This election all you hear about are the red and blue states. It seems the sophisticated educated cultural elite live in the Democratic blue states which are mostly along the East and West Coasts while the dumber or less sophisticated folks with traditional values live mostly in the middle of the country in red Republican states. Let's see what the colors really mean.
No state is bluer than NY and no place in NY is bluer than NYC. In 1955 my Mom had a very safe domestic policy manifested as follows: when I said, "Mommy what can I do today?" she'd gave me 5 cents and tell me to get a friend and go have an adventure on the subway for the afternoon. Today a mother in NYC would be arrested for the very same domestic policy. What happened?
The Democrats happened? They turned blue! Today, NYC is the heart and soul of liberalism and the Democratic Party. The subways are too dangerous for children, every apartment has 4 locks and an armed doorman backed up by further private security. Street level windows are heavily bared with steel where razor wire is not appropriate, $30 used bicycles are protected by $100 chains and locks, and you don't dare make eye contact on the street. The streets often smell of piled up garbage, the sidewalks are pock marked with filthy black gum residue, vagrants sleep in doorways, and big brother watches from 200,000 security cameras. The thin veneer of liberal civilization is only maintained by NYC's dirtiest little secret: 40,000 police officers(10 times that of LA despite a smaller population).
Still, we're all so fortunate to have the cultural elite of Western civilization safely imprisoned, from the very liberal constituency they created, in their high security NYC buildings where their media, fashion, entertainment publishing, art, social, and political industries and institutions can teach the rest of us farmers how to organize ourselves and get along properly. I just don't understand though why farmers have God and families while a recent US Census lists Manhattan as first in the nation in percentage of single people, followed closely by the Kilauea Leper Colony in Hawaii?
What happened to NYC after 1960 ? Liberals happened. The gov't took responsibility in the name of society for any problems in people's lives. Without a sense of individual responsibility it was then too hard to go to school or work, support a family, or obey the law. Blacks were targeted specifically. The progress they had been making was instantly reversed: families disintegrated; more young men went to prison than college. If a Republican policy had led to such a catastrophic general failure of civilization it would have been called genocide, as it turned out the Democrats were never even held responsible. In fact, even this year the bluest of Senators is running for President; his name is John F. Kerry and he too is getting away with it.
10.31.2004
10.30.2004
BIN LADEN BREAKS KERRY'S HEART
This is simple really:
1) Bin Laden finally appears on election eve, obviously, to influence the election
2) He uses several anti-Bush pro John Kerry/Michael Moore arguments as follows:
A) "Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before."
B) "He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times."
C) "We never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank God."
D) "Bin Laden pointed to the millions of pounds of explosives dropped on Iraqi children as bush his son had done, as he said to remove an old agent and install a new agent to help in stealing the oil of Iraq."
E) "And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom."
3) Before Bin Laden's arrival Bush had a slight lead in the polls but a 10 point lead on his handling of the war in Iraq and a 20 point lead on his handling of terrorism. Kerry had successfully distracted many with his silly socialist banter about domestic issues, but now Bin Laden's blood thirsty specter has, unwittingly, driven the discussion back to Bush's strength and we therefore should expect Bush to win going away.
4) Kerry, sensing it was all over for him, finally tried to dispel his life long hippy, pacifist, antiwar, anti military, anti intelligence persona by calling Bin Laden a barbarian, and faintheartedly promising that he would stop at nothing to hunt him down. Sadly for Kerry, 85% of the troops that he would use to hunt down Bin Laden have voted for Bush; perhaps in fear that one day Kerry will put them under the upsidedown flag that was on the cover of his Vietnam era book.
5) It broke Kerry's heart that reality made him talk tough about a man who literally is trying to, and may, kill millions of American, when he was so much more comfortable with sensitive dialogue about how Bush had underfunded "no child left behind."
1) Bin Laden finally appears on election eve, obviously, to influence the election
2) He uses several anti-Bush pro John Kerry/Michael Moore arguments as follows:
A) "Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before."
B) "He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times."
C) "We never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank God."
D) "Bin Laden pointed to the millions of pounds of explosives dropped on Iraqi children as bush his son had done, as he said to remove an old agent and install a new agent to help in stealing the oil of Iraq."
E) "And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom."
3) Before Bin Laden's arrival Bush had a slight lead in the polls but a 10 point lead on his handling of the war in Iraq and a 20 point lead on his handling of terrorism. Kerry had successfully distracted many with his silly socialist banter about domestic issues, but now Bin Laden's blood thirsty specter has, unwittingly, driven the discussion back to Bush's strength and we therefore should expect Bush to win going away.
4) Kerry, sensing it was all over for him, finally tried to dispel his life long hippy, pacifist, antiwar, anti military, anti intelligence persona by calling Bin Laden a barbarian, and faintheartedly promising that he would stop at nothing to hunt him down. Sadly for Kerry, 85% of the troops that he would use to hunt down Bin Laden have voted for Bush; perhaps in fear that one day Kerry will put them under the upsidedown flag that was on the cover of his Vietnam era book.
