Realizing how badly the Dick Vermeil years really screwed up our program, it is now obvious that we are playing catchup. The team gave away top 50 picks almost every year for "has been's," "never were's," and let's not forget for Vermeil himself. We had some good years, but the team was managed with a short term outlook in mind.
Now we find ourselves in a new era. One where we must play catch up for all of the top 50 picks we lost in the Vermeil years. Last year we had three: Dorsey, Albert, and Flowers. Three excellent fixtures for the future. Looking at the other Top 50 picks still on our team from before that, and the list is pretty slim. We have DJ, Hali, LJ, Bowe, and after that you have to fall all the way down to Tony Gonzalez. Great teams have great high-end talent. The Chiefs have not done a good enough job at getting 2-3 picks in that Top 50 every single season.
If you have 10 year pro's at every one of those picks, and you get two picks in the Top 50 every year, that means you will end up with 20 players in the Top 50. Assuming those are all starters, you have filled 20 of 22 starters of every roster with Top 50 talent.
The Chiefs are short on talent, as you can see above we only have eight, and that counts the three from last year. Of the picks I stated above, Vermeil netted two of those eight in five years. Herm Edwards netted five in three years. Vermeil should have netted 9-11 and Herm 5-7. Now we see why we are behind, yes?
This season, Pioli has only one (#3 overall) after trading for Matt Cassel. For this draft to be a success, it is necessary to convert that #3 pick into two picks in the Top 50 this year and add another one close to the Top 50 next season. If we can package Tony Gonzalez and make it three this year and another next year, then that is great.
We have added a good QB to move forward with in Matt Cassell, and a few great hole fillers with intangibles in Mike Vrabel, Zach Thomas, and Bobby Engram. Now we need young, hungry Top 50 talent. I believe Pioli sees the value in this, and I think it is in our best interest to make it happen. Either Denver or Philadelphia could make this happen. Philadelphia has shown interest by interviewing Top 5 offensive tackles in the past couple of weeks. Adding Tony Gonzalez to their receiving corps could give them a legitimate run at the NFC east title this season which would satisfy the fans, Tony Gonzalez, and Donovan McNabb. The Chiefs could get both first round picks and their second rounder for Tony G.
If not, Denver really wants Matt Sanchez, and they are drafting 12 and 18. He won't be there at 12. I wouldn't trade Tony G within the division, but I'd swap picks within it.
We have options, and we're desperate for young high-end talent. I believe Pioli sees this, and all the mocks will be wrong when the Chiefs have dropped below #3 and Curry or Monroe won't be an option. Anyone who thinks that the Chiefs should spend their ONLY Top 50 picks on an ILB (Curry) is insane.
I don't believe Pioli is insane, and I believe he is making the same observations that I am. I'm excited about this draft and management that I trust to make this decision the right way (unlike Vermeil and Carl).
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Blind Leading the Blind
Today, I was looking around for investment blogs to try to get information on the markets right now. I ran across Lloyd's Investment Blog, which has takes on everything from the current recession to the correlation between player salaries and wins in Major League Baseball. It is definitely worth checking out.
I just read an interesting post of his entitled Blind Men and Elephant: on the Urgency of Asset Price Reflation. He had an interesting take on the fact that we should have acted back in 2007 (the onset of the subprime fallout and home price deflation) to stabilize asset valuations and index our Federal Reserve policy based on a stock market target (say in the S&P). This would enact a Monetary Policy that would act based on indexed economic conditions as opposed to presumed market conditions. He properly makes the parallels between the lead-in to this recession and into the Great Depression as being caused by over-indebtedness and takes it a step further to deflation. There are several analysts in the financial sector who have properly diagnosed the problems as Lloyd has, and even have created cycles which note a 60 year cycle that goes around from Peak Debt to Peak Cash and back again. We're back again.
This was one of the better Keynesian arguments I have read, as it forced the Federal Reserve to act in a way that has an index of some sort as opposed to just blindly driving the Federal Funds Rate into the ground. As much as I have respected Lloyds argument, I do have to disagree with him on the following arguments:
1) How do you value the target for the S&P or the DJIA or whatever? When the DJIA hit 14,000, would the Bush Administration & Bernacke have redrawn the line based on a new era in wealth and prosperity, even though it was largely driven by exccessive indebtedness? If it is indexed to inflation, couldn't we all determine that inflation is an unnecessary evil through effective currency stabilization and there is no need to ever increase that target? Which leads to my next point....
