The results of a recent poll and what the end game may look like if something is not done to stop and reverse this runaway spending spree by the federal government.
For a real shocker, check out the letter sent to Congressman Paul Ryan by the CBO concerning their estimates on Obamacare:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf
So the question is, are these representatives stupid, or malicious?
On The Economy & The CBO's Credibility - Forecasts & Trends - InvestorsInsight.com Financial Intelligence, Advice & Research / Investment Strategies & Planning for Individual Investors.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Opinion on Obamacare is not Changing
This time it might be different. Despite a full court press to:
1) Portray any dissent as racist, aggressive and dangerous, and;
2) Sell all the "virtues" of this bill to the general public
The general public is not buying it. trust in the government in general and this version specifically is at an all time low.
The following quote sums up the opinion of many -
"So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese... and better yet it is to be financed by a country that's broke?" – Anonymous Facebook poster
1) Portray any dissent as racist, aggressive and dangerous, and;
2) Sell all the "virtues" of this bill to the general public
The general public is not buying it. trust in the government in general and this version specifically is at an all time low.
The following quote sums up the opinion of many -
"So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese... and better yet it is to be financed by a country that's broke?" – Anonymous Facebook poster
Healthcare - Ron Paul: White House healthcare projections based on "fantasy"
The quote of the Century is "This legislation is just the next step towards universal, single payer healthcare, which many see as a human right. Of course, this “right” must be produced by the labor of other people, meaning theft and coercion by government is necessary to produce and distribute it"
That says it all! How can something be a right, if it in fact must be taken at the expense of someone else? The basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were based on the premise of individual initiative and desire. Whe you start believing that you have a right to take from your neighbor, civil society dies.
Healthcare - Ron Paul: White House healthcare projections based on "fantasy"
That says it all! How can something be a right, if it in fact must be taken at the expense of someone else? The basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were based on the premise of individual initiative and desire. Whe you start believing that you have a right to take from your neighbor, civil society dies.
Healthcare - Ron Paul: White House healthcare projections based on "fantasy"
CARPE DIEM: Milton Friedman in 1978:Market-Based Health Care
Even in 1978, some people understood what was happening through the government licensing process. This is one reason why I continue to state that we have not had a free market in this country for a long time.
CARPE DIEM: Milton Friedman in 1978:Market-Based Health Care
CARPE DIEM: Milton Friedman in 1978:Market-Based Health Care
Porter Stansberry - Porter Stansberry: This key gov't statistic is signaling crisis
What happens when interest rates rise? When we reach a point where our interest payments consume too much of our income, the downward spiral to bankruptcy. Do you really believe that the same cannot happen to a country that is drunk on debt and entitlement spending?
Porter Stansberry - Porter Stansberry: This key gov't statistic is signaling crisis
Porter Stansberry - Porter Stansberry: This key gov't statistic is signaling crisis
Survivor of Socialism Has Warning for America
An email has been circulating regarding a speech by Kitty Werthmann. Having been burned more than once by falacious email, I did a search for her. The speech is real, this link is a recap of what she said.
Survivor of Socialism Has Warning for America
Survivor of Socialism Has Warning for America
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Government Plantation Forever?
As more Americans get herded onto the government plantation -- 30 million more with this new bill -- it's easy to keep them there.
In support of my earlier blog regarding the rise of the dependent class, Star Parker comments on how easy it is to seduce people with the promise of "free stuff". But just like the roach motel that you can buy at any hardware store, it is almost impossible to escape.
Let's do a quick thought experiment.The price of apples keeps going up. The government decides that every American must buy apples. But some can't afford them.Government starts controlling how much apple farmers are paid, it mandates that every single American buys apples and subsidizes those under a certain income level so they can.Will the price of apples go down, stay the same or go up?
Or, in economists' language, if you limit the supply of a commodity and increase demand, will the price of that commodity go up or down?
Did you say "up"? You get an A. But if you did say "up," you surely are not a Democrat.Democrats have just committed multitrillions of our money, and, as a bonus, sold a big chunk of American freedom down the road, betting that everything a college freshman learns in basic economics is not true. Or, that health care doesn't follow the rules of economics. Because our new health-care system is pretty much the apple scenario described above.Or, maybe they don't care?
