Capitalism and free markets are dead, don't ask me ask the media. The cover of a popular finance magazine stated this. Famous Yahoo columnist Charles Wheelan along with hundreds of other columnist preach this. This current mortgage crisis proves that markets can't regulate themselves is the popular mantra. Funny how 200 + of the strongest and freest economy in the world, one which gave the lowest class unprecedented opportunity to better their circumstances in history, while creating unprecedented wealth is all of a sudden wrong, but I regress.
This Election is the final nail in capitalists coffin,a Democratic sweep is devastating for anyone with ambition, and the desire to be successful through hard work. But who put who put Capitalism in the coffin? George Bush and the Republican party. By solving the "financial crisis" George Bush buried capitalism. He has been poisoning it all along. This guy and the liberal Republicans in congress added more debt,interfered more with markets and created more social program than Clinton. The idea of capitalism, the idea of free markets and individual economic (or social) rights never crossed his lips. With his weakening of free markets he allowed the Dems to sweep into power. He is a disgrace.
Do not fear the Democrats themselves will restore Capitalism. OK not them. The will attempt to bury it, to bring socialism in every where possible. We will get it. When they do they will make this downturn "caused" capitalism look like a walk in the park when compared to American Socialism. How will American react to 8-10% unemployment? How about inflation (or hyper inflation) due to an unsubstantial debt load? Think if the price of oil goes up again and we punish the oil companies that the price of gas wont skyrocket? Of course it will. The funny thing is those of us who work hard will succeed and all those with there hands out will suffer worse.
It is now that Capitalism can be resurrected. If conservatives learn their lesson. No more Republicans to "save marriage'" or stop the evils of on-line gambling. Now that the garbage is out of the Republican lets use this opportunity to vote in true small government conservatives. Those who preach individual rights and respect your money. Anything less than a pure libertarian minded Republican is worthless and should be thrown out of the Republican party. OR we can vote in another "compassionate conservative". Until then hold on to your hats, because it will get bad.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Obama: Change that will destroy us
If you want to change from a free (semi) capitalist society to a communist hell then Obama is your man. Even more dangerous than Hillary Clinton, Obama takes class warfare to new heights. He wants to steal the successful individuals money and give it to the poor in our country and throughout the world. One of the main criticisms of Barrack Obama is that he says nothing. If you listen you can hear what a left wing lunatic he is.
First, in true left wing fashion he wants to tax the rich. He calls this restoring fairness to the tax code. Then shouldn't the poor be paying more and the rich less? After all it is the poor who use the most services and pay the least in taxes. He also wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000. Who cares that this class of people use more government services than any other. Why stop there, why not everyone under $50,000 have a tax free bill?
Stealing from the rich will pay for his many vote buying programs. He wants to give a $4000 for most people going to college, this amount will be free money, taken from some given to others. Right off the bat I want to examine this. What will this do. College costs have been rising at a much faster rate than inflation and even energy prices. By giving this money the laws of supply and demand will mean that these cost will continue to rise. What incentive do schools have to lower there costs? What incentive do people have to shop around? NONE. Secondly, how many people will take advantage of this only to flunk out. I mean it isn't their money, why do they need to try, what do they lose if they drop out after a year?
Another part of Barack Marx's economic plan is to seriously interferer with retirement. He wants to Automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension. WHAT? Who will pay for this pension. If a employer doesn't offer a retirement plan they will be required to enroll them in a a IRA. Does this guy care at all about personal freedom. If you don't like a companies retirement plan don't work for them. Besides, if I want to save I will do it, don't need this idiot making financial decisions for me.
If that didn't make your jaw drop how about this brilliant plan. He wants to and I quote " ensure savings accounts are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for lower and middle class workers" WOW it is real easy to be generous with other peoples money.
There is so much more wrong with this guy I cant get to it all. I really want to discuss his plan for "saving social security" Under Obama this will now become another welfare program. Since the rich may have some money left over after his tax increases, he wants to lift the cap on how much of you income is taxed. Right now approximately only the first $97,500 is taxed for Social Security. You in turn get benefits for what you pay in. Not under Barack, now all your money is taxed, but you only get the the benefit of the $97,500 (if that).
Some how there isn't a problem that Barack doesn't fix. Mainly done by violating individual rights, ignoring personal responsibility, and making the successful pay for the failures of the world. Yes I did say world, after the rich pay for all the poor in our country, he will begin giving to the poor in other countries. Keep working and sacrificing to make yourself financially successful. Once every single person in every country has everything they want, you may actually be able to keep some of it
First, in true left wing fashion he wants to tax the rich. He calls this restoring fairness to the tax code. Then shouldn't the poor be paying more and the rich less? After all it is the poor who use the most services and pay the least in taxes. He also wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000. Who cares that this class of people use more government services than any other. Why stop there, why not everyone under $50,000 have a tax free bill?
