Back from sabbatical

You'll have to forgive my absence, I had to take some time to think.

I looked at the change.gov site, there's quite a lot there. The one thing that troubled me though, was what I didn't see. Nothing. Not one single program involves free market systems or no intervention. It's all government throwing money at everything to force change and regulate people's behavior, not government standing aside and occasionally giving incentives to encourage entrepreneurs with new ideas to move forward. People need to wake up and realise that in order for this economy to work, some businesses need to fail occasionally so they can learn from their mistakes or branch in new directions. We havent allowed that to happen with many large corporations, and now it has come back to bite us in the ass. And we're turning right around and repeating the same mistake we have for 50 years, turning to the government and pleading for it to bail us out and magically make everything better. If we don't take our economy back from government this will continue until we reach total collapse. And hopefully no sane person wants that.

Why cap and trade is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas

From factcheck.org

Cap-and-trade programs are designed to decrease the use of fossil fuels by requiring that industries (including power companies) cap their total carbon dioxide emissions. Companies would receive credits for CO2 emissions; any company that managed to stay under its quota would be permitted to sell its additional credits. The cap (or total number of credits issued) would shrink over time. Obama has proposed auctioning the initial credits, a policy that he says will generate revenue that can be invested into alternative energy research.

Eric Roston, of the nonpartisan Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, says that any cap-and-trade program will raise the cost of electricity. As he told FactCheck.org, "The goal of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels more expensive, which will make new technologies competitive with them." And since Obama would be auctioning credits, Roston says that it's "not unreasonable" to label Obama's program a tax politically.

Cap and trade sounds like a greenie's dream, but it is a nightmare waiting to happen to all of us. This is an artificial price gouge by the government to punish people for needing energy in an attempt to force them to accept "green energies". It does absolutely no good, and instead hurts everybody, especially those unlucky or not rich enough to be able to afford enough of these 'credits' to cover expected and unexpected emissions. So the cost to produce electricity goes up, which makes the cost to make things goes up, which means the cost for you to buy stuff goes up, meanwhile the need for energy can go nowhere but up, while the government slowly tightens the noose by issuing fewer credits at higher prices with higher fines. Oh, and meanwhile the government is pushing energies that are still in developement and require large amounts of energy to implement. You know, what I'd love to see is one of them screw up and set it low enough that human beings fall under this wonderful new system, it'll be hilarious to watch people get pissed off that they are now having to buy an indulgence from the almighty government for the right to breathe. Another example would be forcing someone to switch to the Model T by shooting their horses, not by touting the benefits of the Model T.

Oh, and this caught my attention. The study that says teens who watch sex on TV are more likely to get pregnant. Umm, why can't it be the other way around? Oh, right, cause that means its the teens' fault and not the TV, and we all know teens are children and therefore not expected to have any responsibility for their own actions. Hooray for anti-logic.

How our economy currently works

Entrepeneur starts business, borrows money.
Entrepeneur hires workers, buys materials, buys equipment, sells goods/services.
Employees spend money on other goods/services/investments.
Business makes money, spends money on expansion, spends money on investments.
Business grows, hires more workers, buys more stuff, sells more goods/services.
Employees spend money on other goods/services/investments.
Business reaches plateau, expands to new areas.
Business may become corporations, or split into smaller businesses, or go international.

All throughout this process government is taking money from them and their employees, taxing everything they both buy and sell, telling them what they can and can't do, forcing policy decisions that may lead to total collapse years down the road with the assurance that the government will never let that happen, when they are doing well people hate them and want to take more from them, and when they are hurting nobody fucking cares, and they are constantly portrayed as monolithic evil moneygrubbers by politicians and filmmakers.

Meanwhile some people can sit on their ass all day and wait for their magical government checks to show up to pay for their home, their food, their kids, their clothes, they go to emergency rooms for minor things (which runs up your medical bill), and since they don't have a job they can get lots of extra government money to pay for nearly anything they want.

Great setup we have, yes?

The mortgage bubble

Found this decent article on how this bubble happened.

