Week in Review
Why did the Europeans become the dominant people in the world? Why did their colonies become some of the richest and most affluent nations? Because when the Europeans entered those ships to cross the oceans they were farmers. Having given up their hunter and gatherer past long ago (see DNA analysis solves the mystery of how Europeans came to be farmers by Steve Connor posted 4/24/2014 on The Independent).
It was the biggest cultural shift in European prehistory but the Stone Age transition from a lifestyle based on hunting animals and gathering wild berries to one built on farming and livestock was largely a mystery – until now.
A detailed analysis of the DNA extracted from the bones of 11 prehistoric Scandinavians who lived thousands of years ago around the Baltic Sea has shown that the transition from hunting to farming was more of a one-way takeover than previously supposed.
The genetic makeup of the people who lived through this cultural revolution has revealed that the incoming migrant farmers from southern Europe subsumed the indigenous hunter gatherers of the north, rather than the other way round, scientists said.
Farming people are more advanced than hunters and gatherers. Because it takes knowledge and organization to master their environment and not live at its mercy. Which is what hunters and gatherers must do. As they travel across great expanses looking for food. Food they can only eat if nature provides it. And they can find it. Whereas farmers can grow food and raise livestock. On small farms. And they can grow a surplus. To carry them through winters. And bad growing seasons. While hunters and gatherers can only go hungry. And die.
So farming societies are more advanced than hunter and gatherer societies. Their knowledge and organization created food surpluses. And economic activity. Which created wealth. This is why the Europeans went on to dominant the hunter and gatherers they met in the Americas, Australia, etc. And why the transition from hunting to farming was a one-way takeover. For advanced people have the knowledge, organization and wealth to dominant less advanced people who must live at the mercy of their environment.
Tags: advanced people, Europeans, farmers, food, food surplus, hunter and gatherer, knowledge, mercy of their environment, organization, tools, wealth
Week in Review
We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real. And that man is causing it. It’s settled science they say. But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things? The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science? Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists. A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).
Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.
James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.
Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate. Now that’s science. And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities. You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’. Have they done that in their research? Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove? Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream? Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show? There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods. Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out. But can’t. So they simply ignore it. Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science. A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do. To use the power of government to create a ruling class. Of a small group of people that has power over the masses. And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.
It’s nothing new. Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power. To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else. Much better. As every dictator in history has shown. North Korea still suffers from famine. But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity. Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life. He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry. If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life. Perhaps even doing manual labor. For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.
This is why people want power. For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings. And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills. They want to live like kings. But they don’t want to work hard to earn it. So they use politics. Expand the size of government. To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible. So there is a place for these people. Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it. This is why they want to nationalize health care. For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions. And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings. They can live as emperors. Over a vast empire they control. Living in the lap of luxury. Accumulating great wealth. And drunk on the power they can wield. Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.
Tags: accumulate wealth, climate, climate science, climate scientists, consensus, dictator, Global Warming, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, politics, power, scientists, settled science, warming, wealth
Lawyers make a lot of Money without Contributing anything Tangible to Society
An attorney was sitting in his office late one night when Satan appeared before him. Satan said, “I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, the souls of all your friends and law partners.” The lawyer thought about this for a moment then asked, “So, what’s the catch?”
That’s funny, isn’t it? Lawyers. Ambulance chasers. The butt of so many jokes. Why? Well, some will say they deserve it. Because they do chase ambulances. And will pass out their business cards if they’re on a sinking ship. Because sinking ships are good for lawsuits. And lawyers love to sue. For they can make a lot of money without contributing anything tangible to society. All they do is get between two parties when large sums of money change hands. And put a portion of that money into their pockets. That’s how they earn their living. Taking money away from others. They’re parasites. Just to get rich. And the big tort lawyers (those who sue people and businesses) get really rich. Allowing them to live very privileged lives.
Take a class action lawsuit. Where they bring a lot of wronged people together to sue a large corporation. The old David and Goliath thing. A little person can never take on a big corporation. But a whole class of them can. When represented by a tort lawyer. Who liken themselves as heroes of the little guy. Taking the big corporation on to make them pay for all the horrible things they’ve done to their clients. But who do they really help? Let’s say they win a judgment from a big corporation of $250,000,000. That’s a lot of money. From that sum they take their cut. Let’s say 50%. Leaving $125 million for the people the corporation wronged. That’s a lot of money. So the people won, too, right? Not really. For there are a lot of people represented in these class actions. Let’s say 5 million in our example. So if you divide the $125 million by 5 million that comes to $25 per person. So, again, who did the lawyers really help? The lawyers. Which is why there are so many lawyer jokes.
In the Private Sector if you want to spend Half of your Life Retired you have to Pay for It
Lawyers vote Democrat. Because they like being privileged people. They don’t want the laws changing that allow them to get so rich when money exchanges hands. Which is why they donate heavily to the Democrat Party. And don’t donate to the Republicans. Who complain about the high costs of frivolous lawsuits to businesses in an overly litigious society. It’s so bad that a footnote in the financial statements of a corporation about a lawsuit is not that big of a deal. Why? Because so many corporations are sued that investors are more surprised to see one that isn’t being sued. This is why Republicans want tort reform. And pass ‘loser-pays’ into law. Like many other countries have. Where the loser in court pays for the attorney fees for the side that wins. Which would greatly cut down on frivolous lawsuits. And cut the costs businesses incur from these frivolous lawsuits that they pass on to their customers. So the lawyers donate to Democrats. To prevent any tort reform that would change the easy way lawyers have of getting rich.
It’s the world’s oldest profession. Screwing people for money. But lawyers aren’t the only ones seeking privilege. There are a lot of others, too. Interestingly, they, too, support the Democrat Party. Such as the United Autoworkers. They donate heavily to the Democrat Party to keep labor laws favorable to unions. To make it more difficult for their nonunion competition. And to use the power of government to force people to pay may for a union-made car. Allowing their union members to live better lives than those outside of the UAW. And when even that doesn’t allow General Motors to pay its bills when selling a record number of cars the UAW goes to government for a bailout of their woefully underfunded pension fund. So their union members can continue to have a more generous retirement at an earlier age than those outside of the UAW.
