If you don't read news reports carefully, they can easily be deceiving... as they are generally intended to be. The mission sttement of the media in general is no longer to report the news, but to spin the news in support of whatever political position the publisher or station owner happens to have adopted. Here's a prime example of the "smoke and mirrors" used by the liberal media:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans claiming new jobless benefits fell back to a four-year low last week and manufacturing in the Northeast held up in March, providing more signs the economy was firmly on a self-sustaining growth path.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 351,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That took claims back to a four-year low reached in February.
Separately, the New York Federal Reserve said its Empire State general business conditions index rose to 20.21 - highest level since June 2010 - from 19.53 in February.
"This suggests that the recovery is firmly on track," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida."
On the face of it we tend to think, "WOW, that's great! Joblessness is at a four year low! The economy is on it's way back up!" But if you remove the 'rose colored glasses' that Reuters has surreptitiously slipped you with this article, and ignore the dying embers of hopefulness in your heart, here's what the article really says:
The number of Americans claiming new jobless benefits fell back to a four-year low last week and manufacturing in the Northeast held up in March, providing more signs the economy was firmly on a self-sustaining growth path. (There are fewer newly unemployed Americans applying for unemployment compensation than there have been during the past four years. This does not take into consideration those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are still unemployed, since unemployment statistics only include those people who are drawing unemployment compensation. Manufacturing "held up" in the Northeast? What does "held up" mean in real words, and what about the status of manufacturing in the other 80% of the country?)
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 351,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That took claims back to a four-year low reached in February. (SMOKE ALARM! Okay, so 14,000 fewer new claims were made - BFD! The real statistic is that there are still 351,000 people who lost their jobs in February!! Where is the progress in that??
Separately, the New York Federal Reserve said its Empire State general business conditions index rose to 20.21 - highest level since June 2010 - from 19.53 in February. (How nice for New York State... and the 49 other states reported what?)
"This suggests that the recovery is firmly on track," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida." (I'm willing to bet that Scott Brown (WHO?) is a registered Democrat, liberal left-wing, "Hope and Change" weenie. And, exactly when did St. Petersburg, Florida become the economic forecasting capital of America? Did Greece use Raymond James of St. Petersburg for their economic guidance?)
The whole story is spun in an attempt by the liberal media to lull us into a sense of false security, and bolster the failing "Hope and Change" fairytale the current administration sold to America almost 3½ years ago. This is "business as usual" for the vast majority of the mainstream media. There is a need for hope and change, but the hope is for a change... a change of "leadership" - once again - to get America back to its roots. Our survival as a Republic depends on that hope becoming reality!
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Government Control Is Not Needed Where Obama Wants It!!
Your government wants to stick it's bureaucratic nose into everything that affects average, working-class people. Everything except those areas it should be investigating and regulating more strictly! For example...
The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009.
Earnings for the first half of 2010, excluding special items, were $13.9 billion, up 60% over the first half of 2009." (Emphases added)
Yes, my friends, that is Billion with a capital "B". The concept of a million of anything is difficult for most of us to envision, and the term billion just boggles the mind. Maybe this will help get it into perspective - a billion minutes ago, Christ was alive. Here's a picture showing the relationship between one thousand, one million and one billion -
There is a 6" difference between the million point and the billion point on this line. (A trillion [a figure our government loves to throw at us] would be marked 500 feet to the right of the billion mark.) Now, think of that number in terms of dollars - the dollars you spend at the gas pump, the dollars you spend for groceries, the dollars you spend for clothing... and your tax dollars!
Diesel fuel, the least refined and least expensive to produce, currently hovers at around $4 per gallon. More than premium gasoline! Do you still wonder why the cost of "goods and services" is skyrocketing upward? Understand that goods do not magically appear in Wal-Mart at the beginning of each business day, nor do groceries breed on the shelves of your local Kroger or Safeway grocery stores when the lights go out. These items are transported to every retail store in our country by diesel-fueled delivery vehicles, whether they be 18-wheelers, railroad trains, or a combination. The oil companies have taken our nation hostage! And your government has not done - or even said - a thing about it. It's areas like this that we need government mandated price caps! The workers of this nation need gasoline to get to and from their place of employment in order to earn a living so they can afford to buy those goods and services. Gasoline now costs between $3.25 and $3.65 per gallon and the price is increasing almost daily! The excuses used by big oil are "There's unrest in Saudi Arabia", "The middle east crisis is driving our costs up", and "It's the Yemeni problem". What's wrong with this picture? The problem is Big Oil's corporate GREED! Individually, or even collectively, We The People can do next to nothing about it directly. Government intervention mandating price caps is the only solution.
