The way most people feel about economics is that it is "magic". It is a total mystery to them. When the talking heads on TV start talking about economics, the average person's eyes frost over. It all goes right by them. 99% of every thing deals in some way with economics and 99% of the people are mentally asleep on the subject. It is a very serious problem. Global Warming is an economic problem, not a social problem. The war on terrorism is an economic problem not a security problem. To make my point, I want to give some examples.
How about global warming that has spun off all the efforts on green energy, wind mills, electric cars and solar panels? It is all economics, but first we need to define economics a little better. I like the "quality of life" definition. Ask the simple question, " How does it affect the quality of life today and into the future?" Simple, right? Take global warming. Nothing significant is going to happen today or tomorrow, so when? Far into the future, bad things are supposed to happen. People now live in cities that are in fixed locations, so if weather changes, what is going to happen to those cities? Big question? Look at Detroit. It's population has dropped by half in just 30 years, while the population of other cities have doubled in the same length of time. If that is the case, what are we worried about? Cities that are in the wrong spots will decline and cities in the right spots will expand. We are not talking about global warming causing all that much change in the next 30 years, are we?
To do anything about global warming, if it is even possible to do anything, will mean that the quality of life today will have to decline. Hey, there is no free lunch. If you want to take wealth today and spend it on something that will only apply to the distant future, it means that your quality of life will have to go down today. Even if it does not go down, it mean that it will not be able to go up to the level that it would have if your wealth had not been spent on global warming.
Now, back to economics. What does the quality of life depend on? Wealth and wealth per person. This means that the wealth of a country has to be divided by the number of people in that country, not just look at the size of the national pot. Switzerland has a small GNP, but they also have a small population. This means that the wealth per person is high and thus they have a very high quality of life. Higher than the USA where we have the largest GNP in the world, but it is divided among a lot more people. Look at China who has the second largest GNP, but also has the largest population. Do you see where this is going? If you do, follow the next point.
What do you think determines the GNP of a country or that of its population? It is not "magic" as many people seem to think. The formula is simple. First, the rules of the game keep changing. What worked 100 or 1,000 years ago does not work the same way today. That's first. Wealth is what determines quality of life, nothing else. It is a contest here on Earth between different countries and like a game, some players help and some hurt. There are only a few items that have the most affect and those are, (1) Energy, (2) Food, (3) Intellect, (4) Modest population and (5) Effort. Simple isn't it? Did you notice that a strong back or keen eye sight are not on the list? These used to be high on the list 250 years ago, but not today. How does the USA score on the above items? It would be interesting to see how we stack up.
First, energy. We are in the top 5 in this department. We have oil, gas and coal, more than 98% of countries around the world. We are on top in this department. Next, food. We are doing very well here too. We have more good land and weather than any other country in the world. Only China has more farm land, but we have much of the best. We are in the top 2 or 3 in this department. How about intellect? This is one of the big items of the future and it is one that we can do some thing about and so can our competitors. In this department we are about 25th or 30th. This means that there are at least 25 or 30 countries who do much better in this area than we do. I feel that this item is going to keep getting bigger and bigger and the USA is going to keep going down further. If we are 25th now, it is not going to be long before we are 40th or 50th and that will cancel any of the other natural advantages that we might have had. Next modest population. The USA has a low population density by world standards and that means the pie is divided between fewer people. That is good in terms of quality of life. Each person here has more of the "natural" things in the USA. For example, coal, oil, gas and farm land. Now for the last item, effort. How do we rank there? I don't know of a ranking, but given the decline in every thing that requires effort, we have to say that we are among the worst. In this department, I would have to rank us about 50th. Our poor level of education is only an indication of the attitude of our population when it comes to hard work. It is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Where does all the waste of our wealth on global warming fit into this? We have stopped working on the creation of wealth and quality of life and assume that the current quality of life will continue without the need for any effort. We are making our energy more expensive rather than cheaper. We are making our food more expensive rather than cheaper. Our kids are getting dumber rather than smarter when we need more smart people than every before to just keep up. We have no control on our borders and thus have a population that is increasing faster than our generation of wealth. This means that as individuals, we are getting poorer and thus are looking at a lower quality of life. Finally, we don't seem to want to work hard and this means that we will get even poorer and have an even lower quality of life. I know what is going to happen and I know that my grand kids are going to have a lower quality of life than I have had and I started out in the charity ward of the hospital.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Lerner And The IRS
Did you hear what this lady said? She said that she did not violate any rules and that may be true. The problem with most people is that they do not ask the right questions. Lerner may have not broken any rules, but I am sure that she knows people who did and some of those people worked under her. The main reason that she took the 5th is that if questioned further, she would have had to tell the names of those who gave her orders and to whom she passed those orders on too. I am sure she got her orders from Obama, but that does not mean she broke any rules. I don't think she may have broken any rules when she passed the orders that she got onto those under her. This might sound like some kind of play on words and it is, but it gives her cover. If she had not taken the 5th, she would have ended up, under further questioning, implicating Obama. She took the 5th, not to protect herself, but to protect Obama.
