Category Archives: Economics

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

To surrender completely to the control of others – either a secular government or a religious one – control that invades every waking action, requires people unwilling to do for themselves. The first step is and must be the destruction of education. People must be prevented from thinking for themselves, from reasoning. George Orwell explained it with “Newspeak” in his novel 1984:


…


That preparation started in the early years of the 20th Century. Thus today we have “politically correct” speech. With destruction of language skills comes the destruction of logic skills – if you can’t read, you can’t integrate ideas new to you. In fact, new ideas are gibberish – words that have no meaning. “Politically free” is a null value to someone planted in the fields of politicism. It’s a weed.


A free society requires an informed and virtuous citizenry.


“Free,” “informed” and “virtuous” have become null terms.


The 21st Century will be a century of struggle between freedom and politicism. Polticism has two competing versions – Marxist and Muslim. Freedom?


Null term.


Kevin Baker
July 4, 2011
TL;DR
[Kevin has some good points. There are even some points that he doesn’t directly address that support his pessimistic outlook. For example, the title, “TL;DR”, is very telling. Our society changed dramatically with instant entertainment. I’m certain that television and even radio are factors in the transformation of our culture into a more ignorant one. We can be mindlessly entertained rather than improving our minds and/or our bodies or producing something of value. The idiot boxes are such a great temptation that instead of doing something productive we take another hit of the entertainment drug. And there is so many “drugs” to chose from. If one doesn’t grab you in the first 15 seconds you change the “channel” until you find one that does grab you. Instant gratification is critical to success of a “channel”. Who in their right mind would be willing to read and understand, let alone write, books like those of Locke and Hobbs (unless it was Calvin and Hobbs) when you have Grand Theft Auto, Entertainment Tonight, and meth available? Those are so much easier to understand and offer near instant gratification. Who has the time to even read a Kevin Baker post? Understand it? Bah! In the grand scheme, it’s almost no one.


The fraction of the population that is capable of that is so small and the fraction of those that would care even if they could understand it that the blip on the vote tally would be impossible to detect in the statistical noise let alone the voter fraud. And the voter fraud will always be aligned against the likes of Kevin.


I understand all that. But I still have, perhaps perverse, optimism for the outcome. While the upside of our near instant communication isn’t as obvious as the downside I still think the potential exists to ultimately prevail. Because we have the ability to communicate to thousands across vast distances at nearly the speed of light and publish we have a incredible advantage over Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams. They were part of a nation of just three million people and built the foundation of most powerful economic and military force the world has ever seen. We have three million or more like minded people in our country now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are ten times that many. The problem is that those people’s voices have been drown out by the noise from the parasites clamoring for “social justice”, or “their fair share”.


There have been many great civilizations before us that collapsed and some of the causes may even be common to our own. Internal and/or external enemies, exhaustion of natural resources, over population, or even climate changes (you have heard of the little ice age, right?). But our current crises is mostly due to internal enemies with some added pressure by external enemies. As Kevin points out these are the cults created centuries ago by Marx and Mohammad. I think the Marx cultists is doing most of the damage and is the bigger threat. But I think it is possible that even they have reached the zenith of their power and may soon experience a catastrophic collapse even more rapid than our society as a whole.


What the socialist/communist/progressive masses don’t understand is that they are, as Ayn Rand pointed out, looters. And the life of an unhindered looter is only great as long as there is someone left to loot that doesn’t offer meaningful resistance. And they just looted the last “store” on the planet.


The Marxists always describe people in terms of “class”. I think there is a grain truth to be harvested from a class division of people. But it’s not the class division taught by Marx and his cult. The class division I find useful is of producers and looters. And as the economic realities of discovering the last store on the planet has already been looted the looters will either become producers or they will die off. I suspect there will be lots of dead. Most from starvation and disease and a few from being shot by the producers that finally start doing what should have been done a long time ago—protecting their property from the looters.


