Sunday, January 30, 2005

Iraqi Heroes

In my last post, I linked to a CNN article that basically stated amazement that Iraqis would turn out to vote when there was such a threat of violence. We are now hearing of 70% plus turnouts. Yes, there has been some violence, but this only makes that number even more important. These people want freedom! While CNN is busy being amazed, the Iraqis are engaged in being heroes.
Would we as Americans vote under such circumstances. I fear I know the answer. Analogous to this would be the amount of us who refused to fly post 911. Iraqis are showing us, through their heroic surge to the polls, that you must stare down these terrorist bullies. You must stand up to oppression. Our forefathers understood this. Do we?
I am not a naive person. I know this election will not end the violence in that area. And I know that many, who have a vested interest in the election going badly, will do all they can to delegitimize the election and its results. But there also will be some intensely positive results from the Iraqi peoples first taste of true freedom. The first of which, as the very the large turnout shows, the Iraqi people are willing to make huge sacrifices in their move toward of freedom. And this wave of liberty will not stop at the Iraq border. It will spill into surrounding areas. Into Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia. And Lybia. It will remind the world, once again, that men lust for freedom. All men.
The more the Iraqi people feel free, and begin to enjoy the benefits, the weaker the murderers hold on their land will be. This, lefties, is a good thing. People deserve freedom. People everywhere. Not just when it helps your political agenda. The Iraqi people should be an inspiration to us all. Their bravery should remind and reaffirm our own love of freedom. Truly, how can you help but smile and be proud to think that America has had a hand in bringing this opportunity to the Iraqi people. And smile still again knowing they so earnestly took it.

In the News....

-Found this over at Dissecting Leftism:

‘An interesting quote from Mr. A. Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" (From p. 96 of Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer -- Macmillan, 1970)’

-Thanks to Donald May over at

‘Those who doubt the future success of the proposed reform need only to look at the results of Chile's Social Security Reform Act of 1980 ( José Piñera, Ph.D., architect of the plan when he was Chile’s Secretary of Labor and Social Security, stated during a September 9, 2003, Washington Post “Viewpoint” interview:

The reform has been successful beyond all my dreams. First, workers have obtained a ten percent real rate of return on their money over twenty-two years . . . Second, no money has been lost, what so ever, by bad investments or fraud . . . Third, ninety-five percent of employed workers have chosen the private retirement account system . . . And, finally, this new system of saving and investment has increased savings and helped double the rate of growth of the Chilean economy to seven percent a year.’

-Found at lgfs, Iowahawk has a hilarious post riddling Ted Kennedy...well worth a click.

-CNN pulled itself away from their negativity long enough to post an article that included this little tidbit:

‘Suicide bombs and mortar fire shadowed the event, the first multi-party election in 50 years, killing at least 22 people. But still voters came out in force, many with resolve, some with fanfare and others with their faces hidden.
Even in Fallujah, the devastated Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a slow stream of people turned out, confounding expectations.’

How many Americans would dare to vote under these same circumstances? Lefties, any of you? Well, maybe if Socialism was on the ballot......

From Yahoo News:

Israel has informed Palestinian officials that it is ready to withdraw from all West Bank towns "within a very short period of time" and to return to positions it held before the outbreak of fighting in September 2000, said Hassan Abu Libdeh, a senior Palestinian official.
Such a pullback is part of the long-stalled "road map" peace plan, which both sides now say they are ready to implement.'

Have to say, this is looking very positive.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Live From My Hotel Room

If you are anything like me, and pray to God you’re not, then you must be having a bit of a time trying to get your mind around the disparity in the description our soldiers give of the situation in Iraq and how our media reports it. It is truly a puzzle. The soldiers nearly all positive while the media heavily negative.
I believe, however, I have figured out how such a divergence exists. The so-called journalists in Baghdad never leave their hotels. And how did I come to such an enlightened conclusion? Bear with me as I lay it bear.
I have noticed, while watching local news...something I try hard to avoid...that the reporters love to ‘Go Live!’. I mean they just love it! And for the slightest of reasons. Even if the story is as old and dead as Ted Kennedy’s liver.

