Archive for November, 2010

Time and again, the ruling class deems it necessary to” save us” by engaging in economic policies which are PROVEN failures.  Sadly, these elitists have a cheering section amongst the populace which further empowers these idiots.

Does 2 + 2  EVER equal anything other than 4?   NO.

Here are two videos which succinctly and engagingly demonstrate the failure in theory and practice of  Keynesian style economics.

Please watch and share!

Here’s another gem.

A man without reason.

I remember not too long ago having to endure a European visitor to our country expound to me why it was soooo necessary for our government to load up crushing debt and spend it on our behalf.  I wish I had seen and was very familiar with the principles and events put forth in these videos.  He would have learned (maybe) to keep his feckless, cradle to grave euro-nanny-state nonsense to himself.

About Keynes:

Keynes spent his ENTIRE life in government service and academia.  He never ran a business other than some private tutoring.  Despite this lack of any USEFUL experience he is revered as an economic genius, probably because he writes well.  If Einstein were the same caliber of genius as Keynes, “Fat Man” would have been little more than a big firecracker.   If you don’t know, “Fat Man” was the code name for the atom bomb we dropped on Hiroshima.



A friend of mine forwarded this to me.  I thought you all would enjoy it!


Political Science for Dummies



You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.

You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone. 


You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.


You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow


You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour. 


You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows. 


You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pour the milk down the drain. 


You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up. 


You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good. 


You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school. 


You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year. 


You have two cows but you don’t know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good. 





Rush tells the story with a different emphasis than I remember from grade school.

Despite the many other harsh realities of humanity during the time of the Pilgrims, there is no doubt that the New World‘s first experiment with socialism failed.

Governor Bradford gave each family their own land and let them keep whatever they could produce from it.  A bounty ensued.  And so, in a nutshell, a thanksgving celebration was born.

Happy Thanksgiving!


The wikipedia, a quick and in this case, reliable source explains Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as follows:

“The Federal National Mortgage Association, colloquially known as Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act[5] after the Great Depression to create a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby free the loan originators to originate more loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages.[6] In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act[7] made Fannie Mae into “mixed-ownership corporation” meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock;[5] in 1968 it converted to a private corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[8] In the 1968 change, Fannie Mae’s predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, supports FHA-insured mortgages as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages, with the full faith and credit of the United States government.[9] In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase private mortgages, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.[9]

If you watched the video, you’ll realize that there was DANGEROUS corruption and abuse at these two organizations.  Our congressional leaders (at the time Democrats) were warned.  Yet, they turned a blind eye,  bringing about potentially the most catastrophic systemic financial collapse in HUMAN HISTORY!

One can only wonder at the pigheadedness that prevented those in charge from doing ANYTHING which may have averted our current situation.  What, aside from politics, was the motivation?

To this day, NONE of these people accept any responsibility for the melt down of our financial system, the collapse of the housing market and the consequent near depression we are all experiencing.  They demonize “Wall Street,” corporations and of course, Geroge Bush, but clearly, it was the mismanagement of these 2 federally chartered,  quasi-governmental agencies that set the big dominos tumbling.

Keep in mind that these organizations were chartered to make it CHEAPER for americans to own homes.  Well, the bailouts now hover around $100 BILLION!  That’s no bargain to me.  See the story at the following link.

This is just one devastating case among MANY of the incompetence of political individuals taking the reins of an industry in which they have no real experience or expertise.  Guided only by their “good intentions,” a belief that profit is evil and everyone is entitled to everything, they royally much up the works.  In truth they hurt far more people than they help, and the hurt is catastrophic.


Posted: November 23, 2010 in Uncategorized

Here’s a little entertainment!

This is the video which was supposed to go with the earlier post.  Let’s see if it shows up here

Often, we defer to individual’s opinions because of their level of success and/or celebrity and Warren Buffet certainly falls into this category. If he called me with a sincere stock tip, I’d hock just about anything and everything to get in on that recommendation! I mean after all, he’s Warren Buffet!

But that doesn’t necessarily make him wise in all things great and small. This link shows an excerpt of an interview wherein he suggests taxing the ultra rich: .

What disturbs me is his rationale. He states that Government spending is 20%-25% of GDP while tax revenue is a round 15%. He states merely that those two numbers need to come closer together and someone’s taxes need to go up. Manfully, he volunteered himself and fellow ultra wealthy peers to partially fill that gap.

Check out these facts as quoted by directly from the director of Congresional Budget Office (CBO) during Bush’s terms.

In a letter written by Peter R. Orszag, May 18, 2007, ( Orszag was Director of CBO “Congressional Budget Office” at the time),  he stated, “receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent to 18.4 percent”. The period was from 2003- 2006.  ( I explain later that only 16.3% of Bush cuts on rich implemented before 2003, the other 83.7% started 2003.) Orszag later became Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Barak Obama. I assume, he is not a Tea Partier? ( BTW, he just quit, recommending to keep ALL the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, for the next 2 years.)  Orszog also stated in the same letter, “Total Federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006″ and then continued, “Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy  between 2003 and 2006, Federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth.”. When Bush got the other 83.7% of the cut, REVENUE OUTRAN GDP!

In the short clip with Buffett he disparages “trickle down,” as though trickle down explains how we came to the current economic debacle. He completely IGNORES the GROWTH of government spending. See the graph from the Heritage Foundation. In 2000 to 2010 there has been a 40% increase in spending per household in INFLATION adjusted dollars.