Maybe it's not about economics, but about ideology and political power. And that the real issue is freedom. They think we've got too much and that politicians should decide what is fair and who should have what.A revealing moment during the presidential campaign occurred when, during one debate, ABC's Charles Gibson pushed then-Sen. Barack Obama about his stated intent to increase capital gains taxes. Gibson brandished data showing that when you cut this tax, government tax revenues increase, and when you raise it, revenue drops (punishing investment surely produces less)."So, why raise it?" Gibson asked. Obama responded that maybe it won't happen that way this time. And besides, he said, his motive was "fairness."
After voters in Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, killing the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority, many pundits wrote that President Obama had to move to the political center.I wrote then that this wouldn't happen because, unlike President Bill Clinton, who did moderate, Obama is a left-wing ideologue. He didn't run for president to be somebody. He did it to do something. He did it to change America.
As polls showed waning public support for what Democrats were pushing on health care, many assumed they would back off. It was still conceivable that they could stand rules on their head and ram the thing through using the so-called reconciliation procedure. But why would they do it when polls suggested they would be punished in November elections?But Obama understood that when you are selling dreams, numbers don't matter.
So, as in the housing and financial debacle we just went through, you commit taxpayer money to subsidize a product to make it look cheaper than it is, you get people to buy it, and when it all comes crashing down, it doesn't matter. By then you're long gone.And, another bonus, as more Americans get herded onto the government plantation -- 30 million more with this new bill -- it's easy to keep them there.
So the most likely political outcome going forward is higher taxes and income redistribution to pay for it all, entrenching socialism more.As I have written before, if you want to know where it all leads, look at our inner cities that were long ago taken over by government compassion. This is our future, my fellow Americans.
Oh, back to the apples. Their prices were rocketing up to begin with because government was already controlling and regulating them.Republicans are mad. But will they be able to entice Americans off the ever-growing government plantation? Will they propose and succeed in selling the bold ideas necessary to turn the basket case we're becoming around?
We'll see.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
In support of my earlier blog regarding the rise of the dependent class, Star Parker comments on how easy it is to seduce people with the promise of "free stuff". But just like the roach motel that you can buy at any hardware store, it is almost impossible to escape.
Let's do a quick thought experiment.The price of apples keeps going up. The government decides that every American must buy apples. But some can't afford them.Government starts controlling how much apple farmers are paid, it mandates that every single American buys apples and subsidizes those under a certain income level so they can.Will the price of apples go down, stay the same or go up?
Or, in economists' language, if you limit the supply of a commodity and increase demand, will the price of that commodity go up or down?
Did you say "up"? You get an A. But if you did say "up," you surely are not a Democrat.Democrats have just committed multitrillions of our money, and, as a bonus, sold a big chunk of American freedom down the road, betting that everything a college freshman learns in basic economics is not true. Or, that health care doesn't follow the rules of economics. Because our new health-care system is pretty much the apple scenario described above.Or, maybe they don't care?
Maybe it's not about economics, but about ideology and political power. And that the real issue is freedom. They think we've got too much and that politicians should decide what is fair and who should have what.A revealing moment during the presidential campaign occurred when, during one debate, ABC's Charles Gibson pushed then-Sen. Barack Obama about his stated intent to increase capital gains taxes. Gibson brandished data showing that when you cut this tax, government tax revenues increase, and when you raise it, revenue drops (punishing investment surely produces less)."So, why raise it?" Gibson asked. Obama responded that maybe it won't happen that way this time. And besides, he said, his motive was "fairness."
After voters in Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, killing the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority, many pundits wrote that President Obama had to move to the political center.I wrote then that this wouldn't happen because, unlike President Bill Clinton, who did moderate, Obama is a left-wing ideologue. He didn't run for president to be somebody. He did it to do something. He did it to change America.
As polls showed waning public support for what Democrats were pushing on health care, many assumed they would back off. It was still conceivable that they could stand rules on their head and ram the thing through using the so-called reconciliation procedure. But why would they do it when polls suggested they would be punished in November elections?But Obama understood that when you are selling dreams, numbers don't matter.
So, as in the housing and financial debacle we just went through, you commit taxpayer money to subsidize a product to make it look cheaper than it is, you get people to buy it, and when it all comes crashing down, it doesn't matter. By then you're long gone.And, another bonus, as more Americans get herded onto the government plantation -- 30 million more with this new bill -- it's easy to keep them there.
So the most likely political outcome going forward is higher taxes and income redistribution to pay for it all, entrenching socialism more.As I have written before, if you want to know where it all leads, look at our inner cities that were long ago taken over by government compassion. This is our future, my fellow Americans.