“We go live to Tom Smith, standing in front of the White Castle on El Domain Boulevard. Tom, what’s happening out there?”
“Well, nothing at the moment, Jane. But yesterday two young men were taken by ambulance to the nearby St. Patrick’s Hospital. Apparently, after a late night of drinking Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort, they stopped for a couple bags of burgers. And let’s just say, what happened next was just not pretty....”
“So, Tom, is there some new information, an update to the story?”

I am sure if you have spent any time transfixed as I have, by the inanity of your local news, you have seen much the same thing. They go live at the drop of a hat.
And here is where my theory kicks in. Why do we not see more ‘live’ stories from Iraq? No ‘live’ feeds of a reporter standing in front of a burning Humvee in Fallujah. No Wolfe Blitzer signing in ‘live’ from the latest disaster in Mosul.
They are afraid to leave their hotels. So they sit together sipping their French wine, dreaming of ways to bring down a president.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Some Points of Interest....

If the Social Security discussion in this forum has piqued your curiosity at all, David Limbaugh at has a smart and concise essay that might interest you here.

Also, over there, Thomas Sowell is his normal genius self with his take on the medias bias in the reporting of the war in Iraq.

Cracker over at Uncivil Rights has a great post on HMO taxes and their 'unintended consequences'. Caused, of course, by the lib's lack of understanding of basic economics.

Does the progressives hatred for, and fear of, Christians know no bounds? Glenn Scherer had this to say:

'many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.'

Look here for his entire inane ranting.

Raving of a Mad Tech has a link to a video that is hilarious. Watch it and enjoy. Does the fringe socialist left think anyone takes their threats seriously. C'mon, they'd wet their pants if they got within 100 feet of a gun.

Will the French ever shut up. A world wide AIDS tax? How 'bout a Francewide deodorant tax? Oops, sorry I guess they want to raise money.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

One Last Word On Social Security

From comments on previous post The Social Security Debate:

'The system has not been revamped every ten years. As the Lowenstein article I linked to pointed out, it's been revamped . . . once. In 1983. That was to address the very issue you identify, the shrinking ratio of workers to retirees. And it's worked, to a large degree (the Social Security actuaries keep lengthening the time when they won't be able to pay full benefits).
You talk about a 10% return like it's free money. It's not. It comes with risk, and that's a risk that a retiree is going to be destitute at some point, a risk not in the current system. You talk about "personal responsibility", but what about someone who is the victim of, say, a fraud on investors -- which was rampant in the dot-com/ telecommunications bubble (Enron, e.g.)? What about an earnest investor who diligently researches and invests and just has rotten luck?
The point of Social Security is that it's not a money-making scheme -- it's insurance (social insurance) against those types of contingencies, to offer a basic level of dignity of a retired person.
Just as Social Security is insurance against retiring while destitute, it's also insurance against being able to work because of a disability, or of a bread-winner dying.
Even if, assuming for the sake of argument, you want to separate disability and survivor's benefits from the equation to make your point about how African-Americans benefit, there are ways to address that which don't eviscerate the social insurance aspect of Social Security.
One last point: under Bush's plan, the government would borrow money to finance Social Security, and the trust fund would not buy as many Treasury bonds to deal with the surplus, as it would be drained to make room for private accounts. Your surmise that private accounts will make money for the economy fails to take into account that the extra government borrowing and borrowers needed will "crowd out" investment at the same time that people would be investing their private accounts. So the net additional capital for investment in the economy would be zero. Your counter-example of someone borrowing money from a bank is not analagous(sic) for this reason.'