5) It broke Kerry's heart that reality made him talk tough about a man who literally is trying to, and may, kill millions of American, when he was so much more comfortable with sensitive dialogue about how Bush had underfunded "no child left behind."
10.27.2004
Carrying Dead Bodies
Dear Mr. Wolf,
Thank you very much for today's (10/27) op-ed article in the Financial Times, but it was mistaken in two major ways both of which I would not expect you to understand from the more liberal side of the ocean.
Firstly, you say major divisions appeared at the 1968 Democratic Convention when in fact the divisions were permanently established when George Washington appointed both Jefferson and Hamilton to his Cabinet. Jefferson thought the American Revolution was against all gov't while Hamilton had no objection to the concept of a strong central gov't so long as it was a strong American gov't, which he presumably would set up and control. The Jefferson/Hamilton chasm became and remains the defining issue in American history. Incidentally, the Jeffersonian side won exclusively until the New Deal, and has done reasonably well thereafter. They then staked a natural claim to traditional American values, and always have been more willing to defend and promote those values internationally. The Hamiltonians, later heavily influenced by Karl Marx, never liked Jeffersonian freedom very much and therefore were/are much less inclined to defend freedom around the world.
Secondly, you say if Bush wins it is a declaration of indifference to militant exceptionialism or democratic imperialism. Actually, if Bush wins it is really just about preventing another sneak attack. His presidency has been a reaction to 9/11 not the development and implementation of some goofy academic philosophy. As Rumsfeld was carrying dead bodies out of the Pentagon on 9/11 he said to himself, "damn, we should have struck preemptively on 12/6/41 and 9/10/01; we didn't, thousands died, it won't happen again." He looked around the world and it occurred to him that we were already at war with one of the most evil regimes in history and said, "they are an incredibly obvious target; in fact 1000 times more obvious than Japan was on 12/6/41 or Afghanistan was on 9/10/01.
So please Mr.Wolf, let us defend ourselves without being accused of some silly academic philosophy. With the grace of God, Americans will return George Bush to the White House; not the Hamiltonian who never liked America freedom. Kerry would have to half heartedly try to defend a country he has never really defended on any level. In fact, if Kerry is even 1% less credible on defense, and God knows he is far more than that, he does not belong within 1000 miles of the White House, during a world war no less, where as Ronald Reagan famously said, "the last best hope for freedom on earth resides."
Thank you very much for today's (10/27) op-ed article in the Financial Times, but it was mistaken in two major ways both of which I would not expect you to understand from the more liberal side of the ocean.
Firstly, you say major divisions appeared at the 1968 Democratic Convention when in fact the divisions were permanently established when George Washington appointed both Jefferson and Hamilton to his Cabinet. Jefferson thought the American Revolution was against all gov't while Hamilton had no objection to the concept of a strong central gov't so long as it was a strong American gov't, which he presumably would set up and control. The Jefferson/Hamilton chasm became and remains the defining issue in American history. Incidentally, the Jeffersonian side won exclusively until the New Deal, and has done reasonably well thereafter. They then staked a natural claim to traditional American values, and always have been more willing to defend and promote those values internationally. The Hamiltonians, later heavily influenced by Karl Marx, never liked Jeffersonian freedom very much and therefore were/are much less inclined to defend freedom around the world.
Secondly, you say if Bush wins it is a declaration of indifference to militant exceptionialism or democratic imperialism. Actually, if Bush wins it is really just about preventing another sneak attack. His presidency has been a reaction to 9/11 not the development and implementation of some goofy academic philosophy. As Rumsfeld was carrying dead bodies out of the Pentagon on 9/11 he said to himself, "damn, we should have struck preemptively on 12/6/41 and 9/10/01; we didn't, thousands died, it won't happen again." He looked around the world and it occurred to him that we were already at war with one of the most evil regimes in history and said, "they are an incredibly obvious target; in fact 1000 times more obvious than Japan was on 12/6/41 or Afghanistan was on 9/10/01.
So please Mr.Wolf, let us defend ourselves without being accused of some silly academic philosophy. With the grace of God, Americans will return George Bush to the White House; not the Hamiltonian who never liked America freedom. Kerry would have to half heartedly try to defend a country he has never really defended on any level. In fact, if Kerry is even 1% less credible on defense, and God knows he is far more than that, he does not belong within 1000 miles of the White House, during a world war no less, where as Ronald Reagan famously said, "the last best hope for freedom on earth resides."
10.26.2004
Republicanism 101
Republicans want to make our economy more competitive internationally, create more real jobs, and improve our standard of living. They want to do this by eliminating corporate welfare. Just as they want to take private citizens off the welfare rolls on the theory that in most cases it destroys the incentive to ever be productive and harms those who are already productive, they want to do it in the business sphere too.