I have blogged on this many times over the past several years that most people have serious blind spots. Some times it is religion and some times it is politics. I started out with a complete list of all the possibilities including the possibility that Obama was a Judas. As I have connected the dots, Obama keeps coming up as a Judas. If Obama as a Judas is "not" on your list, then he can't come up as a Judas when you try to connect the dots. That is the problem with most people and with the news media now. It is just that simple. What Lerner did fits right in with the fact that Obama is a Judas who wants to destroy this country. Why else would he keep supporting Holder? It is not loyalty. Obama is a Judas and he needs people like Holder who will do anything without concern for the future of the USA. The mystery to me is why and how we have so many people who want to destroy the USA. I know the hippies form the 1960"s wanted to change every thing, but I never took them seriously, but apparently Obama has.
If you can figure this thing out with any other conclusion, let me know. It aways comes up the same way in the end for me. I saw this whole thing play out in Chile back in the 70's and it looks just the same now only it is Obama and not Allende. Remember, the problem was solved in Chile when Allende shot himself..
I have blogged on this many times over the past several years that most people have serious blind spots. Some times it is religion and some times it is politics. I started out with a complete list of all the possibilities including the possibility that Obama was a Judas. As I have connected the dots, Obama keeps coming up as a Judas. If Obama as a Judas is "not" on your list, then he can't come up as a Judas when you try to connect the dots. That is the problem with most people and with the news media now. It is just that simple. What Lerner did fits right in with the fact that Obama is a Judas who wants to destroy this country. Why else would he keep supporting Holder? It is not loyalty. Obama is a Judas and he needs people like Holder who will do anything without concern for the future of the USA. The mystery to me is why and how we have so many people who want to destroy the USA. I know the hippies form the 1960"s wanted to change every thing, but I never took them seriously, but apparently Obama has.
If you can figure this thing out with any other conclusion, let me know. It aways comes up the same way in the end for me. I saw this whole thing play out in Chile back in the 70's and it looks just the same now only it is Obama and not Allende. Remember, the problem was solved in Chile when Allende shot himself..
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Obama, The Barn Door President
I was raised on a farm and know a little about barn doors. I am sure that Obama never lived on nor visited a farm. If he had, he would have known that you are not supposed to leave the barn door open and that is exactly what Obama keeps doing. Obama seems to be good at closing the barn door once 51% of the nations voters tell him that the barn door is open.
The problem with Obama is that he never finds out who left the barn door open in the first place so there is no way that he can prevent it from happening again. When asked if he noticed that the barn door was open, Obama always says that this is the first time that he was told that the barn door was open. The problem that I have with Obama is that he never looks to see if the barn door is open or not for himself. He only checks out the barn door after someone tells him that the barn door is open.
Over the years, I have observed many executives who take pride in the fact that they can solve problems once they are brought to their attention. My problem with these types of executives is why the problems happen in the first place. I know the answer. They are really not very good executives. A good executives "prevent" problems from happening in the first place. This is exactly what Obama does "not" seem qualified to do. For that reason, Obama has to be judged as a very incompetent executive.
I think that I have already told the story about how I had left the barn door open and one of the horses got out. I told my father that I would go get the horse and put him back in, but my father just gave me a hard spanking and got the horse himself. I got no credit for offering to getting the horse back in nor should we give any credit to Obama for correcting his won errors. Catching the terrorists who killed our people in Libya does not compensate for the fact that Obama did not do his job in the first place by protecting our people.
The problem that I have with most voters is that they can not see thru the fact that Obama is a "Barn Door President". Until we get smarter voters, I do not see much hope for my country.
The problem with Obama is that he never finds out who left the barn door open in the first place so there is no way that he can prevent it from happening again. When asked if he noticed that the barn door was open, Obama always says that this is the first time that he was told that the barn door was open. The problem that I have with Obama is that he never looks to see if the barn door is open or not for himself. He only checks out the barn door after someone tells him that the barn door is open.