I appreciate your discussion on this topic as it may help some readers make up their own minds on the issues. I must admit, here though, that I only argue for the presidents plan as it is the best of a bad situation. If I must have money taken from me by mother government, through the threat of jail or fine, I would at least like to own that money. Really, I must say that in the end, we have a difference of opinion on more than just the facts and figures involved. Our differences lie deeper. I believe in the ability of humans to strive, succeed, and survive. The left fears the worst for them and in them. You bring up risk? Of course, there are always risks in life, even mother government can not alleviate this truth. There are difficulties at times in all aspects of life, but I do not believe you make law and policy for the least common denominator or the worst possible scenario. These are baby steps toward totalitarianism.
But on to your comments...
You state Social Security has only been reformed once? I beg to differ..
* The Social Security Act of 1935 set the wage threshold at $3,000. Income earned above this amount was not subject to Social Security taxes. This threshold was a fixed amount that was not indexed for inflation.
*Between 1950 and 1971, various Congresses and Presidents passed at least 6 laws to increase the threshold.
* In 1972, the Congress and President Nixon passed a law to automatically index the threshold based upon the national average wage.
* In 1977, the Congress and President Carter passed a law that increased the threshold in 1979, 1980, and 1981 at higher rates than the growth in the national average wage.
* Since 1982, threshold increases have been based upon growth in the national average wage.
* Since 1950, various Congresses and Presidents have passed at least 9 laws to increase Social Security tax rates above the 6% level specified in the original Social Security Act.
Next, if you really believe Social Security is an insurance program then you should let it be just that. A program for those who are destitute and truly need it. Per the 2000 census, the elderly in this country hold the highest household wealth of any age group. That is even with the money that was stolen by the nanny state, put in the trust fund, and misused by our politicians. If we must have an insurance for the elderly why not just the 8% who really need it? Would the elderly, who have gained that wealth not be that mush wealthier with say a 2% Social Security tax for the truly needy, instead of the 12% they had been forced to pay?
Your last point I will give to you as we were arguing two different ideas altogether. I was arguing the point that the investment of beneficiaries, through stocks and bonds, back into the economy does have an impact. Your argument, I believe, deals with the monies needed to implement the president's plan. On this point, I will just say that our children should be the ones to decide if the investment was worth it.

The Wide Awakes

I have recently been accepted into a blog group known as The Wide Awakes. It is a conservative(surprise) group with some very good thinkers and writers. If you are looking for some good right wing opinion and news, stop on over. Hey, even you moonbats are welcome to stop by...heck, if you open your minds, you just might learn something.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

The Social Security Debate

Here are few comments by a reader on my recent post dealing with privatizing social security. And, of course, my terse and somewhat sarcastic replies....

Several points of disagreement:

1. If you want to see fairly exhaustive documentation that there is no Social Security crisis, I'd recommend you to this link:

Well, as it is a link to an article from The New York Times, I see little chance of me actually reading it. Still, to deny that there is no crisis in the pyramid scheme that is Social Security is somewhat irresponsible. I am sure you and I will receive what is coming to us in benefits, but at what cost to future generations? I’m not sure if the president’s reform plan is the end all/be all, but I also do not believe in ignoring the white elephant sitting squarely in the room. One last point here, if Social Security is and was such a great plan, explain to me why it has to be reformed every ten years. If I had a car that kept breaking down, at one point I'd realize that I had a lemon.

The point made in the article boils down to this: a Social Security Commission appointed by Reagan in 1983, chaired by Alan Greenspan knew the exact demographic trend that you speak of, and so they planned ahead by raising the payroll taxes to a level above what was needed to pay out benefits. This is the fix that needed, and it's worked basically. The ratios you're talking about can be remedied -- if it turns out to be necessary -- by a relatively modest tweaking of benefits or taxes in the future.

‘Relatively modest’? Lets look at some numbers. The average monthly social security benefit in 2002 was $874. If we figure a 3% increase in benefits per year, by 2030 the average retiree benefit will be $1999.71. If, as predicted, there are then only 2 workers per every retiree, that works out to be $249.96 paid out per week per worker. That comes out to be nearly 17%. 17%! And that is just from social security. Explain to me, using history as a rule, how other taxes such as medicare will not increase as well.
And as long as we are bringing up Alan Greenspan, there was this from dated 2-25-04:

'Greenspan warned a House committee Wednesday that growing federal budget deficits and the retirement of Baby Boomers will require future cuts in Social Security and Medicare to avoid tax increases that would damage the economy. Since that population will begin to draw Social Security benefits within the decade, he said Congress has a "reasonably short" time to head off a crisis.'