The best way to do this is to replace all federal taxation with the so called "fair tax"; a 23% national sales tax on everything, with rebates to those who are very poor. The gov't would have exactly the same amount of money and so would individual citizens, but gone would be all the welfare industries: the IRS, most private tax and corporate tax accountants, all tax preparers, many lawyers, courts, judges, staff etc. etc., the payroll industry, estate tax industry, life insurance industry, much of the financial planning and brokerage industry, the entire municipal bond industry, and much of the insurance industry,. Presumably, state, county and local gov't would follow the Federal lead and eliminate the huge bureaucracies they too maintain to collect taxes.
In the end a million people or more who now have "make work" jobs created by the Democrats would have to get real jobs. They would be forced to contribute real goods and services to the economy that raised our standard of living rather than to continue to suck the life blood out of the economy in support of utterly senseless bureaucracies which are really designed to do nothing more than hide and diffuse the real tax burden so people will continue to vote for Democrats.
Moreover, with the fair tax, all individuals and businesses would then be free to dramatically expand the real economy by making financial decisions that make economic sense rather than, merely, tax sense. For example, capital might then flow to a new drug company rather than to a new football stadium built with tax free bonds. The benefits would be endless and dramatic, and of course the Democrats are opposed. comments: bje1000@aol.com
10.22.2004
The Meaning of Theresa
Normally you don't expect a first lady to be terribly important, at least about policy matters. But Theresa Heinz Kerry threatens to be different, and in a very revealing way. It seems she is just dying to prove to us that inherited money and brains are inversely proportional. Even while muzzled for the duration of the campaign she seems to regularly breaks free to share her wealthy arrogance with us. It makes us wonder what she might say as first lady when the muzzle is off, and more importantly, what she and her husband really believe.
Recently she said that in a Kerry administration American boys would "never be sent to die in war because of greed over oil." The implication was that there is some grand conspiracy afoot such that the Bush's, their business associates, and friends can profit directly from the war in Iraq, which really has to do with money for Bush et. al. rather than the war on terrorism. It is a despicably cynical indictment of America on many levels but then again not so surprising when you consider that Democrats don't believe in America or its values the way Republicans do. For example, if you ask yourself whether Bush or Kerry wrote a book with the American flag upside down on the cover it is not a difficult to choose the right answer. If you ask yourself whether Laura Bush would have made such an anti American statement the answer is, again, obvious. Ronald Reagan famously asked, "why do they always blame America first," for obvious reasons.
It seems quite possible that the real difference between John and Theresa is that John understands, through focus group research or a sharper political sense, what will play well in public while Theresa does not bother with such things having, after all, inherited a billion dollars. After Theresa's statement John had to say, for the 23rd time, "America loves a woman who speaks her mind." This is probably true but glosses over whether they wouldn't prefer intelligence and patriotism too, over a deeply held anti American cynicism based on an inability to understand the basic principals and philosophy on which America was founded. In the end Theresa may be just a rich dummy with a big mouth, but, she may also be John Kerry's soul mate. We can't be really sure, but who wants to take the chance in the middle of a world war? comments: bje1000@aol.com
Click here: The Dumb Democrat
Click here: Amazon.com: Books:
Understanding the Difference
Between Democrats and Republicans
(A Republican Perspective)
Recently she said that in a Kerry administration American boys would "never be sent to die in war because of greed over oil." The implication was that there is some grand conspiracy afoot such that the Bush's, their business associates, and friends can profit directly from the war in Iraq, which really has to do with money for Bush et. al. rather than the war on terrorism. It is a despicably cynical indictment of America on many levels but then again not so surprising when you consider that Democrats don't believe in America or its values the way Republicans do. For example, if you ask yourself whether Bush or Kerry wrote a book with the American flag upside down on the cover it is not a difficult to choose the right answer. If you ask yourself whether Laura Bush would have made such an anti American statement the answer is, again, obvious. Ronald Reagan famously asked, "why do they always blame America first," for obvious reasons.
It seems quite possible that the real difference between John and Theresa is that John understands, through focus group research or a sharper political sense, what will play well in public while Theresa does not bother with such things having, after all, inherited a billion dollars. After Theresa's statement John had to say, for the 23rd time, "America loves a woman who speaks her mind." This is probably true but glosses over whether they wouldn't prefer intelligence and patriotism too, over a deeply held anti American cynicism based on an inability to understand the basic principals and philosophy on which America was founded. In the end Theresa may be just a rich dummy with a big mouth, but, she may also be John Kerry's soul mate. We can't be really sure, but who wants to take the chance in the middle of a world war? comments: bje1000@aol.com
Click here: The Dumb Democrat
Click here: Amazon.com: Books:
Understanding the Difference
Between Democrats and Republicans
(A Republican Perspective)
10.14.2004
European Hatred
European: I thought Viet-nam war was immoral.