Teacher unions seek privilege, too. You hear a lot about how the teachers don’t earn that much. But then again, they don’t work that much. Getting 3 months off in the summer. So you can’t compare their wages to people who don’t get the 3 summer months off. But for teachers it’s not so much about the paycheck. It’s the benefits. Very generous health insurance coverage. And pensions. Which have gone the way of the dodo in the private sector. Because people are just living too long into retirement. When they first set up these pensions people were dying in their sixties. The actuaries never saw people living into their eighties as common. So in the private sector if you want to spend half of your life retired you have to pay for it. And you work as long as necessary to fund the retirement you want. The union pensions just can’t work these days as they once did. Which is why teacher unions like the United Autoworkers and lawyers support the Democrat Party. They want to keep their privileged lives.
The Wealth Transfers of the Welfare State give Democrats Money and Privilege
Of course privilege is nothing new to the Democrat Party. They have long stood for privilege. Even now. As the Democrats provide themselves all kinds of exceptions from the Affordable Care Act. For more expensive and lower quality health insurance is good for the masses. But not for the privileged elite. Or their special friends who support them so generously with campaign donations. Congress has had a history of exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us. It took the Republican winning of the House in the 1994 midterm elections to change that. The first Republican-controlled House since 1952 required Congress to be held to the same laws as the rest of us. A bitter pill for Democrats to swallow. For their feelings of privilege go way back.
The Democrat Party can trace its pedigree back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. The party of the slave-owning planter elite. Who from day one fought for their privilege starting with the Three-Fifths Compromise. To give them a greater say in the new national government than their voting population allowed. The planter elite’s South turned into an Old World aristocracy. With great manors for the landed aristocracy. And vast lands worked by slaves. Very similar to feudalism in the Old World. And something they fought hard to keep. Their privilege. The Southern Democrats used the power of the national government (such as the Fugitive Slave Act) to interfere with state laws in the North. To protect their feudalism by keeping slavery legal as long as they could while the north was industrializing and modernizing. With paid laborers. When they lost control of the House due to the growing population in the North they turned to war. Saying that the national government was interfering with state laws in the South. And getting poor southern farmers who owned no slaves to fight and die so the southern aristocracy could live on.
When the Southern Democrats lost the American Civil War they scrambled to maintain their privilege. They unleashed a terror on the freed slaves and Republicans with the KKK. The Democrats then wrote Jim Crowe Laws. Separate but equal. Government-enforced racial segregation. During debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK Robert Byrd filibustered for 14 hours. To keep the South segregated. With power and privilege in a new aristocracy. Centered not on land but political power and cronyism. Even becoming the party for blacks as ironic as that is. Trading government programs for votes. And destroying the black family in the process. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced black fathers with government. And moved single mothers and their children into housing projects that became infested with drugs and crime. But this large (and failed) welfare state transferred a lot of wealth to the Democrats. Giving them money and privilege. That they can use to maintain their power. By taking care of those who take care of them. Lawyers, the UAW, teacher unions and other privilege seekers. For nothing has changed on the left. They have been and always will be an aristocratic-thinking, privilege-seeking people who want to live better than the rest of us. While we pay for their privileged lives.
Tags: aristocracy, aristocratic-thinking, attorney, class action lawsuit, Democrat, Democrat Party, far Left, feudalism, frivolous lawsuits, health insurance, lawsuits, lawyer, money, North, Old World, pension, planter elite, privilege, privilege seekers, privilege seeking, privileged elite, privileged lives, Republican, retirement, slaves, South, Southern Democrats, teacher unions, teachers, tort, tort lawyer, tort reform, UAW, union, unions, United Autoworkers, wealth, welfare state
(Originally published April 1st, 2013)
Money would have No Value if People with Talent didn’t Create things of Value
Money is a temporary storage of wealth. We created it because of the high search costs of the barter system. It took a lot of time for two people to find each other who each had what the other wanted. And we started trading things to have things we couldn’t make efficiently for ourselves. Someone may have been a superb potter but was a horrible farmer. So, instead, the potter did what he did best. And traded the pottery he made for the things he wanted that he was not good at making. Or growing. Before that we were self-sufficient. Whatever you wanted you had to provide it yourself.
As we go back in time we learn why money is a temporary storage of wealth. For it was the final piece in a growing and prosperous economy. And at the beginning it was people with talent, each creating something of value. Something of value that they could trade for something else of value. It’s the creative talent of people that has value. And we see that value in the goods and/or services they make or provide. Money temporarily held that value. So we could carry it with us easier to go to market to trade with other talented and creative people. Who may not have wanted what we made or did. But would gladly take our money.
So we took our goods to market. People that wanted them traded for them. They traded money for our goods. Then we took that money and traded for what we wanted elsewhere in the market. Trade grew. With some people becoming professional traders. By trading money for goods from distant lands. Then trading these goods for money at the local market. People who didn’t spend time creating anything. But bought and sold the creative talent of others. Who were able to do that because of money. The creative talent came first. Then the goods. And then the money. For money is a temporary storage of wealth. Which has no value if no one is making anything of value. Because if you can’t buy anything what good is having money?
There were no more Gold Certificates in Circulation than there was Gold in the Vault to Exchange them For
These early traders used a variety of things for money. Pigs, tobacco, grain, oil, etc. What we call commodity money. Which was valuable by itself. As people consumed these commodities. Which is what gave them the ability to store value. But because we could consume these they did not make the best money. Also, they weren’t that portable. And not easy to make change with. Which is why we turned to specie. Such as gold and silver. Hard money. It was durable. Portable. Divisible. Fungible. For example, all Spanish dollars were the same while all pigs weren’t. One pig could weigh 30 pounds more than another. So pigs weren’t fungible. Or durable. Portable. And, though divisible, making change wasn’t easy.
So in time traders big and small turned to specie as the medium of exchange. For all the reasons noted above. If you worked hard to produce fine pottery you trusted in specie. You would accept specie for your pottery goods. Because you knew this hard money would hold its value. And you could use it in the future to buy what you wanted. No matter how long that may be. Why? Because the money supply remained relatively constant. As it took a lot of work and great expense to mine and refine ore to make specie out of it. So there was little inflation when using hard money. Which meant if you saved for a rainy day that hard money would be there for you.