2. Stocks historically get a better return than other investments. But that's very longitudinal view, not taking into account the fact that individuals may retire in a bear market. The Dow in 1982 was at the same level as the Dow in 1966 -- and that' (sic) not accounting for inflation. Privatization does not give a satisfactory answer for people who retire during a bear market. Either result is undesirable: old people would run out of income altogether or there would be a S & L - style bailout that will encourage overly risky investment later (what economists call "moral hazard".) This also undermines the desirability of private accounts being "voluntary."

First, I will state again , noone would be forced into privatization. Those who would wish to privatize could; those who opt not to, would not be forced into the program. But just as now, investing requires some amount of personal responsibility and education. Any financial planner will tell you that as you approach retirement it is in your best interest to move your monies to more stable funds...such as bonds(I would add here that it may be a good idea to also allow CD’s into this plan as even they would bring a better return than what is to be expected from the grand plan that is social security as it now exists). A young person entering the job market today, can expect to pay into social security for nearly fifty years. The average compounded annual return in the market from 1926-2000 was 10.7%. 10.7%! I’ll take that over 1.8% any day, but of course I’m just a greedy conservative.

3. Social Security pays survivors' benefits and disability benefits, of which African-Americans are beneficiaries at rates that are disporportionate(sic) to their numbers.

This is a misnomer, as you have included disability benefits, which skew the numbers that we are talking about here. This discussion involves earned benefits as they relate to workers and their ownership of those benefits. Because Africa-American men die younger than persons in other demographics,

Single, black low-income males born since 1959 who earn about 50% of an average wage, for instance, will get back only 88¢ for every dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.’

Still, I find it interesting that you ignore the fact of the 'mysterious disappearing benefit'. Under the current plan, if a spouse passes away, the surviving spouse must choose between his/her benefit or that of the deceased. Under privatization, that money is owned. And as such, it can be willed to the next generation. This, historically, has been a large factor in the generation of personal wealth.

4. For every dollar that the govenment(sic) diverts from payroll taxes to rivate (sic) accounts, the government will have to borrow a dollar by issuing Treasury bonds. The net additional investment capital in the economy is zero.

I’m not sure what your point is here, but if you are referring to the ‘reinvestment in our economy’ point, let's look at this scenario. A man decides to start a new company and goes to the bank for a loan. He is loaned the money and he opens his business. His business grows, succeeds, and expands. Along the way, he pays back the loan. The loan is paid in full. However, in contrast to your assumption, the ‘net additional investment capital in the economy’ is not zero. The ‘net additional investment capital' is in his profit, it is in his employee's pay checks, it is in the thousand different ways his company has affected the economy. This corresponds to the exact way bonds add to the economy.

5. If there is an artifical(sic) increase in demand for stocks and a concimtant(sic) decrease in demand for bonds, in the short term, the price of stocks will rise but the price for bonds will fall. This means that the return on stocks will fall and the return for bonds will rise. As the two converge, there is no aggregate bonus that privatization will give the economy or the Social Security system.

Again, see my above as your answer.