American: no, killing Communists was part of the cold war that saved all of Europe yet again.
European: Were you there? :)
American: No but so what?
European: If "Viet-raq" is so moral, why are your troops exempt from international criminal court? Surely they have nothing to hide, right?
American: It is hard to imagine that they have anything to hide when we have a free press; so right you are, there is nothing to hide.
We don't belong to the international court out of a belief that our courts have a higher moral standard. We had to rescue Europe three times from Nazis, Communists and other bloodthirsty dictators. It is hard to imagine that such a homicidally confused place would now pretend to a higher standard of morality than ours.
Moreover Europe of late has stood absolutely still and silent in the face of genocide in Yugoslavia, Sierre Leone, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, and, as we speak, Sudan, So it doesn't seem things have changed too much, except of course for the development of a huge European jealousy and resentment about the civilizing role the U.S. contiuues to play on the world stage while Europe looks with so much moral impotence.
American: no, killing Communists was part of the cold war that saved all of Europe yet again.
European: Were you there? :)
American: No but so what?
European: If "Viet-raq" is so moral, why are your troops exempt from international criminal court? Surely they have nothing to hide, right?
American: It is hard to imagine that they have anything to hide when we have a free press; so right you are, there is nothing to hide.
We don't belong to the international court out of a belief that our courts have a higher moral standard. We had to rescue Europe three times from Nazis, Communists and other bloodthirsty dictators. It is hard to imagine that such a homicidally confused place would now pretend to a higher standard of morality than ours.
Moreover Europe of late has stood absolutely still and silent in the face of genocide in Yugoslavia, Sierre Leone, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, and, as we speak, Sudan, So it doesn't seem things have changed too much, except of course for the development of a huge European jealousy and resentment about the civilizing role the U.S. contiuues to play on the world stage while Europe looks with so much moral impotence.
85% VOTE FOR BUSH
We are fighting World War 111; so naturally John Kerry showed up and said: "reporting for duty" to make us believe that he is eager and able to serve as Commander-in-Chief. But now the troops have cast their absentee ballots and 85% are for Bush and against Kerry as Commander-In-Chief. In fact when Kerry was a commander during the Vietnam era 250 of those he commanded later wrote a book, currently on the NYTIMES bestseller list, called "Unfit For Command." So we have to ask: "is it really fair to our troops who are fighting and dying everyday on our behalf to consider making Kerry their commander? Should they have to worry that Kerry will brand them war criminals? Should they be encouraged to abandon their comrades at arms after they get medals as Kerry did? Should they lose their will to fight in fear that Kerry will define the war as immoral as he did in Vietnam? Should they lose their will to be soldiers in fear that Kerry will just pull out anyway as would be Secretary of State Sen. Joe Biden has suggested is possible? Should we tell the troops that what they want doesn't matter? Is there anyway to conclude that the slick and nuanced ivy league debater, Kerry, would be a better commander in chief in a "must win" war than Bush?
10.12.2004
How Democrats Kill Millions
America was founded as a Republican country: freedom (from govt), capitalism, democracy, and religion, and grew to be the most prosperous and civilized country on earth as a result. Democrats have major problems with all or most of what America was founded on, most of the time.
Since the New Deal(1932) the Democrats have won most of the power in America. Sadly for the world this has led to the death of millions. America is now divided about what it is and what it stands for. We can't go to the UN or to the world and say: "here's our simply formula for untold peace and prosperity." Democrats, out of incredible dumb blindness, don't like the formula. And , 90% of the gov'ts at the UN don't like the formula either because they are corrupt dictatorships at best or mass murderers at worst. So the Democrats have something very special in common with their friends at the UN and with the international community in general. They all are against the basic American principles that, in point of fact, did lead to untold peace and prosperity. Democrats are against these principles because they are too stupid to understand them, and the rest of the world because they are corrupt or genocidal murders who want to retain power.
When Kerry says he wants our foreign policy to pass his now famous "international test" he really means he wants to do nothing while millions die; often by being slowly hacked to death. He said we couldn't fight communism everywhere, he did not want to fight the first gulf war even though the entire world did fight it and did save the world's oil supply, he befriended a communist dictator in Nicaragua, he did not stand up to genocide in Sierre Leone, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, and now Sudan, and he has always been anti-military, anti-defense, and anti-American . Democrats don't want to fight to impose American values. Instead they blame America first, as Ronald Reagan famously said. And so by default genocide becomes the accepted international value. The world community is powerless because they too all hate American values and because most of them see intervention as, ultimately, a threat to their own corrupt and potentially genocidal regimes.
Moreover, having successfully neutralized American values on the international stage, the Democrats and John Kerry have effectively ended the process through which the world would have understood, embraced and eventually copied the basic formula that led to America's untold peace and prosperity. This can only mean millions more are going to die.
