Regulation: You’re the Sucker in This Game

Posted by on Jun 24, 2012 in American Economy, Dollars & Sense, Economy, End of Capitalism, Free Thinkers, Hard to Believe, In the News, Media Ignored, Missed the Point, Regulation, Suckered, Truth & Lies | 0 comments

“If, after the first twenty minutes, you don’t know who the sucker at the table is, it’s you.”  ~David Levien and Brian Koppelman, Rounders

Leave a pile of cash on the sidewalk. Do you expect the money to be there years later? 

Reckless monetary policy essentially dumped piles of cash on the sidewalk. Even honest businessmen are tempted to grab some when they see the pile dwindling and no one being held accountable. Most of us didn’t grab a handful because we are too ethical…or was it because no one told us where the cash pile was?

What happens when the sidewalk cash disappears? Do you think licensing, bonding, and regulating everyone that uses sidewalks is the answer? What a ridiculous solution! It’s amazing that every egghead that spews such idiocy isn’t laughed out of the public eye. A blue ribbon panel of know-it-all regulators cannot change human nature. The commonsense solution: stop leaving money on the sidewalk.

In 2002, Robert Blumen summed up the effect of the activities of Fannie and Freddie on the housing market and the systemic risk and foresaw a coming bailout. He was not alone in predicting the crisis and identifying it’s cause before it happened [accurate public predictions before the crisis]. Those people were silenced through ridicule and scorn.

The U.S. Economy is a game, and that game is rigged. First came the loose money supply, which was dumped into the housing market. Of course you knew this and wisely invested in high return mortgage backed securities, right? Yeah, me too… most of us missed that government sanctioned money grab. Not to worry, there were plenty of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, and government insiders that capitalized on the windfall.

What about the risk you ask? Forget about it, those that created the game can manipulate the best government their money can buy to bail them out. Market research indicates the suckers (me and you) will fall in lock step when the phrase “economic collapse” is thrown about freely. Trillions in wealth has disappeared (from me and you), but the priviledged few that engineered the game have retained their wealth. Henry Paulson amassed a fortune estimated around $700 million while running Goldman Sachs, he kept every penny and even cashed out tax-free by becoming the Treasury Secretary. Henry Paulson is one of the many insiders that is both Wall Street and government. It’s probably a much better investment to become the government instead of buying it.

So now your thinking: “Let’s regulate them!” Of course you’re thinking that, we all are. The idea has been repeatedly broadcast by every major media outlet in the world. Dr. Herbert Krugman’s effective frequency (repetition of an idea) ensures that regulation is always our first thought, often our only thought. The people that engineered the crisis have been involved in every step, sat at every policy council, and even directed the Fed response. This con has been performed in the glare of the public spotlight. Luckily for them, we are suckers – plus those guys are kinda boring.

The insiders are pushing regulation. Of course they are, regulation protects the insiders from competition (try to start a banking home business). Regulation centralizes the power, the resources, and the money. It’s much easier to buy political power when it’s all concentrated in one place. Regulation didn’t protect you from the monetary policy that lead to the mortgage-backed-securities-game that siphoned $50,000 in lost wealth from every Family in America. According to numbers issued by the Federal Reserve: families’ median net worth fell almost 40% between 2007 and 2010. The suckers always foot the bill (this last point was not mentioned in the Fed report).

Who caused the crisis? Fat cats and government. Who have we given the authority to fix the problem? Fat cats and government. Why? Because they told us to.

Wait a minute, let’s give reason a try. Finance is the most heavily regulated industry in the world, and pretty much always has been. Every collapse, bubble, hiccup, con, and fraud that comes out of the world of finance has led to more and more regulation. Each time government fails, they are rewarded with more money and more power.

So what should we do? I don’t know, I doubt anyone knows – even if they say otherwise. There’s just one obvious next step: ignore what the insiders and their government tells us to do. The federal government appears to be bought and paid for by special interests.

Reverse the flow of wealth and power back to the people. An unregulated economy and finance sector is sure to steal from people now and then – but when they do, it will be for hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of dollars. The heavily regulated finance sector stole TRILLIONS from us. It wasn’t the first time, it won’t be the last – as long as we continue to do what we’re told.

