Spending Discipline

When normal families find themselves overextended. They start to cut expenses. When a business is losing money, they cut expenses in an effort to put the company back on a stable financial footing. When a Government spends more than they have, just give yourself a new credit card.

We the people are now on the hook for $16 trillion. Say it with me. Sixteen Trillion dollars.

An additional Trillion, that would be in addition to the Two Trillion they are getting and spending from taxes, wasn't enough to get the Government through the end of the year according to President Obama. A Thousand Thousand Million wasn't enough to get past December.

That is the little fact that is lost in the discussions with the public. That they are spending MORE than they are bringing in is well known. HOW much they are getting in is never discussed.

So what are our options now? The economy isn't improving despite the claims of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. What more can the Government spend to turn it around? That's the problem. Washington is operating on a what is known as a Keynes theory. This theory dates back to 1936. Think about that for a moment. Name another theory on any subject that has survived since 1936. Naval Warfare, in 1936 Naval Theory was that the Battleship would rule the day forever. That theory was dominant until 1941. Land Warfare. The lessons of World War One dictated that the Defensive was preferred. That reinforced structures would be able to defend indefinitely and only the fool went on the offensive. The fact was that Maneuver was again coming dominant in warfare.

In psychiatry, the Doctors were sill regularly using electro shock therapy. It turns out if you fry a patients brain, they no longer have psychotic episodes. Cigarettes were considered healthy. Minorities were considered inferior. I could go on for quite a while about all the things we believed we knew to be absolutely true based upon theories. Things that have been subsequently demonstrated to absolutely untrue time and time again.

Yet, no one dares to question the wisdom of the Keynes theory because that is absolutely true. Despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be working, and hasn't for some time. Like a cult of idol worshipers though, the economic experts declare we are simply not faithful enough to this god Keynes. Or we simply didn't understand the whole Keynes.

Under Keynes theories Governments are supposed to spend money we don't have, in order to save capitalism. Yet the application of this theory has caused the Government to literally overspend the entire Gross National Product. We now owe more money that the entire nation produced in all goods and services for 2010. That means that even if every single dollar was taxed at 100% by the Federal Government, we could not pay our debts within a single year.

That doesn't include a single dollar for anything else but our debts.

But the theory isn't working. By Keynes theories, after spending trillions of dollars we don't have, unemployment should be essentially zero. It isn't, because Government's that hire all the people are not capitalist, but socialist. Those economies, called top down economies, don't work. We've seen the collapse of how many of them? The Soviet Union is the most famous example.

So the economy is stalling, and people are now expecting it to fail. They are girding themselves for another Great Depression, pulling money out of the market, and putting it into insured savings accounts. Banks are getting nervous about that, and have started charging fees to keep the money. Why would they get nervous? Because they're expected to pay interest, and they can't get any money to pay the interest much less the insurance premiums.

At what point do people start taking the money from the bank, and burying it in the back yard, or stuffing it under the mattress?

Government is blamed because Government sets themselves up as the solution to all problems. That they aren't the solution has been demonstrated time and time again, but we keep turning to them for solutions and they keep coming up with more of the same failed policies. This recession as it slips into Depression should be the death of Keynes theories once and for all. Yet far too many will continue to worship at the alter of Keynes, because it's easier to do that than enforce spending discipline on our elected leaders. We don't want to be prioritized out of whatever Federal Program that we depend on individually. Be it a job, a field, a payment, medicare, or the list goes on and on.

As the economy collapses, and the Government goes bankrupt, some economist somewhere will be shouting at us on the news that we didn't go far enough with the Keynes theories. Or we were not faithful enough to his brilliance. We were simply unfaithful in the eyes of the Keynes god.

Debt Ceiling

Limits exist everywhere. It's interesting that this month the debate has been over a single limit, and how we as a world, not just a nation, can't afford to let it stop us. CAFE standards give us a bottom limit of how many miles we get from a gallon of gasoline. Yet, that limit is too important to get rid of or make it more user friendly. There are speed limits that police hope you'll go beyond so they can fine you.

The debt limit however, is apparently too limiting. First question, how did we get a debt limit? Answer, we decided we were spending too much money, and needed time to examine the budget, and find things we could eliminate to reduce our expenses. The debt ceiling was passed to give Congress the time needed to adjust our finances to a more sustainable pattern.