Over the years, I have observed many executives who take pride in the fact that they can solve problems once they are brought to their attention. My problem with these types of executives is why the problems happen in the first place. I know the answer. They are really not very good executives. A good executives "prevent" problems from happening in the first place. This is exactly what Obama does "not" seem qualified to do. For that reason, Obama has to be judged as a very incompetent executive.
I think that I have already told the story about how I had left the barn door open and one of the horses got out. I told my father that I would go get the horse and put him back in, but my father just gave me a hard spanking and got the horse himself. I got no credit for offering to getting the horse back in nor should we give any credit to Obama for correcting his won errors. Catching the terrorists who killed our people in Libya does not compensate for the fact that Obama did not do his job in the first place by protecting our people.
The problem that I have with most voters is that they can not see thru the fact that Obama is a "Barn Door President". Until we get smarter voters, I do not see much hope for my country.
Obama's Crowd
You have heard the saying, "When you marry the girl, you get the mother in law in the bargain". It is exactly the same way when we elect a President. When you voted, did you ever think about the "crowd" that each candidate was going to bring in with him? I did not think so. In the case of Obama, he brought in his gang from Chicago and I mean a gang. What kind of crowd or gang do you think that Romney would have brought in? Do you think it would be drawn from a very different group of people? When you elect a President, you get his gang in the bargain and that is exactly what happened with Obama.
This whole business points up another problem with our government and that is the number of people in our government who are appointed by the new President. I have thought for a very long time that we have far too many people in our government who serve at the pleasure of the President. I think that gives the President far too much power and puts our government out of balance. Originally, the President did not have near the power that the office has today and I think there was a very good reason for that. Originally, the congress was by far the most powerful part of government, but not now. Balance of power between the branches of government was one of the most important considerations when the union was formed. That extended to the states as well. Now the states are weaker while the President has gotten more power. Do you see the problem? We need to think about how to get things back into balance. Here is another point.
Have you noticed how much more power the different cabinet departments have now? What has happened is that the congress has given more and more of their power and responsibility over to the executive branch and here is how they did it. Look at the EPA. Congress gave them the power to make all kinds of rules that affect our lives and businesses. Why did they do that? Are they lazy or just stupid? I think it is both. Look at the IRS. The IRS seems to make up their own rules with zero input or over sight from the congress and see where it has gotten us? Every department in the executive branch has far too much rule making authority and that authority should be taken back by the congress. I have made this point before and that is that it is better to do "nothing" rather than to do the "wrong" thing. The process of congress is very slow and it seems to take forever to pass a new law. To my way of thinking, that is "good". It is far too easy for some clerk in one of the departments to put out a memo with a new regulation. We are all affected more by these types of regulations than we are affected by laws passed by congress. Do you see that?
Back to my original point. Next time you vote, think about the "crowd" or "gang" that the new President will bring in with him or her. That gang behind the curtain will have more to do with the quality of you life than the good looking smart talking President that you voted for. Remember that!!!
PS--Remember who were Obama's friends for the past 20 years? Didn't you realize that the mother in law was going to move in? Labor unions, Acorn and all kinds of radicals. You got what you voted for.
This whole business points up another problem with our government and that is the number of people in our government who are appointed by the new President. I have thought for a very long time that we have far too many people in our government who serve at the pleasure of the President. I think that gives the President far too much power and puts our government out of balance. Originally, the President did not have near the power that the office has today and I think there was a very good reason for that. Originally, the congress was by far the most powerful part of government, but not now. Balance of power between the branches of government was one of the most important considerations when the union was formed. That extended to the states as well. Now the states are weaker while the President has gotten more power. Do you see the problem? We need to think about how to get things back into balance. Here is another point.
Have you noticed how much more power the different cabinet departments have now? What has happened is that the congress has given more and more of their power and responsibility over to the executive branch and here is how they did it. Look at the EPA. Congress gave them the power to make all kinds of rules that affect our lives and businesses. Why did they do that? Are they lazy or just stupid? I think it is both. Look at the IRS. The IRS seems to make up their own rules with zero input or over sight from the congress and see where it has gotten us? Every department in the executive branch has far too much rule making authority and that authority should be taken back by the congress. I have made this point before and that is that it is better to do "nothing" rather than to do the "wrong" thing. The process of congress is very slow and it seems to take forever to pass a new law. To my way of thinking, that is "good". It is far too easy for some clerk in one of the departments to put out a memo with a new regulation. We are all affected more by these types of regulations than we are affected by laws passed by congress. Do you see that?