The instant communication channels will allow us to find other producers and identify looters. This will give us hope and it will enable our cooperation. This is the upside to our technology and may yet save our species from the great endarkenment looming over us. This is an ace-in-the hole that no civilization before us ever had available.


The looters of the future will not be so well camouflaged as the looters of today. Today they have a few leaders who wear suits and smile as they wave to the camera and ask for your vote. In the not so distant future their leaders are likely to live lives that of the last couple of years of Saddam Hussein and meet similar ends. The looters will be hungry, dirty, and run in wild packs. Without the camouflage producers will recognize them for what they are and appropriate action will be taken.


I don’t know the end result of the coming final class struggle. Maybe the looters will destroy the last of the producers and it will be another ten thousand years before a civilization can rise from the ashes. But at this point I don’t think that is a forgone conclusion. I think the producers may have to look the other way as millions of looters become beggars and then finally corpses. They may be millions of tons of rotting flesh to be cleared but the producers may be able to survive the coming apocalypse and end up with a much stronger society two or three generations from now.


Some lessons are very, very difficult to learn. But sometimes you cannot advance to the next level until you master the current level.



I just hope Gerard Vanderleun is wrong and our society can learn the lesson of this level before we have lost all our lives and it is game over.—Joe]

Project ‘Fast And Furious Gun Restrictions’

Posted on by

The more I see on this scandal with the BATFE, the more it stinks.  Here are several issues I have, in no particular order.  To me they’re obvious quirks in the story that aren’t being discussed.  If someone knows of these being brought up and addressed, please do share;


The Old Media are actually covering this to some extent.  They don’t cover anything unless it in some way promotes the leftist cause.  They’re actually being critical of the BATFE, but wait.  The “problem” is being spun as one of too few restrictions.  BATFE is bad, not because they’re idiots or self-serving thugs looking for more funding, or outright criminals or tyrants, but because they didn’t stop gun purchases.  Keep an eye on this.


Very large purchases of guns were supposedly “allowed” to take place.  We’re being asked to believe that Mexican criminals purchased up to dozens of guns at a time, on several occasions.  First; if these were real straw purchases wherein there was a genuine worry about secrecy, they’d take place in dibs and dabs, so as not to attract attention.  Second; why would powerful Mexican cartels with international influence be interested in paying hundreds of dollars more, per gun, in the U.S. compared to getting them at global street prices?  Even the cartels would know about our background check system at gun stores, yet these purchases supposedly took place at gun dealerships, where they would know that such large purchases would attract immediate attention.  But they did it anyway?  Too many stinky points.  I say the purchases were engineered, either by, or in close cooperation with, BATFE, and not simply “allowed”, as we’re being asked to believe.


We’re told that hundreds of these guns were found at crime scenes (I think I heard the number 800 dropped the other night).  What?  Really?  Hundreds?  That’s an awful lot of clumsy, absent-minded, criminals, isn’t it?  Leaving their guns, so painstakingly straw-purchased at inflated prices at U.S. retail dealerships, behind at crime scenes to be found in very short order by our super heroes?  Stinky, stinky, stinky.


A big government operation, not to shut down Mexican cartels, not to investigate corruption in Mexico that’s threatening people in the U.S., not to revisit the effects of our War On Drugs, but instead to draw attention to how our evil gun rights in the U.S. lead to death and destruction in other countries.


These issues aren’t being brought up in the press or by the Congressional “investigations”.  Nope.  Instead it’s all about; “You bastards! Why didn’t you guys stop gun sales?”  All this after Obama promised anti gun rights groups he’d be doing something for them “…under the radar“.


I think the indignation we’re hearing from the press and from Congress is all feigned.  Good Cop, Bad Cop.


My younger brother and I put together a list of socialist tenets many years ago.  It’s been lost to computer upgrades and internet evolution, but one of those tenets was; “When restrictions on freedom produce disastrous results, freedom is to blame and the solution is more restrictions.”  Look for it in this case.  It’ll happen, I guarantee.  It’s in the DNA of it.