The financial crisis blame game

A few points they missed were the laws passed that forced loaners to give a percentage to people they knew couldn't pay it back if they wanted to expand or merge, the laws that were passed that gave organisations like ACORN free reign to intimidate banks into making those loans, and 50 years of Hollywood and school history books shoving the "evil old rich guy" and "evil corporation" stereotypes down our throats hasn't helped.

What should make this really infuriating is that the government already gives out massive amounts of your money for low income housing programs. If they had simply expanded those programs (in which case we'd just be complaining about yet another bankrupt govt program) rather than make private banks act with a "wink, wink" that the govt will step in should they fail, our economy would be lower but in much better shape rather than fluctuating wildly in an attempt to equalize. We are in the perfect position right now to restructure and come out of this dip stronger than ever, but first we have to learn from the mistakes we've ignored several times now.

Reserved for debate 3

There is also the government mandate that banks must make subprime loans to grow that caused this.

Ending tax breaks equals higher tax overhead.

Government should never act on current market swings. It doesn't help now and it hurts 4 years from now when the market catches up to policy

that 95% tax cut figure is bull. It completely ignores the fact that higher tax equals higher end cost for everything you buy.

Go McCain. About time you fought back.

What, a Democrat used the word responsible?!?

Dammit, I've had it with the Bushbashing. Great comeback by McCain.

Bullshit on the coal thing

That was a stupid move. You never say 100% on anything because it leaves you absolutely no wiggle room.

What economic crisis? It's a fucking hiccup that has been blown completely out of proportion by people wanting handouts.

NOT THE WORST CRISIS SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! FUCK!!!

Biden is a professional politician. Palin is a regular person.

Why can't Palin be president, that would be cool.

Yeah, you really don't want to say unilateral renegotiation when allies are involved

10 years? How, with no nuke, no drill, no coal, nothing but alternatives we would kill our economy DEAD in the rush to transition. D-E-D Dead.

I love how Obama's so for human rights yet he's ignored/opposed the human rights we've given in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere by opposing the war.

I love how nobody ever notes how all this fucking around with healthcare and punishing the system is why few people go into the medical profession. Docters pay shitloads in insurance and have to spend most of their time filling out paperwork, and one unhappy patient or one slipup and their insurance skyrockets.

McCain's plan also encourages competition, which lowers prices.

Let it unravel, buy your own fucking healthcare, if those corporations are so evil why are we so dependant on them for our healthcare?

Dammit, fuck Roe v Wade, its a pointless fucking case that by this point the overturning of which would mean absolutely jack shit. It wouldn't ban abortion, and too many people in this country are for it or don't care about it for it to be banned in very many states.

20 minutes in, and I swear, this entire fucking election can be summed up like this
"Hatez teh croporationz, tey iz evil"
"Bush did it!"

And I thought public school was bad.

The new depression? More like a hiccup perceived as a heart attack

This is all a war of perception. If everybody stopped panicking, took control of their own finances and their own future (this includes putting aside some money for emergencies, something about an ounce of preparation or something like that...), and stopped letting Congress and organisations like ACORN fuck around with our economy for political gain (seriously, they are professional extortionists. Most of the 'professionally poor' in this country are richer than I am because of them, and they don't have to produce anything in return for all the handouts they get), the free market would adjust and keep going. What we seem to forget is that 777 drop is like every other drop in US history, we have recovered, and we have done better since then.

Woohoo, The market is down. Start shopping for cheap stocks and buy them, and hold onto those you have until the market goes back up. Rinse, Repeat, Profit.

I'm currently analyzing the debate, will have more to say once the migraine stops.

Bush Lays Burden On Congress

Democrats are backing away from it because they don't want to be on record--particularly this close to Election Day--as putting taxpayers on the hook to bail out what is being described as the excesses of Wall Street.