Back to my original point. Next time you vote, think about the "crowd" or "gang" that the new President will bring in with him or her. That gang behind the curtain will have more to do with the quality of you life than the good looking smart talking President that you voted for. Remember that!!!
PS--Remember who were Obama's friends for the past 20 years? Didn't you realize that the mother in law was going to move in? Labor unions, Acorn and all kinds of radicals. You got what you voted for.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Obama Cover Up
If you have followed my earlier blogs, you will know that I have been several years ahead of the current news stories about the Obama administration. The whole thing is a lot simpler than you might think. That is always the way it is when you have the correct theory. I have said in the past that I have never seen anything that was complicated when you finally understand it. What is going on with Obama is just another example. Here are the principles that apply to Obama.
First, it is a variation of the liar's curse. The liar's curse is the one where a liar can not trust anyone else since they are, themselves, liea's. Obama and most of his black and liberal supporters are dishonest and thus think that every one else is also dishonest. Once you accept this mind set, it follows that you can justify almost any action by yourself or your supporters as justified since those on the other side are even worst. It is that simple. Since most of Obama's supporters follow the teachings of the Communist Party where their doctrine states, "the ends justify the means". All the things that you see the Obama administration doing can be traced to the above concept.
The other principle is "plausible deniability". Don't know what that is? It is when the top guy tells those below him to do the things that we all agree on, but don't tell me before or after you do what ever you need to do. This is why Obama never knows anything about the "bad" things that happen on his watch. Obama does not want to know or be told about any bad things so that he can not be caught in a bald face lie. If you know all the detailed facts about some event, it is very difficult not to spill the beans under smart questioning. If you don't know anything, you can't be trapped in a lie. Obama uses this principle all the time. That is why he never seems to know anything about anything that turns our bad. Notice how he always knows all the details about the "good" things that happen?
Notice another thing and that is the attitude of his administration. They see Obama's arrogance and how he seem to be able to almost "walk on water" as pure "power". They work for Obama and share in that power. They act with borrowed arrogance and in ways that they never would on their own. This is a natural human tendency and accounts for much of the reason that people in his administration at all levels do things that would be out of bounds under any other circumstances.
I have show in the past that Obama is a Judas who wants to destroy the USA and all he is doing is exactly what a good Judas would do. I would not have come to my conclusions about Obama so fast had it not been for the fact that I say first hand how Allende did almost the same thing in Chile 40 years ago. The big question that I have is how little we learned as a result of Allende and Chile. If you do not know anything about this historical event, take the time to look it up on the Internet.
First, it is a variation of the liar's curse. The liar's curse is the one where a liar can not trust anyone else since they are, themselves, liea's. Obama and most of his black and liberal supporters are dishonest and thus think that every one else is also dishonest. Once you accept this mind set, it follows that you can justify almost any action by yourself or your supporters as justified since those on the other side are even worst. It is that simple. Since most of Obama's supporters follow the teachings of the Communist Party where their doctrine states, "the ends justify the means". All the things that you see the Obama administration doing can be traced to the above concept.
The other principle is "plausible deniability". Don't know what that is? It is when the top guy tells those below him to do the things that we all agree on, but don't tell me before or after you do what ever you need to do. This is why Obama never knows anything about the "bad" things that happen on his watch. Obama does not want to know or be told about any bad things so that he can not be caught in a bald face lie. If you know all the detailed facts about some event, it is very difficult not to spill the beans under smart questioning. If you don't know anything, you can't be trapped in a lie. Obama uses this principle all the time. That is why he never seems to know anything about anything that turns our bad. Notice how he always knows all the details about the "good" things that happen?
Notice another thing and that is the attitude of his administration. They see Obama's arrogance and how he seem to be able to almost "walk on water" as pure "power". They work for Obama and share in that power. They act with borrowed arrogance and in ways that they never would on their own. This is a natural human tendency and accounts for much of the reason that people in his administration at all levels do things that would be out of bounds under any other circumstances.
I have show in the past that Obama is a Judas who wants to destroy the USA and all he is doing is exactly what a good Judas would do. I would not have come to my conclusions about Obama so fast had it not been for the fact that I say first hand how Allende did almost the same thing in Chile 40 years ago. The big question that I have is how little we learned as a result of Allende and Chile. If you do not know anything about this historical event, take the time to look it up on the Internet.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Petreus, "Can't Get There In Time"
Do remember when the Secretary of Defense, Petreus said that the reason he did not authorize sending in help when the "mob" was attacking our embassy in Libya was, "....the could not get there in time..."? Did you wonder at the time how he knew how long it was going to take the "mob" to kill all those in the embassy? He said, in affect, that he compared the time it would take to send in help and the time that the "mob" needed to kill all the people there and concluded that the "mob" could kill all the people before the help could get there. On that basis, he did not send in help.
