- Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother.
- At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single mothers.
- A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Deadbeat dads are destroying the economy
It appears that if we could find a way to improve values in our nation that the economy would improve, and our jail cells and prisons would empty out. Ann Coulter provides the following information:
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Do you want Obama to succeed or fail????
A friend of mine asked me the other day, do you want Barrack Obama's economic stimulus package to succeed. I said: "It depends."
He said, "What do you mean , 'It depends.' Either you want America to succeed or you do not."
So I had to explain myself. It went something like this. Now, if you hear other republicans -- or conservatives -- explaining this, you can expect the media to take certain parts of it out of contexts. So, bear with me here.
I want America to succeed. I want my children to live in a prosperous and opportunistic world where they know if you work hard you can be anything you want to be. If you educate yourself and work hard, you can become as rich as you want.
However, if we punish the rich by taxing them, that pretty much takes away the incentive to be rich. If you make the hard working upper class no more powerful than the middle class person, you will take away any incentive for people to become rich.
Of course, based on his campaign, we really don't know what Obama is going to do. If he endorses an economic package similar to Ronald Reagan where their are tax cuts to stimulate growth. If he endorses a package that puts faith in the people to solve their own problems, then, yes, I do want him to succeed.
However, if he endorses an economic stimulus package that calls for tax cuts, even tax cuts on the rich; if he proposes to take money from the earners and give them to the people who are poor; if his final plan calls for building more unproven government programs like the New Deal;
if he proposes using government to solve people's problems, and thus growing the beast that is government, then I hope he fails.
I am a person, who at the core, believes that the people have the ability to solve the economic problems that ail us, and the government will only make those problems worse. You can look back at Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and the first seven years of W's administration to see what happens when you trust the American people to solve problems.
On the contrary, you can see what happens when you trust government to solve problems by looking at FDR and the New Deal. If you look back in history, you will see that the economy, that the depression, was far worse in 1936 after six years of the New Deal's big government programs, than it was in 1929. Unemployment was way higher in 1936 than it was in 1929.
I do not want that to happen again. I believe, as Reagan did, that if you have a crisis, and you want to stimulate an economy, you have two choices. One, you can trust the government to spend this money as FDR did with his failed New Deal. Or, two, you can trust the American people.
History has shown that the people are fully capable at solving the problems that ail us and the government has failed every time it has happened. And, therefore, I do not -- at the core of my heart -- believe that the government should be used to end this recession.
Likewise, I believe that adding programs such as Universal Health care and redistributing of wealth as Obama proposes, will create a more socialistic -- stagnant -- economy like that of Europe. Where there really is no incentive to save and invest in capitol. There is no incentive to start new businesses.
Speaking of this, why is it that people start new business? Why is it that people and businesses put so much time and effort into inventing and discovering new products? It is because they want to get rich. And, with government barriers in the way, such opportunities will be stymied.
And that is why I do not want Obama to succeed if his plan to save the economy is by using government. Sure I might be better off in the short term with his middle class tax cut. But, in the long run, I believe it is not about me. I believe that country should come before me. As McCain said, "Country first."
Democrats, liberals, want to create an America where the economy may be slower, where the poor may be trapped in poverty because of welfare. They want this because the more victims, the greater the power of democrats. Democrats want to give things to people to buy their votes. Democrats "feel your pain." Democrats tell you that you don't need to worry about paying your bills" when they are in power.
Essentially, they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. I hear a lot of people saying things like this since Obama was elected: "Now that Obama is president I don't have to worry about paying my bills. I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage."
Um, is that the message we want to send to our kids, that if you vote for a liberal president you don't have to go out and work hard and create a living for yourself. That you don't have to be competitive if you want to get rich because you can't get rich anyway. That you might as well sit at home on your couch and let the rich make the money, pay the taxes, and give that money to the government so the government can give it to you.
Personally, I believe that if we are going to give money to anyone it should be back to the people. I think that the people know far better, and are far more capable, of knowing how and where to spend that money than any government program.
And that is the core difference between liberalism's economic views and conservatism. And I pray, from the bottom of my heart, that republicans to not fall to democrats and vote for Obama's economic stimulus package that doesn't have the needed tax cuts that will in turn empower the people.