The entire drama of the past several days has many Democrats, normally in favor of government intervention, voicing skepticism of the need for a government rescue; it's also made a Republican administration claim government action is necessary

I think the Dems are afraid of this bill because they haven't had enough time to bury it under earmarks and "entitlements", and Bush likes it, so it must be bad >D

What the hell is wrong with you people, wake up!

I've had it with all the "It's all the corporation's fault" bullshit. We should be blaming the government for creating this problem.

They were the ones that mandated banks in the 30s and 60s to give a percentage of their loans to people everyone knew couldn't pay them back (if they didn't the government would freeze their growth, which is a death sentence for any business)

They were the ones who have kept propping up these failing policies rather than letting them fail early when the impact would be minimal (look at social security and medicare, they are nothing more than a cash cow for other projects to the government)

They were the ones who created an entitlement-dependant voting base through years of socialist New-Deal policy (which ensures many getting those loans intentionally stay poor because they get lots of money for doing absolutely nothing except vote and make bad decisions)

They are one of only two professions where they can know jack shit about something, and everybody believes them when they say they are an expert (and then listen when they blame someone else for their own screwups, which is actually enhanced by the average voter's abysmal attention span)

And now the government is covering up their failed policies through blaming "corporations", wasting $800,000,000,000 of your tax dollars, and pushing an even larger and more wasteful government. I would say to get off your asses and do something about it, but with a 14% approval rating and an 85% re-election rate, its pretty obvious many of you have no intention of doing so.

Common Sense 9/9 - You and I don't get a government guarantee
Common Sense 9/15 - When the cure is worse than the disease
Common Sense 9/18 - What good do hearings really do?

It bears repeating

I've provided a permalink to the full article, but this one bears repeating

MYTH #5:
The "wealthiest 1 percent" of taxpayers are just millionaires who pay fewer taxes every year.
FACT:
Most are actually small businesses, which are assuming more of the tax burden every year.
Politicians often deride policies aiding the "wealthiest 1 percent" of Americans. Reporters paint pictures of fat cat millionaires eating lobster in their cavernous mansions, indifferent to the poverty their wealth undoubtedly caused.

The facts, however, paint a far different picture. Of the 750,000 taxpayers who pay the highest marginal tax rate of 35 percent--the top 0.5 percent of all taxpayers--more than two-thirds report small-business income.10 While corporations pay the corporate income tax, most small businesses pay the individual income tax. These small businesses are generally concentrated in the higher income tax brackets.

So when politicians call for higher taxes on the top 1 percent, they are really proposing higher taxes on small businesses. Prior to the 2003 tax cut, these small businesses paid a higher top tax rate (38.6 percent) than most large corporations (35 percent). Yet businesses with fewer than 100 employees represent 98 percent of all businesses and create 36 percent of all jobs. They are the engines of new job creation, and taxing them out of business only eliminates jobs.

The wealthiest 1 percent--again, mostly small businesses--are not undertaxed. In 2000, they earned 21 percent of the income and paid 37 percent of all individual income taxes. Businesses also bear nearly all the cost of the 15.3 percent payroll tax, including the half that is removed from their employees' paychecks.

By comparison, the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers earn 13 percent of all income and pay just 4 percent of all individual income taxes--and that percentage is dropping rapidly.11

Overall, the intense focus on "income distribution" is misguided, because:

It assumes that the economy is a fixed pie and that one group's wealth causes another group's poverty. In reality, the economy is expanding, and all income classes are getting wealthier. Some incomes will grow faster than others, yet the vast majority of Americans enjoy rising incomes throughout their lifetimes. Even America's "poor" would be considered middle-class in Europe and upper-class almost anywhere else. By contrast, socialist countries (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union) have achieved relative income equality--everyone is equally poor.

People often move across income ranges. Much of the bottom half consists of younger, unmarried workers who move into the top quarter as they marry and enter their peak earning years before dropping back down after retirement.12 Accordingly, lifetime incomes (and taxes paid) are much more equal than one-time "income distribution" snapshots would show.