Since the New Deal(1932) the Democrats have won most of the power in America. Sadly for the world this has led to the death of millions. America is now divided about what it is and what it stands for. We can't go to the UN or to the world and say: "here's our simply formula for untold peace and prosperity." Democrats, out of incredible dumb blindness, don't like the formula. And , 90% of the gov'ts at the UN don't like the formula either because they are corrupt dictatorships at best or mass murderers at worst. So the Democrats have something very special in common with their friends at the UN and with the international community in general. They all are against the basic American principles that, in point of fact, did lead to untold peace and prosperity. Democrats are against these principles because they are too stupid to understand them, and the rest of the world because they are corrupt or genocidal murders who want to retain power.
When Kerry says he wants our foreign policy to pass his now famous "international test" he really means he wants to do nothing while millions die; often by being slowly hacked to death. He said we couldn't fight communism everywhere, he did not want to fight the first gulf war even though the entire world did fight it and did save the world's oil supply, he befriended a communist dictator in Nicaragua, he did not stand up to genocide in Sierre Leone, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, and now Sudan, and he has always been anti-military, anti-defense, and anti-American . Democrats don't want to fight to impose American values. Instead they blame America first, as Ronald Reagan famously said. And so by default genocide becomes the accepted international value. The world community is powerless because they too all hate American values and because most of them see intervention as, ultimately, a threat to their own corrupt and potentially genocidal regimes.
Moreover, having successfully neutralized American values on the international stage, the Democrats and John Kerry have effectively ended the process through which the world would have understood, embraced and eventually copied the basic formula that led to America's untold peace and prosperity. This can only mean millions more are going to die.
10.08.2004
Economics 101 In 3 minutes
A deficit is good during a recession. Bush 2 is spending more than he has; this creates jobs and generally stimulates the economy. Similarly, the Fed lowers interest rates so there is more money to stimulate the slow economy. This is standard stuff for the public but it doesn't really work because only a engineer/businessman can create a real job. Gov't can only create make- work jobs that ultimately must disappear.
For example the Fed, with low interest rates, gives away a lot of money to the real estate industry so they look very busy building houses, etc., but the Fed would have to keep doing it forever or the jobs will disappear. But they can't do it forever because giving away money in the end just produces inflation which really means that those not in the housing industry have to pay exactly the amount in inflated dollars that the Fed unfairly gave to the housing industry.
A real job occurs when one businessman finally gives up and decides he has to fire one worker because the goods that worker makes aren't needed in the market place. Finally consumers spend money that would have been spent on the old workers products somewhere else, another businessman notices the new demand for his product and so then has new money with which to hire a new worker to meet the new demand. But even this is not an addition to employment since the loss of one job created the gain of another job for a net of 0. With the same amount of money in the system it is impossible to have a new job without losing an old one in order to free up the money for the new salary.
So how do you really add to employment? Engineers do this by improving products. A farmer, for example, might grow more grain with less money, time, land, equipment and supplies. This means he has the same money coming in from his grain sales but more profit at the end of the year. Now he can afford two cars every three years, lets say, which means real sustainable new jobs in the automobile industry which are filled by those who no longer have jobs in farming. But again where is the net gain in new jobs? After all there is not a law which says that a new harvester that takes the jobs of a thousand manual laborers must lead to new jobs for the 1000 displaced workers. In reality it does happen though because unemployed workers will accept jobs at the harvester plant or elsewhere at some wage, even if it is a lower wage, unless the gov't interferes with welfare, unemployment compensation or some other unemployment program.
So the real question then is not how many news jobs are there (there are none) but how do you create a better standard of living , or, why has the standard of living gone up so much for everyone in a dynamic capitalist economy? Again engineers are 100% responsible. The more efficient farmer has more money to buy more products in new industries which creates jobs(though not new jobs in any meaningful sense), employs more people to expand his existing farm, or lowers his price to enrich his customers who in turn can then hire more and buy more. But no one takes the first step or any other step in capitalism unless it improves his standard of living which it always does. At the heart of this process is the engineer, or the businessman who employes him. They get the ball rolling by making a better product that sets off a chain of events that gives everyone a higher standard of living. Democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with the process.
One thing is very certain though : while Democrats can't create one single jobs by fiddling from Washington they can destroy jobs very easily from Washington, which their philosophy automatically does. What they can do is muck up the system and then try to take credit for the fake job creation that takes place as they pull out some of the monkey wrenches that they themselves threw in?
**************************
I guess the other way to look at the economic cycles is that every time a supply sider got in, the economy went into the toilet because it really doesn't work.
********a supply sider is a guy who believes in letting a farmer supply more grain without inteference from the Democrats. Supply side economics or capitalism works perfectly.
I sure don't understand this deficit stuff anyway.
*******now you do
I kind of think it is like a big charge card, where you don't bother paying anything back because you can keep raising your limit and making new charges.