That adjustment never happened. Not under Democrats, nor under Republicans. Today the same Democrats who are complaining that it's irresponsible to vote against raising the debt ceiling, voted against the debt ceiling in 2006. The same Republican party that objected to raising the debt ceiling today, voted for it in 2006.

Yet not once have we ever reduced spending. NOT ONCE have we managed to reduce the size and scope of Government.

When President Obama was Senator and Candidate Obama, he objected to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and many other things. That is until it became his secret police, then it was all right. He voted against raising the debt ceiling, and now calls those who threaten to do so unpatriotic.

Harry Reid voted against it in 2006, now chastises those who oppose it as irresponsible. Which is what they said when they voted against it in 2006.

The point my dear friends is this. If a Republican is elected next year, then raising the debt ceiling will be a patriotic duty to the Republicans, and a irresponsible action to the Democrats, again.

In this whole debate, the original purpose was lost. To get a handle on the bloated federal budget.

I'm starting to think that we need to change the message on the Statue of Liberty. It should now say. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

I wonder if Ignorance is an excuse for the Police

For the record, I think the basic premise of Ignorance being no excuse for breaking the law, is the second dumbest thing ever. Let's say you are legally allowed to turn right on a red light in your state. You visit another state, and make a right turn on red. The police pull you over, check your license, and you explain you didn't realize it was not allowed. "I'm sorry officer, we're allowed to in Georgia."

"Ignorance is no excuse." The officer says. Actually that is incredibly stupid. It's impossible to follow the rules, if you don't know what they are. A smarter action would be to issue a warning to the driver, and put it into your computer system, showing that he'd gotten a warning for this action.

Then if he does it again, he can't claim ignorance.

I mention this, because of a news story that is being roundly ignored. Dayton Police beat, tasered, pepper sprayed, and then hog tied and put into a police car a Retarded 17 year old boy.

Yes, you read that right. The cops threw a beating on, blasted with the taser, and then pepper sprayed a retarded boy. A copy of the Complaint is here.

Now, the predictable response from the police will almost certainly be that the Officer didn't know the boy was retarded. The officer didn't know that his actions were way over the top.

I say to them, what they love to say to everyone else. Ignorance is no excuse. Another example of fine law enforcement in Ohio last summer. Police dog dies in the back of police car from excessive heat. I think the Police should be charged when they violate the law, don't you?

Independence Day

Harvard University has released a study that has Republicans laughing, and Liberals scratching their heads. I say they are scratching their heads, because nobody is talking about it on Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, or Huffington Post. Generally speaking, that means they don't know how to spin it yet, and are awaiting their marching orders from the party masters.

The study says that Patriotic Celebrations like the 4th of July turns kids into Republicans.

Conservatives sites are covering the report with glee. Hot Air has stories here, here, and here.

The question none of them answer is why the Democrats don't see a boost from participation, assuming they do, in Patriotic celebrations.

Independence Day, the celebration of the founding of the nation. For most people this means something painfully obvious. The stories of people who risked life and limb, family and fortune to create a new nation from a previously undefeated colonial master. For Liberals, this is when the racist homophobic evil people fought a war to own slaves. Next war, the war of 1812. Same thing, The Americans were stealing from the peaceful loving Native Americans, and slaughtering innocents to get enough materials to continue slave ownership and their racist homophobic hate filled agenda.

Mexican American War. Evil Racist America fought a war to steal land from the innocent peaceful brown people to our south.

Civil War, obvious one here. Racist Homophobic hate filled evil nasty Republicans (I know, Republicans were in the north and Democrats were in the south, but you can't expect Liberals to get these kinds of things right) fought a war to prevent the great Democratic (I know, I know) President Lincoln from freeing Slaves.

Are you noticing a pattern yet? Spanish American War, we stole land and created virtual slaves of the people of the Philippines and Cuba from the Spanish.

World War One. Greedy bankers got rich on the backs of the people creating war materials that the uneducated morons who didn't know any better like the poor ignorant Alvin York murdered his fellow man.

World War II. American Imperialism and strong arm tactics forced the innocent Japanese to take arms to defend themselves.

