Tuesday, September 30, 2008

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.

Sunday, September 28, 2008



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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

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

Sunday, September 21, 2008

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?

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

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).

Monday, September 15, 2008

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.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

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.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

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.