Gold and silver could be heavy to carry around. Anyone struggling under the weight of their specie were targets for thieves. Who wanted that money. Without creating anything of value to bring to market. So we found a way to improve a little on using gold and silver. By locking our gold and silver in a vault. And carrying around receipts for our gold and silver to use as money. These gold certificates were promises to pay in gold. People could continue to use them as money. Or they could take these receipts back to the vault and exchange them for the gold inside. These gold certificates were as good as gold. And there were no more gold certificates in circulation than there was gold in the vault to exchange them for.
Governments Today use nothing but Paper Money because it gives them Privilege, Wealth and Power
Some saw advantages of expanding the money supply with paper currency. Money that isn’t backed by gold or any other asset. Money easy to print. And easy to borrow. Allowing rich people to borrow large sums of money to buy more assets. And get richer. Giving them more power. And if you were the one printing and loaning that money it gave you great wealth and power. So having a bank charter was a way to wealth and power. You could make it easy for those who can help you to borrow money. While making it difficult for those who oppose you to borrow money. So there were those in business and in government that liked un-backed paper money. Because a select few could borrow it cheaply and get rich and powerful.
While some liked these banks and that paper money there were others who bitterly opposed them. Some who didn’t like to see so much power in so few hands. And the hard money people. Who wanted a money that held its value. The common people. People who couldn’t borrow large sums of cheap money. But people who had to get by on less as the inflation from printing all those paper dollars raised prices. Leaving them with less purchasing power. Making it harder for them to get by. Often having to turn to the hated banks to borrow money. Again and again. Such that the interest on their loans consumed even more of their limited funds. Making life more tenuous. And more bitter between the classes. The rich who benefited from the cheap paper money. And the common people who paid the price of all that inflation.
Rich people, on the other hand, loved that inflation. It helped them make money. When they bought something at a lower price and sold it at a higher price they made a lot of money. The greater the inflation the greater the selling price. And the more profit. Also, the money they owed was easier to pay off with money that was worth less than when they borrowed it. Allowing rich people to get even richer. While the common people saw only higher prices. And the value of their meager savings lose value. So this cheap paper money fostered great class warfare. The hard money people hated the paper money people. Debtors hated creditors. The middling classes hated the large landowners, merchants, manufacturers and, of course, the bankers. And those who had talent to create things hated those who just made money with money. The greater the inflation the greater the divide between the people. And the greater wealth and power that select few acquired. This is what paper money gave you. Privilege. Which is why most governments today use nothing but paper money.
Tags: banks, barter system, class warfare, commodity money, creative talent, divisible, durable, fungible, gold, gold certificates, goods, hard money, inflation, market, medium of exchange, money, money supply, paper currency, paper money, people with talent, portable, power, privilege, purchasing power, search costs, silver, specie, talent, temporary storage of wealth, trade, traders, value, wealth, wealth and power
Rich People become Liberals so People don’t Shame them for their Obscene Wealth
Rich people love being rich. They love their mansions. Their expensive cars. Eating at the finest restaurants. Drinking the finest wine. Going on lavish vacations. Going to the best parties. Hanging with the beautiful people. And rich men especially like the sex with beautiful young women their wealth can make happen. To quote the Eagles song Life in the Fast Lane rich people love having everything all of the time.
Some of the richest people in the United States are liberals. Yes, those same people who argue for income and wealth equality. Hollywood stars. Televisions stars. Authors. And music stars. Who are everything they stand against. They’re part of that evil 1%. And they live very ostentatious lives. Their wealth is over the top. Bling. Cars. Cars with bling. Nothing but the best. And then some. This wealth is okay, though. But those in the 1% other than them? Government should raise their taxes to take as much of it away as possible. And we should all shame them for daring to have such obscene wealth.
Of course, rich liberals like their obscene wealth. They want to keep it. And they want to continue their lavish lives. But they don’t want people shaming them. They want people to love them and adore them. So they buy whatever they’re selling. Movies, televisions shows, books or music. They don’t want anyone shaming them for their obscene wealth. So they do something very simple to avoid that shame. They become public liberals.
Only those Businesses that Continually Please their Customers Succeed
Liberals can have the most obscene amounts of wealth without anyone shaming them for that obscene wealth. Why? Because they belong to the ‘right’ political party. The one that argues against income and wealth inequality. So they get a pass. Which is why so many rich people are liberals. They want to be left alone. And their call for higher taxes on rich people? Well, they’re so rich that they can hire the best accountants and tax attorneys to help them shield their wealth from the taxman. There’s a reason why the tax code is so convoluted and not a simple flat tax like conservatives want. To help rich liberals keep their money.
Then there are rich liberals who have too much of a conscious. And they feel guilty for having obscene wealth. But not guilty enough to give their wealth away. These liberals are vehemently pro big government. They want a massive welfare state. To assuage their wealth guilt. So they can continue to enjoy their obscene wealth. Their 1% wealth. Without having to feel guilty about it. Such as, presumably, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart is a very well-read and intelligent man. He knows a lot of stuff. Unfortunately, though, he draws many wrong conclusions with that knowledge. He favors big government. And a vast welfare state to help those in need. He trusts government while distrusting corporations and businesses. Because, as he has said, we have no vote with corporations and businesses like we do with government. Via elections. But he’s wrong. We do have a vote with all corporations and businesses. The moment they stop treating their customers right those customers go to other corporations and businesses. Most new businesses fail within 5 years. And some big companies that have been around for years fail and go out of business. Why? Because their customers DO have a large vote in whether they succeed or not. And only those businesses that continually please their customers succeed. Something you just can’t say about government. For no matter how much they anger the people little ever changes.
Not only is there Income and Wealth Inequality there’s also Income Tax Inequality
Fox News has been talking about people scamming the welfare state. Highlighting a surfer dude in California as a typical welfare cheat. Stewart lambasted Fox News for that. Saying one person (or two or three, etc.) does not mean all people on welfare are gaming the system. Although he uses that very logic to point at corporations caught in wrong-doing. Saying they represent all corporations and businesses. And he joins the choir about how rich corporations and rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes. And how some of these rich corporations and rich people are hiding their income and wealth from the taxman. Despite their paying the lion’s share of all taxes.