This Government spending has outrun the growth of the real GDP, and tax revenues. So if Mr. B wants to ante up and put a few billions in the kitty, more power to him, but the real

Up is good, right!

problem IS an out of control government money mill!


A very recent headline is highlighting the fact that many of our representatives in both houses are rich! Further, their collective wealth increased by 16% during 2009 when most Americans took a financial drubbing.

This is disturbing on the surface because the mere fact of it implies that well connected politicians can shield themselves in ways that the typical citizen can not. It conjures concepts of power abuse, elitest entitlement and the political equivalent of insider trading.

Disturbing as this is, and it IS disturbing, the greater story is how did virtual paupers, like Harry Reid, become millionaires while “serving the people”?

Let’s go through the facts and utilize a little grade school math (actually an interest and savings calculator

Senator Reid’s net worth, according to mandated disclosures is probably around $4.5 million. The “probably” comes from the Senate’s reporting rules which make real specificity somewhat optional. In order to have saved this much money over his terms of public service he would have had to put away around $3000/month, every month for the entire period of his working life,(assuming a 6% yearly interest rate and power of compounding). This level of savings from a public service salary seems unlikely, especially when also put 5 kids through college.

When confronted by Sharon Angle about this he refused to respond with any credibility saying he “had a very successful law practice and good investments.” (got to get to minute 8 or so of the video) He’s been in politics since he was 27 years old! The preceding link outlines his career and there is simply nowhere in there, that I can see, the kind of income required to amass this kind of wealth. Unless, of course, he means by good investments,” inside information that his various positions afforded him. And lest we forget, when and where was this “successful” law practice?

Now, I’m picking on Reid in great measure because he is a powerful Democrat and I am a registered Republican. However, I in no way believe that Democrats are the only ones enriching themselves through political connections. The point is that this stinks, it stinks a lot and it needs to be investigated further.


I remember feeling pretty excited when Newt Gingrich masterfully engineered a kind of revolution.  For the first time in decades, Republicans had the power in Congress.  Republicans took over the House and Senate and pushed back against the very liberal policies of President Clinton.   A balance of power was brought about.  It seemed to work pretty well.  The economy expanded,  and we were fine on the world stage.

Tired of the Clinton’s and those associated with them, a scandal weary electorate elected George Bush president.  A Republican House and Senate were already in place.  To their shame, these nimrods expanded government and entitlements with no less abandon than their Democratic counterparts had for decades.

Midway during “W’s” second term, a war weary electorate threw out the Republican bums and installed a Democratic Congress.  Then they (we) gave the reins of executive power to Mr. Obama who along with his Democratic cohorts have run up more debt than all previous administrations COMBINED!

My point comes to this.  It seems that when any one party has the Presidency and the two Houses, it’s BAD.  VERY, VERY BAD. They can’t seem to help themselves.  There is too much momentum, too much agreement in the direction of throwing federal money at virtually everything.  Hardly anybody knows how or when to say “no.”  The few that do, are too few to make a difference.  And I can only imagine the pressure that can be brought to bear against a junior congressperson seeking to change the “way things are done.”

At least when neither party has “it all,”  there is enough disagreement on HOW to spend us into OBLIVION, that the momentum is somewhat slowed.  Sometimes the animus is enough to bring about gridlock, which is really pretty awesome.

If we go back to the Clinton and Reagan years.  We find that the President’s opposite party mostly controlled the Congress.  This seemed to work the best.  We will have the same situation with Obama for the next two years.  Maybe, it’ll get better.  Let’s just wait and see.  And if we get a Republican President in 2012, a small, very real part of me hopes the Democrats retain control of the Senate.  I can’t believe I said that.


The ineptitude, among other faults, of the Obama Department of Justice went on full display today.

We’ve all heard the story by now. The Guantanamo detainee tried in federal criminal court was ACQUITTED on all counts but one, conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. No conviction of murder or attempted murder, yet in two attacks (that we know of) in which he participated over 200 were outright killed and thousands maimed.

Imagine being on that jury, probably having at least some dim idea that this guy was supposed to go down. And wanting to put him down! Yet, by the rules of jurisprudence you must say, “not guilty.” There may be exceptions, but I bet most of them feel pretty shitty about it. How easy is it to live with that?

What is behind this massive failure? Surely the justice department picked a case in which they were confident of victory. No doubt many high level meetings were involved and great assurances made of success. All to prove a political point. That George Bush was wrong. That America was wrong. We’re not at war, these are just criminals.

There are three words, which like massive cobblestones, paved the road to this particular failure; arrogance, incompetence and delusion.

Obama just “knows best.” The prior administration was evil, corrupt and inhumane. Yet, in nearly every case, from the so-called “domestic wiretapping,” to the indefinite detention of TERRORISTS at Guantanamo, the policies of George Bush have proved to be wise and effective. Obama is arrogant.

It seems to me that this case had to be Holder’s best case. Why would he lead with anything less? He almost lost completely. Yeah, the guy goes away for at least 20 years, but he’ll probably spend a good bit of that time radicalizing short-termers who will be freed to wreak more havoc on our society. Further, I’m sure that those close to the men and women he murdered feel short-changed even betrayed. Run of the mill incompetence with catastrophic consequence. They just don’t know what they’re doing.

Finally, like many of us who “cling to our guns,” the administration clings to a belief that we are not really at war. That the framework of criminal justice is sufficient to deal with terrorist threat. Unfortunately I’m afraid it will take the severe loss of life, which only luck has kept us from thus far, before they come out of their delusion.

You can watch a video from CBS news here.

Looks like a kid, don't he.