This Public Servant Bit Needs More Discussion

Posted on by

This is an addendum to the post below.


As stated; as a public employee, as a public servant, your job, your individual tasks, your pay and the very existence of the department for which you work, exists purely at our (The People’s) pleasure.  It is our prerogative to alter this relationship, to dismiss you, or to eliminate your department entirely, at a whim.


As a public servant, you have no “right” whatsoever to a particular salary, or to a particular job, etc.  If we decide we must lower your pay or dismiss you altogether, your proper response would be something like; “I understand.  Thank you for the opportunity to have served you.”  At that point you are free to go your own way and prove your worth in the marketplace as you see fit.  May you live long and prosper.


If you decide, on the other hand, to get hostile about it and start in with the name-calling and the threats, what can We The People conclude about the relationship we’ve had with you?  Look at me when I’m talking to you!


In private practice, a servant that gets hostile with the home owner will probably result in the police being called in on a domestic disturbance.  At the very best it would result in an unflattering reference when you apply for another job.  This is OUR house.  If the hostility continues and becomes threatening, what are we to do?  If the police aren’t able to help us get you public servants under control, well then, what?  What are we left with for options in that case?  You aren’t going to get your way, let me just put it like that.  Not for long, I can tell you.  This is OUR country.

Exposing Leftists

Posted on by

College students are asked to sign a petition to impose Affirmative Action upon the basketball team (for diversity), to redistribute GPA points, ban conservative talk radio, etc.  Good stuff.  Enjoy.


What I took away was the students’ apparent total lack of ability, or preparation, for these discussions, meaning that high schools and universities aren’t encouraging such critical thinking at all.  I believe my son, who just graduated from high school, could give these petitioners a resounding talkin’ to.


HT to Glen Beck

Logical Contradiction

Posted on by

NRCC Chairman, Pete Sessions, just sent out a letter.  First sentence;



While House Republicans are working hard to return our country to economic prosperity and strengthen and secure Medicare…


Let me see if can put this into perspective.  While House Republicans are working hard to run our economy for us (because we’re too stupid and/or evil to do it ourselves) and to try, once again, to make socialism viable.  ETS; Or are they working hard to free the economy so it can work, AND trying to make socialism viable?  They don’t say.  That’s about how I read it.

Critical Pedagogy Hits Home

Posted on by

There’s been some talk about it lately and it’s been in the news, but it’s also been in your home town school for some time.  Here is a history paper, handed out in my son’s history class, complete with syntax errors, inexplicable asterisks, bad grammar, omitted words, and miss-numbering.  The kids were told to memorize it.  Keep in mind the title of the piece – “U.S. History”  This is all American.  Everything below is what made/makes us tick;



U.S. History
Philosophies — Foreign and Domestic


“What Made/Makes Us Tick”


1. Capitalism – Pure*** vs. Regulated


An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


OK, right there; no mention of property rights, the acknowledgement and protection of which result in capitalism.  “Corporately owned” IS privately owned, but they must make a distinction.



Pure capitalism over time results in poverty, worker abuse, environmental destruction, a two class social structure, and governmental control by the wealthy.  All economic, political and social norms were control directly ad indirectly by the wealthy.  Even the presentation of religious views were seen through the eyes of the capitalistic values.(2-


Karl Marx would be giddy with pride seeing what our public schools are teaching my kids today.  There’s so much wrong with that one paragraph I don’t know where to begin.  For one thing, “governmental control by the wealthy” defines a corrupt government.  The acknowledgement and protection of property rights, which defines capitalism, does not lead to governmental control by the wealthy.  That’s a contradiction in terms, but you’re not supposed to notice.  Corrupt politicians lead to governmental control by the wealthy, and for that they should be arrested.



Regulated Capitalism – has produced our nation.  Government regulates what industry can do within limits.  Environmental impact (air quality), worker safety, fair pay, fair trade, and business dealings are regulated by law.