According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, when it comes to income taxes it’s rich people paying the most. So not only is there income and wealth inequality. There’s also income tax inequality. Through recent years the top 1% of income earners has paid approximately a third of all income taxes. The top 5% has paid more than half of all income taxes. And the top 10% of income earners has paid about 70% of all income taxes. While the bottom 50% of income earners, the people rich liberals want to help, pay about 3% (or less) of all income taxes.
You don’t have to raise tax rates on the wealthy. They’re already paying a disproportionate share of all income taxes. In fact, if you cut tax rates and cut business regulations to help rich business and rich people get even richer more tax revenue would flow into the treasury. This would be a good thing. Rich people getting richer. And more people becoming rich. This should be what everyone wants. Based on the amount of taxes rich people pay. So we should stop trying to help the less fortunate by raising taxes on the rich. And creating more onerous regulations for businesses that benefit the less fortunate. Like Obamacare. For it hurts the profit incentive. Which prevents rich people from getting richer and paying more income taxes. As well as dissuades people from becoming business owners or expanding their businesses. Which means fewer jobs. Fewer hours in those jobs. And the replacement of costly people with machines. It’s because of these things that median family income has fallen under the Obama administration. Which is the last thing any good liberal should want. This is why rich liberals have got to stop supporting a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt. It’s killing the middle class. And destroying the jobs that could pull the less fortunate into the middle class. And beyond.
Tags: 1%, businesses, corporations, guilt, higher taxes, income, income and wealth inequality, income tax inequality, income taxes, jobs, Jon Stewart, less fortunate, liberals, middle class, obscene wealth, rich, rich liberals, rich people, shame, taxes, wealth, wealth guilt, welfare state
Week in Review
The Canadians like to think of themselves as kinder and gentler than their neighbors south of the border. For they have a generous welfare state. Including single-payer health care. Unlike those Americans who put profits before people. But it comes at a price. High taxes. And they do pay a lot. But they get a lot. Those high taxes, though, lower take-home pay. Giving Canadians less disposable income than their neighbors south of the border. Which means they have to borrow more to make up for that smaller disposable income (see Personal debt ratio hits record high of 163.7% posted 12/13/2013 on CBC News).
Statistics Canada reported Friday that the level of household credit market debt to disposable income increased to 163.7 per cent in the third quarter from 163.1 per cent in the second quarter.
That means Canadians owe nearly $1.64 for every $1 in disposable income they earn in a year.
Policymakers are fixated on the debt ratio in part because it was at above 160 per cent that households in the United States and Britain ran into trouble about five years ago, contributing to defaults and the financial crisis that triggered the 2008-09 recession…
Indeed, while they are borrowing more, Canadians are also worth more as their assets increase by a similar amount. The national net worth increased to $7.5 trillion in the third quarter, up 2.1 per cent from the previous quarter.
On a per capita basis, that works out to $212,700 for every Canadian. The previous quarter, that figure was $208,300.
Rising net worth and rising debt? Gee, what could that mean? Well, most people’s wealth is determined by the price of their home. As the value of their homes rise so does their net worth. That is, their net worth rises as the price of their home (if they were to sell) rises. And as their home price rises so do other home prices. Which increases mortgage amounts. As people borrow more to buy these more expensive homes. And the lower the interest rates the more they will borrow and the bigger the house they will buy. And this creates a what? That’s right. A housing bubble (see Is There a Canadian Housing Bubble? by Carrie Rossenfeld posted 11/13/2013 on GlobeSt.com).
GlobeSt.com: What factors lead experts to think there may be a Canadian housing bubble?
Muoio: For us, the biggest sign there is a housing bubble is how far prices have appreciated without a corresponding rise in income. This means housing affordability is falling rapidly and will eventually reach a tipping point. Additionally, if lenders are underwriting against an expectation of rising prices, this could result in loosening standards and too much leverage in the system.
GlobeSt.com: How similar are these factors to what happened to the US housing market before the recession?
C.M.: Very similar. US home prices kept appreciating while incomes saw only modest growth in the final years before the bubble burst. This led to a situation where eventually housing just became entirely unaffordable and the market’s liquidity completely dried up. With people over-levered due to the loose lending standards (which were enabled by the expectation of rising prices), this led to a massive unwind and foreclosure mess we are still working through. Additionally, Canada, just like us at the time, is building an extreme amount of homes that could lead to oversupply issues.
A rising debt level and higher net worth probably is more bad news than good. For it is likely a sign of a housing bubble. Just like these very things were a sign of a housing bubble in the U.S. just before the subprime mortgage crisis. Or is it a sign that Canadians are just taxed too much leaving them with less disposable income? Forcing them to borrow more as they cannot save enough for a sizeable down payment to reduce the amount they have to finance? Or is it both?
It appears the Canadians can’t learn from the Americans. And when the Canadian bubble bursts the Americans won’t learn anything from the Canadians. For governments today want to keep interest rates low to encourage home ownership. Which they do. Taking us from bubble to bubble. And from recession to recession.
Tags: Canada, debt ratio, disposable income, high taxes, home price, housing bubble, interest rates, mortgage, net worth, recession, wealth
Some of the Richest People in the United States live in the Suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Liberals say they care about the people. While they say conservatives only care about their money. Conservatives want to cut taxes and government spending so they can keep more of their money to spend on their families. Liberals want to increase taxes and government spending. To take more money from taxpayers to spend on other people. People who are more deserving of that money than the people who earned it.
Liberals say they want to tax and spend because they care about people. And not money. Like conservatives. Yet the more money a liberal government collects in taxes the more powerful that government grows. And the richer those in government get. Just look at the wealth surrounding Washington, D.C., which includes six of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S. It used to be the military industrial complex. Now it’s the government industrial complex. For liberals do not like the military. And gut defense spending to fund their welfare state. Spending our money to reward their friends. And buying votes by making people dependent on government.
Some of the richest people in the United States live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Who got rich on taxpayer money. Where those connected to the liberal aristocracy enjoy obscene levels of wealth. While the median family income falls. Leaving families in the rest of the country to get by on less. While those connected to government enjoy those obscene levels of wealth. Yet liberals care about the people. And not these obscene levels of wealth.