2) Where is the government debt at in all of this? Deflation is necessary when prices are at unsustainable levels, so what is the government deficit going to do to prolong the recession? In 3-5 years, once unemployment starts to show some slight signs of recovery, the currency is going to drop. This is going to cause massive inflation, our standard of living to drop, our assets to lose value again as the currency is worth less, and unemployment to begin once more. You cannot solve over-indebtedness with more-indebtedness, cannot solve devaluing asset prices by devaluing the only asset that everyone in this nation has: cash.
We need a nation that goes back to working and producing to solve their problems and stop waiting to see what the President, Treasury Department, or the Federal Reserve chief is going to do. When our policy makers realize that the only solution to economic woes is production and not debt and that comes from the private and not public sector, we will begin to dig out of this problem again.
These policies drove us into a Great Depression instead of simply a Bad Recession. WWII lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression because we began producing guns, trucks, bombs, planes, boats, and food necessary to go fight a war. We need to start producing the goods necessary to get us out of this recession, and begin our war with the economy.
The day that happens, the sun will start to shine on the American Superpower again. Unfortunately, until the government stops meddling in overseas affairs, giving away our sovereignty to foreign nations and organizations, and printing invisible money to give people invisible wealth and financial irresponsibility, we will continue down this road to ruin. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations have done nothing to warrant that faith, and the Republicans leading up to 2012 do not seem like the type to want the government to have less power (Romney, Palin, Jindal, and others). It's going to be tough to come out of this any time soon.
I just read an interesting post of his entitled Blind Men and Elephant: on the Urgency of Asset Price Reflation. He had an interesting take on the fact that we should have acted back in 2007 (the onset of the subprime fallout and home price deflation) to stabilize asset valuations and index our Federal Reserve policy based on a stock market target (say in the S&P). This would enact a Monetary Policy that would act based on indexed economic conditions as opposed to presumed market conditions. He properly makes the parallels between the lead-in to this recession and into the Great Depression as being caused by over-indebtedness and takes it a step further to deflation. There are several analysts in the financial sector who have properly diagnosed the problems as Lloyd has, and even have created cycles which note a 60 year cycle that goes around from Peak Debt to Peak Cash and back again. We're back again.
This was one of the better Keynesian arguments I have read, as it forced the Federal Reserve to act in a way that has an index of some sort as opposed to just blindly driving the Federal Funds Rate into the ground. As much as I have respected Lloyds argument, I do have to disagree with him on the following arguments:
1) How do you value the target for the S&P or the DJIA or whatever? When the DJIA hit 14,000, would the Bush Administration & Bernacke have redrawn the line based on a new era in wealth and prosperity, even though it was largely driven by exccessive indebtedness? If it is indexed to inflation, couldn't we all determine that inflation is an unnecessary evil through effective currency stabilization and there is no need to ever increase that target? Which leads to my next point....
2) Where is the government debt at in all of this? Deflation is necessary when prices are at unsustainable levels, so what is the government deficit going to do to prolong the recession? In 3-5 years, once unemployment starts to show some slight signs of recovery, the currency is going to drop. This is going to cause massive inflation, our standard of living to drop, our assets to lose value again as the currency is worth less, and unemployment to begin once more. You cannot solve over-indebtedness with more-indebtedness, cannot solve devaluing asset prices by devaluing the only asset that everyone in this nation has: cash.
We need a nation that goes back to working and producing to solve their problems and stop waiting to see what the President, Treasury Department, or the Federal Reserve chief is going to do. When our policy makers realize that the only solution to economic woes is production and not debt and that comes from the private and not public sector, we will begin to dig out of this problem again.
These policies drove us into a Great Depression instead of simply a Bad Recession. WWII lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression because we began producing guns, trucks, bombs, planes, boats, and food necessary to go fight a war. We need to start producing the goods necessary to get us out of this recession, and begin our war with the economy.
The day that happens, the sun will start to shine on the American Superpower again. Unfortunately, until the government stops meddling in overseas affairs, giving away our sovereignty to foreign nations and organizations, and printing invisible money to give people invisible wealth and financial irresponsibility, we will continue down this road to ruin. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations have done nothing to warrant that faith, and the Republicans leading up to 2012 do not seem like the type to want the government to have less power (Romney, Palin, Jindal, and others). It's going to be tough to come out of this any time soon.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Irony of the Medium
Bill O'Reilly was on Letterman last week, and in watching the interview it always impresses me the differences in public perception depending on your particular method of communication. Unfortunately, this really does become a liberal versus conservative discussion, but because of the sources more than ideology.
