I just finished reading an article where the promotional arm of the Christmas Tree providers of America think they need a 15 cent tax on each Christmas Tree sold to raise money to promote the purchase of REAL Christmas trees. Seems like the sale of real trees is way down and the only way they think they can offset or reverse this trend is to get the government to set up this tax, which would fund the promotional effort. Really!
Want more Christmas Tree sales? Put "Christmas" back into what has become the "holiday" season. As the Secularists succeed in their agenda to do away with "Christ" and "Christmas" as celebrated (well, as USED to be celebrated) in the United States, fewer and fewer people are "into" the holiday except as a way of getting free stuff. Years ago, the week before Christmas was a time of family activity: going out and looking for just the right tree, setting it up, taking a full evening together to decorate it with all those reminders of people and years gone by...a time for reverence and remembrance. It was "magic." And for the majority of Americans, it is gone. Now many don't even bother with trees, much less lights. No more "family" time, no more reverence, nothing...just give me the gift...or gifts, ...or money...and then back to the ipod, internet, or ... to work. A tax to promote Christmas Trees???? Don't make me laugh.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Why allow the deficit?
Words, words, words...that is all you hear from politicians. I guess I should be pleased that at least they are mouthing ones that say what I consider to be the right thing...but is there, or will there be, actions that back those words up? These are politicians, after all...
As I child I was taught, and my life has confirmed, that there is a big difference between desirable expenses and essential expenses; that when money is short, desireable expenses go first and then, when things get really tight you have to prioritize the essentials, because some of those are going to have to be cut or eliminated too. Our government apparently never learned that lesson. And what is worse is that the American people have forgotten it.
There is not one family or one thinking individual that believes that you can ignore spending more than you take in and not have consequences...bad, very bad consequences to both you as an individual and to your family. Yet, we allow our government to perpetrate the myth that somehow the federal government can do it and there is no problem. Hello? Anyone waking up? Anyone in GOVERNMENT waking up? Words won't solve the overspending, we need to see our representatives ACT by NOT SPENDING.
For those under 50, set 70 as the age for maximum SS payments. For Medicare and Medicaid make citizenship a requirement for benefits. Go after the fraud in the medical industry. Eliminate the useless Department of Education: for every tax dollar only 32 cents comes back as a benefit, so without the taxes the local communities would have three times the money to use AS THEY SEE FIT. Cut defense spending...pull our troops back from Pakistan (they don't want us) and Afghanistan (they don't want us, and we can't smash Al Queda anyway) and promise if they act to effect the US we will vaporize them...let them decide if they want a future or not. Put our troops on our border with orders to kill drug smugglers...and let them do their job of protecting the U.S., not foreign countries...stop funding troops in Germany, South Korea and other places.
We aren't the world's Santa Claus and we AREN'T making friends around the world with our money...stop giving it to them.
Our Government and our President seems to have a God complex. They're wrong. Just take care of America and the American people and let the world be...they aren't stupid and they can take care of themselves.
As I child I was taught, and my life has confirmed, that there is a big difference between desirable expenses and essential expenses; that when money is short, desireable expenses go first and then, when things get really tight you have to prioritize the essentials, because some of those are going to have to be cut or eliminated too. Our government apparently never learned that lesson. And what is worse is that the American people have forgotten it.
There is not one family or one thinking individual that believes that you can ignore spending more than you take in and not have consequences...bad, very bad consequences to both you as an individual and to your family. Yet, we allow our government to perpetrate the myth that somehow the federal government can do it and there is no problem. Hello? Anyone waking up? Anyone in GOVERNMENT waking up? Words won't solve the overspending, we need to see our representatives ACT by NOT SPENDING.
For those under 50, set 70 as the age for maximum SS payments. For Medicare and Medicaid make citizenship a requirement for benefits. Go after the fraud in the medical industry. Eliminate the useless Department of Education: for every tax dollar only 32 cents comes back as a benefit, so without the taxes the local communities would have three times the money to use AS THEY SEE FIT. Cut defense spending...pull our troops back from Pakistan (they don't want us) and Afghanistan (they don't want us, and we can't smash Al Queda anyway) and promise if they act to effect the US we will vaporize them...let them decide if they want a future or not. Put our troops on our border with orders to kill drug smugglers...and let them do their job of protecting the U.S., not foreign countries...stop funding troops in Germany, South Korea and other places.