The pattern is fairly obvious now isn't it folks? Liberals denounce everything that the nation has done, while claiming that doing so is absolutely patriotic. It was patriotic to disagree and debate President Bush. But when it's a Democrat in office. The question is "Who's side are you on?"

So why would Democrats celebrate the 4th of July? If they show up, it's to wave signs or educate the poor ignorant morons on how awful the nation really is.

So wait for it. Soon the Democrats will see this as a chance to start to participate in the celebration. I can see it now. A float in next years local parade on Great Contributions by Gay Patriots. Another float educating the people on Horrible people who founded the nation in the name of freedom while they owned slaves.

Perhaps they can have a float where they burn an effigy of Bush and dance about throwing pies at the stupid Conservatives shouting "Bush Lied, Kids Died."

Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past the nuts to think they just have to explain to the ignorant hicks how stupid the aforementioned hicks are to think the country is great.

Don't let a good boy go bad.

This lie has been told for years. The idea that the victim is responsible for a crime. Be it your car being burglarized because you didn't lock it, or even stolen because you left the keys in it. In neither event, are you responsible, because good people don't steal, while a crook will take any opportunity to get something that doesn't belong to them.

I mention this because of a wave of protests over a comment by a police officer. The police officer from Toronto said that women were inviting rape by dressing like sluts.

PFUI. Blaming the victim is the answer of the lazy asinine fool. It is used by police who don't want to find criminals, by civic leaders who want to excuse their constituents, by professors and psychologists who want to normalize the deviant behavior. I personally reject that argument with all possible contempt.

I am Conservative. Not Republican nor Democrat. I believe in individual liberty. That includes the liberty to dress as you wish, as long as you are willing to accept the fallout. By fallout I mean if you dress in a sensual or sexy manner at church ladies, you can expect whispers or looks to be thrown that way. However, I do not believe that fallout should include physical attack. I am Conservative, I am death on crime where someone is harmed.

Blaming the victim is hardly the the way to stop Rape, as women in the Middle East are Raped despite being covered in many cases from head to toe. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power, the attacker exuding power over the woman. Yet, this asinine moron who was giving a talk on public safety put the onus on the victim. Men wouldn't rape women if the women didn't dress in a sensual or sexual manner. Like a slut in his words.

Osama dead, is the war over?

Celebrations are gaining momentum, all because one man, Osama bin Laden is dead. Yet, is the war over? Are we going to declare victory, and remove out troops, some six thousand of which have died, to get one man? I think not. Is this a victory that we can point to as a turning point, like Midway? Not really. Will this affect the enemy, and demoralize them to quit the fight? Again, I doubt it.

That's why I'm not cheering tonight. Osama bin Laden was the bogie man, the shadowy figure that Democrats could use to chide Bush for taking his eye off the "real ball" and chasing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

There are notable differences between the two however. First, Saddam was the leader of a nation, not a loose organization of radical lunatics. Second, there wasn't anyone strong enough to take over, especially since the Nation had been taken, prior to Saddam being captured, to take charge. Finally, the public wasn't behind the return of the Bath party and their rule.

However, Osama is a leader, but not the only one. He is generally speaking, considered to be the leader of the leadership council, consisting of twenty or thirty leaders. That is twenty or thirty people who can step forward and take his place.

This isn't even like when we killed Admiral Yamamoto. In that, we could claim we had impacted the planning of future operations, seriously degrading the enemies ability to harm us. It wouldn't be as accurate as initially claimed, but we could claim it. Yet now, can anyone actually claim that Osama was actively planning operations? He was a figurehead, and one with a broken record of hits.

I see reason to feel slightly satisfied that the mastermind behind 9-11 is dead. I don't see the reason to cheer, and assemble and celebrate in the streets. We haven't won the war by a long shot. We have increased the danger to American and other coalition forces in the world, all over the world. Now, dozens or perhaps even hundreds of attacks will come at us as other leaders try and show that they are just as strong, or perhaps stronger and smarter than Osama was.

I'm reminded of a story I saw once on Television about Afghanistan. An American forward air controller was telling about an attack. The Afghani warlord/general threw himself over the young enlisted man to protect him when Artillery was raining in. The young soldier asked the General what the hell he was doing. The Enlisted man correctly pointed out that the General outranked the young Sergeant.