*******the real mystery is when will it create a huge inflation? After all they borrow and borrow to throw all this fake money into the system to artificially stimulate the economy so Bush can win, but sooner or later prices should start going up to absorb all the new money? Whatever happens, the deficit will have to be paid off with interest, which begs the question: did we need it in the first place?
But I have to admit, it all sounds like voo-doo economics to me.
*******the simple solution is to let capitalism reign.
Ted/KJK1
For example the Fed, with low interest rates, gives away a lot of money to the real estate industry so they look very busy building houses, etc., but the Fed would have to keep doing it forever or the jobs will disappear. But they can't do it forever because giving away money in the end just produces inflation which really means that those not in the housing industry have to pay exactly the amount in inflated dollars that the Fed unfairly gave to the housing industry.
A real job occurs when one businessman finally gives up and decides he has to fire one worker because the goods that worker makes aren't needed in the market place. Finally consumers spend money that would have been spent on the old workers products somewhere else, another businessman notices the new demand for his product and so then has new money with which to hire a new worker to meet the new demand. But even this is not an addition to employment since the loss of one job created the gain of another job for a net of 0. With the same amount of money in the system it is impossible to have a new job without losing an old one in order to free up the money for the new salary.
So how do you really add to employment? Engineers do this by improving products. A farmer, for example, might grow more grain with less money, time, land, equipment and supplies. This means he has the same money coming in from his grain sales but more profit at the end of the year. Now he can afford two cars every three years, lets say, which means real sustainable new jobs in the automobile industry which are filled by those who no longer have jobs in farming. But again where is the net gain in new jobs? After all there is not a law which says that a new harvester that takes the jobs of a thousand manual laborers must lead to new jobs for the 1000 displaced workers. In reality it does happen though because unemployed workers will accept jobs at the harvester plant or elsewhere at some wage, even if it is a lower wage, unless the gov't interferes with welfare, unemployment compensation or some other unemployment program.
So the real question then is not how many news jobs are there (there are none) but how do you create a better standard of living , or, why has the standard of living gone up so much for everyone in a dynamic capitalist economy? Again engineers are 100% responsible. The more efficient farmer has more money to buy more products in new industries which creates jobs(though not new jobs in any meaningful sense), employs more people to expand his existing farm, or lowers his price to enrich his customers who in turn can then hire more and buy more. But no one takes the first step or any other step in capitalism unless it improves his standard of living which it always does. At the heart of this process is the engineer, or the businessman who employes him. They get the ball rolling by making a better product that sets off a chain of events that gives everyone a higher standard of living. Democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with the process.
One thing is very certain though : while Democrats can't create one single jobs by fiddling from Washington they can destroy jobs very easily from Washington, which their philosophy automatically does. What they can do is muck up the system and then try to take credit for the fake job creation that takes place as they pull out some of the monkey wrenches that they themselves threw in?
**************************
I guess the other way to look at the economic cycles is that every time a supply sider got in, the economy went into the toilet because it really doesn't work.
********a supply sider is a guy who believes in letting a farmer supply more grain without inteference from the Democrats. Supply side economics or capitalism works perfectly.
I sure don't understand this deficit stuff anyway.
*******now you do
I kind of think it is like a big charge card, where you don't bother paying anything back because you can keep raising your limit and making new charges.
*******the real mystery is when will it create a huge inflation? After all they borrow and borrow to throw all this fake money into the system to artificially stimulate the economy so Bush can win, but sooner or later prices should start going up to absorb all the new money? Whatever happens, the deficit will have to be paid off with interest, which begs the question: did we need it in the first place?
But I have to admit, it all sounds like voo-doo economics to me.
*******the simple solution is to let capitalism reign.
Ted/KJK1
SPACESHIP ONE MAKES DEMOCRATS LOOK STUPID
When Spaceship One recently completed the first non-governmental or private manned mission to space they held up a sign that said, "Spaceship One, Democrats 0." What did they mean? They meant something quite unbelievable: in one year they had accomplished more than the gov't had accomplished in 60 years. Moreover they did it for about 1% of what the gov't paid for its first public mission to space.
Interestingly after the cold war ended we were able to see the cost numbers on the Soviet space program. It turned out they had chosen an entirely different rocket concept than our NASA had chosen and they too were able to accomplish virtually the same thing, and at the same time, for about 5% of NASA's cost. The lesson here is quite startling: never vote for Democrats because they believe in gov't monopolies even though logic and common sense would indicate that they waste 95-99% of what they spend and take decades too long.