Stealing from the rich will pay for his many vote buying programs. He wants to give a $4000 for most people going to college, this amount will be free money, taken from some given to others. Right off the bat I want to examine this. What will this do. College costs have been rising at a much faster rate than inflation and even energy prices. By giving this money the laws of supply and demand will mean that these cost will continue to rise. What incentive do schools have to lower there costs? What incentive do people have to shop around? NONE. Secondly, how many people will take advantage of this only to flunk out. I mean it isn't their money, why do they need to try, what do they lose if they drop out after a year?
Another part of Barack Marx's economic plan is to seriously interferer with retirement. He wants to Automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension. WHAT? Who will pay for this pension. If a employer doesn't offer a retirement plan they will be required to enroll them in a a IRA. Does this guy care at all about personal freedom. If you don't like a companies retirement plan don't work for them. Besides, if I want to save I will do it, don't need this idiot making financial decisions for me.
If that didn't make your jaw drop how about this brilliant plan. He wants to and I quote " ensure savings accounts are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for lower and middle class workers" WOW it is real easy to be generous with other peoples money.
There is so much more wrong with this guy I cant get to it all. I really want to discuss his plan for "saving social security" Under Obama this will now become another welfare program. Since the rich may have some money left over after his tax increases, he wants to lift the cap on how much of you income is taxed. Right now approximately only the first $97,500 is taxed for Social Security. You in turn get benefits for what you pay in. Not under Barack, now all your money is taxed, but you only get the the benefit of the $97,500 (if that).
Some how there isn't a problem that Barack doesn't fix. Mainly done by violating individual rights, ignoring personal responsibility, and making the successful pay for the failures of the world. Yes I did say world, after the rich pay for all the poor in our country, he will begin giving to the poor in other countries. Keep working and sacrificing to make yourself financially successful. Once every single person in every country has everything they want, you may actually be able to keep some of it
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hillary's Economic Plan
Leave it to Hillary Clinton to make the worst possible moves for the economy and the American way of life. Only a socialist with no education in economics could think the way she does. I thought it would be a good idea to go over some of her major points and show the total ignorance of them.
First, she deals with the "housing crisis". She wants to establish a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities in mitigating the effects of foreclosures. Typical. Right off the bat she wants to take from those that did the right thing (via taxes), and give to deadbeats. Under Hillary people can't pay for their stupidity if they try.
Her fix for the real estate down turn gets even better. She purposed a moratorium to stop the foreclosure process for 90 days. Basically, she is throwing contract law out the window. Silly me, I thought one of the main purposes of the government was to enforce contract law. So what will the effect of this be? First, you can probably expect a lot more people to stop paying their mortgage. Why pay it, there are no ramifications for three months? Secondly, banks will tighten up their lending processes even more. They can't take a risk on someone because they will have no recourse. I can hear liberals crying now when people can't buy a house. Hillary also wants to freeze all rates. So what, will these deadbeats have a 30 year loan for 1%? Nice reward for not paying your bills.
Another wonderful idea is to invest 50 billion in a strategic energy plan, IE "green jobs". Once again she is taking money out of the free market and putting it into a government preferred industry. She says this will promote energy independence. If she really is for energy independence then she will also take the regulations off the coal industry, nuclear power and expand drilling in Alaska. Of course none of this helps her buddies in the extreme environmentalist camp, plus this would actually strengthen the free market.
Her spending is massive to say the least. She wants universal health care and pre-K, increased assistance to Fannie Mae and Freddy mac, increased college aide, expand access to capital and strategic advice for rural entrepreneurs, strengthen tax incentives for extending broadband to under served areas, I can go on and I am sure missed some big ones, but you get the point.
She will do all this while lowering taxes for the poor (who pay no Federal tax anyway). How will she pay for all this, by stealing it of course! First she will roll back the presidents tax cuts for the evil wealthy, I mean come on they only earned the money, why should they have it? Those greedy bastards. She also will literally steal from the oil companies. Proof is in her famous speech where she said she will take the oil companies profits. That should encourage investment in the energy industry and lower oil prices.
I am looking through this plan and I see nothing that encourages the innovation, hard work and the drive to succeed that lifts economies. It rather rewards the lowest of the low and punishes those who did things right. In order to improve the economy (not like that is the governments job) innovation and productivity need to be rewarded, not punished. In a future blog I will show how Governments can help the economy, mainly by getting out of its way.