Taking O'Reilly and Letterman as examples, are we able to make a case for which one is the most knowledgeable about world affairs or which one cares about the common man the most? What about who is the funniest?
As President Obama has proved, anyone can read something written for them from a teleprompter (sometimes it is written for someone else and they read it by mistake). O'Reilly discusses talking points established for him by a writing staff behind the scenes, Letterman makes jokes written for him the same way. O'Reilly "cares" about you enough to give you the "facts" given his particular slant, Letterman makes jokes about "facts" given his political slant. Letterman has jokes written for him and he is funny, yet O'Reilly does not have jokes written for him.
Honestly, I'm not an O'Reilly fan per se. As far as news networks go, I will watch FoxNews because though I hate Karl Rove, they are represented by the fewest officials in the government who have screwed up this country. O'Reilly is not terrible, I was a Huckabee fan, and if I watch TV commentary it comes from Glenn Beck. Though Beck is a weak libertarian, he is the closest thing we have in the mainstream media. Every time I have to watch Paul Begala on CNN or have to suffer through Olbermann on MSNBC, I beg my wife to go pull a gun out of the closet and put me out of my misery.
We rely on a lot of trust in life in these matters. I trust my gut. My gut tells me that the best that I (or anyone else can do) is simply the best for ourselves and our family and friends. I can provide for myself and my family, and I want society to do the same. Neither political party is helping me with this right now, and the funny media and the actual media are doing very little to show me that they will give up slant to want that for me and everyone else.
O'Reilly is not a Conservative as he does not believe in small government, neither does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the like. They just want big government their way. America seems just as unable to decipher the genuineness of these men's conservatism any more than I can distinguish whether or not Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, or EVEN Colbert are funny without writers assisting them.
Let's hope one day it gets to be easier for us to truly know the sources of our worldview.
Taking O'Reilly and Letterman as examples, are we able to make a case for which one is the most knowledgeable about world affairs or which one cares about the common man the most? What about who is the funniest?
As President Obama has proved, anyone can read something written for them from a teleprompter (sometimes it is written for someone else and they read it by mistake). O'Reilly discusses talking points established for him by a writing staff behind the scenes, Letterman makes jokes written for him the same way. O'Reilly "cares" about you enough to give you the "facts" given his particular slant, Letterman makes jokes about "facts" given his political slant. Letterman has jokes written for him and he is funny, yet O'Reilly does not have jokes written for him.
Honestly, I'm not an O'Reilly fan per se. As far as news networks go, I will watch FoxNews because though I hate Karl Rove, they are represented by the fewest officials in the government who have screwed up this country. O'Reilly is not terrible, I was a Huckabee fan, and if I watch TV commentary it comes from Glenn Beck. Though Beck is a weak libertarian, he is the closest thing we have in the mainstream media. Every time I have to watch Paul Begala on CNN or have to suffer through Olbermann on MSNBC, I beg my wife to go pull a gun out of the closet and put me out of my misery.
We rely on a lot of trust in life in these matters. I trust my gut. My gut tells me that the best that I (or anyone else can do) is simply the best for ourselves and our family and friends. I can provide for myself and my family, and I want society to do the same. Neither political party is helping me with this right now, and the funny media and the actual media are doing very little to show me that they will give up slant to want that for me and everyone else.
O'Reilly is not a Conservative as he does not believe in small government, neither does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the like. They just want big government their way. America seems just as unable to decipher the genuineness of these men's conservatism any more than I can distinguish whether or not Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, or EVEN Colbert are funny without writers assisting them.
Let's hope one day it gets to be easier for us to truly know the sources of our worldview.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Political Correctness
Finally, foreigners have started railing on Obama's policies as well as his problems with communication and respect for foreign leaders. Several European publications have outlined Obama's poor methodology of communiating his aspirations for our nation and the world.
If foreigners were in the United States press corps, Obama would probably put them in a muzzle. Obama is already, only a couple of months in office, talking to only those reporters who will agree with his policies. He walks a fine line with the Liberal and Hispanic Publications, as he is not pulling all troops out of the Middle East or bailing out the common American citizen. He is a tax and spend corporate elitist, Liberals only agree with the first part of that mantra, and unfortunately for him John McCain and George W. Bush agree with both.