I, at the core of my heart, do not believe that government is the answer to solving our problems, and, most important, I do not want the kind of America that would result. I do not want my children to be dependent on the government. I do not want them to have the attitude that I don't have to work as hard to make a living. Why? Because that attitude is the attitude of failure.
It has failed every time it has been tried by individual businessmen. It has been failed every time it has been tried in the history of the world. And therefore, again, if Obama's plan is for a larger government, I hope he fails and fails big time.
He said, "What do you mean , 'It depends.' Either you want America to succeed or you do not."
So I had to explain myself. It went something like this. Now, if you hear other republicans -- or conservatives -- explaining this, you can expect the media to take certain parts of it out of contexts. So, bear with me here.
I want America to succeed. I want my children to live in a prosperous and opportunistic world where they know if you work hard you can be anything you want to be. If you educate yourself and work hard, you can become as rich as you want.
However, if we punish the rich by taxing them, that pretty much takes away the incentive to be rich. If you make the hard working upper class no more powerful than the middle class person, you will take away any incentive for people to become rich.
Of course, based on his campaign, we really don't know what Obama is going to do. If he endorses an economic package similar to Ronald Reagan where their are tax cuts to stimulate growth. If he endorses a package that puts faith in the people to solve their own problems, then, yes, I do want him to succeed.
However, if he endorses an economic stimulus package that calls for tax cuts, even tax cuts on the rich; if he proposes to take money from the earners and give them to the people who are poor; if his final plan calls for building more unproven government programs like the New Deal;
if he proposes using government to solve people's problems, and thus growing the beast that is government, then I hope he fails.
I am a person, who at the core, believes that the people have the ability to solve the economic problems that ail us, and the government will only make those problems worse. You can look back at Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and the first seven years of W's administration to see what happens when you trust the American people to solve problems.
On the contrary, you can see what happens when you trust government to solve problems by looking at FDR and the New Deal. If you look back in history, you will see that the economy, that the depression, was far worse in 1936 after six years of the New Deal's big government programs, than it was in 1929. Unemployment was way higher in 1936 than it was in 1929.
I do not want that to happen again. I believe, as Reagan did, that if you have a crisis, and you want to stimulate an economy, you have two choices. One, you can trust the government to spend this money as FDR did with his failed New Deal. Or, two, you can trust the American people.
History has shown that the people are fully capable at solving the problems that ail us and the government has failed every time it has happened. And, therefore, I do not -- at the core of my heart -- believe that the government should be used to end this recession.
Likewise, I believe that adding programs such as Universal Health care and redistributing of wealth as Obama proposes, will create a more socialistic -- stagnant -- economy like that of Europe. Where there really is no incentive to save and invest in capitol. There is no incentive to start new businesses.
Speaking of this, why is it that people start new business? Why is it that people and businesses put so much time and effort into inventing and discovering new products? It is because they want to get rich. And, with government barriers in the way, such opportunities will be stymied.
And that is why I do not want Obama to succeed if his plan to save the economy is by using government. Sure I might be better off in the short term with his middle class tax cut. But, in the long run, I believe it is not about me. I believe that country should come before me. As McCain said, "Country first."
Democrats, liberals, want to create an America where the economy may be slower, where the poor may be trapped in poverty because of welfare. They want this because the more victims, the greater the power of democrats. Democrats want to give things to people to buy their votes. Democrats "feel your pain." Democrats tell you that you don't need to worry about paying your bills" when they are in power.
Essentially, they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. I hear a lot of people saying things like this since Obama was elected: "Now that Obama is president I don't have to worry about paying my bills. I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage."
Um, is that the message we want to send to our kids, that if you vote for a liberal president you don't have to go out and work hard and create a living for yourself. That you don't have to be competitive if you want to get rich because you can't get rich anyway. That you might as well sit at home on your couch and let the rich make the money, pay the taxes, and give that money to the government so the government can give it to you.
Personally, I believe that if we are going to give money to anyone it should be back to the people. I think that the people know far better, and are far more capable, of knowing how and where to spend that money than any government program.
And that is the core difference between liberalism's economic views and conservatism. And I pray, from the bottom of my heart, that republicans to not fall to democrats and vote for Obama's economic stimulus package that doesn't have the needed tax cuts that will in turn empower the people.