The term "income distribution" implies that the nation's wealth simply falls from the sky and that Washington has a duty to distribute this bounty fairly. But wealth and income are not "distributed," they are created. When Microsoft turns sand into computer chips, it is creating wealth where none existed. A farmer who grows a field of corn is creating wealth. These workers and businesses should have the right to keep much of the wealth they create.

Combine the effects of this myth with the fact stated in the previous point that business taxes are an overhead expense built into the final price of a good or service, and you have a nightmare waiting to happen if taxes are raised. Corporations and small businesses will raise prices on goods or cut costs (jobs are one of those costs), unemployment and prices will rise while wages stay the same, which prompts the government to 'help' by taking more money from businesses and expanding the 'social programs' already eating 42% of the federal budget. Imagine over $1,000,000,000,000 extra dollars making money in our economy if we dropped those damn things. We'd also force the moochers in our society to actually contribute, which means competition and innovation increases and everyone enjoys a better lifestyle (not caviar and wine, but better).

Government, why can't we just fix it?

Many people have come up with great ideas on how to make government better serve the people over the years (many more have pushed the same crappy ones that fail over and over again, but they never seem to learn). So why is government a bloated, lethargic mass of bureaucracy and waste? Quite simply because in order to be successful in politics, you have to play one group of blind fanatics against the "Other", while not pissing off the mass of people that normally just don't give a damn (but still vote) into lynching you. It has always been this way, and it always will. It's basic human nature.

And unfortunately, most of the people with the truly great ideas are idealists (or just plain cynical, take your pick) who find it very difficult to convince anybody that their plan will work in the long run when these guys over here have a quick fix solution that will only cost us our future (but that's the future, and we'll have come up with a quick fix for that by then). We need to relearn how to balance the short term fixes with the long term solutions, and in doing that we will rediscover how we have made this country great; through personal responsibility, hard work, and dedication, not by throwing our money into a black hole of siphoned funds and false promises.

Why government "aid" actually causes more need for said "aid"

The Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Nationalization

I'm sure you've heard the old adage "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for life", right?

Far too often the government gives in to emotional displays (or just plain greed) and starts meddling, thinking that will magically fix it. That never fixes anything, only creates more problems (which amazingly is never the government's fault. EVER. You are just too stupid to understand their grand machinations and those evil, evil corporations and rich people are to blame. Mwahaha).

These loan companies were created because of the huge government push to make loans available to everybody, even those who no sane person would ever loan money to (we're not talking about people who genuinely need a bit of help, we're talking people who you know can not and will not ever pay you back). And now the government has stepped in to "save" these companies, which now means you are paying for someone else's bad decision. You are paying for the government's meddling, and removing all responsibility on the part of not only the loaners, but the loanees as well. And when someone knows that they can get everything they want "free", they have no reason to take initiative and better themselves.

A great example of this is Louisiana. For decades the state government told its people "Don't worry, we'll take care of you". Then 2 days before Katrina hit, they literally said "You are on your own". Mississippi and Florida got hit as well, but because their people were not wholly dependent on the government, it took much less time and money to rebuild. We are still spending and rebuilding in Louisiana, and Texas is about to get hit by Ike. Let's see how hard we can hit back. And then we can go fishing.

Common sense. So rare it's a fucking superpower >D

In particular pay attention to part 3 4:40-6:00

We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

best. fucking. line. ever.

Companies do not pay taxes. What they do is simply add that expense to their overhead costs in determining the final price of the item or service to be sold. If the taxes go up or they are penalised for being successful by the imposition of the so-called "windfall profits tax" (a bullshit excuse for the government to legally say "Give me your wallet"), they simply add those new costs to overhead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/

Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.

I want you to notice something very important that nobody seems to notice when they get furious over the big numbers the "Evil Corporations" are making (kudos to the author for actually noting this)

Sold $1,500,000,000,000
Profit $125,000,000,000
125,000,000,000 / 1,500,000,000,000 = .083333333333 (8.33%)

This quite simply means that 91.66% of the money coming into the corporation is going into overhead. This includes over 25% of that overhead being handed over to the federal government, BEFORE any taxes that added to the cost of the equipment bought by the oil company (since each time money changes hands in return for goods or services, the government gets part of it).