How do we get that done? Write, email, or telephone your elected Congressional Representatives - including Senators - and tell them that We The People need relief from the price gouging oil corporations economy-crushing GREED!
(Because our national economy is "in the dumper", China is campaigning at the U.N. to have the U.S. dollar replaced by the Chinese yuan as the "reserve currency". For those of you who may not know exactly what the "reserve currency" is, it is the global currency of international trade. If China is successful in their bid, it will further diminish the U.S. in the eyes of "the global community".)
I'm Gil, and I approved this blog!
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The World Economic Collapse Explained In Under 3 Minutes!
Believe it or not, the world economic crisis actually does encompass more than just your immediate household income. Unfortunately, your personal economic crisis is the only one you can do anything about... and there's really nothing you can do about it. So, how did we get into this mess, and exactly what is the "mess" that we are in?
Okay, there's nothing up my sleeves, and I have here in front of you three walnut shells and one pea. Your job is to keep your eye on the pea... and here we go!
Okay, there's nothing up my sleeves, and I have here in front of you three walnut shells and one pea. Your job is to keep your eye on the pea... and here we go!
Did I just see one of those cartoon light bulbs above your head... or are you totally confused now? Does the procedure they explained sound familiar to you? The International Monetary Fund is nothing more than a clearing house for meaningless paper. The entire world seems to have entered into an informal, unstated agreement to accept IOU's as negotiable currency.
What is the main cause of Europe's financial crisis? The single currency called the "euro". Yes, it was convenient to be able to travel though out most of Europe without having to worry about exchange rates, without having to deal with multiple unfamiliar currencies or having to do currency conversions in your head to insure you weren't being ripped off. The euro was initially used for non-cash transactions between banks. Personally, I was surprised the euro stayed strong for as long as it did. It was a good thing there were a few fairly healthy economies involved from the outset, or the euro wouldn't have survived my 18 month expectation. In fact, in September of 2000, the European Central Bank (ECB) had to intervene to prop up the failing euro, which had lost 30% of it's value in less than 20 months. In January of 2002 the first euro banknotes and coins were released to the 12 participating European Union nations for use as currency, and by March 1st, 2002 the euro was the only legal tender in those 12 countries. The EU has since increased to a total of 15 member nations.
What do those nations have in common - other than financial hard times? They are socialist countries. As laughable as the comedy routine above may be, it is an accurate representation of just how the world is responding to this financial crisis. And, as long as the banks of the world are in agreement on the process, it can continue - and possibly even be successful. Why? Because "currency" is what "we" determine it to be. Currency has only the value which we assign to it, whether it has intrinsic value or not. One society used rocks with holes drilled in them as currency, another used woodpecker scalps, and another used porpoise teeth as their medium of exchange for goods and services.
For some strange reason, our current one-term President seems to admire the way the Europeans do things, and desires to remake the United States in their image - the type of governance against which our forefathers and founders fought in order to to extricate themselves from under the rule of tyranny. Our Constitution was designed in such a way as to insure our sovereignty and our God-given rights and freedoms were protected.
As the poet Dylan Thomas once wrote:
What is the main cause of Europe's financial crisis? The single currency called the "euro". Yes, it was convenient to be able to travel though out most of Europe without having to worry about exchange rates, without having to deal with multiple unfamiliar currencies or having to do currency conversions in your head to insure you weren't being ripped off. The euro was initially used for non-cash transactions between banks. Personally, I was surprised the euro stayed strong for as long as it did. It was a good thing there were a few fairly healthy economies involved from the outset, or the euro wouldn't have survived my 18 month expectation. In fact, in September of 2000, the European Central Bank (ECB) had to intervene to prop up the failing euro, which had lost 30% of it's value in less than 20 months. In January of 2002 the first euro banknotes and coins were released to the 12 participating European Union nations for use as currency, and by March 1st, 2002 the euro was the only legal tender in those 12 countries. The EU has since increased to a total of 15 member nations.