No tags for this post.
Read More


Posted by on Feb 12, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 3 comments

I am starting to become angry and extremely insulted by all of the talk of the bipartisan legislative tactics and the smoke & mirror stage shows of the progressive democrats in power. The Obama administration has been quite vocal about the bipartisan tactics in congress delaying the legislation issues he is trying to enact. Let’s look at the evidence. For the past year the democrats have had a super majority in both the house and the senate, which means they could pass any legislation without a single republican vote – if they can get their own party to agree. Is this partisan politics with the republicans holding up progress? The bickering has been all intra party for the democrats… But you never hear that, what we hear is the republicans are jamming up the President’s agenda.

A proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Since the election in Massachusetts, the dems no longer have a super majority in the Senate. This means bipartisan agreement is required to pass legislation, they need at least 1 republican to sign. First up, the jobs bill. Both parties came to the table and wrote a bill agreeable to all parties and even had Obama’s support. Essentially guaranteed to pass. Sounds like we have made progress! With the shift change it seems the progressives have mellowed of their hard lines accepting input from both parties appeasing republicans and blue dog democrats. Right? WRONG. The democrats have now pulled the bipartisan bill from the table in favor of a bill they say is leaner. This came as a shock to republican senators who were unaware the change was coming. The republican senators are obviously irate over the tactic and now the status of the bill is uncertain. Without reviewing each bill thoroughly only seeing the highlights, one must assume that many of the provisions deleted were republican agenda items while the new provisions support the democratic agenda. Between the tactics and the changes in provisions, I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans don’t jump on board. If this bill doesn’t pass will it be a result of partisan politics? Is this the republicans being unwilling to work with democrats? Or is this tactics by the dems who changed the rules mid-term?

If the democrats had no intention of passing bipartisan legislation then why go ahead with days of meetings to develop the original bill? Was it to put forward an appearance of bipartisanship because both parties were working on the bill? Is this to put the republicans on the spot saying they are blocking the jobs bill? Is this a bait and switch scam hoping Americans won’t realize the bill the republicans are balking is not the bill they helped co-write hoping for blowback on the party later? Who knows the reason – partisan politics is occurring by the leaders.

Congress was created as a check and balance on the executive branch; to send elected officials who were representative of the American people to enact legislation and vote on behalf of the American people. By definition there is supposed to be discussion, input and compromise from all parties so the best overall ideas are incorporated. This is designed to prevent a small radical group from making undesired legislative changes. Is that what you see is occurring? Or is a small radical group pushing through legislation most Americans do not want? Do you see fairness in the system or unscrupulous tactics and Congressmen being deceptive to push their agenda? Do you find this intolerable and frankly insulting to your intelligence? The sad news? If we do not do a better job of educating ourselves, our family and our friends the tactics will continue, the deception will continue and the American people will suffer.

No tags for this post.
Read More


Posted by on Feb 3, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 1 comment

I just heard this morning on Fox News that the North Carolina school system is considering changing it’s high school curriculum to teach current events and to stop teaching the founding fathers. I have not seen this by another news source but will continue to look to verify. The report said that they would continue to teach George Washington in elementary school but that high school history would teach only the period from 1877 to the present. That seemed like an odd year for a cut off so I searched the history. Here are some significant changes starting in and around 1877:

The beginning of the Gilded Age starts in 1877

1877 is the year of the railroad workers strike. This led to the beginning of national unions for workers.

March 1877 was the Supreme Court case for Munn vs Illinois in which the, the High Court established the constitutional principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.

1870’s Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906) applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to law. Introduced the case-law method instead of the Constitution. Students studied the decisions of judges instead of the Constitution of the Founders. Students grew to become less and less aware of what the Founders said and more and more aware of what judges decided. This was strengthened by the following Dean (1916-1936), Roscoe Pound, who is credited with institutionalizing the law with “positivism”, a kind of Darwinian theory of growing towards a goal by positive or forward steps of change and that positive change is necessary for society to evolve to its end form.

Is this a coincidence that the beginning of public regulation over private business, the beginning of national unions, the movement away from studying the constitution and the early beginnings of ideas that would lead to the progressive era is the date they chose to start studying current events? Or is this more likely a dliberate act to continue the indoctrination of our children like we have seen in TIDES foundation videos, songs taught to school children and art propaganda? This seems to be another attempt by the Progressives to rewite history and/or erase the history they find inconvenient.

Read More

The Federal Budget Plan 2-2-10

Posted by on Feb 2, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 0 comments


Happy Groundhogs Day! And by that I mean, welcome to the movie – because once you read the budget plan from Obama you will feel like you are in the movie. It is just the same thing over again.

