1. How long before people making fun of Rep. Johnson are labeled as racist, hateful, or any of the other words currently being associated with tea partiers?
2. How long before this becomes a story featured in the national media?
3. How long did the Congressman have to prepare for this line of questioning?
4. How long until I stop thinking this is hilarious?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
(Answers: 1. Not long, 2. Never, 3. Not enough, evidently, 4. Never)
Friday, April 2, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Wealthier
To paraphrase a number of similar quotes :"The rich have to go to work everyday to stay rich, but the wealthy do not."
(I think it was Chris Rock who even had a bit on how Shaquille O'Neal is 'rich,' but the owner of the team signing his paychecks is 'wealthy.')
The "rich getting richer" drum has been played at nauseum by the media elite, so we will leave that half of the quote alone.
However, based on the second half of the quote, it would seem that the poor are now getting wealthier. Without meaningful contribution to the economy or tax rolls, the millions of subsidized poor in America are actually improving their lifestyle without having to go to work everyday.
All they had to do was vote.
(I think it was Chris Rock who even had a bit on how Shaquille O'Neal is 'rich,' but the owner of the team signing his paychecks is 'wealthy.')
The "rich getting richer" drum has been played at nauseum by the media elite, so we will leave that half of the quote alone.
However, based on the second half of the quote, it would seem that the poor are now getting wealthier. Without meaningful contribution to the economy or tax rolls, the millions of subsidized poor in America are actually improving their lifestyle without having to go to work everyday.
All they had to do was vote.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wealth Allocation
So I'm watching a recent episode of the show "Survivor" featuring all-stars of past seasons...
My attention was caught when two men formed an alliance to make it to the final two. The only logic for their alliance was the fact that both had actually won the show in the past and the $1M prize money. They summized that if either made it to the final vote against another competitor who had not won, then the other castaways would vote for the person who had not won regarless of their performance in the show. The past winners simply didn't 'need' the money.
I'm not sure if it is human nature or liberal dogma to be against "the rich getting richer," but it sure is a microcosm of what is going on in our country.
My attention was caught when two men formed an alliance to make it to the final two. The only logic for their alliance was the fact that both had actually won the show in the past and the $1M prize money. They summized that if either made it to the final vote against another competitor who had not won, then the other castaways would vote for the person who had not won regarless of their performance in the show. The past winners simply didn't 'need' the money.
I'm not sure if it is human nature or liberal dogma to be against "the rich getting richer," but it sure is a microcosm of what is going on in our country.
Monday, March 22, 2010
One Benefit of Communism
North Korea is evidently prosecuting an American for illegally entering the country, and there are many more examples of socialist or semi-socialist countries strictly enforcing their borders to keep outsiders from enjoying the benefits of taxpaying citizens.
Maybe that is one benefit we can get out of this mess.
Maybe that is one benefit we can get out of this mess.
Friday, March 19, 2010
More Census
Earlier this week, I was startled to see vast numbers of plastic signs stuck in the ground advertising the Census lining the road on my way to work. This is a rural area with a high percentage of minority residents. It seemed that there was one in front of every yard and a couple more at every intersection.
It occured to me that whoever put those signs in the ground is a "community organizer."
I don't think that it is any surpise that more affluent neighborhoods do not have such 'organizers' placing signs in their yard 'reminding' them to fill out their census.
It is also not a real secret that the census has turned into a political power grab, which is used for far more than documenting the population. This is the information used for defining political districts and, importantly, government funding. (makes it a little scary that President Obama wanted the Executive Branch to control the census, huh?)
Having accurate data is an important part of our economy. Businesses use census data in planning future expansion or predicting future demand. In fact, there is an abundance of valid reasons to know how many and where people live.
It just seems a little counterintuitive for the producers of the country to fund, through tax dollars, the hand-holding of the non-producers in order to fill their census, which will be used to allocate the producer's tax dollars back to subsidize the lifestyles and communities of the non-producers. (I always wanted to write a really long run-on sentence without getting red marks on my paper)
It occured to me that whoever put those signs in the ground is a "community organizer."
I don't think that it is any surpise that more affluent neighborhoods do not have such 'organizers' placing signs in their yard 'reminding' them to fill out their census.
It is also not a real secret that the census has turned into a political power grab, which is used for far more than documenting the population. This is the information used for defining political districts and, importantly, government funding. (makes it a little scary that President Obama wanted the Executive Branch to control the census, huh?)
Having accurate data is an important part of our economy. Businesses use census data in planning future expansion or predicting future demand. In fact, there is an abundance of valid reasons to know how many and where people live.
It just seems a little counterintuitive for the producers of the country to fund, through tax dollars, the hand-holding of the non-producers in order to fill their census, which will be used to allocate the producer's tax dollars back to subsidize the lifestyles and communities of the non-producers. (I always wanted to write a really long run-on sentence without getting red marks on my paper)
Again...
On the front page of yesterday's AJC.com, the main story was about Fulton County schools laying off 1,000 workers. One of the 5 or 6 stories on the side of the front page outlined Fulton County authorities seizing $1.2M worth of Marijuana. The suspected perpetrators are being kept in the Fulton County Jail.
Many of us can figure out the math, but our state politicians cannot even manage to allow alcohol sales on Sundays.