First, she deals with the "housing crisis". She wants to establish a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities in mitigating the effects of foreclosures. Typical. Right off the bat she wants to take from those that did the right thing (via taxes), and give to deadbeats. Under Hillary people can't pay for their stupidity if they try.
Her fix for the real estate down turn gets even better. She purposed a moratorium to stop the foreclosure process for 90 days. Basically, she is throwing contract law out the window. Silly me, I thought one of the main purposes of the government was to enforce contract law. So what will the effect of this be? First, you can probably expect a lot more people to stop paying their mortgage. Why pay it, there are no ramifications for three months? Secondly, banks will tighten up their lending processes even more. They can't take a risk on someone because they will have no recourse. I can hear liberals crying now when people can't buy a house. Hillary also wants to freeze all rates. So what, will these deadbeats have a 30 year loan for 1%? Nice reward for not paying your bills.
Another wonderful idea is to invest 50 billion in a strategic energy plan, IE "green jobs". Once again she is taking money out of the free market and putting it into a government preferred industry. She says this will promote energy independence. If she really is for energy independence then she will also take the regulations off the coal industry, nuclear power and expand drilling in Alaska. Of course none of this helps her buddies in the extreme environmentalist camp, plus this would actually strengthen the free market.
Her spending is massive to say the least. She wants universal health care and pre-K, increased assistance to Fannie Mae and Freddy mac, increased college aide, expand access to capital and strategic advice for rural entrepreneurs, strengthen tax incentives for extending broadband to under served areas, I can go on and I am sure missed some big ones, but you get the point.
She will do all this while lowering taxes for the poor (who pay no Federal tax anyway). How will she pay for all this, by stealing it of course! First she will roll back the presidents tax cuts for the evil wealthy, I mean come on they only earned the money, why should they have it? Those greedy bastards. She also will literally steal from the oil companies. Proof is in her famous speech where she said she will take the oil companies profits. That should encourage investment in the energy industry and lower oil prices.
I am looking through this plan and I see nothing that encourages the innovation, hard work and the drive to succeed that lifts economies. It rather rewards the lowest of the low and punishes those who did things right. In order to improve the economy (not like that is the governments job) innovation and productivity need to be rewarded, not punished. In a future blog I will show how Governments can help the economy, mainly by getting out of its way.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Republicans should re-evaluate who they aspire to be
Tonight during the Republican debate the candidates tripped over themselves to prove who is more like Ronald Reagan. Republicans in general look to Reagan as the beginning and the end of conservatives principles. Reagan did a lot of great things for this country, but he is the standard that Republicans/Conservatives should hold themselves to.
The Standard is simple; they should strive to be more like our founding fathers. Instead of quoting Reagan they should quote the constitution and our forefathers. These men were the founders and creators of conservative principles and freedom. (Really they only recognized these freedoms, but I won’t split hairs) Our founding fathers understood the importance of small government and ran the American Government by these principles. As many good things as Reagan did the national debt and size of government grew under him. He also didnt always follow the consitution, especially on foreign policy issues. In contrast when this country began our national debt was tiny when compared to today’s standards even after when starting from scratch. It is embarrassing that our current candidates can only go back a little over 20 years, instead of looking where this country began.
Why is it today’s Candidates are so afraid of the rights and liberties recognized by our founding fathers? It might have something to do with their utter ignorance and/or contempt for what was written. Other than Ron Paul do any of them really believe in smaller government? Do any of them really look at the duties and limitations of the government mapped out by the founding fathers and follow them? One look at McCain’s view on campaign reform, Mitts view on healthcare or Huckabee's view on well everything and the answer is no. I look forward to the day when the candidates trip over themselves to be more like Thomas Jefferson as much as they do Ronald Reagan.
The Standard is simple; they should strive to be more like our founding fathers. Instead of quoting Reagan they should quote the constitution and our forefathers. These men were the founders and creators of conservative principles and freedom. (Really they only recognized these freedoms, but I won’t split hairs) Our founding fathers understood the importance of small government and ran the American Government by these principles. As many good things as Reagan did the national debt and size of government grew under him. He also didnt always follow the consitution, especially on foreign policy issues. In contrast when this country began our national debt was tiny when compared to today’s standards even after when starting from scratch. It is embarrassing that our current candidates can only go back a little over 20 years, instead of looking where this country began.