I, at the core of my heart, do not believe that government is the answer to solving our problems, and, most important, I do not want the kind of America that would result. I do not want my children to be dependent on the government. I do not want them to have the attitude that I don't have to work as hard to make a living. Why? Because that attitude is the attitude of failure.
It has failed every time it has been tried by individual businessmen. It has been failed every time it has been tried in the history of the world. And therefore, again, if Obama's plan is for a larger government, I hope he fails and fails big time.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Robin Hood has failed for 500 plus years
So, a plummer says to Obama, "You're not going to raise my taxes, are you? I'm trying to run a business here?" Paraphrasing.
And Obama said, "I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
This plummer was on Neil Cavuto over on the Fox News Network. Neil asked, " Joe, did Obama win you over?"
The plummer said, "No, the answer actually scared me even more."
Cavuto said, "How so?"
The plummer said, "He said he wants to distribute wealth, and I mean that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. It's not the government to decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. That's not the American dream."
He's a very smart plummer, that's what he is. He's been really reading up on his economics. I don't think Obama expected that. Here's a blue collar plummer, supposed to be a democrat, and he backs Obama against a wall.
This guy is upset that Obama thinks it is up to the government to decide that a "plummer" or any other American worker makes to much money and has to "share" the excess money with those poorer than he.
This is called Robin Hood, redistribution of wealth. It's socialism.
Obama says the most money a person can make before he will be taxed is $250,000. That's his cap. Once you make $250,000, you make enough money that you will be forced under an Obama administration to "share" your money with the poor.
It doesn't matter than you will not be able to get any richer. It does not matter that you may be forced to cut jobs because you need to pay those taxes, because most people won't be able to see those jobs because they aren't there.
Sure there will be unemployed people, but the more unemployed people there are the better off democrats and liberals are, because that means more victims. The more victims, the easier it is to sell our government programs that we want to initiate under the Obama administration.
So remember, if you make more than $250,000, you are going to have a tough time saving or making any extra, because Obama will take it from you.
And, case in point, there will be less of an incentive for people to go out and try to make that kind of money, because what will be the point -- Uncle Sam will just take it.
So who suffers. The people who will suffer the most are the poor because they will be out of a job AND out the money that Obama promised because it's not there. It's not there because redistribution plans do not work.
Think of it this way. The story of Robin hood is how old? It started in medieval times; about the 15th century. So that means the story of Robin Hood is about 500 years old.
People have been taking from the rich and giving to the poor for 500 years. So if Robin Hood politics was going to work, don't you think it would have worked, say, 500 years ago.
No. The truth is, Robin Hood politics (socialism) has been tried over and over and over again for 500 years. It's been tried ad nauseum. And today's liberal party continues to want to try it. It has NEVER worked.
Isn't it about time we gave up on Robin Hood politics? Why the hell do we keep trying it? Why don't we do something that takes some brains to think up, like supply side economics; like Reaganomics; like conservatism?
I'm so sick and tired of people wanting to try these feel good economic plans that never work. Yet, here we go again with Obama's Robin Hood plan. It's Robin Hood round 500,681. Why do we give Robin Hood so many mulligans?
I suppose we'll have to wait until it fails again for people to again see the light. And then conservatism will again come to save the day. And then people will forget again so Robin Hood politics can show his ugly head again.
That's life. It reminds me of ECCLESIASTES from the bible. He was the one who said that we humans never learn. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh." And yet the new generation forgets all that the previous generation learned.
" What lies beyond the grave is outside the scope of human knowledge. When he is dead, man shall never return to see into whose hands his estate falls." He will never know that we are repeating his same errors.
Yet he is not here to set us free of our mistakes. The same mistakes our fathers already learned, tried to share with us, yet we forgoteth so we are doomed to repeateth.
And Obama said, "I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
This plummer was on Neil Cavuto over on the Fox News Network. Neil asked, " Joe, did Obama win you over?"
The plummer said, "No, the answer actually scared me even more."
Cavuto said, "How so?"
The plummer said, "He said he wants to distribute wealth, and I mean that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. It's not the government to decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. That's not the American dream."