The hispanic publications also put him in a tough spot. If he wants Hillary Clinton to talk a big game on tightening the southwestern border then it is difficult for him to exclude much of his media exposure to hispanic publications. Not in terms of race, but rather due to his ignoring of accessible media outlets for organizations that do not necessarily have the best interests of the entire country at heart.
Fortunately foreigners don't have to be "politcally correct", we wouldn't have anyone to take down the Obama fraud machine.
If foreigners were in the United States press corps, Obama would probably put them in a muzzle. Obama is already, only a couple of months in office, talking to only those reporters who will agree with his policies. He walks a fine line with the Liberal and Hispanic Publications, as he is not pulling all troops out of the Middle East or bailing out the common American citizen. He is a tax and spend corporate elitist, Liberals only agree with the first part of that mantra, and unfortunately for him John McCain and George W. Bush agree with both.
The hispanic publications also put him in a tough spot. If he wants Hillary Clinton to talk a big game on tightening the southwestern border then it is difficult for him to exclude much of his media exposure to hispanic publications. Not in terms of race, but rather due to his ignoring of accessible media outlets for organizations that do not necessarily have the best interests of the entire country at heart.
Fortunately foreigners don't have to be "politcally correct", we wouldn't have anyone to take down the Obama fraud machine.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Out of It....
I have been out of it for the past couple of weeks. Here are some observations about the world:
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Pursuit of Fairness in Marriage
Marriage is really a great thing, possibly the greatest thing that we embark on in this life. From my perspective, it is the ultimate pursuit of happiness that we can embark on. As the right to pursue happiness is outlined in the United States Constitution, is this great thing entitled to us through this statement? Since I am infact married, I'm sure you would all say that I have a vested interest in the success of it, or it is something I am invested in.
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
M-I-Z-Z-O-U....You Break My Heart
Come on Mizzou. I don't understand how you can't get up for a game in Lawrence. It just makes me sick. How can a team consistently look good against other good teams, then tank against KU in Lawrence? Last night, Missouri destroyed Oklahoma in Columbia. Blake Griffin, the likely NCAA player of the year, was playing. KU barely beat OU with Griffin in the lineup, and Mizzou obliterated them with him. Why couldn't they take that intensity to Lawrence?
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
'D' is for Douche....
I thought that polarization and mockery was reserved for politicians with an 'R' next to their name. Also, I'm thankful that the same CNN that reported on the Clinton's cat-tragedy (family cat died) and negatively portrayed Giuliani's mockery of Obama's "Presidential Experience" as a community organizer at the GOP Convention while encouraging the mockery of the right.
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
Buy Cheap
Complete conspiracy theorist here, please ignore if you don't assume that the worst is possible.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
Sorry Roland, but....
you love earmarks. We don't.
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This All Must End
Barack Obama is not going to need an entire term to destroy the foundation with which this nation was built upon, he's probably going to need six months. We are a nation that was built on localized control, that solved our own problems and stayed away from the problems of the rest of the world, and believed in individual liberty and freedom. Barack Obama is single-handedly destroying our freedoms more and more by the day. Don't believe me:
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Let History Guide Decision on Socialism
We presently live in a nation teetering on the brink of Socialism. It is the word of the day. People (or businesses) cannot be trusted to dictate the supply, pricing, payroll, and overall direction of their companies. In the United States, moving this direction is the desire of many, as people have jumped off the deep end and decided that the government is more trustworthy than they are.
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Friday, February 27, 2009
First "What Have We Done" Moment
If Whitlock is right, then it took about six weeks to get really unhappy with the Pioli/Haley partnership. If Brian Waters, as probably the #2 or #3 leader of this team, paid for a flight out of his own money to come to Kansas City and meet with the coaching staff, and be shown the respect (or lack of) that he was by Pioli/Haley, then there may be dark days ahead.
According to "sources with knowledge of the situation," Pioli snubbed his team's strongest vocal leader and perennial Pro Bowler. In New England, Brian Waters is probably Teddy Bruschi. If Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of this team then Waters is probably the Bruschi. Would Pioli have snubbed Bruschi in New England?
Haley on the other hand, reportedly talked to Waters in a "hallway conversation" and told him that the players here are nothing and that anyone off the street can win two games. According to Arizona Cardinals' players at the Pro Bowl, Haley is apparently a complete prick. Did anyone inform him that a bunch of morons off the street could have walked into New England and put up 7 points in the snow?