The Fascisti would certainly approve of that statement, and they were committed Marxists.  Notice throughout this whole piece that there is no mention of human rights, or of America’s founding principles.  That would blow the whole thing though, wouldn’t it?



2. Expansionism


The belief that the nation must grow to acquire natural resources, new areas of trade, and living space. (Safety Value Theory – Turner Thesis)


3. Manifest Destiny (New Manifest Destiny)***


— Similar to Expansionism.  This was the belief that God had pre-determined (destined) the United States to expand.  It was an outgrowth of the Puritan ethic [God rewards those who work hard and live an exemplary life.]  The term eventually meant that the U.S. would eventually control the land from coast to coast.  This belief system motivated the “Western Movement.”  The acquisition of land and the displacement of Native Americans became justified in part by this belief system.  The Mexican War, the Southwest land, Northwest Territory, and Alaska are also acquired with belief system as the driving force for America to expand.


Nearly every country that ever existed has practiced some version of Manifest Destiny or Expansionism.  The American government did some terrible things to the Indians.  The innuendo I get from this is that there are wrongs remaining to be righted, which is actually being said elsewhere, complete with the “R” word (revolution) in the above linked video, as part of a school curriculum.



4.  Whiteman’s Burden – Anglo Saxonism***  The term is taken from a poem by Rudyard Kipling in which he states is was “the white man’s burden” to colonize the other nations for their benefit.  In practice it was the belief that:


God had chosen the Anglo-Saxon race to colonize the “less fortunate” peoples of the world.  In so doing they were to bring them education, the Christian faith, a Puritan work ethic, capitalism, health care, and the other “benefits” of our culture.


Ah, so America really IS racist!  Crap!



5.  Imperialism***


–,The control of one nation over another nation or territory for the purposes of acquiring natural resources, trade, and/or military advantage.  This is the core of U.S. expansion.  The acquisition of Hawaii, Cuba, and the Philippines are examples of imperialism.


Notice how they slipped trade in there, like trading with people in another nation amounts to Imperialism.  We bastards!  Those poor victims!



6.  Rugged Individualism


— The belief that individuals are to provide for their own needs without the help of others.  “I can do it myself.”  This was the pioneer spirit and the belief of the nation in the 1800s.  It worked against the average person during the latter part of the Industrial Revolution as corporations controlled the variables of life.  Working harder did not mean greater rewards for the worker.  It meant greater profits for the corporation.


The ideal of self sufficiency worked against the average person, eh?  So you’d be better off relying on others.  Notice too the repeated use of the word “worker”.  “Workers of the World Unite” then, I guess.  There are those evil corporations again, and the use of “profits” as an epithet.



7.  Social Darwinism


— Applying the theory of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, to political and social life.  The strong must survive to benefit the entire nation.  No sympathy for the weak, (poor, workers).  Laws and social customs were for the benefit of the fittest (rich, industrialist, upper crust of society).  When you combine the philosophies of Social Darwinism with imperialism, and Manifest Destiny., the world created was a tough one for the average person.


The Nazis were Social Darwinists, or I would say “Socialist Darwinists”.  Let’s be clear.



8.  Humanitarianism


— the belief that mankind should help others just because they can.  “Social Gospel” of the latter 1800s.


“Just because they can”, mind you.  Not because it’s the right thing to do.  Not because there are rich people who are, you know, actually human.



9.  Liberty/Freedom/Self-determination*


These fundamental beliefs began to take on a new meaning for many of society as the end of the century approached.  The empathy to “occupied countries” overseas and to the oppressed at home gains attention of a wider spectrum of society in the late 1800s.


Again no mention of rights, rights protection, or founding principles.  Instead it’s all up for grabs, depending on prevailing theories.



9. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM


It is easier to define American Imperialism by contrasting it with Imperialism.


Imperialism is centered on Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, and White Man’s Burden.


