If you haven't been paying attention:
The Congress of the United States just passed a bill targeting a select group of private citizens. Who? The AIG employees. Why? Because Congress had to do something to assuage their righteous anger. Of course this was all just a dog and pony show. Obama and his minions manufactured all of this to distract us from a bigger issue. Congress just tagged along because it was politically necessary to pretend that they shared the citizenry's ire over the issue.
Before you get too angry at the AIG bonus recipients, consider a few points:
The AIG bonuses were the result of legally binding contracts between an employer and its employees. The bonus pay-outs imply that the employees performed per the contracts.
Imagine that a company comes to you and says, "Mr. Hansenovich, we'd like you to come work for us. We need a guy that can do xyz, and your the best in the industry. Here's what we're offering: a $100,000 salary, plus if after a year you agree to stick around another year, we'll give you a $1 million bonus. Also, if you perform xyz during your first year, we'll give you another bonus of $2 million." So you agree, and both of you sign on the dotted line. Unfortunately, a year later your new company is struggling and needs a major loan to keep it running. Meanwhile you perform xyz and decide to stick around the next year. Should you get your bonus? Do you care where the company got its loan? Is that even relevant? Let's say the company is gasping for air purely as a result of your performing xyz just as requested. Do you still get your bonus? Absolutely!
Also, why is everyone angry with the employees and not the employer who wrote the contract?Very odd.
Another point: These bonuses were made law by the President's stimulus bill. His own Treasury Secretary had Chris Dodd include a provision that guaranteed these very bonuses. (Of course they both denied this first, and then later mea culpa'd when caught.) So now the very people who approved the bonuses, are now going to tax them at 90%. It's almost as if they intentionally created this controversy to help foment class warfare among the masses.
Also, could this have been an intentional distraction?
Consider this: AIG's bailout, written by Geithner himself, while working for Henry Paulson, gave over $170 billion to AIG. The bonuses amount to just under $170 million. That amounts to 1/10 of a percent of the bailout. Meanwhile, approximately $98 billion of the bailout money was funneled from AIG to foreign banks and Goldman-Sachs. This could be some sort of money laundering scheme, where AIG, under its government-appointed CEO, acts as a clearing house for the government to get money into hands that it could not give to directly.
Obama (or TOTUS): Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry. The rich are taking your money. Be very angry... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... Be very angry...
Keep in mind that both Dems and Repubs approved this 90% tax bill.
Pray that these politicians never find it politically advantageous to come after you, or say, your church.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Mr. Bernanke's Busy Week
What has Mr. Bernanke been up to this week?
In between meals he's been creating money, ex nihilo. Why? Why, to save our economy, of course. This week he picked $2 trillion dollars off of the money tree behind the Federal Reserve building on Constitution Ave. in Washington D.C. (Total number of references to the Federal Reserve in COTUS? Zero. Please ignore the irony of the street name. I digress...) He then loaded the money in a wheelbarrow, actually a LOT of REALLY BIG wheelbarrows and went to the Central Bank, filled out a deposit slip, and deposited the money in the account named "US Economy". I'm sure that must have been a fun transaction for the teller.
The beauty of this transaction is that Bernanke actually brought no money with him at all. Instead he just showed up at the bank with a deposit slip with the number 2,000,000,000,000 written on it and handed it to the teller.
Teller: How can I help you today?
Bernanke: I just need to deposit this money in my account.
Teller: What's the name on the account?
Bernanke: US Economy
Teller: One moment please. [Typing away.] Okay, Mr. ............. Bernanke?
Bernanke: Yes.
Teller: Do you have the money with you?
Bernanke: Yes, it's here in this deposit bag.
Teller: Very good. [Unzips bag.] Uhh, the bag is empty.
Bernanke: Yes?
Teller: Where's the money?
Bernanke: Oh, just add $2 trillion to my account. Trust me, it's okay.
Teller: But, I can't do that.
Bernanke: Sure you can. Just type it in. Here. [Takes keyboard. Types.] And there you are. In fact I threw in a couple million to your own account for fun.
Teller: That doesn't make any sense.
Bernanke: Doesn't matter. Oh, and I'd like to buy $300 billion in T-bills. Just take it out of the US Economy account.
Teller: Uhhh.....
Bernanke: Oh, and I'd like for your bank to buy $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Teller: Uhhh....
Bernanke: Go ahead and borrow the money from my US Economy account. I'll loan it to you at zero interest.
Teller: Uhhh....
Bernanke: Oh, and while your at it, send $5 billion to various auto parts manufacturers. Just take it out of the same account.
Teller: Uhhh.... I'm sorry, none of this is making any sense.
Bernanke: Quit thinking. I do the thinking around here. Just do it. Trust me, this will work. Don't believe me? Just read about the Wymar Republic in Germany. Oh wait, no, don't read about that, read about Zimbabwe's, no, Argentina... no, um... Just do it! Just because this has never worked in the history of the world, doesn't mean it won't.