The truth is that no monopoly knows what the cost or quality of an automobile, health care or space flight should be. The lie that every monopoly will swear up and down about is that the cost of their automobile, health care, or space flight is the absolute lowest it can possible be and that it cannot be produced any faster than their monopoly can produce it. In reality, the real cost and time required for space flight, automobiles, or health care, can only be discovered as private businesses compete with each other over time to engineer the lowest cost and the best quality. Why can't the Democrats understand something so elementary? In part because they are addicted to power and elitism. In part because they feel diminished when someone else does something and steals the credit from them. The best among them want to get to heaven and proclaim, "I administered, or supported the administration of health care to millions" while delusionaly forgetting that the cost of such monopolistic megalomania makes health care prohibitively expensive to million and millions. John Kerry is the biggest liberal and biggest elitist to ever run for President on a major party ticket in American history and according; has more faith in Democratic monopolies than any presidential candidate in history.
Interestingly after the cold war ended we were able to see the cost numbers on the Soviet space program. It turned out they had chosen an entirely different rocket concept than our NASA had chosen and they too were able to accomplish virtually the same thing, and at the same time, for about 5% of NASA's cost. The lesson here is quite startling: never vote for Democrats because they believe in gov't monopolies even though logic and common sense would indicate that they waste 95-99% of what they spend and take decades too long.
The truth is that no monopoly knows what the cost or quality of an automobile, health care or space flight should be. The lie that every monopoly will swear up and down about is that the cost of their automobile, health care, or space flight is the absolute lowest it can possible be and that it cannot be produced any faster than their monopoly can produce it. In reality, the real cost and time required for space flight, automobiles, or health care, can only be discovered as private businesses compete with each other over time to engineer the lowest cost and the best quality. Why can't the Democrats understand something so elementary? In part because they are addicted to power and elitism. In part because they feel diminished when someone else does something and steals the credit from them. The best among them want to get to heaven and proclaim, "I administered, or supported the administration of health care to millions" while delusionaly forgetting that the cost of such monopolistic megalomania makes health care prohibitively expensive to million and millions. John Kerry is the biggest liberal and biggest elitist to ever run for President on a major party ticket in American history and according; has more faith in Democratic monopolies than any presidential candidate in history.
10.07.2004
5 Ways God Will Rid Us Of The Democrats
Thinkers know that Democrats are essentially a fraudulent political party which is getting away with what are, essentially, criminal activities:
1) They allow and encourage everyone to vote even if they pay no taxes. This means that many people are portrayed as victims and encouraged to use their vote to steal a "free lunch" from those who, supposedly, victimized them, while others are encouraged to use their vote to steal a "free lunch" without even attempting a rationale. Perhaps this is why 85% of convicted felons register as Democrats, and conversely, why 85% of our soldiers who fight for the common good are registered Republicans. If only contributors to the common good could vote there would be no Democrats to plague our lives.
2) Democrats have imposed perhaps a million taxes on a million things from gasoline to real estate to death; so there is a constant and seemingly normal tax pressure on our lives, and so no one thinks about what the total bill is. If there was one tax once a year for the full cost of gov't there would be no Democrats ever again.
3) Many taxes and all tax returns are due as far away from election day as possible: April 15th. If this day was moved to election day there would be no Democrats ever again.
4) Those who pay a withholding tax tend not to think of the money as theirs since they never see it or touch it. Small businessmen who do see and touch their money before they have to take it out of their pockets and send it off to the gov't tend to vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. If you eliminate the trechery of the withholding tax you would eliminate the Democrats.
5) Still others are tricked by Democrats into believing that gov't can mysteriously deliver a free lunch or at least a cheap nutritious lunch that otherwise would not be available. The truth is: gov't is at best a grossly inefficient monopoly, as any organization that size would be, and at worst a corrupt cesspool, as any organization that size eventually becomes. This is why, for example, computers get bigger, better, cheaper, and more widely available while health care(heavily controlled, manipulated, and regulated by the gov't) gets the opposite. If people knew about this Democratic lie there would be no Democrats.
One has to believe God would support all 5 of these moral reforms, any one of which would eliminate the Democrats forever and prevent the futher subversion of our Democracy.
1) They allow and encourage everyone to vote even if they pay no taxes. This means that many people are portrayed as victims and encouraged to use their vote to steal a "free lunch" from those who, supposedly, victimized them, while others are encouraged to use their vote to steal a "free lunch" without even attempting a rationale. Perhaps this is why 85% of convicted felons register as Democrats, and conversely, why 85% of our soldiers who fight for the common good are registered Republicans. If only contributors to the common good could vote there would be no Democrats to plague our lives.
2) Democrats have imposed perhaps a million taxes on a million things from gasoline to real estate to death; so there is a constant and seemingly normal tax pressure on our lives, and so no one thinks about what the total bill is. If there was one tax once a year for the full cost of gov't there would be no Democrats ever again.
3) Many taxes and all tax returns are due as far away from election day as possible: April 15th. If this day was moved to election day there would be no Democrats ever again.