We aren't the world's Santa Claus and we AREN'T making friends around the world with our money...stop giving it to them.
Our Government and our President seems to have a God complex. They're wrong. Just take care of America and the American people and let the world be...they aren't stupid and they can take care of themselves.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
It really was the Government's fault...
Our current recession could not have begun without the bad policies, blindly and foolishly implemented, of the Federal Government. President Clinton and Democrat Leaders pushed, beginning in 1993, for more low income and minority home ownership. They passed the Community Reinvestment Act and gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the mission to facilitate low income and minority home ownership by requiring them to purchase what we refer to now as sub-prime loans.
Under Clinton Administration pressure, regulators had to come up with new lending rules, under which banks had to show that they had made a required number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and that they had come up with innovative or flexible ways to accomplish this. HUD pressed for new mortgage lending policies under the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy developed at Clinton's request. Among other things, it called for financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home and to make the payments.
First result: Homeownership during the Clinton Administration went up 5%( as a comparison, home ownership during the Bush Presidency went up 1%);
Second result: Sub-prime loans made to borrowers with bad credit records rose from 7.2% to nearly 19%.
Standards for other loans fell as well. Freddie and Fannie eagerly, as instructed by the Federal Government, bought all these loans.
Yes, of course the investment banks and wall street come up with a way of making these obviously bad investments look good by creating the device know as derivatives. Yes, they were both foolish and greedy. Yes, they acted like gamblers instead of bankers...but that is merely a matter of degree of risk, not really much more than admitting what has been true all along.
But here is the key...absent Barney Frank's committee and resulting House action coupled by action in the Senate honcho'd by Dodd, the opportunity for bad credit risks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Investment Banks and Wall Street to act badly would NOT have occurred. End of story.
Dodd is gone...Frank remains.
Under Clinton Administration pressure, regulators had to come up with new lending rules, under which banks had to show that they had made a required number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and that they had come up with innovative or flexible ways to accomplish this. HUD pressed for new mortgage lending policies under the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy developed at Clinton's request. Among other things, it called for financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home and to make the payments.
First result: Homeownership during the Clinton Administration went up 5%( as a comparison, home ownership during the Bush Presidency went up 1%);
Second result: Sub-prime loans made to borrowers with bad credit records rose from 7.2% to nearly 19%.
Standards for other loans fell as well. Freddie and Fannie eagerly, as instructed by the Federal Government, bought all these loans.
Yes, of course the investment banks and wall street come up with a way of making these obviously bad investments look good by creating the device know as derivatives. Yes, they were both foolish and greedy. Yes, they acted like gamblers instead of bankers...but that is merely a matter of degree of risk, not really much more than admitting what has been true all along.
But here is the key...absent Barney Frank's committee and resulting House action coupled by action in the Senate honcho'd by Dodd, the opportunity for bad credit risks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Investment Banks and Wall Street to act badly would NOT have occurred. End of story.
Dodd is gone...Frank remains.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Evangelical Atheists?
Read an interesting article recently where the author was declaring his contempt for evangelical atheists...sort of poking fun as well as annoyance at their actions which parallel some community-based religious activities. It started me thinking (always a danger)...
First, I must disagree with the use of the word, "evangelize", as it is specific to attempting to convert non- or un-believers to faith in the gospels. It has no logical application to his description of some atheists' actions; certainly they are doing just the contrary. The word that seems most appropriate is "proselytize." And Athiests, and believers in all faiths attempt that all the time.
There is a difference between "informing" and "proselytizing." If I am in a conversation with another and an act of mine is based on religious belief, I may explain that portion of my belief as an explanation of my act or actions. That is informing, and if the other individual asks more questions, my answers continue to be informative, not proselytizing.
On the other hand, if I or any other person injects or creates the subject of religion into a conversation and puts forth his or her religion as necessary for a good life and a successful "hereafter," if he or she tries to "convert" me (as evangelical Christians, Muslims, and proselytizing atheists do) then I do get annoyed. On the edge of unacceptability is the one time declaration of one's faith. I have known some who do that and then do not raise the subject again. I find that to be actually quite informative...about the person as well as their faith...even though they might have chosen a more appropriate time to broach the subject.