Oh, back to the apples. Their prices were rocketing up to begin with because government was already controlling and regulating them.Republicans are mad. But will they be able to entice Americans off the ever-growing government plantation? Will they propose and succeed in selling the bold ideas necessary to turn the basket case we're becoming around?
We'll see.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
Do They Wear White Hoods at Their Tea Parties?
The smear campaign has begun, if you're against Obamacare or Big Government spending, it's not because you believe in the priciples of limited government or the 10th amendment, it's because you are a racist. The Tea Party movement is a threat to the party of big government and this is their latest attempt to divide and conquer.....
Do They Wear White Hoods at Their Tea Parties?
Posted using ShareThis
Do They Wear White Hoods at Their Tea Parties?
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, March 28, 2010
‘Cowgate’ Is Latest Global Warming Scandal
From Newsmax:
Another claim by global warming alarmists has been discredited — this time assertions about the role livestock play in producing greenhouse gases.
In 2006, a United Nations report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed that “the livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a higher share than transport.”
This led to demands for a “cow tax” in the U.S. and a campaign in Europe last year called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” political commentator Gerald Warner points out in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
Now Dr. Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, calls the U.N. report “scientifically inaccurate.”
In a report to the American Chemical Society, he reveals that the U.N. added all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production, including fertilizer production, land clearance, methane emissions, production of feed, milk processing, and vehicle use on farms, to get the highest possible result.
But the transport figure included only the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in an “apples and oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” Mitloehner disclosed.
In fact, just 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are attributable to the raising of cows and pigs, compared to 26 percent from transport, according to Mitloehner.
“It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unraveling,” Warner writes, noting that the Washington Times has called the latest flap “Cowgate.”
“Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited.”
One of the authors of the U.N. report, Pierre Gerber with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Mitloehner’s criticism: “I must say honestly that he has a point — we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport.”
Another claim by global warming alarmists has been discredited — this time assertions about the role livestock play in producing greenhouse gases.
In 2006, a United Nations report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed that “the livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a higher share than transport.”
This led to demands for a “cow tax” in the U.S. and a campaign in Europe last year called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” political commentator Gerald Warner points out in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
Now Dr. Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, calls the U.N. report “scientifically inaccurate.”
In a report to the American Chemical Society, he reveals that the U.N. added all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production, including fertilizer production, land clearance, methane emissions, production of feed, milk processing, and vehicle use on farms, to get the highest possible result.
But the transport figure included only the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in an “apples and oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” Mitloehner disclosed.
In fact, just 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are attributable to the raising of cows and pigs, compared to 26 percent from transport, according to Mitloehner.
“It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unraveling,” Warner writes, noting that the Washington Times has called the latest flap “Cowgate.”
“Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited.”
One of the authors of the U.N. report, Pierre Gerber with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Mitloehner’s criticism: “I must say honestly that he has a point — we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport.”
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Germany: Mitteleuropa Redux - John Mauldin's Outside the Box - InvestorsInsight.com | Financial Intelligence, Advice
Disturbing Charts Regarding our Economy
Forget the talking heads, look at the facts and decide for yourself!
The March Wall Street Journal Economic Forecast Survey
The March Wall Street Journal Economic Forecast Survey
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Educational Destruction of our Children
Star Parker comments on the sad state of our public education system and the barriers to making any substantive change.
The Rise of the Dependent Class
“They won’t takeover healthcare” my nephew who voted for Obama tried to assure me. “Besides, in 2010, the Republicans will come back in and fix whatever damage he’s done”. Ah, the naïveté of youth. In a life where education had already descended into telling you what to think instead of teaching how to think, I cannot blame him for assuming that life in America rolls on. He has two daughters and did not have time to read either of Obama’s books nor study the writings of Saul Alinsky, he believed in a system that was on its death bed just waiting for the right political team to come in and pull the plug.
His statement was in response to my explanation of the “end game”, which was Obama’s strategy to finally transform us from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by intellectual elites of one sort or another.