So the government makes 3-5 times what the people actually doing the work makes in profit, and they want more.

What I wanna know is, can I impose a windfall profits tax on the government? I'd settle for .001%. Doesn't seem like a whole lot until you notice the federal revenue for 2008 is $2,521,175,000,000. Do the math, that's $25,211,750.

ENSLAVED BY MONEY I

Read this article on health insurance and the middle class...
Most of the uninsured are suffering, because they do not contribute enough in terms of jobs or profits to deserve health insurance in the first place. Even those that do, they still have to pay some of the expenses out of their own pockets. Is it difficult to figure out why? Considering that even the "middle-class" is suffering or in other words the majority of American people, there seems to be at least one formula that needs to be eliminated.
This is Scott Hauge, president and owner of a San Francisco insurance brokerage firm:"A lot of small businesses can't afford the insurance premiums and still want to cover major catastrophes," he says. "But everybody is looking at how they can reduce their costs."
This is what casting director says:"My mother works for the post office and has the best health insurance""But my father's costs came in at $150,000 -- and they covered just $120,000. So the insurance company picked up a huge portion of it, but they still have a $30,000 bill, which they're paying from retirement funds."
In other words the value of money is more important than the value of human life in some people's minds. Ultimately, small businesses or big corporations exist in the environment where the goal is to maximize profits and minimize costs. This can be understood but should not be accepted. There is no perfect national healthcare system. We've heard about the higher taxes (we'll cover that), long lines, low wages in hospitals, lack of options, government control, and the transition might not be easy. However, the ideology of universal healthcare is still going to be stronger since it's the one that seeks to eliminate influence of money on people regardless in what or what kind of spectrum they exist.

Dueling Tax Plans

There has been a lot of talk about the candidate's tax plans, but let's get one thing straight: neither of them will appreciably decrease spending. The political will just isn't there, unless the Republicans manage to get power of Congress with a large number of fiscal conservatives (which I doubt because of the rise of the social conservatives). Anyway, on to the numbers:

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

Compare this to the fact that the national debt has grown from $5.674 trillion in 2000 to $9.008 in 2007. Where's the plan to pay off the $3 trillion that we have accumulated in the last 7 years? I guess they'd rather buy more toys than pay the bills.

The myth that higher taxes bring the government more money

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/08/obama_i_will_raise_taxes

Its election time, and oh so predictably come the clamors from the Democrat party about raising taxes to really stick it to those evil, evil CEOs and "Rich People" (an intentionally vague moniker designed to make people irrationally envy/hate those who prove that anybody can be successful in America despite the government's constant interference, but thats a rant for a different time). But does raising taxes truly bring in the money needed to magically make all those wonderful but "underfunded" (read, pilfered) social programs break even? While raising taxes does bring in an immediate influx of cash into the black hole that is the National Budget, in the long run they miss out on all that wonderful growth that money could have generated in the long run. To demonstrate, lets look at a very simple math problem:

Lets say we have an initial capital of $5000 with both a 20% and 80% tax rate and a yearly 5x growth over a period of 5 years.

Gross Capital - Tax rate = Net Capital x Growth = Gross capital

80% tax rate: 5000 - 4000 = 1000 x 5 = 5000 - 4000 = 1000 ad infinitum
Yearly intake of $4000 for a 5 year intake of only $20,000 for the government

20% tax rate: 5000 - 1000 = 4000 x 5 = 20000 - 4000 = 16000 x 5 = 80000 - 16000 = 64000 x 5 = 320000 - 64000 = 256000 x 5 = 1280000 - 256000 = 1024000
1000 + 4000 + 16000 + 64000 + 256000 = $341,000 intake over a 5 year period

As one can clearly see, a lower tax rate generates more taxable income over a long period of time as opposed to a higher tax rate. I encourage you to try out your own numbers, and to check out these pages for more info (and cool charts)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2095.cfm