What do those nations have in common - other than financial hard times? They are socialist countries. As laughable as the comedy routine above may be, it is an accurate representation of just how the world is responding to this financial crisis. And, as long as the banks of the world are in agreement on the process, it can continue - and possibly even be successful. Why? Because "currency" is what "we" determine it to be. Currency has only the value which we assign to it, whether it has intrinsic value or not. One society used rocks with holes drilled in them as currency, another used woodpecker scalps, and another used porpoise teeth as their medium of exchange for goods and services.
For some strange reason, our current one-term President seems to admire the way the Europeans do things, and desires to remake the United States in their image - the type of governance against which our forefathers and founders fought in order to to extricate themselves from under the rule of tyranny. Our Constitution was designed in such a way as to insure our sovereignty and our God-given rights and freedoms were protected.
As the poet Dylan Thomas once wrote:
"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
In our case, the light that is dying is from the lamp of freedom, and those that would extinguish it are among us!
The freedoms that are worth fighting for are the same freedoms that make it easy for those who would do our nation harm.
The freedoms that are worth fighting for are the same freedoms that make it easy for those who would do our nation harm.Monday, May 10, 2010
Okay... I've Thought About It...
From the NY Post: "US taxpayers will be helping to foot the bill for the Greek bailout, via the International Monetary Fund. And if the Obama administration doesn't draw a clear line, Uncle Sam may soon be on the line for even more and larger European "rescues."WE ARE TIRED OF BEING IGNORED BY THOSE WHO "REPRESENT" US!
The Greek government, with its high taxes and profligate spending to support large bureaucracies and social programs, is bankrupt. Its bonds have been downgraded to junk status."
WHAT IF the United States borrowed money from either the International Monetary Fund or China in order to prop up the Greek economy? Then you could simply change the words "Greek Government" in the preceding paragraph to "U.S. Government", and the message would still be accurate.
Is Washington unaware that we are in dire financial straits ourselves? If this idiotic government were in charge of maintaining the oceans, they would be bone dry in 10 years.
WHAT IF there were a "global currency", as recommended at a G-20 meeting a bit over a year ago? The Euro surprised me by lasting more than 18 months. Why? Because the result was the successful European economies were keeping the less successful afloat, by reducing the value of all currencies to somewhere in the middle! A global currency would have the same impact... everyone's currency would be worth the same, but it would be worth less. Can somebody explain to me how this is different than "redistribution of wealth"? It's exactly the same thing, just on a grand scale!
WHAT IF instead of taking from rich individuals, the global currency would have the practical effect of taking from the more prosperous nations and redistributing the currency to the less prosperous nations? How does national prosperity become anyone's responsibility other than the government of the nation in question? How do our taxes become another country's prosperity? (Global currency is closer to reality than you may know - Russia introduced their proposed version of it at a G-20 meeting a bit over a year ago.)
WHAT IF our Congress followed the original intent of the Constitution, rather than trying to find ways to defeat it?
WHAT IF our elected representatives in Washington D.C. actually represented the people instead of big business, lobbyists, and their own personal interests?
WHAT IF all the members of the House and Senate, who are up for reelection in November, are replaced with people who do not believe that the road to national prosperity is paved with more bureaucracy, bigger government, and increased borrowing, spending and taxing?
WHAT IF We the People - the employers of those in the House and Senate - decided to fire the lot of them? Would their replacements be intelligent enough to understand the message we were sending to Washington? Just in case, here it is in plain English:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
AMERICA STANDS ON THE BANKS OF THE RUBICON
On the 10th of January, 49BC, Julius Caesar dispatched one Roman Legion across the Rubicon - a 29 km long river in northern Italy. The river flows from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic Sea through the southern Emilia-Romagna region between the towns of Rimini and Cesena. The act of soldiers "crossing the Rubicon" initiated a civil war in the region. The rebellion was squelched, and Caesar became the unrivaled leader of the Roman world - and "crossing the Rubicon" became a popular idiom meaning to pass a point of no return.
The "leadership" of the United States of America now stands on the banks of our own Rubicon. "They" - the legislative and executive branches of our government - have ignored the expressed will of "We the People" for many years. However, since our most recent election, the disdain of our arrogant leadership for its people has been in plain view.