There were never, ever, anywhere, any non-white Imperialists then.  You racist, you.



American Imperialism tempers those beliefs with humanitarianism and the beliefs of self-determination, freedom and liberty.  Our present foreign and domestic policies are motivated by this belief.


There you have it.  We’re an Imperialist nation.  Damn us all to hell.


This history lesson is a self-contradictory and confused jumble of omissions, lies, half truths and truths.  Would Karl Marx strongly disagree with any of it?

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1

Posted on by

This started out as a comment at Tam’s post about target marketing fail while waiting for Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 but grew to the point I figured it should be a post of my own.


Son James made a very similar “target audience” fail remark during the previews about different movies at our location as well.


James has read the book three times and I read it once then listened to the unabridged audio version once (yes, Galt’s eight hour monologue actually takes eight hours). We both liked the movie but had some minor criticisms about the movie skipping over some points too rapidly for “newcomers” to really understand the points being made.


We both really liked that the sex scene with Dagny was not the way Rand always portrayed an ideal man/woman relationship.


The scene wife Barbara liked best was where the guy wanted Rearden’s money but asked Rearden’s name not associated with the donation.


I agree with the commenters who said the casting of James Taggert was a little off.


I was uncomfortable with a train going 250 MPH on those curves with the passengers standing up. Sorry, but I don’t think they ran the numbers through the physics equations before they filmed those scenes. And the curves had better have some appropriate slope to them to keep the train from rolling over or pushing the tracks off the railway bed.

Overheard in bed last night

Posted on by

Paraphrasing just a little…



Joe: So what is the Tea Party protest sign you were talking about with James and Xenia?
Barb: Xenia is going to carry one that says, “Refresh the tree of liberty.”
Joe: That’s a little over the top. I wouldn’t carry one like that.
Barb: It was John’s idea.
Joe: Xenia’s a big girl and can make her own decisions. That she is a young woman and John is in the military helps some.
Barb: I wonder what sign they will make for me.
Joe: Probably it will be something like, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”


Here is a picture of son James and daughter Xenia at the protest in Olympia Washington today:


JamesXeniaProtest

Quote of the day—Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Inflation is taxation without legislation.

Milton Friedman
[I was reminded of this by David and it being April 15th.—Joe]

I Stumbled Across This Excellent Dissertation

Posted on by

And it turns out to have been written by me, so I’m quoting myself.

In a discussion about capitalism, this was asked;

Does Need and Want enter the equation?
How does Marketing elbow it’s way in between Production and Consumption?

To which I replied;

Interesting question. I’d say that need and want are omnipresent in all interactions, but the basic equation is still the same. That production necessarily precedes consumption is obvious, whether or not the goods or services being consumed are both needed and wanted, or merely wanted. Each individual should be free to decided what he wants or needs to produce, what he wants or needs to consume, with whom he will trade, and how, in order to reach his goals. That includes the form of communication we call marketing.

Marketing is as old as humanity. Actually that’s a short sighted statement, because marketing, usually by males to potentially receptive females, has been going on for millennia in other species. Not sure where you’re going with that. I make widgets and want other people to buy them. They’ll never know I have these widgets available unless I advertize in some way. Often that advertizing is as difficult and expensive as the actual production but, just like the colorful feathers on the peacock, I can’t continue without it. If I believe my widgets are superior to widgets made by other producers, it is my want, my duty and my need to explain that superiority. That’s the communication between producer and potential consumer. That enables products of all descriptions to receive trial in the free market. The best performers will in the long run and overall, tend to win out over the lesser performers. Even products some people hate may do very well if there are enough who like them.

To the extent that the producer wants to produce and trade, and to the extent that the consumer wants and/or needs the product, marketing helps both.

If your thought is that marketing can and does steer people in directions they should not go, I would agree in many cases, though interference in that process can only have further negative consequences. Right at the start, legal interference denies the freedom that is the ideal in our society. Ultimately people are responsible for their personal choices, and reality will be the judge.