Given the fact that all the top people in the Obama administration were sure that it was a "mob" who was attacking the embassy, did you ever wonder how they could be so sure of how fast the "mob" would kill all the people? To my knowledge, there has never been a "mob" that was able to destroy one of our embassies, so why were they all so sure this time? What if the "mob" captured some of the people rather than killing them? What then?
In the embassy is a lot more stuff than just the people. There are all kinds of documents that are under lock and key. It would seem that Petreus would also be concerned about those documents and would want to get help there to prevent the "mob" from getting their hands on valuable documents. It seems very strange to me at the time and I am sure that it is starting to look strange to more people now.
Think of it this way. Your home is on fire and you call the fire department for help. You live 25 miles from the fire house so the person on the phone tells you that they will "not" send out a fire truck because, "...They could not get there in time to save your home..."/ Isn't that exactly what happened in Libya? How did the person at the fire house know what your home was built of and how fast it was going to burn. Even if your home burnt down, could something of value be saved from your home?
Given the facts above, what conclusion can you draw about the actions of the Obama administration? If they were totally incompetent, they may have taken the actions that they did, but we know that Obama is a very smart guy. In a prior blog, I pointed out how shit flows down hill and the attitude of Obama has flowed down to all the people he has selected. They support him and feel that, "...the ends justify the means...". This means that any thing is justified to get Obama reelected and that includes a total cover up of the events in Libya. If he can do that, with the authority he would have as President, he could pardon any crimes committed by people who work for him. They would be home free. The media was in the tank for Obama and they would all look the other way. Obama, being smart and willing to do anything, also knew that most of the American people were stupid and would go along with what ever he said.
That is the way it went down and now we are left to try to pick up the pieces and save our country.
Given the fact that all the top people in the Obama administration were sure that it was a "mob" who was attacking the embassy, did you ever wonder how they could be so sure of how fast the "mob" would kill all the people? To my knowledge, there has never been a "mob" that was able to destroy one of our embassies, so why were they all so sure this time? What if the "mob" captured some of the people rather than killing them? What then?
In the embassy is a lot more stuff than just the people. There are all kinds of documents that are under lock and key. It would seem that Petreus would also be concerned about those documents and would want to get help there to prevent the "mob" from getting their hands on valuable documents. It seems very strange to me at the time and I am sure that it is starting to look strange to more people now.
Think of it this way. Your home is on fire and you call the fire department for help. You live 25 miles from the fire house so the person on the phone tells you that they will "not" send out a fire truck because, "...They could not get there in time to save your home..."/ Isn't that exactly what happened in Libya? How did the person at the fire house know what your home was built of and how fast it was going to burn. Even if your home burnt down, could something of value be saved from your home?
Given the facts above, what conclusion can you draw about the actions of the Obama administration? If they were totally incompetent, they may have taken the actions that they did, but we know that Obama is a very smart guy. In a prior blog, I pointed out how shit flows down hill and the attitude of Obama has flowed down to all the people he has selected. They support him and feel that, "...the ends justify the means...". This means that any thing is justified to get Obama reelected and that includes a total cover up of the events in Libya. If he can do that, with the authority he would have as President, he could pardon any crimes committed by people who work for him. They would be home free. The media was in the tank for Obama and they would all look the other way. Obama, being smart and willing to do anything, also knew that most of the American people were stupid and would go along with what ever he said.
That is the way it went down and now we are left to try to pick up the pieces and save our country.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Understanding Obama Care Made Simple
Do you understand Obama Care? If you do, I think that you are one of the very few who do. I know that the average American citizen has an interest span of a fly and thus can not keep their eyes open long enough to listen to a detailed explanation. For that reason, I have come up with the simplest and the shortest explanation of Obama Care. You don't think that I can do that? Well, here it is.
The cost of health care in Canada is 11.9% of their total GNP. Canada ranks 5th in the world in terms of the amount of their GNP that they spend on health care. Data from Canada shows that their cost of health care is growing at the rate of between 6-7% while their growth in GNP is only growing at just over 3%. Since Canada is one of the best educated countries in the world, they know that with the growth in health care cost growing at 6-7% and the growth in their GNP growing at only 3%, in the end, health care is going to bankrupt Canada. Can you understand how bad the health care situation is in Canada? If you can't, don't read on any further. You would be wasting your time. Now how about us?