Liberals have grown Very Wealthy by Caring for the People ‘instead’ of Money
So it’s no secret the more money the government collects the better liberals in government live. The bigger government grows the more government jobs that are available. Allowing liberals to spread the wealth. Other people’s wealth, that is. So it’s good for those inside the government aristocracy. Which is why liberals ‘care’ about the people. So they can run a massive welfare state. With them at the top. Like Old World royalty. Passing alms out to the people. Where the people grovel. And are obedient. Grateful for what royalty gives them. Thanking them politely. And never forgetting their place. The dirt beneath their feet (to borrow a line from the musical Les Misérables).
It is hard, then, to believe liberals when they say they care about the people. As caring for the people has made them very wealthy. Wealth they acquired by taking it away from other people. Via taxes. It is harder still to believe them when you look at their actions. Whenever there is a high-profile gun crime, for example, they immediately use it to advance gun control legislation. As if America is suffering from a plague of gun deaths. And that only when the government takes away guns from law-abiding gun owners will the dying stop. Of course, others throughout history have wanted to take away the people’s guns. Including the British in 1775. When the shot heard ’round the world was fired. Kicking off the Revolutionary War.
So Americans are very suspect whenever anyone comes after their guns. Because that means only one thing. Those trying to take away those guns want to make these gun owners weaker. The question is, why? Why do governments want to make their people weaker? Probably for the same reason ruling elites everywhere do. When you’re greatly outnumbered you don’t want the people you’re oppressing to be able to fight back.
For Every Person who ‘picked’ an Obamacare Policy 38 People lost the Insurance they Liked and Wanted to Keep
Listening to liberals you would think that the only way people are dying in America is from gun violence. Is this true? If not exactly how are people dying? Well, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011) the total deaths in 2011 was 2,512,873. Some of the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases at 778,503 (31.0%). Cancers (Malignant neoplasms) at 575,313 (22.9%). Chronic lower respiratory diseases at 143,382 (5.7%). Just with these three groups of diseases we’re at 59.6% of all 2011 deaths. And that’s before we get to non-disease related deaths. Such as Drug-induced deaths at 40,239 (1.6%). Motor vehicle accidents at 34,677 (1.4%). Falls at 26,631 (1.1%). And one of the least causes of deaths. Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms at 11,101 (0.4%).
Gun deaths account for less than one half of one percent of all deaths in 2011. Yet they want to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners to stop an epidemic of gun deaths totaling 0.4% of all deaths in 2011. That’s what liberals are focused on. That. And the decriminalization of drugs. Because drugs are a victimless crime. Something only responsible adults choose to do. Despite drug-induced deaths being more than three and half times greater than gun deaths. But liberals are hard on guns. And soft on drugs. Even though more people die from drugs than from guns. Yet liberals care about people.
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was to provide affordable health insurance to about 50 million of uninsured people. With the rollout of Obamacare only 106,185 ‘picked’ an insurance policy in October (some may have bought a plan or simply placed one in their shopping cart). While 4.02 million people in 28 states have lost their health insurance (see White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans by Carol E. Lee and Louise Radnofsky posted 11/14/2013 on The Wall Street Journal). So for every person who ‘picked’ an insurance policy 38 people lost the insurance they liked and wanted to keep. Considering 59.6% of all deaths in 2011 were from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases taking away health insurance from 4.02 million people could very well cause more people to die from these diseases. For they are very common diseases. And these policy cancellations are only from the individual market. When the cancellations for the employer-provided plans start hitting next year we may be seeing hundreds of millions who will lose their health insurance. Which is by design. To force the people who already have insurance into costlier plans to pay for those who don’t. And, of course, to make government bigger. As well as making liberals in the government aristocracy wealthier.
Whenever there is a high-profile gun death the left renews their push for new gun control legislation. Even if it saves only one child. They say this despite guns being responsible for less than one half of one percent of all deaths. Yet when they take away health insurance from 4.02 million people who may die from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases, these deaths are negligible. Acceptable. A small percentage of the population whose deaths won’t mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. All that is important to them is protecting and growing the government aristocracy. So they can continue to live in the wealthiest counties in the U.S. While enjoying their regal lives paid for with other people’s money. Yet it’s the liberals that care about people.
Tags: aristocracy, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, conservatives, drugs, government aristocracy, government spending, gun control, gun control legislation, gun crime, gun deaths, guns, heart disease, law-abiding gun owners, liberals, liberals care about the people, Obamacare, obscene levels of wealth, royalty, taxes, taxpayers, wealth, welfare state
Week in Review
Keynesian economists, and those on the left, think there is nothing wrong with printing money. Because they don’t understand money. What it truly is. So what is money? It’s a temporary storage of wealth. It is not wealth. Doctors make a lot of money because they have learned great skills. Skills few people have. And doctors are willing to exchange these skills for money. The wealth is a doctor’s skills. The money temporarily holds this wealth until the doctor finds something to trade that money for. From someone else that has wealth. Who created something of value the doctor is willing to trade for.
All money did was make this trading of valuable things easier. So we could trade with anyone even if they don’t want anything we can make or do. A doctor doesn’t have to find someone who wants their gallbladder removed who has a television set if the doctor wants a television set. The doctor can just go to a store and buy one. Because of money. Making the exchange of goods and services far easier than in a barter system.
Those who think money is wealth and that we should just print it and hand it out to the people are missing one very important point. If you did this no one would have to work. Those on the left would applaud that. But if no one worked there would be no valuable things to trade. And if there are no valuable things to trade then your money is worthless. For if there is nothing to buy what good is having money?
North Korea has a lot of money. But their money is worthless. Because they just print it. While their economy contains no valuable things to trade. Not a big problem in a closed economy. And you make your people slaves. But it’s a problem if you want to trade with the outside world for the luxury items the lucky few in the ruling elite enjoy. For if you have no valuable things in your economy then you must trade for valuable things with hard currency. Money that isn’t worthless paper. So North Korea came up with a way to get hard currency (see How North Korea got itself hooked on meth by Max Fisher published 8/21/2013 on The Washington Post).
A new study published in the journal North Korea Review says that parts of North Korea are experiencing a crystal meth “epidemic,” with an “upsurge” of recreational meth use and accompanying addiction in the country’s northern provinces…
So how do people in North Korea, a country where markets are so tightly regulated that even video CDs can be considered dangerous contraband and where social controls are often beyond Orwellian, manage to get hold of meth..?