This is not a good sign for the future. Now, I will go forward and say that if a trade does happen, and a couple of decent draft picks come from it, then great. I'm on board. But I would have been on board without management being arrogant. I didn't need Peterson to be an ass to get me on board for three high picks for Jared Allen, and I don't need Pioli/Haley being asses to get me on board for two picks for Waters.
I should consider the source. Whitlock is the drama-queen Paris Hilton of Kansas City's sports media elite, and they will both leave you irritated all day afterwards. This could be a complete farce. This could very well be a small disrespecting and Waters merely "considering" a change of scenery.
But it sure doesn't sound good. Whitlock, thanks for the crabs for the day. Now I'm going to be irritated until I hear some good news about the Chiefs.
According to "sources with knowledge of the situation," Pioli snubbed his team's strongest vocal leader and perennial Pro Bowler. In New England, Brian Waters is probably Teddy Bruschi. If Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of this team then Waters is probably the Bruschi. Would Pioli have snubbed Bruschi in New England?
Haley on the other hand, reportedly talked to Waters in a "hallway conversation" and told him that the players here are nothing and that anyone off the street can win two games. According to Arizona Cardinals' players at the Pro Bowl, Haley is apparently a complete prick. Did anyone inform him that a bunch of morons off the street could have walked into New England and put up 7 points in the snow?
This is not a good sign for the future. Now, I will go forward and say that if a trade does happen, and a couple of decent draft picks come from it, then great. I'm on board. But I would have been on board without management being arrogant. I didn't need Peterson to be an ass to get me on board for three high picks for Jared Allen, and I don't need Pioli/Haley being asses to get me on board for two picks for Waters.
I should consider the source. Whitlock is the drama-queen Paris Hilton of Kansas City's sports media elite, and they will both leave you irritated all day afterwards. This could be a complete farce. This could very well be a small disrespecting and Waters merely "considering" a change of scenery.
But it sure doesn't sound good. Whitlock, thanks for the crabs for the day. Now I'm going to be irritated until I hear some good news about the Chiefs.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Parable of the Broken Window
The most interesting thing about the Congressional Address by President Obama is the authority with which he believes that the government can solve our problems better than we can. Basically, the economy is broken, and they can spend money to fix it. There is a great fallacy that the Keynesian model violates outlined in the Parable of the Broken Window.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
Revolution - Governmental Restructure
Unfortunately for all of us, we have a government that craps on the Constitution daily and tells us that it is merely putting powder sugar on the donut. We need a revolution, a restructuring of the Constitution. This is not to say that we need to change the Amendments that currently exist in our Constitution, but rather we need to restructure the initial articles that were established for a system of checks and balances that no longer work.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama - the Levitra Ad of Presidential Politics
Do you know how you can't go through a single commercial break on your favorite program without seeing a random Erectile Dysfunction medication advertisement and how no one wants to see them? You know, the Levitra ad where the guy is throwing the football through a tire swing in the yard, misses, looks sad, but then takes the pill and he makes the next throw while his wife walks outside with iced tea and looks turned on? You know that some guy who just happened to not get it up the night before starts to wonder after commercial repetition that he just might not have it anymore and he might need the pill.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obushma Strikes Again!
Apparently the "people's" administration has announced a fourth $400+ Billion dollar spending bill in the past 6 months (and second in two months). This one is to make up for spending cuts made by the Bush administration. Two questions:
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Desperation.....
Things are going on so well in the world that CNN is desperate for something to report......
Friday, February 20, 2009
Running Out of Insults.....
First off, Barack Obama is difficult enough to make fun of in the first place. I think I did a decent job that other day in a manner which could be difficult to play the race card on, but who knows with the way things are going today. Obama is very affluent, youthful, charismatic, a smooth talker, and relatively attractive. George W. Bush was obviously much easier to make fun of, and he didn't do anything to help his case (like take a public speaking course).
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Protection from Abuse, Not Equality
You have to love a country where everyone gets a voice. I enjoy having one, but my stuff doesn't make CNN. When Pop Culture meets 24-hour news, you know something bad is going to happen. The paragraph below popped up. Basically, rumor has it that Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend Rihanna for wanting to know what whore was trying to hook up with her man. I found this particular paragraph interesting:
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