Why is it today’s Candidates are so afraid of the rights and liberties recognized by our founding fathers? It might have something to do with their utter ignorance and/or contempt for what was written. Other than Ron Paul do any of them really believe in smaller government? Do any of them really look at the duties and limitations of the government mapped out by the founding fathers and follow them? One look at McCain’s view on campaign reform, Mitts view on healthcare or Huckabee's view on well everything and the answer is no. I look forward to the day when the candidates trip over themselves to be more like Thomas Jefferson as much as they do Ronald Reagan.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
More Government Abuse
Meet Francisco Linares of Rolling Hills Estates CA, the man who will very likely be going to jail for six months. Was his crime shoplifting or even armed robbery? No it was much more sinister than that. This man had the nerve to put improvements on his own property with out getting the correct permits.
This crime wave started when Mr. Linares repaired a broken fence that was ultimately the city's responsibility. Of course the city told him that it was his responsibility, but we cant be bogged down with such details. He also had the nerve to add a patio and retaining wall. The question isn't whether the punishment fits the crime, the question is what right does the city have to tell a man what he can or can not do with his property. Why is the permit even needed? When did we allow power hungry thugs to control what we worked for?
The truth of the matter is we have been losing property rights for years. We allow (and call for) smoking bans. Senator Hitlery Clinton even endorses a national smoking ban.
We let the Kelo vs New London pass without even a whimper. For those who don't know this case allows eminent domain to be used to enhance a counties revenue. Meaning if you have a piece of property that the county thinks can generate more tax revenue then it can take it from you (giving you what it feels is market value) and give the land to someone else.
Drug seizures are another abuse of power. A person can lose cash, cars and even property without a trial and ultimately will never get it back. Case in point (courtesy of newsmax)
At Houston’s Hobby Airport, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton and seized her luggage because a drug dog had scratched it. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her but found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash from an insurance settlement and her life savings, accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. According to the article she never got the money back. No trial, no conviction, but no money. Actually more than $1 Billion of property is confiscated each year without a trial. Welcome to the land of the free.
Even taxes are violation of property rights. Every time the various government thieves take your money they are showing a blatant disregard for private property.
We allow this kind of property violation every day. It is time for Americans to wake up and fight these clear violations of private property before it is too late. We cannot be free if our property is not safe.
This crime wave started when Mr. Linares repaired a broken fence that was ultimately the city's responsibility. Of course the city told him that it was his responsibility, but we cant be bogged down with such details. He also had the nerve to add a patio and retaining wall. The question isn't whether the punishment fits the crime, the question is what right does the city have to tell a man what he can or can not do with his property. Why is the permit even needed? When did we allow power hungry thugs to control what we worked for?
The truth of the matter is we have been losing property rights for years. We allow (and call for) smoking bans. Senator Hitlery Clinton even endorses a national smoking ban.
We let the Kelo vs New London pass without even a whimper. For those who don't know this case allows eminent domain to be used to enhance a counties revenue. Meaning if you have a piece of property that the county thinks can generate more tax revenue then it can take it from you (giving you what it feels is market value) and give the land to someone else.
Drug seizures are another abuse of power. A person can lose cash, cars and even property without a trial and ultimately will never get it back. Case in point (courtesy of newsmax)
At Houston’s Hobby Airport, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton and seized her luggage because a drug dog had scratched it. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her but found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash from an insurance settlement and her life savings, accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. According to the article she never got the money back. No trial, no conviction, but no money. Actually more than $1 Billion of property is confiscated each year without a trial. Welcome to the land of the free.
Even taxes are violation of property rights. Every time the various government thieves take your money they are showing a blatant disregard for private property.
We allow this kind of property violation every day. It is time for Americans to wake up and fight these clear violations of private property before it is too late. We cannot be free if our property is not safe.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
THE BIG SCAM: SOCIAL SECURITY
I don't think that there has been a bigger scam on the American public then Social Security. This programs violates personal freedom and responsibility unlike any other. The fact that practically every news operation and the American public in generally call for saving/enhancing this program is absurd.
First, the idea of mandatory social security tax in and of itself is crazy. People think without it some will have no money for retirement. True some may not, but isn't that their choice. What one chooses to do with their own money whether save it or squander it is their business. Some say we will have to take care of the people who don't save for their retirement. Of course we won't, that is a problem in a socialist government but not in a free one. Secondly how does the government know when you need your money best? If I have a temporary emergency shouldn't I chose to have that money now rather than be forced to use it to save for my future?
Even if you accept the government has a right to treat us like children, why are we forced to invest in their instruments? If I am forced to invest for my future why can't I invest in whatever I feel will give me the highest rate of return? Social Security pays out less than 2% on your money. I can get twice that amount in many CD'S or even some savings accounts. Forget about how much more I could make by putting it in the stock market. Still we are forced by the idiots in both parties to take a terrible return on our money.