I may not like what some people spend their money on, I may not like the products some people offer, and I may not like how some people market their products. In a free society, that’s my tough luck. Everything has its costs, and the cost of liberty is that people I dislike may do things I dislike, so long as no one’s rights are being violated. Maybe instead I should find something to worry about that I can actually change. If I believe in my position passionately, I should have the freedom to get together with like-minded individuals and a) do better marketing of my own of a better product, or b) do an ad campaign of my own, warning others of the pitfalls of that other guy’s marketing. If I’m telling the truth, too bad for the other guy, and good for his unsuspecting customers. If I’m lying, he can sue me for defamation or some such, or his customers may ignore me.

The good thing about a truly free market (something no one alive has ever actually seen, by the way) is that people are free to make their own decisions. The bad thing about a free market is that people are free to make their own decisions. Our founding principles and documents acknowledge this dichotomy and uphold it as the ideal.

There are those who would put us in a situation where other people are making our decisions for us. That’s just trading retail bad decisions for wholesale bad decisions, with brute force being the operating system as opposed to free choice and rights protection. We know where that leads.

Quote of the day—Karl Marx

Posted on by

The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.

Karl Marx
[In this age with both state and Federal government collapsing from the weight of “entitlements” I find the irony of this funny in a very sad, sick sort of way.—Joe]

What can I do to fight evil and live in a just society?

Posted on by

I received an email from Tom Garrett, President, Society of Libertarian Entrepreneurs with a link to this video:

Nice stuff but when the government takes everything you have and gives it to the parasites you end up living the life of a slave and any improvements you make in your inner self are of little immediate value.

I would prefer to retire in Galt’s Gulch and let the system collapse but as Roberta X has pointed out, ‘We’re a bit short of Galts and Gulches an’ Midas Mulligan’s been in a Federal pen for a good long while now, accused of “redlining.”’

Quote of the day—Sandro Rettinger

Posted on by

I’ve decided I really am a heartless bastard about it, though. Screw the old people. Kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid entirely. “But we made a promise! We have to honor that!” people will screech. Fuck that noise. Old people made an agreement with the politicians of their day to pay in 5 cents on the dollar on the premise that I’d make up the difference now that they’re at an age where they’d like to retire. They’re welcome to find those politicians and demand their retirement of them. It’s not my problem. They counted on the promises of government when they could have fought to disband the whole fraud before it was catastrophic.

Sandro Rettinger
March 24, 2011
Comment to Our Economic Titanic,
[I’m inclined to at least partially agree with Sandro. There isn’t much else that can be done at this point.

But most of the politicians responsible are dead and there isn’t much money you can squeeze out of a dead politician. I suppose we could put a crater where their grave is and dump sewage into the hole. But as Heinlein pointed out such activities provide “only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about”.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Alan and others are sort of optimistic about the coming government collapse. Kevin is pessimistic.

The argument for optimism is basically that government is a parasite and that once the parasite dies the host (or new offspring of the host) will be able to flourish. I can see that.

I can also see that as the government nears the end those in power will rationalize almost any action to “Maintain order” or “To preserve the union” in the face of the riots. They will “just have to”. Your “goods, knowledge, and skills” may be required by others. And “whatever means necessary” will be utilized to implement “justice”.

As my brother Doug told me recently after I expressed some satisfaction about owning some productive farm land in our time of economic collapse, “We own land only as long as the law allows it.”

This is the difference between the Soviet Union and us. When the Soviet Union collapsed they already owned and controlled everything. There was nothing left for the government to take when the checks started bouncing.

I’m not saying the government will be successful in the acquisition process but both success and failure would be exercises of considerable unpleasantness.

Quote of the day—Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.

Milton Friedman
[We are likely to get a lot of this in the near future.

But the main reason I was reminded of this was because of gun control without legislation being contemplated.