The liberal-progressive left wants a revolution. They ignore our Constitution. They wish to rebuild the United States using the socialist foundation of Marx and Engels... an overhaul which the conservative-traditional right stands firmly against. The liberals are in the process of destroying our economy. Revolution, like most other things in this world, is not free - it comes with a definite price. They may well get a revolution... but it will not be the revolution they desire.
Are "they" willing to pay the price to support the government's attempt to enslave a free people? Perhaps... but they find our Constitution to be a bothersome impediment to their agenda.
Are those who espouse freedom willing to pay the price to maintain it? From every indication I have seen the answer is YES, they are.
The "leadership" of the United States of America now stands on the banks of our own Rubicon. "They" - the legislative and executive branches of our government - have ignored the expressed will of "We the People" for many years. However, since our most recent election, the disdain of our arrogant leadership for its people has been in plain view.
The liberal-progressive left wants a revolution. They ignore our Constitution. They wish to rebuild the United States using the socialist foundation of Marx and Engels... an overhaul which the conservative-traditional right stands firmly against. The liberals are in the process of destroying our economy. Revolution, like most other things in this world, is not free - it comes with a definite price. They may well get a revolution... but it will not be the revolution they desire.
Are "they" willing to pay the price to support the government's attempt to enslave a free people? Perhaps... but they find our Constitution to be a bothersome impediment to their agenda.
Are those who espouse freedom willing to pay the price to maintain it? From every indication I have seen the answer is YES, they are.
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Realities of Insuring The Uninsurable - THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS IN AMERICA!
The latest iteration of the Democrats health care bill includes wording that, in effect states: "Government approved health care insurers (and they must all be "government approved") must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic."
That sounds wonderful on the surface, especially if you are one of those people who are currently uninsurable... but, when you look at it strictly from a business standpoint it presents quite a challenge to the insurance industry. Take just a second here to think about how you would handle the challenge if you were the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or one of the other big health insurance companies, keeping in mind that all insurance companies set their premiums based upon risk. They have people called "actuaries" (recently there has been a trend toward calling actuaries "risk managers") whose only job is to evaluate the risk factor (risk of potential payout) involved in issuing policies based upon gender, age, physical condition, alcohol or drug usage, smoking/non-smoking, occupational hazards, etc.. (I'll wait while you do that...).
Do you have a plan of action now? Well, we're proceeding regardless.
Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. So, what are your options as CEO?
1. Maintain the status quo and do nothing. Continue to issue policies at the same premium rates even though you have been forced to accept 500,000 clients previously designated as uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. In about a year you can either ask the government for a bailout... or file for bankruptcy. Bad choice.
2. Work the technicalities of the government mandate to your favor. Government approved providers "must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic." Increase everybody's premium costs to that which the previously uninsurable policy holder would have had to to pay prior to the government edict. This would probably make you oodles of profits, your stock holders would love you, and you would be "last seen" as you were forced into the back seat of a late-model black Chevrolet Suburban, with dark desert tint on the windows. Sadly, this may well be your best option.
Understand that I am not a big fan of giant corporations. Especially those selling health insurance. They've been bending us over for the last 3 or 4 decades! Most of the costs are nothing more than greed. Whose greed? The patient. Want to know why medical care is so expensive? Besides the 16 million illegal aliens that are getting it at no cost to them, because the rest of us are paying for it. Because there are no caps on malpractice lawsuits, and many doctors are paying over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums! Naturally, those costs are passed along to their patients. People are greedy... and they will sue at the drop of a hat! That's one thing that keeps our medical insurance costs high. Then there's the $800,000+ profit in one MRI machine. More corporate greed! How about those $5 hospital aspirins and the $8 band aids? Where do these hospital administrators shop for their supplies ... Neimann-Marcus? But, again, hospitals have to offset the losses from non-payment for services - and greedy vendors - somehow, so they just pass it along to the beneficiary of those goods and services.
The bottom line is that it all comes back upon those of us who act responsibly by having health insurance, or paying for our medical treatment ourselves. The bill falls in our lap either directly (paying our own medical costs) or indirectly (purchasing insurance at high premium costs or paying higher taxes). Like all businesses, the costs of doing business are passed along to the consumer. The hidden costs involved in thefts and loss prevention personnel are passed along. Any business-related expense that can be passed along is passed along (and the rest are written off their income tax)!