But...and here is the main point...it is not just atheists who are guilty of proselytizing...it is all religions. And, if you want to think broadly about it, the same goes for political ideologies, nutritional advocates (read: vegetarians, organic, etc.), and recyclists...and I am sure there are many others.
Proselytizing is annoying. And it often becomes a harassing fanaticism that is more than objectionable. Those who take part are to be avoided and ignored...not for their persons but for their attitude that they and only they are qualified to command all others in the path by whatever name. Some, like the Islamists, are to be feared and watched; others, like the vegetarians and food police, are to be defended against in the name of personal freedom; and atheists and religious groups are to be asked nicely to either go away, or excuses made to leave the group being assailed. But contempt is a word that carries an aura of personal distaste, and my annoyance is with behavior, not with judging the person.
First, I must disagree with the use of the word, "evangelize", as it is specific to attempting to convert non- or un-believers to faith in the gospels. It has no logical application to his description of some atheists' actions; certainly they are doing just the contrary. The word that seems most appropriate is "proselytize." And Athiests, and believers in all faiths attempt that all the time.
There is a difference between "informing" and "proselytizing." If I am in a conversation with another and an act of mine is based on religious belief, I may explain that portion of my belief as an explanation of my act or actions. That is informing, and if the other individual asks more questions, my answers continue to be informative, not proselytizing.
On the other hand, if I or any other person injects or creates the subject of religion into a conversation and puts forth his or her religion as necessary for a good life and a successful "hereafter," if he or she tries to "convert" me (as evangelical Christians, Muslims, and proselytizing atheists do) then I do get annoyed. On the edge of unacceptability is the one time declaration of one's faith. I have known some who do that and then do not raise the subject again. I find that to be actually quite informative...about the person as well as their faith...even though they might have chosen a more appropriate time to broach the subject.
But...and here is the main point...it is not just atheists who are guilty of proselytizing...it is all religions. And, if you want to think broadly about it, the same goes for political ideologies, nutritional advocates (read: vegetarians, organic, etc.), and recyclists...and I am sure there are many others.
Proselytizing is annoying. And it often becomes a harassing fanaticism that is more than objectionable. Those who take part are to be avoided and ignored...not for their persons but for their attitude that they and only they are qualified to command all others in the path by whatever name. Some, like the Islamists, are to be feared and watched; others, like the vegetarians and food police, are to be defended against in the name of personal freedom; and atheists and religious groups are to be asked nicely to either go away, or excuses made to leave the group being assailed. But contempt is a word that carries an aura of personal distaste, and my annoyance is with behavior, not with judging the person.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Danger to America is not Ideological...
Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
We have been proving the truth of that statement for almost 235 years now. Mr. Obama's ideal of government isn't to be faulted for it's ideology. That is immaterial. It is not the ideology of government that destroys us, it is it's totalitarian nature.
The nature of government is to control. It eats away at individual freedom, sometimes painfully but often inexorably quiet, taking a small freedom here, an insignificant one there until the individual is left only with the decision of whether to live or die...and even that disappears over time.
It is politically incorrect for the Left to acknowledge openly that they believe in such totalitarian control, preferring to quote the mantra of "the common good"...but ask them who is to define that term. Whether a one person dictatorship, or a dictatorship by committee or ideology or religion, or by any other name...the result is a totalitarian government that eliminates personal Freedoms. And those on the Right argue that small government is the answer....the same logic as jumbo shrimp, it is a logistical oxymoron. It is like trying to be just a little bit pregnant.
I must allow that I believe in a totalitarian government...as long as I was the Dictator, since I believe in the practice of benign neglect. But I lack the desire or the ego to want the job, and everyone else, whether in the form of one person or a group going by different titles, such as Senator or Congressman, is just totalitarian government no matter what it's title.
We allow our captors to focus our unhappiness on the strawment of ideology or religion or form of government, allowing them to continue the business of taking our freedoms and ruling us all.
We have been proving the truth of that statement for almost 235 years now. Mr. Obama's ideal of government isn't to be faulted for it's ideology. That is immaterial. It is not the ideology of government that destroys us, it is it's totalitarian nature.
The nature of government is to control. It eats away at individual freedom, sometimes painfully but often inexorably quiet, taking a small freedom here, an insignificant one there until the individual is left only with the decision of whether to live or die...and even that disappears over time.