He's a very smart plummer, that's what he is. He's been really reading up on his economics. I don't think Obama expected that. Here's a blue collar plummer, supposed to be a democrat, and he backs Obama against a wall.
This guy is upset that Obama thinks it is up to the government to decide that a "plummer" or any other American worker makes to much money and has to "share" the excess money with those poorer than he.
This is called Robin Hood, redistribution of wealth. It's socialism.
Obama says the most money a person can make before he will be taxed is $250,000. That's his cap. Once you make $250,000, you make enough money that you will be forced under an Obama administration to "share" your money with the poor.
It doesn't matter than you will not be able to get any richer. It does not matter that you may be forced to cut jobs because you need to pay those taxes, because most people won't be able to see those jobs because they aren't there.
Sure there will be unemployed people, but the more unemployed people there are the better off democrats and liberals are, because that means more victims. The more victims, the easier it is to sell our government programs that we want to initiate under the Obama administration.
So remember, if you make more than $250,000, you are going to have a tough time saving or making any extra, because Obama will take it from you.
And, case in point, there will be less of an incentive for people to go out and try to make that kind of money, because what will be the point -- Uncle Sam will just take it.
So who suffers. The people who will suffer the most are the poor because they will be out of a job AND out the money that Obama promised because it's not there. It's not there because redistribution plans do not work.
Think of it this way. The story of Robin hood is how old? It started in medieval times; about the 15th century. So that means the story of Robin Hood is about 500 years old.
People have been taking from the rich and giving to the poor for 500 years. So if Robin Hood politics was going to work, don't you think it would have worked, say, 500 years ago.
No. The truth is, Robin Hood politics (socialism) has been tried over and over and over again for 500 years. It's been tried ad nauseum. And today's liberal party continues to want to try it. It has NEVER worked.
Isn't it about time we gave up on Robin Hood politics? Why the hell do we keep trying it? Why don't we do something that takes some brains to think up, like supply side economics; like Reaganomics; like conservatism?
I'm so sick and tired of people wanting to try these feel good economic plans that never work. Yet, here we go again with Obama's Robin Hood plan. It's Robin Hood round 500,681. Why do we give Robin Hood so many mulligans?
I suppose we'll have to wait until it fails again for people to again see the light. And then conservatism will again come to save the day. And then people will forget again so Robin Hood politics can show his ugly head again.
That's life. It reminds me of ECCLESIASTES from the bible. He was the one who said that we humans never learn. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh." And yet the new generation forgets all that the previous generation learned.
" What lies beyond the grave is outside the scope of human knowledge. When he is dead, man shall never return to see into whose hands his estate falls." He will never know that we are repeating his same errors.
Yet he is not here to set us free of our mistakes. The same mistakes our fathers already learned, tried to share with us, yet we forgoteth so we are doomed to repeateth.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama lets slip his Robin Hood plan
I've written before on this blog that the goal of liberalism is to create a socialistic government in the United States and end capitalism as we know it. There are liberal culprits not just in the democratic party, but on the republican side too.
But republicans at least try to be fair to the people who earned their money. Most democrats, on the other hand, make no secret of the fact that people who earn their money "owe it to the rest of the country to share the wealth."
Obama even went as far to say to one man that "It is your God-given duty to share your wealth."
He said it again the other day to an Ohio Plumber:
It's no secret that Obama wants to take the money of those who earned it and give it to the poor, who didn't earn it. That, if I am not mistaken from my many economics classes, is what we call Socialsim.
Robin Hood Economics is socialism. It does not work. It fails. It does not stimulate the economy. It traps the poor in poverty. It provides no incentive for the poor to work.
Heck, when you punish the achievers, the people who are winning in this country, you punish the poor. That's what conservatives have been saying all along and nobody listens until a liberal (remember Jimmy Carter) comes in and destroys the economy with Robin Hood policies.
Note: You cannot take from the rich and give to the poor and expect the economy to prosper. It has never happened and will never happen.
It's funny, because Obama said the other day that we are right now in the worst economic disaster since the Great depression.
John Rassmussen said earlier today that this is not the worst economic disaster since the Great depression. It is the worst economic disaster since Jimmy Carter.
And, as I wrote before, if Obama gets elected, the economy will only get worse, as Jimmy Carter's liberal policies made the economy worse.