That sounds wonderful on the surface, especially if you are one of those people who are currently uninsurable... but, when you look at it strictly from a business standpoint it presents quite a challenge to the insurance industry. Take just a second here to think about how you would handle the challenge if you were the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or one of the other big health insurance companies, keeping in mind that all insurance companies set their premiums based upon risk. They have people called "actuaries" (recently there has been a trend toward calling actuaries "risk managers") whose only job is to evaluate the risk factor (risk of potential payout) involved in issuing policies based upon gender, age, physical condition, alcohol or drug usage, smoking/non-smoking, occupational hazards, etc.. (I'll wait while you do that...).Do you have a plan of action now? Well, we're proceeding regardless.
Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. So, what are your options as CEO?
1. Maintain the status quo and do nothing. Continue to issue policies at the same premium rates even though you have been forced to accept 500,000 clients previously designated as uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. In about a year you can either ask the government for a bailout... or file for bankruptcy. Bad choice.
2. Work the technicalities of the government mandate to your favor. Government approved providers "must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic." Increase everybody's premium costs to that which the previously uninsurable policy holder would have had to to pay prior to the government edict. This would probably make you oodles of profits, your stock holders would love you, and you would be "last seen" as you were forced into the back seat of a late-model black Chevrolet Suburban, with dark desert tint on the windows. Sadly, this may well be your best option.
3. Close your doors now and avoid the inevitability of financial collapse. This is the option the government would prefer you take... thus leaving a clear field for them to take over the health care industry in its entirety, and making the American people just that much more dependent upon "Nanny Government". Making it financially unfeasible - by way of draconian laws and unnecessary taxes - for publicly owned corporations to do business in the health care industry is precisely what the socialist government of Barack Obama plans to do. McDonald's is always hiring (or was... back when we had a few extra dollars to spend on a quick lunch or dinner).
Right now the insurance companies are in a lose-lose situation. They have been demonized by the government and the left-wing media since Obama began his "Change we can believe in" campaign. It's really more like...
or
Understand that I am not a big fan of giant corporations. Especially those selling health insurance. They've been bending us over for the last 3 or 4 decades! Most of the costs are nothing more than greed. Whose greed? The patient. Want to know why medical care is so expensive? Besides the 16 million illegal aliens that are getting it at no cost to them, because the rest of us are paying for it. Because there are no caps on malpractice lawsuits, and many doctors are paying over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums! Naturally, those costs are passed along to their patients. People are greedy... and they will sue at the drop of a hat! That's one thing that keeps our medical insurance costs high. Then there's the $800,000+ profit in one MRI machine. More corporate greed! How about those $5 hospital aspirins and the $8 band aids? Where do these hospital administrators shop for their supplies ... Neimann-Marcus? But, again, hospitals have to offset the losses from non-payment for services - and greedy vendors - somehow, so they just pass it along to the beneficiary of those goods and services.The bottom line is that it all comes back upon those of us who act responsibly by having health insurance, or paying for our medical treatment ourselves. The bill falls in our lap either directly (paying our own medical costs) or indirectly (purchasing insurance at high premium costs or paying higher taxes). Like all businesses, the costs of doing business are passed along to the consumer. The hidden costs involved in thefts and loss prevention personnel are passed along. Any business-related expense that can be passed along is passed along (and the rest are written off their income tax)!
Probably the best approach to resolving the health insurance crisis in our country is to not just allow interstate insurance sales, but to require it. This should result in lower overall costs for health insurance due to increased competition for the available health care $$$.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Obama and The Cloward-Piven Strategy
The subtitle for this post should be "How To Destroy A Capitalist Economy And Remain Under The Radar". I first became aware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy today. To say that its goals are disturbing would be an major understatement. The thrust of it is this - the strategy's goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy.
Like most people, I had never heard of either Cloward or Piven, or their destructive strategy. Developed in the mid-1960s by Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two Columbia University sociologists, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. Alinsky, who was also a mentor of Hillary Clinton, wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one."
The mechanics of the strategy are a bit more complicated. The supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.
The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial "shock troops," in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the city government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.