We are spending 17.4% of our GNP on health care today and Obama Care has not even started yet. Our GNP is growing at less than 2% while our cost for health care is growing even faster than Canada's. The cost of health care will grow just like the cost of college has grown faster than the GNP because more government money is being pumped into it. The current growth rate in health care cost in the USA is higher than the 6-7% in Canada right now. When Obama Care really kicks in, the current growth rate in health care will continue with the addition of inflation due to more tax money being pumped in. That is the way it is going to be, so get used to it.
I predict that with in 4 more years the cost of health care in the USA will be over 25% of our GNP. What kind of quality of life do you think that we will have in 4 more years when we will be spending so much of our GNP on health care? Do you see anything that is going to get our growth in GNP up to a level that can off set the increase in health care? I don't. Is there anything in Obama Care that will reduce health care cost? I don't think so. If you think that we can afford to spend 25% of our GNP on health care, you need mental help!!!!
PS----Canada has a longer life expectancy than the USA while spending less on health care both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of their GNP. Can we take a lesson from Canada? Canada also spends much less on education in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of their GNP, but still ends up with a much better educated population. We have to realize that more of our GNP is spent on health care and education than just what the governments spends. We need to look at these numbers in "total" and as a percentage of our GNP. If we take out so much for health care and education, that leaves that much less for other aspects of quality of life. We need to change how we look at social costs because our economic resources are not unlimited.
PS---Look at what happened to home prices when the government pumped more of our GNP into homes with easy low interest loans. It always ends up the same when government pumps money into anything. Inflation!!!! I know that "one movers" will have a difficult time understanding this simple fact. Look at health care, education and home prices? It always works out the same way. By the way, Canada's government did not pump money into homes like we did and yet they have a higher level of home ownership than we do. Didn't know that did you?
The cost of health care in Canada is 11.9% of their total GNP. Canada ranks 5th in the world in terms of the amount of their GNP that they spend on health care. Data from Canada shows that their cost of health care is growing at the rate of between 6-7% while their growth in GNP is only growing at just over 3%. Since Canada is one of the best educated countries in the world, they know that with the growth in health care cost growing at 6-7% and the growth in their GNP growing at only 3%, in the end, health care is going to bankrupt Canada. Can you understand how bad the health care situation is in Canada? If you can't, don't read on any further. You would be wasting your time. Now how about us?
We are spending 17.4% of our GNP on health care today and Obama Care has not even started yet. Our GNP is growing at less than 2% while our cost for health care is growing even faster than Canada's. The cost of health care will grow just like the cost of college has grown faster than the GNP because more government money is being pumped into it. The current growth rate in health care cost in the USA is higher than the 6-7% in Canada right now. When Obama Care really kicks in, the current growth rate in health care will continue with the addition of inflation due to more tax money being pumped in. That is the way it is going to be, so get used to it.
I predict that with in 4 more years the cost of health care in the USA will be over 25% of our GNP. What kind of quality of life do you think that we will have in 4 more years when we will be spending so much of our GNP on health care? Do you see anything that is going to get our growth in GNP up to a level that can off set the increase in health care? I don't. Is there anything in Obama Care that will reduce health care cost? I don't think so. If you think that we can afford to spend 25% of our GNP on health care, you need mental help!!!!
PS----Canada has a longer life expectancy than the USA while spending less on health care both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of their GNP. Can we take a lesson from Canada? Canada also spends much less on education in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of their GNP, but still ends up with a much better educated population. We have to realize that more of our GNP is spent on health care and education than just what the governments spends. We need to look at these numbers in "total" and as a percentage of our GNP. If we take out so much for health care and education, that leaves that much less for other aspects of quality of life. We need to change how we look at social costs because our economic resources are not unlimited.
PS---Look at what happened to home prices when the government pumped more of our GNP into homes with easy low interest loans. It always ends up the same when government pumps money into anything. Inflation!!!! I know that "one movers" will have a difficult time understanding this simple fact. Look at health care, education and home prices? It always works out the same way. By the way, Canada's government did not pump money into homes like we did and yet they have a higher level of home ownership than we do. Didn't know that did you?
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Libya And Clinton Back In The News
Did you see the pictures of the terrorists holding guns who attacked our embassy in Libya? They were from security cameras and were available to Obama and Clinton before Rice went on TV telling everyone that the attack was a bunch of rioters. Remember, Obama said that the whole problem was the result of a youtube.com video about Mohammad. Remember what Clinton said at the congressional investigation? She said that we should not be asking why help was not sent in when we have dead Americans. She implied that we should be looking for the bad guys rather than looking into to "who left barn door open". That was because she was the one who left the barn door open. Did you hear Obama's press secretary say that, "we should not be talking about what happened in Libya because it happened so long ago". Are you one of those people who can not connect the dots?