But republicans at least try to be fair to the people who earned their money. Most democrats, on the other hand, make no secret of the fact that people who earn their money "owe it to the rest of the country to share the wealth."
Obama even went as far to say to one man that "It is your God-given duty to share your wealth."
He said it again the other day to an Ohio Plumber:
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.You see, when Obama is caught off guard, his true beliefs slip out. When he is debating McCain, and when he is giving his prepared speeches, he sticks to his memorized talking points. But when he is caught off guard, his true liberal feelings are revealedAfter Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard ... I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
It's no secret that Obama wants to take the money of those who earned it and give it to the poor, who didn't earn it. That, if I am not mistaken from my many economics classes, is what we call Socialsim.
Robin Hood Economics is socialism. It does not work. It fails. It does not stimulate the economy. It traps the poor in poverty. It provides no incentive for the poor to work.
Heck, when you punish the achievers, the people who are winning in this country, you punish the poor. That's what conservatives have been saying all along and nobody listens until a liberal (remember Jimmy Carter) comes in and destroys the economy with Robin Hood policies.
Note: You cannot take from the rich and give to the poor and expect the economy to prosper. It has never happened and will never happen.
It's funny, because Obama said the other day that we are right now in the worst economic disaster since the Great depression.
John Rassmussen said earlier today that this is not the worst economic disaster since the Great depression. It is the worst economic disaster since Jimmy Carter.
And, as I wrote before, if Obama gets elected, the economy will only get worse, as Jimmy Carter's liberal policies made the economy worse.
Thugs on same page as libs on economic crisis
I'm reading the news today and learn that the leaders of Iran say what liberal democrats in this nation think but will not say.
Iran's ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "the school of Marxism has collapsed and the sound of the West's cracking liberal democracy is now being heard."
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "it is the end of capitalism."
Liberals have been trying to end capitalism in the United States for decades by imposing regulation on businesses, high taxes, and government programs to take from the rich and give to the poor -- a form of socialism.
Liberals have been trying to change our capitalistic system to a socialistic system similar to what they have over in Europe. Yet, what they don't say, is that many people in Europe are becoming more conservative because they are tired of socialism.
Now, keep in mind that the democratic party is saturated with liberalism, but there are many liberals on the republican side too, hence all the increased federal spending the past eight years under republican leadership.
They are tired of taxes being so high they now have limited freedom. Sure they have free health care, but they have to pay for it with high taxes. Thus, the more taxes, the less freedom the people have to do anything else with their money.
Yes, it surely does sound good to take from the rich and give to the poor, but when capitalism has made us the truly greatest nation in the history of the world, when capitalism in its purest form has made many rich people richer and poor people richer at the same time, it still feels better to believe in liberalism.
The claims that liberalism works and socialism works and capitalism is unfair is absolutely not true. And, likewise, (and again) the claim that this financial crisis is in anyway occurring because of a failure of capitalism is itself a farce.
The truth, again, is this financial crisis is the direct result of too much government imposition on the markets. In a true capitalistic system, if people cannot afford loans they will not be given loans. But, as per Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, banks were forced to make such frivolous loans.
And the result was the housing bubble with its inflated housing prices, and now the bubble bursting because all those people, after all, could not afford to pay their loans.
So don't listen to the like of liberals and socialists and Iranian totalitarian thugs who will continue to chime that socialism is a failed system. It is not. The truth is, the current crisis is proof again that socialism has failed and capitalism wins again.
It's scary that one of the main political parties is not only on the same page with terrorist, totalitarian thugs when it comes to the War on Terror is also on the same page economically.
Thus, another reason not to vote for liberalism this November 4, 2008.
Iran's ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "the school of Marxism has collapsed and the sound of the West's cracking liberal democracy is now being heard."
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "it is the end of capitalism."
Liberals have been trying to end capitalism in the United States for decades by imposing regulation on businesses, high taxes, and government programs to take from the rich and give to the poor -- a form of socialism.
Liberals have been trying to change our capitalistic system to a socialistic system similar to what they have over in Europe. Yet, what they don't say, is that many people in Europe are becoming more conservative because they are tired of socialism.