Okay, so maybe it didn't go quite like that. Probably Bernanke just did all this over the phone. But the practical result is the same. What does that mean to you? It means that wheat, honey, gold, silver, and other commodities would be a very good investment right now. Actually, I suspect we'll see some more deflation, as prices continue to fall. But towards the end of this year, or the beginning of next, inflation will get happy. Real happy, making your dollars more and more worthless.
By the way, did you know that in the history of paper currencies, not one has ever NOT become worthless at some point. No, not one. Don't worry, I'm sure ours will be the exception. Oh, and yes, the Federal Reserve pulled this kind of stuff in the '30's. The difference? We were still on the gold standard. Lucky for us, were no longer subject to that silly concept.
Happy days!
All info taken from these sources:
You can also listen to this.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A Few Fun Facts
Thought you might enjoy a few numbers:
War Cost in 2008 Dollars*
Revolutionary War $1.8 billion
War of 1812 $1.2 billion
Mexican-American War $1.8 billion
Civil War: Union $45.2 billion
Civil War: Confederacy $15.2 billion
Spanish-American War $6.8 billion
World War I $253 billion
World War II $4.1 trillion
Korean War $320 billion
Vietnam War $686 billion
First Gulf War $96 billion
Iraq + Afghanistan $859 billion+* (ongoing)
*CRS Report for Congress
Length of Obama's 2010 Budget 141 pages§§
Revolutionary War $1.8 billion
War of 1812 $1.2 billion
Mexican-American War $1.8 billion
Civil War: Union $45.2 billion
Civil War: Confederacy $15.2 billion
Spanish-American War $6.8 billion
World War I $253 billion
World War II $4.1 trillion
Korean War $320 billion
Vietnam War $686 billion
First Gulf War $96 billion
Iraq + Afghanistan $859 billion+* (ongoing)
LBJ's War on Poverty 1965-2000 $8.29 trillion†
Obama's 2010 Budget $3.6 trillion
Total Cost 2008 Bailouts $7.8 trillion§
Obama's Stimulus Package $3.7 trillion••
Obama's Modified 2009 Budget $3.94 trillion††
Obama's Modified 2009 Budget $3.94 trillion††
Obama's 2010 Budget $3.66 trillion††
*CRS Report for Congress
††NPR
You do the math. Boy has that War on Poverty worked! What it really needs is...more money.
More numbers:
Length of Obama's 2010 Budget 141 pages§§
Stimulus addition to tax code 344 pages•••
US Tax Code 70,000+ pages†††
Length of Constitution 10 pages, 18 w/ amendments
†††bNet
If only the Constitution was worthy of 70,000+ pages, or at least 141 pages...
Small Joke for the Day
If you ever question whether dogs are man's best friend, try this experiment: Take your dog and your wife, put them both in the trunk of your car, drive around for an hour, stop and let them out. Which one is glad to see you?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Rush to Judgement
I emailed this response to a Real Clear Politics piece by Cathy Young.
"Cathy,
"I think in analyzing Rush's behavior, let's never forget that first and foremost Rush is a businessman. Would you have written this piece had Rush said, as you suggest, that he hoped "Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact." Rush, as a "highly trained" broadcast personality is well aware of the consequence of the term "fail". From a business stand point it's use has been a windfall. As is often said: He couldn't pay for this kind of advertising. This kind of rhetoric will only galvanize his base, which is foremost conservative, not necessarily Republican, and therefore likely to agree with his assessment. This also tweeks his enemies, who already look for every opportunity to justify their rabid determination to interpret every statement from Rush as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. You can bet that his listenership has gone up during this back and forth, as enemies and fans wait to hear the latest response from both sides.
"As far as the Republican Party looking as though they "are in thrall" with Rush: that is the Party's concern, not Rush's. Trust me, the Party leadership sees this whole thing in the same light as you. Why? Because they have lost their rudder. They are more concerned with image and votes than with principle. The last real leader they had, within the party, was Newt. Since then the party has acted and spoken like a toned down version of the Democrat Party. Conservatives don't want that, we want leadership. I think most conservatives are tired of the mealy-mouthed concern for bipartisanship the media has foisted upon the public. For the most part the Democrat Party, with it's willingly accomplices in much of the media, has successfully redefined bipartisanship as agreeing with Democrats on principle and merely debating differences in policy. Wrong! I want a party that boldly stands against big government on principle, regardless of political consequence. I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact then down in flames while appearing to have been complicit. For too long Republican party has tried to play nice and that has certainly NOT decreased the size, scope, and influence of the federal government.
"You also suggest that Rush's approach makes him "part of the problem". What problem? Incendiary rhetoric or socialist policies leaning toward historical fascism? For my part, I am not nearly as concerned with our fiscal problems as with our governance problem. No matter how bad this economic collapse ultimately is, free markets, left to themselves will, as they ALWAYS have, bring us back. The real "problem" is not Rush, but where Obama may take us. I suggest that your concern for political image in improperly defined bipartisanship is the problem. What I get from you and many in the media is a desire for a vibrant Republican party, but merely as an alternate voice on policy not principle.