Like most people, I had never heard of either Cloward or Piven, or their destructive strategy. Developed in the mid-1960s by Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two Columbia University sociologists, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. Alinsky, who was also a mentor of Hillary Clinton, wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one."
The mechanics of the strategy are a bit more complicated. The supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.
The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial "shock troops," in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the city government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
- The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
- The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
- The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
(The only addition I would have made to the above diagram, would have been to include, by name, the ACLU within the block labeled "Communist Party USA & Other Radical Socialist Groups". The ACLU had, as one of its co-founders, Roger Nash Baldwin (January 21, 1884 – August 26, 1981) who was a noted social activist who held Communist views in his youth, yet continued to promote a Socialist agenda. He was the ACLU's executive director until 1950.)
Once you have the name "Cloward-Piven Strategy", there is a plethora of information available on the Internet. How has this apparently intentional plot to destroy that which made the USA great, managed to avoid discovery by the mainstream media? Wellllll... it didn't exactly. The Washington Times had an article on C-P back in October of 2008, but if you didn't get the Washington Times that day - which is probably 90% of the country - I can't recall ever seeing it in print, or hearing about it on any of the broadcast media. Can you say "complicit coverup"
Blogs - including this one - are not a particularly reliable source of "news". They are, instead, a source of personal analysis (i.e. - opinion) of the news which has been reported. The purpose of my blog is not necessarily to educate people (although there are many who could use educating), but to prompt folks to think about what's going on around them, and then form their own conclusion.
Once you have the name "Cloward-Piven Strategy", there is a plethora of information available on the Internet. How has this apparently intentional plot to destroy that which made the USA great, managed to avoid discovery by the mainstream media? Wellllll... it didn't exactly. The Washington Times had an article on C-P back in October of 2008, but if you didn't get the Washington Times that day - which is probably 90% of the country - I can't recall ever seeing it in print, or hearing about it on any of the broadcast media. Can you say "complicit coverup"
Blogs - including this one - are not a particularly reliable source of "news". They are, instead, a source of personal analysis (i.e. - opinion) of the news which has been reported. The purpose of my blog is not necessarily to educate people (although there are many who could use educating), but to prompt folks to think about what's going on around them, and then form their own conclusion.
Friday, March 6, 2009
"Nationwide Unemployment at 8.1%" ... Officially
Today it was announced that the average official unemployment across the United States is at 8.1%. I say "officially" because there are factors the government does not take into consideration when determining the "official unemployment" rate. In practical terms, which would include those factors omitted from "official" reports, the unemployment rate is probably closer to 10%. Either figure is higher than unemployment at the beginning of the Great Depression! The second figure - my estimate of 10% - is equal to the unemployment rate during the peak 21 months of unemployment of the Great Depression.
In just the past two months we have seen unemployment grow by 1,200,000 - that's an loss of 1.2 million American jobs in 60 days. In the past year "official unemployment" has increased by over 8,000,000!
I live in Josephine County Oregon, and our "official unemployment" statistics were published in last nights' paper - a whopping 14.6% - which, when translated into real-world, practical terms, is probably closer to 17-18%. That's a LOT of folks unofficially out of work! In 2007 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated our population at 81,056 and, using a mean average of 17.5%, it translates to 14,185 unemployed. That's roughly the equivalent of having half the population of Grants Pass, Oregon out of work! It's not a pretty picture.
The current population of the United States is estimated at 305,957,000. An 8.1% unemployment rate would mean 24,782,517 people are unemployed nationwide. Combine that with rampant inflation, unreliable financial institutions, floundering giant corporations, outsourcing of American jobs, and a newly-elected government administration that practically invites illegal aliens to migrate into our country, and one which investors obviously do not believe in, and you have all the makings for some serious unrest.
Could I be wrong about this? I suppose it's possible ...................................... GOTCHA!! I was just kidding about it being possible!
In just the past two months we have seen unemployment grow by 1,200,000 - that's an loss of 1.2 million American jobs in 60 days. In the past year "official unemployment" has increased by over 8,000,000!