Now, keep in mind that the democratic party is saturated with liberalism, but there are many liberals on the republican side too, hence all the increased federal spending the past eight years under republican leadership.
They are tired of taxes being so high they now have limited freedom. Sure they have free health care, but they have to pay for it with high taxes. Thus, the more taxes, the less freedom the people have to do anything else with their money.
Yes, it surely does sound good to take from the rich and give to the poor, but when capitalism has made us the truly greatest nation in the history of the world, when capitalism in its purest form has made many rich people richer and poor people richer at the same time, it still feels better to believe in liberalism.
The claims that liberalism works and socialism works and capitalism is unfair is absolutely not true. And, likewise, (and again) the claim that this financial crisis is in anyway occurring because of a failure of capitalism is itself a farce.
The truth, again, is this financial crisis is the direct result of too much government imposition on the markets. In a true capitalistic system, if people cannot afford loans they will not be given loans. But, as per Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, banks were forced to make such frivolous loans.
And the result was the housing bubble with its inflated housing prices, and now the bubble bursting because all those people, after all, could not afford to pay their loans.
So don't listen to the like of liberals and socialists and Iranian totalitarian thugs who will continue to chime that socialism is a failed system. It is not. The truth is, the current crisis is proof again that socialism has failed and capitalism wins again.
It's scary that one of the main political parties is not only on the same page with terrorist, totalitarian thugs when it comes to the War on Terror is also on the same page economically.
Thus, another reason not to vote for liberalism this November 4, 2008.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Government causes depressions not lack thereof
Other than this blog, I try to not discuss politics. However, sometimes people say things that are so insane they warrant a response.
Like while I was talking with a friend of mine named Bob this past weekend at hunting camp. He was trying to convince me that the Great Depression happened due to lack of government intervention and that FDR was needed to end it.
I had to correct him. The Great Depression did not happen because of not enough government intervention, it happened because of TOO MUCH government intervention. If the government had left the markets fend for themselves, it probably would have been a short depression.
"Oh, come on," Bob mocked me. "You're full of it."
"Listen," I said. "There were several depressions in the 1800s and all of them were less than three years in length. And while some experts wanted the President to intervene, they all refused. Because of that, these depressions were short lived."
"Oh, come on, he mocked me. "You're full of it."
"Nope. Hoover decided to help the poor by raising taxes. What this did was take more money out of the pockets of people who already didn't have any. So a recession turned into a depression. Then FDR came into office, and he took even more money out of people's pockets.
"So, while so many people thought FDR was helping, he was actually making things worse. He was a good talker. He was a good talker the way Obama is a good talker."
My friend laughed at me.
"The Great Depression did not end because of FDR, it did not end because of WWII. In fact, the depression didn't end until after WWII was over."
"You're full of it."
"No. If the depression was over during the war, why were people forced to ration. Rationing isn't something you tell people to do when a depression is over."
He looked at me with his lips puckered. By this time the rest of the guys at camp are circling around us eager to chime in.
"So this current financial crisis was not caused by president Bush," I added. "We are not going to let teachers and the media tell this lie. The reason this financial crisis occurred was because of too much government intervention.
My other friend Rich chimed in, "It started out as a noble idea during the Carter and Clinton administrations. They wanted to make sure every person could get into a home. So, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to buy out loans to people they knew couldn't afford it, this skyrocketed the number of houses sold. This, in turn, caused the value of homes to artificially skyrocket.
I said, "Bush Warned about this. McCain warned about this. Liberal democrats like Chris Dodd (who benefited the most from this financially and politically) refused to admit there was a problem. And now it's men like Dodd -- who caused this problem in the first place -- who we are letting solve this crisis.
Rich said, "The only reason Bush wants to do this liberal $700 trillion bailout program is because he knows the media will once again convince America that he is the blame for this crisis, and he has to be seen as doing something."
"But," Bob said, "We had to bail out Wall Street. We couldn't allow all these businesses to go under."
Rich said, "During the Clinton recession of 2000," I said, "Nobody said anything about helping all those 300 plus banks then that went out of business. How does anybody learn if we keep bailing out failing businesses. If you fail at running a business, why should we reward you?"
Bob said, "We can't let the economy crash."