The government freezes he mentioned are lip service. The savings are miniscule and the spending proposed more grandiose than 2009 and the George Bush years. His proposed budget will hit a record 25.4% of the GNP. Record levels not seen since World War II! The President says this is not to be continued and that in a few years the budget will drop back to only 23% of GNP. HELLO… the 40 year average is 20.7% of the GNP. Last I checked 23% is still significantly higher than 23%. I guess he believes we are idiots and will think he “saved” us 2.4% and not increased 2.3% over the 40 year average. And this year his proposed budget will have the deficit at 10.6% of the GNP. In a time of high deficits, potentially increasing interest rates and limiting markets to buy our debt the proposed budget is at record spending levels with no attempts to balance the budget.

Packed into his proposed budget is a 29% increase in public assistance program and making some government entitlement programs a permanent mandatory funding expense by the government. This is intended to be a permanent part of budget from this day forward. And lets not overlook the $634 billion for a “health care reserve fund” and $250 billion for another TARP bailout for banks.

How are we going to pay for it? They have no idea. There is a proposed $2Trillion tax increase, which includes increasing capital gains from 15-20%. There is a projected $600+ billion over 8 years in “revenues” from capping green house gasses (ie: taxes to business for cap & trade – remember, that is the plan that will “necessarily skyrocket the cost of electricity” per Obama). In addition there are proposed “US International Tax Reform measures” to increase taxes on companies overseas. This was something the White House agreed not to do last year when seeking help from business to pass healthcare. Is this dropped because healthcare is dead? Absolutely not… And even these measures do not cover the proposed spending.

What is he forgetting? The elephant in the living room of course. The projected soaring costs of Medicare, Medicaid and social security as the baby boomers become eligible during this decade. I am certain he believes this “deficit neutral” healthcare plan will save the country from Medicare bankruptcy but the reality is healthcare is not deficit neutral and the Medicare crisis is upon us.

So overall, Obama is spending at a rate that far exceeds any prior administration. He is still trying to force expensive Cap & Trade and Healthcare on us- both programs with little public support. He grandiosely proposes other increases in spending in government entitlement programs. All the while ignoring a looming Medicare problem and disregarding the concept of a balanced budget to prevent further addition to the deficit (not reduce just not make worse). Welcome to Groundhogs Day take 2.

**most figures of the budget and percentages to the GNP came from the Wall Street Journal.

No tags for this post.
Read More

State of the Union Part 2 2-1-10

Posted by on Feb 1, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 0 comments


I am not even sure where to start. Part 1 encompassed most of the meat of the SOTU address and the speech itself has been analyzed to death. In the days leading up to the address there was speculation about whether or not he would do a Clintonian move to center or dig in his heels. I think all media agrees he did not move center even though he is being given credit for extending what appears on the surface to be a few olive branches. So I would like to look instead at the heavy handed politics and misleading rhetoric that appears to be an olive branch.

Playing politics & Campaigning. Obama said he they were there to work and not run for re-election. Then he went back into campaign mode. When he was running for President I always felt the overall sense of distrust and disbelief in what he said but there was not a lot of concrete policies or stands he made to which I disagreed. Now that we know what to expect and to watch for it is easier to see the same political rhetoric with ambiguous wording, undetailed plans and misleading information. Here is the wording and the actual meaning of some of his campaign rhetoric:

– He ran on a campaign of “change” even using the words “radical transformation”. People were not happy after the last President so change sounded good. Most interpreted it as change from the Bush administration. Lets see, three of the most unpopular things Bush did: 1) the War – Obama just sent more troops. 2) the deficit – Obama has increased the deficit more than Bush did in any one year in his first year of office 3) the stimulus – it was proposed under Bush but Obama VOTED for it in Congress and passed it when he became President… and now is pushing for another one. No the change he meant was a “radical transformation” where he would challenge the powers of Congress and the Supreme Court, force through his issues an will, install revolutionary people in policymaking levels of government, expand government powers exponentially and seek to change the constitution and fundamental beliefs on which this country was founded. When he said “Change” and “radical transformation” no one understood the full extend of his statements.
– He ran on a platform he was going to be different from the Washington bureaucrats and transparency would prevail. Most took this to mean that he was as frustrated as the American people about things getting hung up and red tape. That there would be no more closed door deals. No one imagined his real intent was to usurp power from the other two branches to force his agenda.
– He ran on a campaign to reduce taxes. Of course no one believed this. He will claim success because he used stimulus to offer some credits and last year he reduced the amount taken out of paychecks weekly – but this was not a tax credit… this was a tax deferral. Those taxes will be due this year when you file. You will owe more or get les back.