It is politically incorrect for the Left to acknowledge openly that they believe in such totalitarian control, preferring to quote the mantra of "the common good"...but ask them who is to define that term. Whether a one person dictatorship, or a dictatorship by committee or ideology or religion, or by any other name...the result is a totalitarian government that eliminates personal Freedoms. And those on the Right argue that small government is the answer....the same logic as jumbo shrimp, it is a logistical oxymoron. It is like trying to be just a little bit pregnant.
I must allow that I believe in a totalitarian government...as long as I was the Dictator, since I believe in the practice of benign neglect. But I lack the desire or the ego to want the job, and everyone else, whether in the form of one person or a group going by different titles, such as Senator or Congressman, is just totalitarian government no matter what it's title.
We allow our captors to focus our unhappiness on the strawment of ideology or religion or form of government, allowing them to continue the business of taking our freedoms and ruling us all.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Mission Control...we have a problem: Egypt
Continuing the President's fascination with space references to encapsulate current events on the ground, our political mission control does have a problem. Heck...I have a problem. And I wonder if I don't have a lot of company. How many of us have even spent a few minutes wondering, much less reading and studying, about modern Egypt and its effect on the United States and the Middle East? Not many, I would wager.
And to try to get up to speed right now is to swim upstream against the purveyors of panic and disaster. So...attempting to at least get an idea of the game board, and where we stand, who are the players? First, of course, there is Mubarak. Leader of Egypt since the 80's, he is a strong, autocratic ruler who came out of the military and has their instinctive support.
Then there is his security chief, Omar Suleiman. Just sworn in as Vice-President of Egypt this morning (significant, as there has been no Vice-President during Mubarak's almost 3 decade-long run as President), he has been the head of Egyptian State Security since 1993. He is a very powerful figure in international circles, very good at his job.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel laureate and former secretary general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a major political opposition leader who flew home to Egypt to join in the demonstrations. He is currently under house arrest. While some complain that he is a "johnny-come-lately" to the protests, he did get some street cred for his joining in the demonstrations on Friday before being put under arrest.
Another potential political figure is Arab League Secretary General Amer Moussa. A former Egyptian foreign minister, he was in Davos at the World Economic Forum. It is not clear that he would want to leave his current post in order to jump into the chaos back home, but if so he could be a factor.
Then there is Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Army, Sami Annan. Appointed to the position in 2005 by Mubarak, he will reflect the opinion of the Military at large, no small concern. The public holds the army in high esteem, so the usual distrust by the people of anyone connected or appointed by Mubarak may be somewhat less for Annan, but there is no indication that he has any designs, conscious or sub-conscious, on holding the top office. He will likely speak for the Military and, as such, could determine any care-taker regime and the speed of any change, should that come to pass.
And finally, the fly in the ointment is not just one man but a group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Although weakened by the constant prosecution, harrassment, and detention by Mubarak's government, it is still a visable force in the streets, as the Muslim youth pour out of the mosques to join in the uprising.
So...what is the likely-hood for an end-game?
First, Mubarak is likely at the end of his run. The only question is one of timing: immediately or with the advent of new elections within a relatively short time.
Turning to the likely ascendant to power, my bet would be for ElBaradei. Why? Because the Military is unlikely to allow an Islamic oriented government...and the military has veto power...so any Islamist is out. Annan does not want power, just a peaceful Egypt. Moussa is too comfortable and has too much power and wealth doing what he is doing. Why would he want to get down in the mud with the other peasants? He already has gotten his. Suleiman is a potential, but he was appointed by Mubarak and it is unlikely that anyone with that close a connection to the out-going President can succeed politically, regardless of his desires. And, although, I have not even raised his name before, Mubarak's son is totally out of the picture. He has never been military, so the army has no liking for him, and the people will absolutely not even consider him in any position of power.
Whether immediately, or at the next elections, I think we will see ElBaradei as the next leader of Egypt.
Last question...what does this do to the political climate in the middle east vis a vie Israel and Islam? I thing the status quo holds on both. Egypt and its people are solidly behind secularist government, and both have investments in continuing the current position with Israel.
Now...we have to sit back and see how it all plays out in real life. I hope my analysis is right. As a side note, it will be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Obama administration analyses and chooses postitions diplomatically during this crisis. I predict some serious stumbling around, both publicly and behind the scenes...this is a decidedly callow group in power lacking a high-power diplomatic mind. If it doesn't hurt the United States, it should be entertaining.