I live in Josephine County Oregon, and our "official unemployment" statistics were published in last nights' paper - a whopping 14.6% - which, when translated into real-world, practical terms, is probably closer to 17-18%. That's a LOT of folks unofficially out of work! In 2007 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated our population at 81,056 and, using a mean average of 17.5%, it translates to 14,185 unemployed. That's roughly the equivalent of having half the population of Grants Pass, Oregon out of work! It's not a pretty picture.
The current population of the United States is estimated at 305,957,000. An 8.1% unemployment rate would mean 24,782,517 people are unemployed nationwide. Combine that with rampant inflation, unreliable financial institutions, floundering giant corporations, outsourcing of American jobs, and a newly-elected government administration that practically invites illegal aliens to migrate into our country, and one which investors obviously do not believe in, and you have all the makings for some serious unrest.
Could I be wrong about this? I suppose it's possible ...................................... GOTCHA!! I was just kidding about it being possible!
Monday, March 2, 2009
LEFT-WING LIBERAL SOCIALIST ASSAULT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT BEGINS!
Not being satisfied with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, upholding a citizen's "right to keep and bear arms", left-wing liberals in the U.S. Congress have launched an oblique campaign to severely restrict, if not eliminate, that guaranteed right.
Knowing there would be strenuous and forceful resistance by "We The People" against their designs to create the Socialist States of America, the Dumocrats have initiated several bills designed to abridge and/or curtail that right. The Dumocrats current gun ban wish list proposal includes virtually all semi-automatic rifles, by virtue of the following wording: "The Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Obama's Attorney General appointee, Eric Holder, once wrote a brief supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. Federal officers and the military have used ,and still use bolt action rifles for certain specific tasks, so that eliminates bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, leaving us with what ... muzzle-loading rifles, paintball guns, and Nerf balls?
Their proposed handgun blacklist in not nearly so inclusive - only 11 makes/models - but it is nonetheless invasively unconstitutional! The handgun list seems to be based on appearance and reputation of use (i.e. - a favorite weapon of gangs), rather than actual function.
The semi-automatic shotgun list is even shorter ... which leads me to wonder if the real motive of such proposed legislation is to eliminate "We The People's" access to firearms with an effective range of more than 50 yards. Is there another yet undisclosed agenda?
How much confidence do investors have in Obama's administration? A look at the Dow-Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P should tell you that. They're all in the dumper!
If you own firearms, and value your freedom to do so, contact your Congressmen and demand they vote against any such proposed legislation. If you do not own firearms, and value your other freedoms, do likewise. Our right to keep and bear arms is the one that insures we keep the others.
I suppose that in some parallel universe I could be wrong about this. (That would be the same parallel universe where politicians always tell their constituents the truth!)
Their proposed handgun blacklist in not nearly so inclusive - only 11 makes/models - but it is nonetheless invasively unconstitutional! The handgun list seems to be based on appearance and reputation of use (i.e. - a favorite weapon of gangs), rather than actual function.
The semi-automatic shotgun list is even shorter ... which leads me to wonder if the real motive of such proposed legislation is to eliminate "We The People's" access to firearms with an effective range of more than 50 yards. Is there another yet undisclosed agenda?
How much confidence do investors have in Obama's administration? A look at the Dow-Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P should tell you that. They're all in the dumper!
If you own firearms, and value your freedom to do so, contact your Congressmen and demand they vote against any such proposed legislation. If you do not own firearms, and value your other freedoms, do likewise. Our right to keep and bear arms is the one that insures we keep the others.
I suppose that in some parallel universe I could be wrong about this. (That would be the same parallel universe where politicians always tell their constituents the truth!)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Is Barack Obama the USA's Robert Mugabe?
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the name Robert Mugabe, he has been the leader of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) for almost three decades. Although his early history shows him as a "freedom fighter" for the rights of native black Africans, and a relatively 'good shepherd' of his flock, his most recent actions show him to be an incapable administrator, dictatorial in his governance and oblivious to international concerns over the direction in which he has taken Zimbabwe.
After the recent fraudulent Zimbabwean Presidential election - in which Mugabe was defeated - he simply refused to vacate the office of President or surrender control of the government. He demanded a unity government, and got it. He creates Zimbabwean "law" on the fly, and ignores international law and the needs of his people.
By now you may be wondering, "What does this have to do with any behavioral relationship to Barack Obama?"