"Conservatives have been concerned about our direction since Wilson, perhaps since T.R. The problem is that the very nature of institutions of all sorts is to enlarge itself and justify its existence. The institution of government is no exception. When any institution enlarges itself or increases its power or control, it rarely, if ever, decommissions itself. We've been on the precipice of full fledged Socialism for decades for this very reason. Government does not relinquish power. Reagan tried, but by then the reach was so mammoth it was too late. Too many of our institutions had become reliant on the existence of, and day to day functioning of, a massive federal government managing millions and billions (now trillions) of dollars. Too many politicians have gone out of their way to pimp the government, making her the hottest whore in the world, where every John seeks her attention. Just look at how the stimulus package played itself out. It created a line of Johns, willing to do whatever to get a piece.
"The beauty of the founders was that they recognized this potential and sought to limit the problem through the Constitution and its statement that essentially any powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the federal government are the sole responsibility of the states. Brilliant. Unfortunately for us and the world, 230 years of too many politicians and too few statesman have brought us to this point, a point I fear that can only end in ruin, sooner or later, and ultimately require a "hard restart". I hope we can forestall this but I fear not. So yes, on principle, Rush hopes that Obama fails, as do I. People have not changed since the dawn of history, and historical precedence bears me out. Nations come and go, governments rise and fall. If Obama succeeds we all fail. If he fails, just maybe there is a chance to save this great nation. Whatever happens, heck, we had a great run."
"I think in analyzing Rush's behavior, let's never forget that first and foremost Rush is a businessman. Would you have written this piece had Rush said, as you suggest, that he hoped "Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact." Rush, as a "highly trained" broadcast personality is well aware of the consequence of the term "fail". From a business stand point it's use has been a windfall. As is often said: He couldn't pay for this kind of advertising. This kind of rhetoric will only galvanize his base, which is foremost conservative, not necessarily Republican, and therefore likely to agree with his assessment. This also tweeks his enemies, who already look for every opportunity to justify their rabid determination to interpret every statement from Rush as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. You can bet that his listenership has gone up during this back and forth, as enemies and fans wait to hear the latest response from both sides.
"As far as the Republican Party looking as though they "are in thrall" with Rush: that is the Party's concern, not Rush's. Trust me, the Party leadership sees this whole thing in the same light as you. Why? Because they have lost their rudder. They are more concerned with image and votes than with principle. The last real leader they had, within the party, was Newt. Since then the party has acted and spoken like a toned down version of the Democrat Party. Conservatives don't want that, we want leadership. I think most conservatives are tired of the mealy-mouthed concern for bipartisanship the media has foisted upon the public. For the most part the Democrat Party, with it's willingly accomplices in much of the media, has successfully redefined bipartisanship as agreeing with Democrats on principle and merely debating differences in policy. Wrong! I want a party that boldly stands against big government on principle, regardless of political consequence. I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact then down in flames while appearing to have been complicit. For too long Republican party has tried to play nice and that has certainly NOT decreased the size, scope, and influence of the federal government.
"You also suggest that Rush's approach makes him "part of the problem". What problem? Incendiary rhetoric or socialist policies leaning toward historical fascism? For my part, I am not nearly as concerned with our fiscal problems as with our governance problem. No matter how bad this economic collapse ultimately is, free markets, left to themselves will, as they ALWAYS have, bring us back. The real "problem" is not Rush, but where Obama may take us. I suggest that your concern for political image in improperly defined bipartisanship is the problem. What I get from you and many in the media is a desire for a vibrant Republican party, but merely as an alternate voice on policy not principle.
"Conservatives have been concerned about our direction since Wilson, perhaps since T.R. The problem is that the very nature of institutions of all sorts is to enlarge itself and justify its existence. The institution of government is no exception. When any institution enlarges itself or increases its power or control, it rarely, if ever, decommissions itself. We've been on the precipice of full fledged Socialism for decades for this very reason. Government does not relinquish power. Reagan tried, but by then the reach was so mammoth it was too late. Too many of our institutions had become reliant on the existence of, and day to day functioning of, a massive federal government managing millions and billions (now trillions) of dollars. Too many politicians have gone out of their way to pimp the government, making her the hottest whore in the world, where every John seeks her attention. Just look at how the stimulus package played itself out. It created a line of Johns, willing to do whatever to get a piece.
"The beauty of the founders was that they recognized this potential and sought to limit the problem through the Constitution and its statement that essentially any powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the federal government are the sole responsibility of the states. Brilliant. Unfortunately for us and the world, 230 years of too many politicians and too few statesman have brought us to this point, a point I fear that can only end in ruin, sooner or later, and ultimately require a "hard restart". I hope we can forestall this but I fear not. So yes, on principle, Rush hopes that Obama fails, as do I. People have not changed since the dawn of history, and historical precedence bears me out. Nations come and go, governments rise and fall. If Obama succeeds we all fail. If he fails, just maybe there is a chance to save this great nation. Whatever happens, heck, we had a great run."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