I wonder if there is a special name for that like “inflation” for taxation without legislation? Other than “unelectable” of course.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

Posted on by

Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

Ayn Rand
[A friend of mine once compared government aid to candy that causes cancer. It tastes sweet and is almost irresistible but eventually it will kill you.

Some lessons are taught over and over with only a few ever really grasping it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Barron Barnett

Posted on by

This agency needs to be put down like a rabid dog and it’s behavior and rate of growth reminds me of some other agencies in the early 1990s.  The only difference  is they haven’t shot a woman holding a baby or burned a bunch of people to death. Instead they are giving people extra unnecessary dose of radiation at the point of the gun, claiming necessity, but in reality it’s pointless.

Barron Barnett
March 13, 2011
TSA Body Scanners Giving 10x Dose
[With the clarification that it is the agency and not the people that need to be put down I’m in complete agreement with this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

Milton Friedman
[It is predicted the Federal budget deficit will reach $1.65 trillion this year with a $14.1 trillion debt and about $2.1 trillion in income. Yet the House cannot reach agreement on spending cuts. The House Republicans want to only cut $60 billion in spending and the Democrats only want to cut spending $6.5 billion. If you were to scale this down into numbers people might be able to relate to it would look like the following.

If your family income were $50,000 then:

  • Family debt is $335,700
  • Family deficit is $39,300 (spending is $89,300/year)
  • The head of household wants to cut $1,430 in yearly spending
  • The spouse wants to cut $154.80 in yearly spending

The children should cut up the credit cards and sell everything that isn’t the bare minimum needed for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and communication. If the debt still isn’t being paid down they should consider selling their parents organs.—Joe]

Alright, Classmates…

Posted on by

We’ve been talking about this for several years here.  Who can tell us how Rand Paul utterly failed in this interview;


ETA; YouTube imbedding has been disable for this video, but you can still see it here.


Letterman make a pretty good attempt at it, but Paul is left like a deer in the headlights and didn’t even make the attempt.  As Rand herself would say; “Blank-out.”  Then she would go on to explain how the self described conservative voices are the worst, most deadly enemies of conservatism.


I give him a C minus as a junior high school student.  He did show having done some homework and some listening in class, but I’d flunk him from high school.  Maybe it was just nerves, but I don’t buy that.  You don’t forget your main point– the thing you’ve ostensibly been striving for all your professional life.  I kept waiting for it– fully expecting it, but alas.  Maybe he’s just another Republican.


Anyone?


HT to theblaze.com

Collective Firing Rights

Posted on by

There sure is a lot of talk about it, but little discussion of it.  Where is it written that public service employees (formerly known as public servants) have a right to collective bargaining?  Regular citizens have rights.  Government employees have responsibilities.  Do your job and quit yer bitchin’ or get out and get a real job– start your own business.  Whatever.  Just shut up and go away.  We never really needed most of you in those public positions in the first place.


I’m not so sure we should ever allow them to organize.  That’s what regular folks do, once in a while, and even then their employers have the right to collectively fire them.


Surely the public servants’ “right” to collective bargaining should come with the right to be collectively fired.  Maybe it’s time to grant them the latter, over there in Wisconsin.


Somehow an angry rent-a-mob of Marxist beatniks and global “One Big Union” socialist revolutionaries demanding more goodies from the pockets of taxpayers doesn’t sit right.  They’re certainly not what they want to be– equal in principle to civil rights marchers.  Not even remotely.


Since they’re pissed off at the state government and trying to stifle the democratic process therein, shouldn’t we be calling them Angry, Anti Government Protestors?  I’ll say they’re just exactly the same as Timothy McVeigh.  What the hell; they’re incipient terrorists.  If it’s good for the goose…


I say fire the lot, eliminate half the positions permanently, and cut all state taxes by half.  Tomorrow.  That would do for a start.  There’d be some breathing room for new start-up business and a rapidly shrinking deficit.  I don’t see a down side.