Another draw back of social security is when I can take my money. If I can afford to retire at 50, why should I wait until they say I can start collecting. Isn't it my money after all? Additional If I die before I start collecting S.S why I can't leave it to who I want? It is starting to sound like it isn't my money after all.
So with all these benefits you would think Social Security would be safe. HA! Social security will be bankrupt by the time I am old enough to start collecting. Now there is talk of lowering benefits or raising the retirement age. Wow what a deal.
If you want to live in a free country the only right thing to do is to abolish this system and return to a system where people are personally responsibly for their own accounts. For those of you cry babies who still like Social Security move to France and stop bringing me down.
First, the idea of mandatory social security tax in and of itself is crazy. People think without it some will have no money for retirement. True some may not, but isn't that their choice. What one chooses to do with their own money whether save it or squander it is their business. Some say we will have to take care of the people who don't save for their retirement. Of course we won't, that is a problem in a socialist government but not in a free one. Secondly how does the government know when you need your money best? If I have a temporary emergency shouldn't I chose to have that money now rather than be forced to use it to save for my future?
Even if you accept the government has a right to treat us like children, why are we forced to invest in their instruments? If I am forced to invest for my future why can't I invest in whatever I feel will give me the highest rate of return? Social Security pays out less than 2% on your money. I can get twice that amount in many CD'S or even some savings accounts. Forget about how much more I could make by putting it in the stock market. Still we are forced by the idiots in both parties to take a terrible return on our money.
Another draw back of social security is when I can take my money. If I can afford to retire at 50, why should I wait until they say I can start collecting. Isn't it my money after all? Additional If I die before I start collecting S.S why I can't leave it to who I want? It is starting to sound like it isn't my money after all.
So with all these benefits you would think Social Security would be safe. HA! Social security will be bankrupt by the time I am old enough to start collecting. Now there is talk of lowering benefits or raising the retirement age. Wow what a deal.
If you want to live in a free country the only right thing to do is to abolish this system and return to a system where people are personally responsibly for their own accounts. For those of you cry babies who still like Social Security move to France and stop bringing me down.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
GENERATION IDIOT
So Yahoo has a new "expert" it is Anya Kamenetz, who claims she is a generational advocate. I have read part of her book and heard her on the radio let me tell you she is nothing more than a socialist. I have heard her advocate such things as taxing the rich and taxing wealth and savings. All to help those in my generation who were to stupid and lazy to take care of themselves.
About two weeks ago this brain surgeon embraced the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, . This is a bill passed by Democrats (who else) makes college more accessible IE takes from one group to give to another.
Anya says this bill is a good start, some of the better points are "graduates whose earnings don't exceed 150 percent of the poverty line (about $15,000 for a single person) would be exempt from repaying student loans." Lets stop here. WHAT!!! You take out a loan and now poof the debt is erased? Who pays the bills? What if you dropped out before you finished and that is the reason you aren't making that much? Isn't college suppose to be an investment so you can make more in the future?
The questions are endless, but to ANYA I guess the rich will pay for it.
She claims it is "right that those who earn more from their education should pay more". First, how do you prove someone earns more from their education rather than their hard work and ability? What does earning have to do with how much you pay? Two people can get the same education yet one has to pay more? This is Fair to Anya.
This jerk embraces socialism at every turn.
It is amazing that someone with her level of intelligence is considered an expert. She is lucky she is good looking because she definitely doesn't have any brains.
About two weeks ago this brain surgeon embraced the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, . This is a bill passed by Democrats (who else) makes college more accessible IE takes from one group to give to another.
Anya says this bill is a good start, some of the better points are "graduates whose earnings don't exceed 150 percent of the poverty line (about $15,000 for a single person) would be exempt from repaying student loans." Lets stop here. WHAT!!! You take out a loan and now poof the debt is erased? Who pays the bills? What if you dropped out before you finished and that is the reason you aren't making that much? Isn't college suppose to be an investment so you can make more in the future?
The questions are endless, but to ANYA I guess the rich will pay for it.
She claims it is "right that those who earn more from their education should pay more". First, how do you prove someone earns more from their education rather than their hard work and ability? What does earning have to do with how much you pay? Two people can get the same education yet one has to pay more? This is Fair to Anya.
This jerk embraces socialism at every turn.
It is amazing that someone with her level of intelligence is considered an expert. She is lucky she is good looking because she definitely doesn't have any brains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