The problem actually goes back to the 1990s, when North Korea experienced a famine so devastating that virtually the entire world believed the country would collapse at any moment. But it didn’t, in part because Pyongyang finally decided to open up the world’s most closed economy just a small crack, by allowing a degree of black market trade across North Korea’s border with China. The idea was that the black market would bring in food, which it did, preventing North Korea’s implosion.
The black market trade into China has remained that little bit open ever since, either because Pyongyang authorities can’t close it now or because they see some trade as beneficial, probably both. Some provinces along the border have seen their economies liberalize a tiny, tiny bit — most notably North Hamgyung, which is named in the North Korea Review report as particularly blighted by meth addiction.
In the years after the border with China opened that little crack, two other things have happened that led to the current meth crisis. First, medicine ran out and the once-not-terrible health system collapsed — more on this later. Second, North Korea started manufacturing meth in big state-run labs. The country badly needs hard currency and has almost no legitimate international trade. But it was able to exploit the black market trade across the Chinese border by sending state-made meth into China and bringing back the money of Chinese addicts.
This is where things started to spin out of control for North Korea. The state-run meth factories and the cross-border black market trade started to mingle. And some of that meth ended up migrating back across the border and into North Korea, through the black market trade that brings in Chinese rice and DVDs and the like.
This is where the collapse of the North Korean health system becomes relevant. As Isaac Stone Fish reported in a great 2011 Newsweek story, many regular North Koreans started using meth to treat health problems. Real medicine is extremely scarce in the country. But meth is much more common, which means that the prices of medical drugs are artificially inflated, while the price of meth is artificially low. In a culture without much health education and lots of emphasis on traditional remedies, people were ready to believe that meth would do the trick for their medical problems, and many got addicted.
Poor Chinese. First the British got them addicted to opium. Then North Korea got them addicted to meth. It appears the Chinese people are nothing but pawns in the game of international trade.
Back in the days of mercantile Britain trade was all about who collected the most hard currency. Basically gold and silver in those days. The British loved Chinese tea. And were filling ships full of the stuff to bring it back to Britain. The problem was that the Chinese didn’t want anything the British were selling. So Chinese goods were flowing to Britain. But no British goods were flowing to China. And without having exports to offset imports Britain was forced to trade the only thing they had that China wanted. Their hard currency. Their silver. So Chinese goods flowed out of china. And Britain’s hard currency flowed out of Britain. So China was accumulating piles of hard currency while Britain saw their piles diminish. Which was the exact opposite mercantile Britain wanted. So they did something about it. Thanks to India.
India was part of the British Empire. And she grew opium poppies. Something some Chinese did want. So the British used this opium demand to stop the flow of hard currency out of the empire. And traded Indian opium for Chinese tea. This solved the trade deficit problem. But it created a lot of addicts in China. The addiction problem got so bad that it spawned two wars. The Opium Wars. Which did not end well for China. And things did not get better in the century or so that followed. And now here is North Korea. Turning Chinese into addicts to get hard currency out of China (and into North Korea). Just like the British did. Of course, North Korea is nothing like the mighty British Empire. So one would believe that China is allowing this addiction problem to happen. As it is probably a smaller price to pay than the refugee problem should North Korea collapse. And they may like that North Korean buffer between them and South Korea. Japan. And the United States.
North Korea is everything the left would like to have in the United States. Tightly regulated markets. National health care. No rich people accumulating private property. Where they frown on profits. The even put people before profits. Just like liberals want to do. There’s no talk radio. No Rush Limbaugh. No Fox News. No free trade. No low-cost imports to undermine union manufacturing. No obesity. Because there is no junk food. And no 32 ounce sugary beverages. And a government that can do what is right for the people without having to worry about a Tea Party challenger in the next primary election. North Korea is liberal nirvana. Yet life there is horrible and wretched. Because it’s everything liberals want. But nothing the people want.
Liberals want to keep expanding government. To have more government intervention into the free market. But where does it end? How far do they want to take things towards North Korea before they say they have enough? And why anyone should worry about this is because as horrible and wretched life is in North Korea, those in the ruling elite have it pretty darn good. Because the people in charge of these regimes never suffer like the people outside of the ruling elite. So the farther they move towards North Korea the less they have to worry about an election taking away their comfy life. This is why we should worry about a government growing larger. For throughout world history life like that in North Korea has been the norm. While life like that in the United States has been the exception. And the United States has only been around for 225 years (counting from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution). A crazy new fad the entitled ruling elite (i.e., liberals) would like to do away with. So they can rule like they did in the good old days. Much like they do today in North Korea. Where the supreme ruler, Kim Jong-un, has an obesity problem. One of the few in North Korea that isn’t gripped with a gnawing hunger every minute of every day. This is life in a country where the ruling elite hates capitalism. And puts people before profits. This liberal nirvana. Those in power live well. While everyone else suffers.
Tags: addiction, black market, Britain, British Empire, China, Chinese addicts, Chinese tea, hard currency, India, Indian opium, Keynesian, liberal, liberal nirvana, meth, meth addiction, money, North Korea, opium, Pyongyang, ruling elite, silver, trade, wealth
The Left needs Racism to Exist so they can Continue the Fight to End Racism
George Zimmerman had what pretty much everyone said was a fair trial. And extensive attempts to detect a racial motivation have been in vain. Most people seem to agree that race was not a factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Yet since the ‘not guilty’ verdict some have been saying things like if Trayvon Martin was a white kid Zimmerman would not have followed him. And that if Martin was a white kid and a black man shot him a jury would have found that black man guilty of first degree murder.
These things are so obvious that some people (primarily those on the political left) are demanding the federal government charge Zimmerman with a race-based hate crime. And for violating Martin’s civil rights. Despite pretty much everyone having said it was a fair trial. And extensive attempts to detect a racial motivation have been in vain. But it’s now about race. Why? And where is their concern for what’s happening in Chicago? Where the black on black murder rate is soaring?
