.jpg)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Capitol Hill at its finest today
Interesting day today for all of you folks that have been paying attention to this AIG 'bonus' scandal that has CEO Edward Liddy on the hotseat today in front of our fearless idealogues in Congress. Having been in the car for most of the day, I have been tuned into the interogation, and I have come away with a few thoughts and opinions that may differ greatly from that of the general public...which is par for the course my friends.
For one, it appears that Tim Geithner, our esteemed Secretary of the Treasury, knew in advance about the decision to offer and pay out these bonuses to the AIG team. In fact, Geithner was the head of the NY Federal Reserve Bank prior to being nominated and confirmed (unfortunately) to the current post. The NY Fed was the central overseer in the AIG bailout process, and according to Liddy they were intimately involved in all decision making activities. So, the same man who now renounces AIG for their bonus payouts was not only privy to this info months ago but could have actually prevented it in the first place. But what else would you expect from a guy who cheats on his taxes and now heads up the IRS? One word comes to mind, and its incompetence. But then again, that is not correct either. He is likely very competent. A better word would be arrogance, maybe elitist, definitely hypocrite, etc. So let's scratch that one-word attempt, as there are too many labels that fit this guy.
Another thing I love ('love' actually meaning despise, for those of you who don't catch my sarcasm so easily in written terms) is the arrogance of our Congressional leaders to sit up there and grandstand before the cameras and pontificate to AIG and the American public about how to run their business. Let's see, our national debt is what?... 9 trillion, give or take a few zeros. And what else... oh, right, our Congress got us into this mess as much as any company did by pushing legislation that interfered with free market principles (Community Reinvestment Act ring a bell?). Barney Frank et al sit there and ridicule Liddy while taking no responsibility for the vast impact they had in creating this mess in the first place. Frank went so far as to demand a list of names of all employees who received these bonuses to ensure that they get paid back! Is he going to pay back all of us taxpayers for the pork he has redistributed to his constituents? Not likely. And its the same concept. Taking money from the American taxpayers and giving it to someone else. Hell, if Frank can do it, why can't AIG? Nothing in the contract with the NY Fed said they couldn't pay these bonuses. I'd venture a wild guess to say that AIG has done a better job of cleaning itself up the past eight months than any pork spending project Frank has taken. Its utter hypocrisy at the grandest level, and its events like this charade that continually convince me that we need a wave of new representatives at all levels that work for the people rather than for themselves.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Weekend Rants
The DOW is up 10% this week. Good news. Its the biggest gains for this down market since last year, so that is a good sign.... for now. We'll see what happens next week. Its beyond my comprehension to understand the volatility of an entire market based upon one or two news releases. In this case, it was CitiBank and Bank of America reporting first quarter profits so far this year. Who knows what info will come out next week. I'm not holding my breath.
It looks like the majority of the American people are finally coming around to seeing our federal government for what it is becoming... a giant, entitlement system. According to a Fox News poll, 77% of Americans believe that Obama DOES IN FACT believe in bigger government, despite his strong statements that he does not. Furthermore, 56% of those polled think our government is too big and that we should be paying lower taxes for a smaller government. This brings up an interesting irony. Most Americans want smaller government, but we elected a man to the presidency and gave more power in Congress to leaders who openly seek to empower our national government to levels we have never seen in our republic. My belief is that most voters were so turned off by Bush and his policies that they wanted something different, no matter what the outcome. And now we are going to have to reap the consequences for the balance of this term. Hopefully, this majority of voters will wise up and begin electing fiscally responsible leaders into office in November of 2010 that can bring our government back down to reality.
Here is some bad news... It looks like the economic woes we are facing will have a negative impact on the number of employees wasting time and money over the next few weeks watching the NCAA basketball tournament. March Madness usually results in billions of dollars of lost productivity, according to the watch dogs who research this, but they say that workers this year will likely be too scared of losing of their jobs to play hooky for a few days to enjoy the best two weeks of sports that the US has to offer. I look at it this way, though. Unemployment is at a decade-long high, so there will be more of us glued to our flat screen HDTV's that we can't afford anymore sitting on our couches soaking up the action. Might as well enjoy it while we can. Gotta love this country.
It looks like the majority of the American people are finally coming around to seeing our federal government for what it is becoming... a giant, entitlement system. According to a Fox News poll, 77% of Americans believe that Obama DOES IN FACT believe in bigger government, despite his strong statements that he does not. Furthermore, 56% of those polled think our government is too big and that we should be paying lower taxes for a smaller government. This brings up an interesting irony. Most Americans want smaller government, but we elected a man to the presidency and gave more power in Congress to leaders who openly seek to empower our national government to levels we have never seen in our republic. My belief is that most voters were so turned off by Bush and his policies that they wanted something different, no matter what the outcome. And now we are going to have to reap the consequences for the balance of this term. Hopefully, this majority of voters will wise up and begin electing fiscally responsible leaders into office in November of 2010 that can bring our government back down to reality.
Here is some bad news... It looks like the economic woes we are facing will have a negative impact on the number of employees wasting time and money over the next few weeks watching the NCAA basketball tournament. March Madness usually results in billions of dollars of lost productivity, according to the watch dogs who research this, but they say that workers this year will likely be too scared of losing of their jobs to play hooky for a few days to enjoy the best two weeks of sports that the US has to offer. I look at it this way, though. Unemployment is at a decade-long high, so there will be more of us glued to our flat screen HDTV's that we can't afford anymore sitting on our couches soaking up the action. Might as well enjoy it while we can. Gotta love this country.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Typical
Listening to Herman Cain filling in for Neal Boortz this past Friday, and I wanted to share a nice little story about the conversation he had with a caller. A man called in and asked why guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have not come out freaking out about Obama's tax plans for those earning over $250,000 a year. He said that if these guys are not moaning and groaning about having to pay more in taxes, then why is everybody freaking out about this little thing called 'redistribution of wealth?' The great thing is, this guy asks this question without any hint of sarcasm. He really believed that there was nothing wrong with his belief?