This is the type of rhetoric he used then. How does this compare to now? Here is some of his rhetoric and my interpretation.
– he blames the Bush Administration for the debt. He has proposed a budget this year that will get us further in debt, not even flat. That doesn’t include the next stimulus he is proposing. What is the real meaning? This means that he is ignoring any debt when he entered office and any debt associated with things in the works when he entered office – even if he increased them and he will be counting his deficit only on his new policies justifying the healthcare cost (even though it is supposed to be neutral).
– he blames the Republics for playing politics and challenges them not to hold up the process. The republicans can not hold up the process. Until Scott Brown is seated they hold super-majorities in Congress. It is intra-party bickering causing the delays. If it were any different, why would they be buying democratic senators with the Louisiana Purchase, etc to get healthcare passed? It is the Progressive Democrats verses the Blue Dog Democrats but that is not what you hear. What is the real meaning – this is the scapegoat for anything he doesn’t get through and fails on his promises.
– He says he is listening to the American People and jobs is his #1 focus. He even demanded a jobs bill and mentioned the jobs bill that has passed the house. Never mind that the House jobs bill is filled with so many earmarks and BS it will not help. And he will pass another stimulus even though many other proposals would have created many more jobs than stimulus 1. He even promotes a high speed train, which won’t begin to have jobs outside of engineers and government planners for 5 years. The true meaning – he plans to force through some form of Cap & Trade under the guise of green jobs. Have us pay restitution increasing our debt while increasing the cost of electricity and any product that will need upgrades at rates the American people cannot afford – requiring more government programs. And this is an increase in government regulation, government control and government jobs.
– He says we are going to increase our exports 50%. Since it costs us more to make most items in both labor and materials I have no idea how we are going to accomplish this. But this must be something associated with “Workers of the World Unit” and Unions. Watch Andy Stern.
– He is instituting a government budget freeze – forget the fact that the freeze is in areas of government that have seen huge increases in the past year and the proposed freeze will save less than 1% over 10 years. What is the real meaning? This is another slight of hand trick to appear accommodating and achieving some of the items the American Public is demanding.
– Earmark reform. He has more earmarks in his legislation and can because the democrats have a super majority so they can pass anything without Republican opposition. The real meaning? He isn’t trying to tie democratic hands, he is worried now that the new republican senator from Massachusetts can hold things up and the republicans will now have an ability to stop legislation or tack on earmarks to a bill the democrats want passed.
– Lobbyist transparency. This is more slight of hand. He has more than 30 former lobbyists in his cabinets and close influential positions. This legislation will apply to current lobbyists only. I am sure that two old colleagues going to dinner is not a business meeting and will never be listed on the website. This is a slight of hand for transparency. The real meaning. Weaken the opposition and limit their ability to put out a contradicting message and/or to minimize the legitimacy or affect of the message.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. See how it plays out? Think back to wording he carefully selected and used over and over during the election and the first 12 months. Can you see the underlying meanings. Everything he said was well planned and the words were carefully chosen . Pay attention!

Heavy Handed Politics: If there was ever any doubt Obama was wrapped up in the corrupt political machine in Chicago or used there tactics that should be laid to rest. Unfortunately, he is very much a part of it. Not just bringing some of the more corrupt politicians with him but in the heavy handed approach he took. In his speech he did the following:

– He said that the citizens would want the healthcare bill if he explained it better, as if we were too stupid the first time. No Mr President. I understand your proposal and DISAGREE. Telling me another 5 or 10 times will not change my opinion
– He offended and challenged the Supreme Court asking Congress to send him a bill to sign to overrule their decision
– He challenged the republican congressmen and congresswomen as if their vote has made any difference since the democrats have had a super majority.
– He challenged his own party to get done what he wanted at any cost
– He stated he would overrule Congress. He actually stated “ the Senate blocked a bill so I issued an executive order”. This is separate from him wanting Cap & Trade passed but has already had the EPA rule carbon-dioxide an emission falling under their jurisdiction which means he doesn’t have to pass anything in Congress for the EPA to change standards and regulation to effect the changes he wants.
– And he accused the “pundants” of skewing the facts for good sound bytes. Isn’t he one of our most “sound byte” presidents in recent history making more speeches than any prior president with quip lines and jabs? Is this the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?