Look at the terrorists who set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon. Isn't it interesting that we can not find out if any of the terrorists were students or if they were getting welfare checks from us tax payers? Do you remember that Obama still has not published his college transcripts? When the post office hires a mail carrier, they require them to provide proof of graduation along with a transcript. Isn't it interesting that we know a lot more about the personal history of a mail carrier than we to about the President of the USA?
The common thread here is that the Obama administration has zero respect for the law and us citizens. Have you ever made a list of the countries of the world who have had the greatest "decline" in their economies? If you did, you would also notice that almost all of them have large labor unions. In Italy, even baby sitters have a union that sets the minimum hourly rate. Another thing that you will notice is that these same countries have the lowest compliance with paying their income tax. Also look at those countries who have large "black markets" and you will see that they are highly unionized too.
Above are just a few facts that when connected form a very clear picture of Obama and what he is trying to do to the USA. His support of labor unions and gays is only a "means to an end", he does not really care about anyone.
Look at the terrorists who set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon. Isn't it interesting that we can not find out if any of the terrorists were students or if they were getting welfare checks from us tax payers? Do you remember that Obama still has not published his college transcripts? When the post office hires a mail carrier, they require them to provide proof of graduation along with a transcript. Isn't it interesting that we know a lot more about the personal history of a mail carrier than we to about the President of the USA?
The common thread here is that the Obama administration has zero respect for the law and us citizens. Have you ever made a list of the countries of the world who have had the greatest "decline" in their economies? If you did, you would also notice that almost all of them have large labor unions. In Italy, even baby sitters have a union that sets the minimum hourly rate. Another thing that you will notice is that these same countries have the lowest compliance with paying their income tax. Also look at those countries who have large "black markets" and you will see that they are highly unionized too.
Above are just a few facts that when connected form a very clear picture of Obama and what he is trying to do to the USA. His support of labor unions and gays is only a "means to an end", he does not really care about anyone.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Madoff, Obama, Boston and Libya
What do all of these have in common? Don't know? In all cases, something happened that needs to be understood quickly. In all four cases, the time that it has taken to get the needed understanding has gone much too slowly. Here is a short review of each.
Madoff, he cheated many people out of millions of dollars and why did it take so long to find out why? Because a bunch of smart people did not know how to analyse the situation or were dishonest.
Obama, he does all kinds of strange things that tend to divide the country or make us weaker economically and most people can not figure out why he does the things that he does.
Boston, we had two bombs go off near the end of the Boston Marathon and Obama wanted to "get all the facts" before he made any statement about who did this or why. It took Obama several days before he came forward and had is press secratery say that it was a terrorist act. The word "terrorist" never crossed Obama's lips.
Libya, there we had a group of terrorists attack our embassy and kill our Ambassador and three other Americans, but the Obama party line for several days was that it was only an angry mob.
The bottom line is simple. 99% of the news media have a serious blind spot when it comes to dealing with a Black liberal like Obama. They can't get past Black slaves and all the good that liberals to with other peoples money. I don't think that most of the news media can accept the facts after the event and the smoke has cleared. Madoff is in jail, but we still do not hear much about all the damage the he caused or why so many people had a blind spot. Is a blind spot just another name for being stupid? If that is the case, most people do not want to be stupid or be called stupid so what do they do? They continue with their blind spot.
Try this, make a list of your blind spots. If you do not have many on your list, then you are stupid. Sorry, but that is the way it works.
PS----Did you hear from Obama's lips that he did not know that government officials or members of the military were being intimidated if they talked about what happened in Libya? Obama has claimed that he did not know about this or that so many times that you have to wonder what he actually knows or is involved in. You can only claim that you were out of the loop so long. At some point, we have to ask if he is dishonest or incompetent. Remember the axiom, "the ends justifies the means". If you buy into this, then there is no limit to how far Obama is willing to go. In the case of Russia, if it meant killing million people, then it was justified for the party. It happened, this is not just talk. Are you starting to lose your "blind spot"? If you can connect the dots on Obama with any theory better than Obama being a Judas, write me a comment and I will post it.
Madoff, he cheated many people out of millions of dollars and why did it take so long to find out why? Because a bunch of smart people did not know how to analyse the situation or were dishonest.