The plan was a simple three step process; enact Cap and Trade, National Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
Cap and Trade is a no brainer, only a fool could believe for a minute that carbon dioxide, the basis for life on earth as we know it, is a pollutant. The purpose of Cap and Trade had nothing to do with saving the planet, but instead was intended to kill middle class jobs. By making it too expensive to do business in the US, the manufacturing jobs that were the engine of prosperity for millions will ultimately be shipped abroad to countries who would never sign up to such an agreement. Saul Alinsky viewed the middle class as the target for destruction. In his world, there were the Haves, the Have-Not’s and the “Have a Little, Want Mores’”. That third group was simultaneously the most vulnerable and the most dangerous, since they had not yet attained the status of the Have’s but would not willingly give up the life they were living for a promise of something better down the road. Only by creating an economic crisis where the middle class faces the threat of losing everything, could Obama begin to exert an influence over them.
Nationalized Health Care is another easy one to understand. Just as everything on the planet needs CO2 to live, everyone eventually needs to see a doctor. If you are beholden to the Government as the sole provider of your health care needs, you live under the constant threat of losing access to that which you deem necessary to live.
The final piece to be put in place is an Amnesty Bill (many people didn’t even notice the march on Washington for “immigration reform” that took place while congress was voting to take over Health Care). By giving 15 to 30 million people the same rights of every other US citizen, including the right to vote in both State and National elections, Obama hopes to create a permanent majority of pro-government voters for decades to come. Most of these people are not in this country as doctors or engineers and therefore will immediately be seeking access to not only our already bankrupt entitlement programs, but the other welfare services that we had intended for our less fortunate citizens..
So how does this all come together? Simple, right now dependency on Government is already at an all time high. According to the 2009 Index of Dependence on Government, the Heritage Foundation’s experts found that the total Americans dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care is a staggering 60.8 million. (Download the full report in PDF.). Now add all the additional people who will be forced to depend on the Government for health Insurance along with all our “new American Citizens” and you quickly approach a point where 51% of the voting population is either dependent on the Federal Government for a job, an entitlement or basic sustenance. Once they are the majority, they will never vote themselves back into the minority and the takeover is complete. Alinsky described this as “the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat”, I call it a Democracy
One of the founding fathers described Democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It has taken us nearly a hundred years to reach this point, but the end is in sight.
His statement was in response to my explanation of the “end game”, which was Obama’s strategy to finally transform us from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by intellectual elites of one sort or another.
The plan was a simple three step process; enact Cap and Trade, National Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
Cap and Trade is a no brainer, only a fool could believe for a minute that carbon dioxide, the basis for life on earth as we know it, is a pollutant. The purpose of Cap and Trade had nothing to do with saving the planet, but instead was intended to kill middle class jobs. By making it too expensive to do business in the US, the manufacturing jobs that were the engine of prosperity for millions will ultimately be shipped abroad to countries who would never sign up to such an agreement. Saul Alinsky viewed the middle class as the target for destruction. In his world, there were the Haves, the Have-Not’s and the “Have a Little, Want Mores’”. That third group was simultaneously the most vulnerable and the most dangerous, since they had not yet attained the status of the Have’s but would not willingly give up the life they were living for a promise of something better down the road. Only by creating an economic crisis where the middle class faces the threat of losing everything, could Obama begin to exert an influence over them.
Nationalized Health Care is another easy one to understand. Just as everything on the planet needs CO2 to live, everyone eventually needs to see a doctor. If you are beholden to the Government as the sole provider of your health care needs, you live under the constant threat of losing access to that which you deem necessary to live.
The final piece to be put in place is an Amnesty Bill (many people didn’t even notice the march on Washington for “immigration reform” that took place while congress was voting to take over Health Care). By giving 15 to 30 million people the same rights of every other US citizen, including the right to vote in both State and National elections, Obama hopes to create a permanent majority of pro-government voters for decades to come. Most of these people are not in this country as doctors or engineers and therefore will immediately be seeking access to not only our already bankrupt entitlement programs, but the other welfare services that we had intended for our less fortunate citizens..
So how does this all come together? Simple, right now dependency on Government is already at an all time high. According to the 2009 Index of Dependence on Government, the Heritage Foundation’s experts found that the total Americans dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care is a staggering 60.8 million. (Download the full report in PDF.). Now add all the additional people who will be forced to depend on the Government for health Insurance along with all our “new American Citizens” and you quickly approach a point where 51% of the voting population is either dependent on the Federal Government for a job, an entitlement or basic sustenance. Once they are the majority, they will never vote themselves back into the minority and the takeover is complete. Alinsky described this as “the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat”, I call it a Democracy
One of the founding fathers described Democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It has taken us nearly a hundred years to reach this point, but the end is in sight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)