Overall, does this sound like a president who is attempting to work with Congress and the Supreme Court for the people or is running roughshod over them? This is heavy handed force politics typical of old days political machines and Union Bosses. With his radical ideas, radical people he places in as his czars and the domination he has in Congress we need to brace ourselves and watch out – he promised transformation and change – its coming!

No tags for this post.
Read More

State of the Union Speech 1-27-10 – Part 1

Posted by on Jan 28, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 0 comments

I am still watching the State of the Union address…. I saved it and have to watch it in parts. Not because there is so much valuable information but because I get so disgusted I can’t do it in one sitting. Smarmy is the only word I can use to describe it. The cheerleading, half-truths, distortion of the facts and blatant lies are more than I can take. So here is a response to part 1.

What was the most offensive? Where do I start?!?!?! I would have to say the economy. He blamed George Bush again (I admit, Bush didn’t do us any favors with the deficit). Then he did some math to show that only $1T of the deficit is his??? I am not sure where he gets those numbers, even taking out prior debt and the TARP money he is off the mark. But why does he get to “pretend” the rest of the debt isn’t his responsibility since it “wasn’t his fault”. I guess that’s how he can justify trying to ram healthcare down our throats at a cost of several trillion dollars? Because only $1T of the deficit is his? Wake up Mr. Obama, the WHOLE deficit is your responsibility. You knew about it before you ran for office, you have made it worse and it is your problem and responsibility to address.

He said when he talked to the American people he found that most of all they want to give their children a better life. Then he proceeded to talk about pushing healthcare through and passing the energy bill/cap & trade. How does increasing everyone’s energy costs 100-200% or more and adding trillions to the deficit help our children? He stated when he was running for office that under cap & trade the cost of electricity would “necessarily skyrocket”. He volunteered us to PAY RETRIBUTION to other countries for our past greenhouse gas emission in Copenhagen. (too far off track to talk about global warming – another blog at a later date). And although he said “jobs is my #1 focus for 2010”, he still pushed healthcare. The private health insurance companies made 1% profit in 2008. Yet somehow Obama is going to take it over, cut prices in half, add $1M people for coverage, broaden coverages provided and make money at it to keep it deficit neutral. RIGHT! The government has NEVER run anything more efficiently than a for-profit private company and he is refusing to address two critical issues driving healthcare up; prescription drug costs and medical litigation. Could that be because some of the special interest groups with whom he curries favor are personal injury attorneys and drug companies? But I digress. That is a long topic for another day. If helping the American people give their children a better life is what he is about, how about not saddling us with so much debt that we, our children and their children will not be able to pay it off.

Jobs as #1 focus for 2010. This is a good focus as part of the economic recovery. He said he wants a jobs bill on his desk. I hope it is better than the stimulus granting of jobs. I believe he claimed $2M jobs have been created by the stimulus last night. This is the most contested number. With errors they have found were someone added 45 hours of work and 45 jobs were reported created and other HUGE anomalies in reporting. Even CNN, a very liberal pro-Obama news station has a special section on stimulus reporting daily that investigates where some of the stimulus money is spent in grants and crazy programs that aren’t doing anything to stimulate the economy or add a significant number of jobs. But lets still hold out hope on this one!

Obama had a plan to cut the cost of college. Strengthen the community colleges and make everyone’s college debt disappear in 20 years, 10 years if they do public service. Hmmmm. It sounds good. We still have to pay for it somewhere. This is a better place to spend money than cap & trade in my opinion but I haven’t thought it through to see how it plays out and I have a few questions about the public service. I have long thought it was a good idea for kids to have to do volunteer work to graduate from high school to learn some personal responsibilities. I have long thought that people on welfare should have to do some volunteer service, free or inexpensive childcare service for others on welfare so they can go to work, volunteer in government entry level jobs at least a few hours a week – good training opportunity, reduce cost of government, etc. But Obama’s idea of public service may be different. Is his idea the community action groups, which just appear to be a front for radical infiltration and attempts to normalize revolutionary ideas? Is it “public service” as in working for the government? Can that many people have government jobs? That does appear to be the “corporation” that is growing the most in this country. The way it works in a democratic republic under our constitution as it is written, the government is in service to the private sector so the private sector pays taxes to run the government. The people/private sector is largely responsible for themselves and the government is small. The larger the government gets the less people there are to fund it so everyone has to pay a lot more. When the government gets so large what percentage of the private sector’s money would be needed to pay for the government? For every $50k a year job created with the government, they pay approx $12k in taxes so the net of $38k is an additional burden on the public. Every government job created means higher taxes. How many more government jobs can we afford? The government is not supposed to be in the business generating revenue intrinsically. It is a service the people pay for with taxes. The people/private sector generates the revenue in this country. Is changing that part of the plan in Obama’s radical transformation of our nation. The government will start to take over private industries to run a profit? Isn’t that socialism? The government owns and runs everything and we all work, live and breathe the government? Hmmmm, government runs GM, government run healthcare. I read somewhere that the British government run healthcare system is the largest employer in Britain. Big government, little private sector on the road to socialism? But I digress again.