Obama, he does all kinds of strange things that tend to divide the country or make us weaker economically and most people can not figure out why he does the things that he does.
Boston, we had two bombs go off near the end of the Boston Marathon and Obama wanted to "get all the facts" before he made any statement about who did this or why. It took Obama several days before he came forward and had is press secratery say that it was a terrorist act. The word "terrorist" never crossed Obama's lips.
Libya, there we had a group of terrorists attack our embassy and kill our Ambassador and three other Americans, but the Obama party line for several days was that it was only an angry mob.
The bottom line is simple. 99% of the news media have a serious blind spot when it comes to dealing with a Black liberal like Obama. They can't get past Black slaves and all the good that liberals to with other peoples money. I don't think that most of the news media can accept the facts after the event and the smoke has cleared. Madoff is in jail, but we still do not hear much about all the damage the he caused or why so many people had a blind spot. Is a blind spot just another name for being stupid? If that is the case, most people do not want to be stupid or be called stupid so what do they do? They continue with their blind spot.
Try this, make a list of your blind spots. If you do not have many on your list, then you are stupid. Sorry, but that is the way it works.
PS----Did you hear from Obama's lips that he did not know that government officials or members of the military were being intimidated if they talked about what happened in Libya? Obama has claimed that he did not know about this or that so many times that you have to wonder what he actually knows or is involved in. You can only claim that you were out of the loop so long. At some point, we have to ask if he is dishonest or incompetent. Remember the axiom, "the ends justifies the means". If you buy into this, then there is no limit to how far Obama is willing to go. In the case of Russia, if it meant killing million people, then it was justified for the party. It happened, this is not just talk. Are you starting to lose your "blind spot"? If you can connect the dots on Obama with any theory better than Obama being a Judas, write me a comment and I will post it.
Was Obama Self Liberalized?
I live in the Northwoods and like to keep up with new words. When Obama said that the terrorists who bombed the Boston Marathon were "self radicalized", I knew that I had a new word to deal with. At first, I thought that it was something like masturbation where you do something to yourself, but coming from Obama, I knew that it was something larger. What was that? That is the big question.
I then got to thinking about Obama, himself, and if he was, in fact, self liberalized. I guess that you could be both a Judas and a liberal all at the same time, but I think that being a liberal is just a means to the end. Remember that, "the ends justify the means" and the end is the distruction of the USA. Remember that. I wonder if Obama got the hate for the USA that he has because his father was a Black Moslem who knocked up his 18 years old liberal mother out of wed lock? Or could it have been the fact that she married a Moslem and converted from what ever she was to the Moslem faith? Could it have been that he attended Columbia University and was the house guest of the liberal professors there? Could it have been that he started his political career in the home of one of the Weather Men who wanted to distroy the USA? Could it have been that he attended the church of the USA hate monger, Rev Wright, for 20 years?
If after all the above, if Obama "self liberalized" himself, what possible hope do you think we have for the future of the USA? I guess that I do have a problem with this whole concept of autogenisus. Did you ever wonder why this business of "self radicallization" or "self liberalization" never happens to people who are not either Black or Moslems? Further, why did this type of thing not happen 1,000 years ago since it is not the product of society or the people you associate with?
I guess that my bottom line is that this whole concept of "self generation" is total bull shit and most people do not seem to be able to see thru it. Is there no hope?
I then got to thinking about Obama, himself, and if he was, in fact, self liberalized. I guess that you could be both a Judas and a liberal all at the same time, but I think that being a liberal is just a means to the end. Remember that, "the ends justify the means" and the end is the distruction of the USA. Remember that. I wonder if Obama got the hate for the USA that he has because his father was a Black Moslem who knocked up his 18 years old liberal mother out of wed lock? Or could it have been the fact that she married a Moslem and converted from what ever she was to the Moslem faith? Could it have been that he attended Columbia University and was the house guest of the liberal professors there? Could it have been that he started his political career in the home of one of the Weather Men who wanted to distroy the USA? Could it have been that he attended the church of the USA hate monger, Rev Wright, for 20 years?
If after all the above, if Obama "self liberalized" himself, what possible hope do you think we have for the future of the USA? I guess that I do have a problem with this whole concept of autogenisus. Did you ever wonder why this business of "self radicallization" or "self liberalization" never happens to people who are not either Black or Moslems? Further, why did this type of thing not happen 1,000 years ago since it is not the product of society or the people you associate with?
I guess that my bottom line is that this whole concept of "self generation" is total bull shit and most people do not seem to be able to see thru it. Is there no hope?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)