And to try to get up to speed right now is to swim upstream against the purveyors of panic and disaster. So...attempting to at least get an idea of the game board, and where we stand, who are the players? First, of course, there is Mubarak. Leader of Egypt since the 80's, he is a strong, autocratic ruler who came out of the military and has their instinctive support.
Then there is his security chief, Omar Suleiman. Just sworn in as Vice-President of Egypt this morning (significant, as there has been no Vice-President during Mubarak's almost 3 decade-long run as President), he has been the head of Egyptian State Security since 1993. He is a very powerful figure in international circles, very good at his job.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel laureate and former secretary general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is a major political opposition leader who flew home to Egypt to join in the demonstrations. He is currently under house arrest. While some complain that he is a "johnny-come-lately" to the protests, he did get some street cred for his joining in the demonstrations on Friday before being put under arrest.
Another potential political figure is Arab League Secretary General Amer Moussa. A former Egyptian foreign minister, he was in Davos at the World Economic Forum. It is not clear that he would want to leave his current post in order to jump into the chaos back home, but if so he could be a factor.
Then there is Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Army, Sami Annan. Appointed to the position in 2005 by Mubarak, he will reflect the opinion of the Military at large, no small concern. The public holds the army in high esteem, so the usual distrust by the people of anyone connected or appointed by Mubarak may be somewhat less for Annan, but there is no indication that he has any designs, conscious or sub-conscious, on holding the top office. He will likely speak for the Military and, as such, could determine any care-taker regime and the speed of any change, should that come to pass.
And finally, the fly in the ointment is not just one man but a group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Although weakened by the constant prosecution, harrassment, and detention by Mubarak's government, it is still a visable force in the streets, as the Muslim youth pour out of the mosques to join in the uprising.
So...what is the likely-hood for an end-game?
First, Mubarak is likely at the end of his run. The only question is one of timing: immediately or with the advent of new elections within a relatively short time.
Turning to the likely ascendant to power, my bet would be for ElBaradei. Why? Because the Military is unlikely to allow an Islamic oriented government...and the military has veto power...so any Islamist is out. Annan does not want power, just a peaceful Egypt. Moussa is too comfortable and has too much power and wealth doing what he is doing. Why would he want to get down in the mud with the other peasants? He already has gotten his. Suleiman is a potential, but he was appointed by Mubarak and it is unlikely that anyone with that close a connection to the out-going President can succeed politically, regardless of his desires. And, although, I have not even raised his name before, Mubarak's son is totally out of the picture. He has never been military, so the army has no liking for him, and the people will absolutely not even consider him in any position of power.
Whether immediately, or at the next elections, I think we will see ElBaradei as the next leader of Egypt.
Last question...what does this do to the political climate in the middle east vis a vie Israel and Islam? I thing the status quo holds on both. Egypt and its people are solidly behind secularist government, and both have investments in continuing the current position with Israel.
Now...we have to sit back and see how it all plays out in real life. I hope my analysis is right. As a side note, it will be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Obama administration analyses and chooses postitions diplomatically during this crisis. I predict some serious stumbling around, both publicly and behind the scenes...this is a decidedly callow group in power lacking a high-power diplomatic mind. If it doesn't hurt the United States, it should be entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
a minority results to mob rule, the leave open the
possibility of angering the majority. If that happens,
and the MAJORITY riots, the minority will find itself
overwhelmed by its own unleashed lawlessness as a
result.
These greedy people, enjoying a much better lifestyle
because of their higher level of benefits and pay,
achieved not by work but by group extortion, think
they are entitled to keep that higher status at the
expense of the taxpayer. Even as they complain
about failure to tax the "rich", they ignore the fact
that to the rest of the taxpaying public THEY are
the rich.
As for Wisconsin, the changes that they are asked
to ENDURE (yeah...some hardship) is to pay HALF
of the contribution private sector folks have to pay
for retirement and healthcare. Some hardship. And
their rights are protected BY LAW, NOT the UNIONS.
So that union contract adds little to their protections
as workers.
Keep the National Democratic Party's out-of-state
infiltrators there...it helps confirm the nature of the
Leftists in this country and reveals them for just what
they are...opportunists.