4) Those who pay a withholding tax tend not to think of the money as theirs since they never see it or touch it. Small businessmen who do see and touch their money before they have to take it out of their pockets and send it off to the gov't tend to vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. If you eliminate the trechery of the withholding tax you would eliminate the Democrats.
5) Still others are tricked by Democrats into believing that gov't can mysteriously deliver a free lunch or at least a cheap nutritious lunch that otherwise would not be available. The truth is: gov't is at best a grossly inefficient monopoly, as any organization that size would be, and at worst a corrupt cesspool, as any organization that size eventually becomes. This is why, for example, computers get bigger, better, cheaper, and more widely available while health care(heavily controlled, manipulated, and regulated by the gov't) gets the opposite. If people knew about this Democratic lie there would be no Democrats.
One has to believe God would support all 5 of these moral reforms, any one of which would eliminate the Democrats forever and prevent the futher subversion of our Democracy.
10.05.2004
SCARED TO DEATH OF JOHN KERRY!
Why should we be scared to death of John Kerry? Because he may be Commander-in-Chief during the war on terror!
Yes, it's true that his anti American book "The New Soldier" shows an upside down American flag on the cover and is filled with left wing, anti American, anti war rhetoric. Yes, it is true that he applied for a deferment just like President Bush, served just 3 months in combat, mostly faked 3 medals, then deserted his men, come home and accused them of war crimes, and then became the most left wing Senator in America where he voted consistently against virtually all the weapons and technologies and intelligence that are now desperately needed in the war on terror. Yes, its true that he has the audacity to run for President as a war hero. Yes, its true that he claims to want to win the war while he says it's a colossal mistake and the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. Yes, its true that Joe Biden, a possible Secretary of Defense in a Kerry administration, is already talking about planning to get out depending on how the situation looks in January, but not talking about what might happen if we do get out of Iraq prematurely. And yes it is still remarkably true that Kerry still has not said how he plans to win the war. He has, though, said one thing he will do is be a true coalitionist or internationalist and get help from other countries who will respect him far more than Bush.
But, one suspects this is a complete lie too. It would seem that Kerry's interest in coalitions to fight wars, any wars, is probably around "0" as his entire background would imply. He was, for example, completely against the first Gulf War in which we stopped Iraq from invading and conquering Kuwait even though there was a huge international coalition involved in righting this huge and obvious international wrong with huge ramifications. Whatever you think about George Bush you know he is willing to fight the war on terrorism while Kerry, who at one point in the campaign said that it was merely a police action, may not be.
Yes, the war in Iraq has been costly but 1000 American lives over 2 years is just 30% of what we lost in 5 minutes on 9/11 and a fraction of what we might lose in another successful attack on our civilian population here at home. The war in Iraq is real and as the Prime Minister of Singapore said the other day it is a good thing because it keeps them (the terrorists) going to Iraq rather than to his city. George Bush has stood between us and the terrorists for 3 years and I'm too scared to take a chance that a disingenuous flip floper like Kerry will invite the terrorists to come to our city again.
Yes, it's true that his anti American book "The New Soldier" shows an upside down American flag on the cover and is filled with left wing, anti American, anti war rhetoric. Yes, it is true that he applied for a deferment just like President Bush, served just 3 months in combat, mostly faked 3 medals, then deserted his men, come home and accused them of war crimes, and then became the most left wing Senator in America where he voted consistently against virtually all the weapons and technologies and intelligence that are now desperately needed in the war on terror. Yes, its true that he has the audacity to run for President as a war hero. Yes, its true that he claims to want to win the war while he says it's a colossal mistake and the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. Yes, its true that Joe Biden, a possible Secretary of Defense in a Kerry administration, is already talking about planning to get out depending on how the situation looks in January, but not talking about what might happen if we do get out of Iraq prematurely. And yes it is still remarkably true that Kerry still has not said how he plans to win the war. He has, though, said one thing he will do is be a true coalitionist or internationalist and get help from other countries who will respect him far more than Bush.
But, one suspects this is a complete lie too. It would seem that Kerry's interest in coalitions to fight wars, any wars, is probably around "0" as his entire background would imply. He was, for example, completely against the first Gulf War in which we stopped Iraq from invading and conquering Kuwait even though there was a huge international coalition involved in righting this huge and obvious international wrong with huge ramifications. Whatever you think about George Bush you know he is willing to fight the war on terrorism while Kerry, who at one point in the campaign said that it was merely a police action, may not be.
Yes, the war in Iraq has been costly but 1000 American lives over 2 years is just 30% of what we lost in 5 minutes on 9/11 and a fraction of what we might lose in another successful attack on our civilian population here at home. The war in Iraq is real and as the Prime Minister of Singapore said the other day it is a good thing because it keeps them (the terrorists) going to Iraq rather than to his city. George Bush has stood between us and the terrorists for 3 years and I'm too scared to take a chance that a disingenuous flip floper like Kerry will invite the terrorists to come to our city again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)