it one step further to claim that since humans could do this, it was imperative that they do. In fact, they claimed that no one -- not kings, nor religious leaders, neighbors, nobility -- could deny human beings the "right" to make their own decisions. The whole hairy concept became cast in stone (or at least in parchment) in the Declaration of Independence.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who commented at the time, "We've given the world a republic, it they can keep it."
Can we keep it?
I'm seriously worried about that. My chief worry is that so few people seem to value individual rights and freedom anymore. They wanna be rich, or famous, or at least get on "American Idol." Or they want an absolute guarantee of job security, or income security, or free health care, or heaven only knows what else. And if individuals can't provide these things by and for themselves, the trendy thing nowadays to claim that it's the government's job to get it for them.
Freedom doesn't work that way. On those terms, freedom is not even a possibility.That's what I want to discuss here -- The End of Englightenment. The end of reason. Or more generally, the collapse of human civilization.
OK. Enough of this.
What was the big idea? That all people, simply by virtue of being human, had certain in-born capabilities, including the ability to think for themselves and make their own choices. These guys took it one step further to claim that since humans could do this, it was imperative that they do. In fact, they claimed that no one -- not kings, nor religious leaders, neighbors, nobility -- could deny human beings the "right" to make their own decisions. The whole hairy concept became cast in stone (or at least in parchment) in the Declaration of Independence.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who commented at the time, "We've given the world a republic, it they can keep it."
Can we keep it?
I'm seriously worried about that. My chief worry is that so few people seem to value individual rights and freedom anymore. They wanna be rich, or famous, or at least get on "American Idol." Or they want an absolute guarantee of job security, or income security, or free health care, or heaven only knows what else. And if individuals can't provide these things by and for themselves, the trendy thing nowadays to claim that it's the government's job to get it for them.
Freedom doesn't work that way. On those terms, freedom is not even a possibility.That's what I want to discuss here -- The End of Englightenment. The end of reason. Or more generally, the collapse of human civilization.
OK. Enough of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)