1. At the time of Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, slightly over 45% of Zimbabwe's arable land was owned by approximately 6,000 (primarily white) farmers. Zimbabwe was productive and considered to be the "breadbasket of southern Africa". Zimbabwe was a major exporter of agricultural products. Life was good, and it remained so for the better part of 20 years.
2. In April of 2000 the Zimbabwean constitution was amended in such a fashion as to allow the government to confiscate white-owned land for redistribution to black "farmers" without compensation. Almost immediately, self-styled "war veterans" began invading white-owned farms. Those owners who did not leave voluntarily were often tortured and sometimes killed. One was forced to drink diesel fuel as a form of torture.
3. This redistribution of wealth resulted in the collapse of Zimbabwe's agricultural industry, and the destruction of their economy. Zimbabwe now depends on food programs and support from outside to feed its population. A third of the population depends on food supplies from the World Food Program to avoid starvation.
4. The daily inflation rate in Zimbabwe is slightly more than 98%, which equates to an annual inflation rate of 516 quintillion per cent. Based on my comments in my most recent previous posting I understand how difficult that number is to really understand. It is the number 516 followed by 18 zeros. This figure is totally unfathomable as a concept of quantity or anything else! It is, most probably, the highest inflation rate any sovereign country in the world has ever experienced.
5. Mugabe said the unity government will continue to push for a majority stake of "at least 51%" in companies operating in Zimbabwe, to be controlled by dubiously qualified indigenous black Africans ... including banks. (Nationalization of private businesses by government. How is this different than our Democratically-controlled government becoming invested in the banking, housing, and the automotive industries?) Mugabe was recently quoted as having said:
After the recent fraudulent Zimbabwean Presidential election - in which Mugabe was defeated - he simply refused to vacate the office of President or surrender control of the government. He demanded a unity government, and got it. He creates Zimbabwean "law" on the fly, and ignores international law and the needs of his people.
By now you may be wondering, "What does this have to do with any behavioral relationship to Barack Obama?"
1. At the time of Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, slightly over 45% of Zimbabwe's arable land was owned by approximately 6,000 (primarily white) farmers. Zimbabwe was productive and considered to be the "breadbasket of southern Africa". Zimbabwe was a major exporter of agricultural products. Life was good, and it remained so for the better part of 20 years.
2. In April of 2000 the Zimbabwean constitution was amended in such a fashion as to allow the government to confiscate white-owned land for redistribution to black "farmers" without compensation. Almost immediately, self-styled "war veterans" began invading white-owned farms. Those owners who did not leave voluntarily were often tortured and sometimes killed. One was forced to drink diesel fuel as a form of torture.
3. This redistribution of wealth resulted in the collapse of Zimbabwe's agricultural industry, and the destruction of their economy. Zimbabwe now depends on food programs and support from outside to feed its population. A third of the population depends on food supplies from the World Food Program to avoid starvation.
4. The daily inflation rate in Zimbabwe is slightly more than 98%, which equates to an annual inflation rate of 516 quintillion per cent. Based on my comments in my most recent previous posting I understand how difficult that number is to really understand. It is the number 516 followed by 18 zeros. This figure is totally unfathomable as a concept of quantity or anything else! It is, most probably, the highest inflation rate any sovereign country in the world has ever experienced.
5. Mugabe said the unity government will continue to push for a majority stake of "at least 51%" in companies operating in Zimbabwe, to be controlled by dubiously qualified indigenous black Africans ... including banks. (Nationalization of private businesses by government. How is this different than our Democratically-controlled government becoming invested in the banking, housing, and the automotive industries?) Mugabe was recently quoted as having said:
"In the areas of mining, agriculture and manufacturing, a methodological and systematic identification of areas in which the state and indigenous entrepreneurs can participate, is being carried out, in line with the Indigenous and Empowerment Act."
The nationalization law, which Mugabe signed a few days before last March's general election, seeks to transfer majority control of foreign firms, including mines and banks, to indigenous blacks.
In the long term, no good has come to Zimbabwe as a nation - or the average Zimbabwean - as a result of Robert Mugabe's reign. If you observe Zimbabwe, you will get a preview of what's in store for the USA if our current government does not change its course. (My guess is that Mugabe, as with most dictators, suffers from a serious mental illness ... similar to a Messianic Complex.)
There is the remote possibility that I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)