Rich said, "The economy has survived far worse than this. It is a resilient economy, the most resilient ever. While liberals see the economy as sucky, conservatives tend to have a more optimistic outlook on it. Hence McCain saying, 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound.'
I said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound and will continue to be sound SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO SOMETHING STUPID TO SCREW IT UP."
Political discussions at camp are all in good fun for me at least. One of my friends, Rich, thinks it is a battle of good versus evil. I understand his POV, but I'd never go there.
Unlike my other conservative friends, I'm not a partisan and am willing to compromise, so long as compromise doesn't mean giving up on my principles.
While this discussion was all in good fun, a part of me is irritated that one of my friends is brainwashed. Some day, somehow, something I say he's going to mull over and over in his mind, and some day the light will go on.
That's why it's important to never give up. Yet, to have fun in the process. Because if you get mad, you lose.
Like while I was talking with a friend of mine named Bob this past weekend at hunting camp. He was trying to convince me that the Great Depression happened due to lack of government intervention and that FDR was needed to end it.
I had to correct him. The Great Depression did not happen because of not enough government intervention, it happened because of TOO MUCH government intervention. If the government had left the markets fend for themselves, it probably would have been a short depression.
"Oh, come on," Bob mocked me. "You're full of it."
"Listen," I said. "There were several depressions in the 1800s and all of them were less than three years in length. And while some experts wanted the President to intervene, they all refused. Because of that, these depressions were short lived."
"Oh, come on, he mocked me. "You're full of it."
"Nope. Hoover decided to help the poor by raising taxes. What this did was take more money out of the pockets of people who already didn't have any. So a recession turned into a depression. Then FDR came into office, and he took even more money out of people's pockets.
"So, while so many people thought FDR was helping, he was actually making things worse. He was a good talker. He was a good talker the way Obama is a good talker."
My friend laughed at me.
"The Great Depression did not end because of FDR, it did not end because of WWII. In fact, the depression didn't end until after WWII was over."
"You're full of it."
"No. If the depression was over during the war, why were people forced to ration. Rationing isn't something you tell people to do when a depression is over."
He looked at me with his lips puckered. By this time the rest of the guys at camp are circling around us eager to chime in.
"So this current financial crisis was not caused by president Bush," I added. "We are not going to let teachers and the media tell this lie. The reason this financial crisis occurred was because of too much government intervention.
My other friend Rich chimed in, "It started out as a noble idea during the Carter and Clinton administrations. They wanted to make sure every person could get into a home. So, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to buy out loans to people they knew couldn't afford it, this skyrocketed the number of houses sold. This, in turn, caused the value of homes to artificially skyrocket.
I said, "Bush Warned about this. McCain warned about this. Liberal democrats like Chris Dodd (who benefited the most from this financially and politically) refused to admit there was a problem. And now it's men like Dodd -- who caused this problem in the first place -- who we are letting solve this crisis.
Rich said, "The only reason Bush wants to do this liberal $700 trillion bailout program is because he knows the media will once again convince America that he is the blame for this crisis, and he has to be seen as doing something."
"But," Bob said, "We had to bail out Wall Street. We couldn't allow all these businesses to go under."
Rich said, "During the Clinton recession of 2000," I said, "Nobody said anything about helping all those 300 plus banks then that went out of business. How does anybody learn if we keep bailing out failing businesses. If you fail at running a business, why should we reward you?"
Bob said, "We can't let the economy crash."
Rich said, "The economy has survived far worse than this. It is a resilient economy, the most resilient ever. While liberals see the economy as sucky, conservatives tend to have a more optimistic outlook on it. Hence McCain saying, 'the fundamentals of the economy are sound.'
I said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound and will continue to be sound SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO SOMETHING STUPID TO SCREW IT UP."
Political discussions at camp are all in good fun for me at least. One of my friends, Rich, thinks it is a battle of good versus evil. I understand his POV, but I'd never go there.
Unlike my other conservative friends, I'm not a partisan and am willing to compromise, so long as compromise doesn't mean giving up on my principles.
While this discussion was all in good fun, a part of me is irritated that one of my friends is brainwashed. Some day, somehow, something I say he's going to mull over and over in his mind, and some day the light will go on.