Budget freezes, TARP/Stimulus money recovery and tax cuts. Sounds great if it weren’t a crock. Tax cuts first. Does anyone remember these? I remember having a change in taxes that resulted in a few extra dollars in my regular paycheck but would result in an increase in my taxes when I file at the end of the year. It wasn’t a tax savings, just a deferment in the payment or less of the government taking your money up front and returning it later. I do remember tax credits for home improvements as part of the stimulus and tax credits for first time home buyers. TARP recovery money. “we have recovered most of the money spent on banks”… but what about the money was spent on other companies like GM?? Don’t spin it to sound like we are almost whole again. We are far from whole. AND Obama is planning to use that money for other things. Not to pay down the deficit or return it to the people. That money is not found money to spend on other programs. The taxpayers did not pay a special tax to raise that money so it should be returned directly there. It was added to the deficit and should be returned to the deficit. The Fed moved money around on the balance sheet (auditing the Fed, a private corporation that made more money last year than evil oil companies, is again another topic for another day). Budget freezes. Sounds great on the surface. Except the departments he is planning to freeze had more than a 10% increase in 2009. I don’t suppose they should need another increase this year. Furthermore, the small percentage of the budget he is freezing will amount to less than 1% savings. Going in the hole trillions of dollars this year with an offset of a few billion – over 10 years – is hardly being fiscally responsible and addressing the deficit issue. But is sounded good for the sound bytes didn’t it?

Something else he said that sounded great, but I am not sure how to accomplish it is “double exports in 5 years”. We have become a consumption economy. It is too expensive to make things here with union labor costs, and fewer restrictions on pollutants, etc (again, another topic – Obama in bed with the unions). Other countries make things more cheaply than we can due simply to cost of living and cost of labor/materials. Is he proposing worldwide patents so others can’t make the same things? Will that make the cost of goods in the US skyrocket too? Is he talking about increasing our technology to the point we use robotics to manufacture products making our labor costs as cheap as foreign countries making us more competitive? What is the cost of robotic technology and equipment and what is the loss of jobs from this? Is he talking about new product development? And if so what and where and how do we protect it from copycats with cheaper labor and materials? Or is this part of the Andy Stern “workers of the world unite” slogan. Is he trying to make it so everyone in the world will make the same money so all goods will costs the same? Will the other economies and the world really support that? Or since, he and others in his administration seem to be big fans of Mao and other revolutionary dictators, maybe we should do what other revolutionary dictators did and let millions of people starve to death while exporting all of the grain to save the money to fund their other objectives. Doubling exports in 5 years sounds great and is something that really needs to be done. Our import to export ratio is abominable. We as a nation have to invent, build, create something to generate new wealth income to the US. I want to know more about how he plans to accomplish this?

Well, I have rambled more than enough so I will close with two statements about which I don’t even know what to say:

“I have never been more hopeful about America’s future as I am tonight”


“America deserves a government that matches their decency and embodies their strength”

With an increasing $12 trillion deficit, China – the only country left buying our debt tells us to stop spending and we don’t, more terror attacks on US soil in 2009 than in the prior 8 years since 9-11, the US appearing softer than ever on terrorists, and our president not addressing the issues at hand – do you feel more hopeful about America’s future? More hopeful about the “fundamental transformation”? Do you think that the government matches the public’s decency and embodies their strength? A government that doesn’t listen to nor respond to the people is matching the public’s decency? Does a government that is weak on terrorism and weak on repaying their debts embody the strength of the American people who want to be hard on terrorism and are working to resolve their own financial crisis in many way encouraged by the government? If you do please explain it to me because I can’t get my arms around those statements.

Thanks for listening to me rant. Here’s for hope and change…. In November and in 2012.

Read More

Copyright © 2015