Many of us can figure out the math, but our state politicians cannot even manage to allow alcohol sales on Sundays.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Debt to China = Brilliant (a ramble of thoughts)
As usual, a few critical facts:
$900 Billion - estimate of U.S. Treasury Securities held by China (roughly 7% of U.S. National Debt)
$338 Billion - Goods and Services imported from China to the U.S. in 2008
$71.5 Billion - Goods and Services imported from the U.S. to China in 2008
-$266.3 Billion - U.S. trade deficit with China
$4.9 Trillion - China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
$14.2 Trillion - United States GDP
Looking at these numbers, a few things stand out. The idea that China holds all the U.S. debt is not really that accurate. However, it is nearly a trillion dollars, and that is quite significant to anyone but a politician.
With the dollar's decline and hesitation of the U.S. economy, why would China continue to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities in such large quantities? Clearly, it is because of the $266 billion dollar per year trade surplus that China has with the U.S.
For most of the past decade, this trade imbalance has grown at a tremendous rate. The U.S. had a $68 billion trade deficit with China in 1999 and a $266 billion deficit in 2008.
In spite of a few spats of increased tariffs on Chinese or U.S. exports over the past decade, (think about things like tires and chickens) China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has created a platform for general fair play in terms of trade agreements.
The main complaint against China's trade policy is that they artificially suppress the value of their currency (yuan) in order to create favorable trade conditions for their exports. That policy is really much more hurtful to China's competitors in Asia than to the U.S., because China is primarily a supplier of raw goods which will be sold as finished products by U.S. companies. (iron, steel, timber, plastics)
Thus, in its simplest form, it is not that hard to see the business relationship here. The U.S. allows trade policies which result in a huge trade imbalance with China. In return, China buys U.S. Treasury Securities in large quantities and creates a vote of confidence on the world market for U.S. debt.
Here is where we get hypothetical:
The idea that any of these policies can be confined to the economic world is ridiculous. The United States is the clear front-runner in the world's largest economy race, and China is quickly closing on Japan as the second largest.
Militarily, China's economy will provide a platform for more political influence throughout Asia and around the world. Their military of active, reserve, and para-military totals just over 7 million, just over twice the size of the United States.
Thus, China represents the largest potential military threat to displace the U.S. as the world's only 'superpower.'
Based on the history of global relations, China's military ambition will inevitably clash with the pseudo world empire of the U.S. It could be over such issues as Taiwan, Iran, or simply a dispute over natural resources.
To what scale will this battle be?
In addition to the fear of catastrophe of the world's largest two military powers clashing, (i.e. cold war) perhaps the debt of 1-2 trillion dollars is enough to keep cooler heads to prevail. I would think that declaring war would void the debt. If not the declaration, then the treaty agreement surely would.
In either case, it seems to our advantage to owe our enemy money than the other way around.
My point is that there are many intricacies of this type of foreign policy, and I hope somebody with some sense is steering the ship.
$900 Billion - estimate of U.S. Treasury Securities held by China (roughly 7% of U.S. National Debt)
$338 Billion - Goods and Services imported from China to the U.S. in 2008
$71.5 Billion - Goods and Services imported from the U.S. to China in 2008
-$266.3 Billion - U.S. trade deficit with China
$4.9 Trillion - China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
$14.2 Trillion - United States GDP
Looking at these numbers, a few things stand out. The idea that China holds all the U.S. debt is not really that accurate. However, it is nearly a trillion dollars, and that is quite significant to anyone but a politician.
With the dollar's decline and hesitation of the U.S. economy, why would China continue to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities in such large quantities? Clearly, it is because of the $266 billion dollar per year trade surplus that China has with the U.S.
For most of the past decade, this trade imbalance has grown at a tremendous rate. The U.S. had a $68 billion trade deficit with China in 1999 and a $266 billion deficit in 2008.
In spite of a few spats of increased tariffs on Chinese or U.S. exports over the past decade, (think about things like tires and chickens) China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has created a platform for general fair play in terms of trade agreements.
The main complaint against China's trade policy is that they artificially suppress the value of their currency (yuan) in order to create favorable trade conditions for their exports. That policy is really much more hurtful to China's competitors in Asia than to the U.S., because China is primarily a supplier of raw goods which will be sold as finished products by U.S. companies. (iron, steel, timber, plastics)
Thus, in its simplest form, it is not that hard to see the business relationship here. The U.S. allows trade policies which result in a huge trade imbalance with China. In return, China buys U.S. Treasury Securities in large quantities and creates a vote of confidence on the world market for U.S. debt.
Here is where we get hypothetical:
The idea that any of these policies can be confined to the economic world is ridiculous. The United States is the clear front-runner in the world's largest economy race, and China is quickly closing on Japan as the second largest.
Militarily, China's economy will provide a platform for more political influence throughout Asia and around the world. Their military of active, reserve, and para-military totals just over 7 million, just over twice the size of the United States.
Thus, China represents the largest potential military threat to displace the U.S. as the world's only 'superpower.'
Based on the history of global relations, China's military ambition will inevitably clash with the pseudo world empire of the U.S. It could be over such issues as Taiwan, Iran, or simply a dispute over natural resources.
To what scale will this battle be?
In addition to the fear of catastrophe of the world's largest two military powers clashing, (i.e. cold war) perhaps the debt of 1-2 trillion dollars is enough to keep cooler heads to prevail. I would think that declaring war would void the debt. If not the declaration, then the treaty agreement surely would.
In either case, it seems to our advantage to owe our enemy money than the other way around.
My point is that there are many intricacies of this type of foreign policy, and I hope somebody with some sense is steering the ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)