Luckily, Mr. Cain was on top of his game as usual, and proceeded to explain to the guy the ramifications of taxing our top producers beyond the current %'s. He mentioned that over 40% of Americans earning over 250k are run small businesses. They are not actors, athletes, or entertainers. They are the men and women that create jobs for the rest of us, and produce the goods and services that we use on a daily basis. I'd like to find someone that supports this tax policy to debate the merits of our tax system and how it works. I cannot find any logic whatsoever behind the new policies. We are heading even closer towards a system that completely spits in the face of individualism and success and rewards those who accomplish nothing. And the saddest irony of the situation is that these bottom-feeders that expect our taxpayers to fork over even more of our hard-earned income cannot understand the consequences of the proposed tax policies. We have crippled those even further who need opportunity rather than a handout. Keep 'em on the government dole, and keep 'em in the voting booths.
Let's create a system that rewards achievement and presents greater opportunity for more of us to get our share of the pie by EARNING IT. Let's support policies that promote economic growth through sustainable growth. Let's build our economy in a way that those who are 'underachievers' have the chance to get in the game through hard work and education, rather than through entitlements and stealing through excessive taxation from those who have done their part. Keep this up and we aren't going to have any achievers left to take from.
Luckily, Mr. Cain was on top of his game as usual, and proceeded to explain to the guy the ramifications of taxing our top producers beyond the current %'s. He mentioned that over 40% of Americans earning over 250k are run small businesses. They are not actors, athletes, or entertainers. They are the men and women that create jobs for the rest of us, and produce the goods and services that we use on a daily basis. I'd like to find someone that supports this tax policy to debate the merits of our tax system and how it works. I cannot find any logic whatsoever behind the new policies. We are heading even closer towards a system that completely spits in the face of individualism and success and rewards those who accomplish nothing. And the saddest irony of the situation is that these bottom-feeders that expect our taxpayers to fork over even more of our hard-earned income cannot understand the consequences of the proposed tax policies. We have crippled those even further who need opportunity rather than a handout. Keep 'em on the government dole, and keep 'em in the voting booths.
Let's create a system that rewards achievement and presents greater opportunity for more of us to get our share of the pie by EARNING IT. Let's support policies that promote economic growth through sustainable growth. Let's build our economy in a way that those who are 'underachievers' have the chance to get in the game through hard work and education, rather than through entitlements and stealing through excessive taxation from those who have done their part. Keep this up and we aren't going to have any achievers left to take from.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Kyoto Treaty and Global Warming Hypocrites
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/the_heat_is_on_true_believers.html
The above link is an article written in the New York Times about the hypocrisy and two-faced lying surrounding the majority of the member nations that signed the Kyoto Accord a few years back. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the treaty was designed to curb global greenhouse emissions and make our environment cleaner, or at least that is what they will tell you. In reality ( or at least my take on reality) the treaty was designed to slow down economic growth in this little place called the United States of America. GW opposed it, and our Senate voted 95-0 against it when Clinton was still in office. When countries like China and India would be exempt from the same standards that the US would face, why would they agree to it? If you don't feel like clicking the link and reading the article, the best quote is this...
The author of the article, NY Times writer Debra Saunders, asked the UN Secretary General why China was exempt, he stated, "that America has a "historical responsibility" to cut emissions, while China and India 'have their own positions.' Like the Kyoto crowd, Ban emitted more political ideology than science."
Let's just be honest people. We all need to be responsible with our actions, and do as much to conserve as is economically feasible. But the 'Green' movement is political, not environmental. Our environmentalists are really socialist wolves wrapped in the sheep's clothing of those concerned about our natural habitat. They want to weaken American influence. If they really cared about our environment, wouldn't they want to require that the largest producer of CO2 emissions, China, have just as stringent rules as we do? And to make matters worse, a large number of participating nations aren't even close to meeting their required greenhouse gas reductions. But who am I to question this movement? I'm just a heartless American capitalist polluter.
The above link is an article written in the New York Times about the hypocrisy and two-faced lying surrounding the majority of the member nations that signed the Kyoto Accord a few years back. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the treaty was designed to curb global greenhouse emissions and make our environment cleaner, or at least that is what they will tell you. In reality ( or at least my take on reality) the treaty was designed to slow down economic growth in this little place called the United States of America. GW opposed it, and our Senate voted 95-0 against it when Clinton was still in office. When countries like China and India would be exempt from the same standards that the US would face, why would they agree to it? If you don't feel like clicking the link and reading the article, the best quote is this...
The author of the article, NY Times writer Debra Saunders, asked the UN Secretary General why China was exempt, he stated, "that America has a "historical responsibility" to cut emissions, while China and India 'have their own positions.' Like the Kyoto crowd, Ban emitted more political ideology than science."
Let's just be honest people. We all need to be responsible with our actions, and do as much to conserve as is economically feasible. But the 'Green' movement is political, not environmental. Our environmentalists are really socialist wolves wrapped in the sheep's clothing of those concerned about our natural habitat. They want to weaken American influence. If they really cared about our environment, wouldn't they want to require that the largest producer of CO2 emissions, China, have just as stringent rules as we do? And to make matters worse, a large number of participating nations aren't even close to meeting their required greenhouse gas reductions. But who am I to question this movement? I'm just a heartless American capitalist polluter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)