Government fixes problems. And Big Government fixes big problems. Problems like racism. By creating agencies and writing legislation to end racism. Increasing the size of the government. And increasing their power. Putting more and more people into powerful positions. Earning large salaries. While activists agitate. Getting more time in the news whenever they speak out against racism. Staying relevant. And allowing them to collect vast sums of money to continue the fight to end racism. Which brings us to why the political left is giving the Zimmerman case a racial component when none exists. For they need racism to exist. So they can continue the fight to end racism. Because it gives them power. And pays them so well.
The Left has transformed Rugged Individualism into Complacency, Lethargy and Subservience
The political left wants to expand the size of government. They want the government to do more for the people. Like the social democracies in Europe. And they want the people to be dependent on the government. With the government redistributing ever more wealth. And they want to be the people deciding who gets this redistributed wealth. Because of the power it gives them. And the wealth. For the more wealth that passes through the government the more they can skim off the top. So they can make ‘investments’ in selected businesses. Businesses, coincidentally, that their friends own. Who return the favor with campaign donations. From the very tax money they ‘invested’ in those businesses.
But their crony capitalist friends in business are not the only recipients of government largesse. The government gives alms to the people. To make them dependent on government. Form Social Security to Medicare to Obamacare to food stamps. Not a lot to make their lives really comfortable. But enough that they can survive without working. Getting them complacent. Lethargic. And subservient. A permanent underclass. Afraid to lose their government benefits. So they keep voting the political left into office. To keep their benefits. Keeping them complacent. Lethargic. And subservient. A long way from the rugged individualism of our grandfathers.
But it’s just not the crony capitalism. And the alms. There are also the agencies and the legislation. And the vast government bureaucracy. That becomes so entrenched that it becomes impossible to get rid of it. Which is why government only grows. It never shrinks. Because government bureaucracies take on a life of their own. And like any living organism they grow. And the more agencies and legislation for that permanent underclass the greater that vast government bureaucracy is. The more positions of power. And the more money that passes through government.
The Left is making the Zimmerman Verdict about Race because it gives them Purpose, Power and Wealth
During the mid 1800s the majority of southerners lived and worked on family-owned farms. Were poor. And did not own slaves. For slaves were expensive. The great slave populations were on the plantations. Owned by the rich planter class. Who ran the government. A true Old World aristocracy if there ever was one. You’ve seen Gone with the Wind. Glorious mansions. Huge landholdings. Servants. And family names so great they were nearly royalty. People treated them like royalty. And they expected the people to treat them as royalty. For they were. In the plantation South. And this was what they were fighting to preserve. That part of the Old World that the United States broke free from. Where some people were better than you based on their birth. And it mattered what your last name was.
So they plunged their people into war. Telling them it was about states’ rights. And northern aggression. When it was nothing more than these few people, the planter elite, the southern Democrats, trying to keep the South in the 18th century. With them enjoying their positions of privilege. While the masses toiled for them. In fact they were so exalted that they actually owned human beings. Like barons. And earls. And dukes. They liked that world. Just as landowning aristocracies have for millennium. Then the Founding Fathers had to come along and muck everything up. With their “all men are created equal.” And their Constitution. Creating a government of the people. Instead of what it should be. A government of the privileged elite. Then that abominable Abraham Lincoln. And his “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” How they hated that. And ever since losing the Civil War the southern Democrats struggled to maintain their position of privilege.
The descendants of those southern Democrats, liberals, still seek privilege and power. And few have suffered as much to advance their cause than blacks. They destroyed the black family with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Where the government replaced the father in the black families on AFDC. Saying these women didn’t need to get married. Or live with the fathers of their children. So black children grew up without fathers. Or male role models. Which spurred the creation of Big Brothers. To provide positive role models for these black kids harmed by liberal policies. So they wouldn’t turn to the streets. Or gangs. Which they did. And still do. In alarming numbers. And today little has changed in the black community. The vast majority of black children are born to single mothers. And the streets of Chicago run red with the blood of black teens and young adults. But the political left doesn’t care about these blacks. Because their deaths can’t help them politically. Especially when it’s their policies that caused all of this violence. But when a light-skin Hispanic (who those on the left called a ‘white’ Hispanic) kills a black teen, why, that’s close enough to a white man killing a black teen. And THAT can help them politically. Which is why the left is making this a case about race. Because it gives the left purpose. And purpose leads to power and wealth.
Tags: AFDC, alms, aristocracy, black family, Chicago, complacent, Democrats, dependent on government, fair trial, George Zimmerman, government benefits, government bureaucracy, lethargic, liberals, Martin, Old World, permanent underclass, plantation, planter class, political left, power, privilege, race, racial motivation, racism, redistributed wealth, royalty, rugged individualism, slaves, Southern Democrats, subservient, the fight to end racism, Trayvon Martin, trial, vast government bureaucracy, wealth, Zimmerman
Government Helps the Poor by Keeping them Poor so they Remain Dependent on Government
Politicians lie. Everyone knows this. It’s a running joke in comedy movies and television programs. And a common plotline in dramas. Because politicians will say and promise anything to get elected. Which is their primary and only objective. Winning an election. And the needs and wants of the people are secondary. Things they can easily brush aside once ascending to elected office. Because they don’t really care about the people. At least, they don’t care for them as much as they care for themselves.
And once they’re in office the promises keep coming. To help them win the next election. And to keep the size of government growing. As well as the amount of taxes they collect. Which gives them wealth. And power. The ultimate goal in running for elected office. That’s why they sneer at the concept of limited government. And tax cuts. Because the less government we have the less wealth and power they enjoy. For if we really are the self-reliant people of the Founding what need do we have for an expanding government?
Of course the answer to that question is we would have little need for an expanding government. For we can earn our pay and take care of ourselves. And our families. The way Americans did before Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama. Men who do not like that independent spirit. And will use a host of arguments to condemn it. It’s not fair being their favorite. Because who can argue against being fair? So everything they do is about leveling the playing field. To make sure the rich pay their fair share. And to help the little guy. By making him dependent on government. And perpetually poor. So they will remain dependent on government. So they can keep taking care of these poor.