"If I die, another will take my place. If you die, there isn't anyone else who knows what you do, and who can direct the aircraft like you do. You are more valuable than I." The General is reported to have said.

Osama was the General, now that he is dead, there will be another, and another after that to take his place. We have to create the atmosphere where this radicalized mentality does not exist. Removing the leader is effective, in the very short term. Another will step up, and take charge. We have seen that time and time again in the Drug Wars. One criminal leader is caught, another appears. Or another two, or three.

The war isn't over, not by a long shot. The celebration is a tad premature gang.

The Royal Wedding

The Royal Wedding arrives shortly, and I am only moderately interested. Mainly because our own political scene in America is so abominably disgusting. We have politicians selling out constantly, and others fighting and slinging mud to arrive at a higher office, so they can sell out in turn.

Then we have the Windsor clan in England. So it is interesting to watch others and see how they do it. Have the Royal clan of Windsor always been perfect? Not hardly, yet who can we point to here and say that this person was perfect? What Political Party can we point to that way? None. The Democrats have a long history of fostering class warfare and class hatred. The same with racial problems, and generally doing things to stir the pot and promptly point the finger. The Republicans are little better with their constant cries of Unpatriotic towards anyone who objects to greater Federal power for defense or homeland security.

The Libertarian Party is doomed to be fringe on their firmly held belief that drugs should be legal and able to be used without consequence. The consequence is all around us guys, and nobody, even me, wants people stoned out of their gourds on the roads or even walking down the street.

So we have the Royals, and we are told to hate them because they are chosen by the accident of birth to rule. Yet, look at them again. William, the heir to the heir to the throne, and the Groom of this Friday's weeding, is risking life and limb to fly a helicopter and save lives. He didn't go into business consulting on how to do something, or get Grants from the Government, he is serving the people of Great Britain by risking his life. Very few of our Political Masters children ever take the route of the Military. Yet Harry is also in the Military, and has served in Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's the sense of duty, of family duty, and honor that has been shoveled into them since birth that has driven these two boys to become the men they are. You can argue that they've had it easy, and I'll argue that they've had it just as easy as Paris Hilton, and have turned out very differently.

In large part, the role of the Royal Family is more ceremonial than political, and in that, they have shown great wisdom, and even quite a bit of compassion. They all work for charities, and granted most of their visits are photo opportunities, you get the impression that they genuinely care about the issue. Prince Charles is a dedicated Environmentalist, and while I disagree with his conclusions, I admit he raises a great deal of money for the cause.

We don't have royals in America, and perhaps that is something to consider. Our Political leaders are always running around trying to be noticed for the subject, and never want to be reminded of what they said or did just a few short weeks, months, or years ago which always is contrary to what they're saying now.

President Obama for example. He said a President has no right to launch a Military attack without a direct threat, or authorization from Congress. Then when he was President decided that he had every right. I guess his opinion as a Constitutional Scholar and Professor got changed when he got the job. President Obama voted against raising the Debt ceiling when Bush was President, and now claims that the Republicans are jeopardizing the nation by even hinting that they might not vote to raise it. Does anyone see his children joining the Military when they grow up? Anyone?

The Bush twins certainly didn't join, nor did Chelsea, nor did The Reagan kids. GW Bush joined, but Dad was a Congressman at the time, not the President.

By comparison, Gore joined, and was hustled out of Viet-Nam when it looked dangerous for the son of a Senator.

Granted Harry was hustled out of Afghanistan when someone reported he was there, but that makes some sense, after all killing him would be a great Public Relations coup, and that made all his mates targets too.

So why are we supposed to hate the Royals? Because we're American, and we don't have them. But we're also supposed to respect other nations, and their traditions, customs, and laws. England has a Constitutional Monarchy, and we are supposed to respect that. The same liberals who denounced our Nation Building in Iraq, now demand that England become more like us, abandoning the tradition and rule of the Royal Family.

I'll reiterate a thing I quoted before. Douglas Adams (who was British) said this. Anyone who wants high political office, is automatically disqualified from having the power that comes with it.

William may not want it, and may not have asked for it, but he is at least as qualified as anyone we have to wield it. Further, he may be MORE qualified, since he has spent his life preparing for it, instead of chasing it.