That's why it's important to never give up. Yet, to have fun in the process. Because if you get mad, you lose.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Media fails to educate on financial crisis
This is the year journalism died. All over the media is spending all day talking about the head of Iran, and refusing to tell Americans the truth about the fallout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It started way back during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it easier for poor people to get loans so they could afford to own a house, so he created regulations to make it so. Most banks didn't take this too seriously.
It wasn't until the Clinton administration that the Fed decided to pressure banks to give out these loans. "If you don't give loans to people who can't afford it, we are going to make your life a living hell."
So then all these people were put into homes that they knew they couldn't afford. And the result was the cost of houses skyrocketed, and thus the housing bubble.
Finally the day came when the bills were do, and all these people who shouldn't have been given loans in the first place were forced to give back their homes through foreclosure. And the housing bubble burst.
And then came the day that the banks collapsed because of of all the fraudulent loans, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
The Fed -- the very people who caused this crisis -- now thinks it can solve this crisis with more government and more regulations. It seems odd to me that the fed wants to solve a problem of too much regulation with even more regulations. It's like putting oil on a fire.
Instead of taking a problem that was caused by a socialistic problem and trying to solve it by Socializing the Financial system, why not take the opposite approach and allow the market to solve itself?
I say why not, because it was government intervention that ultimately turned the panic of 1929 into the great depression. As I reported before, all the recessions and depressions prior to the Great Depression were short lived. The reason was because prior to 1929, Washington believed it was best to allow the market to fix itself, and it always did fix itself.
Yet, because Washington does not learn from history, it is doomed to repeat it. So now we have the very same people who caused this problem trying to solve it.
Not only has the media NOT told you what I just wrote here, but they have not told you who is really at fault here. It is not George W. Bush, it is liberals. It's Chris Dodd. It's Barny Frank. It's Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter.
Early on in the Bush Administration, it was in 2003 I believe, the White House Warned that a crisis was coming if Congress didn't' to something. Yet liberals in Congress balked.
Barny Frank said, in 2003 following the Bush warning, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people in my judgment exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."
But the media does not tell us this now. There is no analysis of the news in the media. They no longer do their job.
And that's why if we do not do our own investigating we will not learn the truth, particularly about the present financial crisis.
And that, my friends, is the thought of the day.
It started way back during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it easier for poor people to get loans so they could afford to own a house, so he created regulations to make it so. Most banks didn't take this too seriously.
It wasn't until the Clinton administration that the Fed decided to pressure banks to give out these loans. "If you don't give loans to people who can't afford it, we are going to make your life a living hell."
So then all these people were put into homes that they knew they couldn't afford. And the result was the cost of houses skyrocketed, and thus the housing bubble.
Finally the day came when the bills were do, and all these people who shouldn't have been given loans in the first place were forced to give back their homes through foreclosure. And the housing bubble burst.
And then came the day that the banks collapsed because of of all the fraudulent loans, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
The Fed -- the very people who caused this crisis -- now thinks it can solve this crisis with more government and more regulations. It seems odd to me that the fed wants to solve a problem of too much regulation with even more regulations. It's like putting oil on a fire.
Instead of taking a problem that was caused by a socialistic problem and trying to solve it by Socializing the Financial system, why not take the opposite approach and allow the market to solve itself?
I say why not, because it was government intervention that ultimately turned the panic of 1929 into the great depression. As I reported before, all the recessions and depressions prior to the Great Depression were short lived. The reason was because prior to 1929, Washington believed it was best to allow the market to fix itself, and it always did fix itself.
Yet, because Washington does not learn from history, it is doomed to repeat it. So now we have the very same people who caused this problem trying to solve it.
Not only has the media NOT told you what I just wrote here, but they have not told you who is really at fault here. It is not George W. Bush, it is liberals. It's Chris Dodd. It's Barny Frank. It's Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter.
Early on in the Bush Administration, it was in 2003 I believe, the White House Warned that a crisis was coming if Congress didn't' to something. Yet liberals in Congress balked.
Barny Frank said, in 2003 following the Bush warning, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people in my judgment exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."
But the media does not tell us this now. There is no analysis of the news in the media. They no longer do their job.
And that's why if we do not do our own investigating we will not learn the truth, particularly about the present financial crisis.
And that, my friends, is the thought of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)