Government rarely chooses Tax-Cutting for Stimulus as Cutting Taxes doesn’t Increase the Size of Government
LBJ declared a War on Poverty. Justifying a huge increase in federal spending starting the Sixties. And after spending untold billions to eradicate poverty what did we get? Not much. We still have poverty. And the government spends more with each passing year to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished. But it never goes away. Poverty. And the government nurtures it. Protects it. By making it more attractive to stay on a meager government assistance instead of going to work. And building a career. Doing something you love. While leaving your mark on the world. Instead we get ever increasing federal spending. And a permanent underclass the government can be savior to. You see they don’t want to win the War on Poverty. Because if they win it then we won’t need them anymore.
The greatest killer of poverty is a job. People gainfully employed can provide themselves food, shelter, etc. They can have clean drinking water. And heat in the winter. It’s only the unemployed who look at food, shelter and heat as sought after luxuries. For people with jobs are those self-reliant people. Who provide tax dollars instead of consuming them. This is no secret. So it would follow that the best thing to do during a recession is to make it as easy as possible to create jobs. You do that by lowering taxes. And cutting regulations. Not by raising taxes. Or adding regulatory costs. And you sure don’t pass a quasi national health care plan like Obamacare.
Also, history has shown that Keynesian stimulus spending does not pull economies out of recession. If it did Ronald Reagan would not have won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter. And Europe would not be in a sovereign debt crisis. Keynesians know this. But they can’t pass up the opportunity to increase federal spending. So they promise lower unemployment rates and higher GDP numbers if only Congress does the right thing and “pass this stimulus bill.” And when it doesn’t work they have two predictable explanations. They didn’t spend enough. And that even they didn’t realize how bad their predecessor destroyed the economy. Calling the recession du jour the worst since the Great Depression. Covering their lies about ending the recession with statements like “things would have been worse if we didn’t act.” And though they didn’t reduce unemployment they’ll make incredulous claims like “we saved 800,000 jobs with this bold action.” Predictable. For their primary objective isn’t to end any recession. It is to exploit the crisis to advance their agenda. Basically, increasing the size of government. And we know this because there are two ways to put more money into people’s pockets to stimulate the economy. You can cut taxes so they have more money to spend. Or you can tax, borrow and print money so the government can spend more. Very rarely do they ever choose the tax-cutting route. Because the tax-cutting way works against their agenda of increasing the size of government.
Politicians Promise and Lie to the Young and Naïve to Advance a Political Agenda
And speaking of Obamacare President Obama promised the American people that if you liked your private health insurance plan you could keep it. And the cost of that health care plan would go down. Because they had a massive convoluted health care plan that was going to give health care to everyone. Increase the quality of health care from what it is now. And it was going to be less expensive. Which was a lie. Because you can’t have more of anything for less money. Life just doesn’t work that way. As they implement Obamacare its taxes and regulations are forcing business owners to push people from full-time to part-time. So they aren’t forced into providing mandated health insurance plans. Some even have no choice but to drop their health care coverage for all of their employees. Because their health care costs went up. Not down. And they’re predicting doctor shortages. Because the only cost savings they can get is by forcing people to work for less in the health care industry. So they’re leaving. Under Obamacare there will be higher costs, longer wait times, rationing, denial of services and lower quality. Everything they promised wouldn’t happen. And everything critics said would happen. So are the proponents of Obamacare just so utterly ignorant? Or were they lying through their teeth because they just wanted to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy? With an agenda to increase the size of government one has to go with lying through their teeth.
President Obama blamed George W. Bush for the world hating America. When he became president he no longer projected American power. Instead he wanted to talk to our enemies. To negotiate with them. He even dropped words from official usage. Like the War on Terror. To make our enemies like us. Because people like people who aren’t bullies. And that was what George W. Bush was. A bully. So President Obama warmed up to the Islamic world. So the Islamic world would warm up to us. Even announcing withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan early in his administration. Ending the war on you-know-what. So he could use that money for Obamacare. Promising the American people the world would be a safer place. Even passing on an opportunity to help overthrow the government in Iran. America’s greatest enemy. Instead, he helped people overthrow a couple of our allies. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. And Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Who since the Iraq war had been an ally in the War on Terror. And the thanks for this new Islam-friendly American policy? They killed our ambassador in Benghazi along with three other Americans. Al Qaeda is now in Libya. And the Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt. And it looks like al Qaeda is now in Syria. Another enemy of the United States the people were trying to overthrow that President Obama chose not to help. The Middle East may burn now. Making the world a more dangerous place. But the president got what he wanted. All that money we were spending overseas they can now spend at home. Rewarding friends and campaign contributors. As well as buying votes.
And now they are calling for tighter gun control measures. Greater background checks. And a national gun register. To protect the kids they say. So another Newtown massacre doesn’t happen. Even though they themselves will admit that every measure they proposed thus far would not have stopped the shooter at Newton. Aurora. Tucson. Virginia Tech. Or any other shooting where some mentally unsound person killed random strangers. These people didn’t kill because guns made them kill. They killed because they were sick. And we didn’t protect society by institutionalizing these people. The only thing we could have done to stop them once they started shooting we didn’t do. Having someone armed in these ‘gun-free’ zones. For these sick people shoot unarmed innocents until someone with a gun arrives on the scene to shoot back. So arming teachers may save children from another Newtown. While everything they proposed thus far will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future Newton. Yet they press for further restrictions on gun ownership. And if it won’t make children safer one wonders why they want to exploit these shootings to advance their anti-gun-ownership agenda. As they are interested in acquiring greater wealth and power one would have to assume it’s the power. Perhaps making them feel more all-powerful if they can actually nullify the Second Amendment.
So politicians promise and lie to advance an agenda. Which is why the young typically vote for those who promise and lie so much. The liberal Democrats. As the young are naïve and easy to lie to. While older people tend to vote Republican. For they are older. They have heard all of the promises and lies before. And they’re wiser. Which comes with age. Which is why the liberal Democrats get them while they’re young. For it’s hard to keep them once they gain knowledge and experience.
Tags: Al Qaeda, dependent on government, elected office, election, federal spending, George W. Bush, gun control, gun ownership, Health Care, Islamic world, Keynesian, Liberal Democrats, Newton, Obamacare, politicians, poverty, power, President Obama, promise, recession, regulations, self-reliant people, stimulus, tax cuts, war on poverty, War on Terror, wealth, wealth and power
« Previous Entries