Really, when it comes right down to it, I wonder why so many from the left seem so afraid of letting American citizens own their own retirements. The only possible answer I can come to is the fear, from the left and politicians, that they may lose their power and control. If a citizen owns his own benefits(control over which is now solely the reign of government), then politicians can no longer touch that money. Thereby, bureaucrats lose their control and thus, their power. They lose the power that money forwards them to buy votes. They lose the power to scare the elderly. And ultimately, they lose the illusion that a citizen needs the government for their very survival.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Why I'm Not a Republican

1) Until the Republican party stops spending like drunken Lottery winners, I will stand off to the side.
A. It amazes me when I hear over and over, from both parties, how we need more money to fund our schools. This rings out from the federal, state, and local levels. Oh my God, ‘IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!’ Yet every time I drive by a new high school ‘campus’, sprawling literally on acres of land, I ask myself where is the need? Do our children really need multi-million dollar, tri-level, New York City architect inspired facilities? Do our cities need to one up each other in competition for the largest, most beautiful schools in the county? We keep throwing money at the schools and our test scores keep falling. Money is not the answer. We need good quality teachers. We need educational competition. We need leaders who demand efficiency. And mostly, we need parents who instill the lust to learn. Money can't buy that. Children can, and will, learn in a plain square brick box. Many of the great minds of the past should have taught us that. It seems to me, we need new ideas from our leaders, not new tax referendums.
B. Pharmaceudicals for seniors. Per the 2000 US Census, senoirs in this country have the highest net worth of any age group. The median net worth of a household age 35 and under is $7240; 35-44 is $44,275; 45-54 is $83,150; 55 to 64 is $112,048. Here's the kicker, 65-69 year olds have a net worth of $114,050; 70-74 year olds 120,000; and beyond that still $100,100. The richest age group in this country is given another handout? At the risk of being cynical, could it be the size of their voting bloc?
C. There is a Republican in the White House. Both the Senate and the House have a Republican majority. And spending is still out of control! Where are these 'fiscal conservative' leaders?
Per the Washington Times:

' Measured over a 40-year period, the 2002-04 fiscal years account for three of the five years that have experienced the largest percentage increases in inflation-adjusted federal discretionary spending.
While some of the recent spending explosion is related to the fight against terrorism, it is worth noting that inflation-adjusted nondefense discretionary spending during the Bush administration will have risen by more than 25 percent through fiscal 2005.'

As the Democrats move left, it seems they are pulling the Republican party right along with them. Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
2) It would seem the party of 'values and ethics' could use a clearer mirror.
A. The president's Social Security program is a good long as the government forces its citizens to save, this program at least lets us own our own accounts. That's good. This from Investors Business Daily isn't:

'Many Republicans still view Social Security reform as a big risk. For Bush, just getting most of them to sign on may require some heavy salesmanship.'


'Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., another supporter, says there are 125-130 GOP lawmakers who will need "a lot of hand-holding."
"I hear a lot from my colleagues, 'Bush doesn't have to run again. We do. Why don't we kick the can down the road?'" Foley said.'

Seems to me our politicians jobs are more imprortant to them than what is best for their constituency. Where are the 'values and ethics' in that?
B. When there are politicians running under the Republican banner that have no respect for American citizen's property rights, the party's values truly suffer. Should the Grand Old Party be seen as the party of eminant domain abusers?
Richard Irvin, a Republican candidate vying for the seat of mayor in city of Aurora, Illinois, is such an animal. This from the Aurora Beacon News:

'At a recent candidate forum, candidate Richard Irvin answered a question about improving the commercial tax base for the East Aurora School District by saying the unincorporated community on the southeast side of Aurora should be turned into a business district. That would require razing at least some of Moecherville's 325 homes, as well as other nearby Aurora Township houses.'


'"The fact is that Moecherville, Aurora Township, is a blight that sits right in the middle of our city," Irvin said at a forum at Allen Elementary School, which itself is in Moecherville. "We can market that to investors so they will come in and buy Moecherville, tear it down, and we can create a business district in that area."'

First off, this area is not even within the city limits of Aurora. Secondly, and more importantly, his lack of interest in these homeowners property rights is frightening. 'Razing' homes for tax dollars? Where are the local, state, and even national Republicans to reign this nut in? Does the party of 'values' not value the basic rights of American citizens?
In closing, Mr. Bush talks of spreading freedom throughout the world and this is a good thing. But, it would seem to me, there are freedoms right here at home under direct attack from within his very own party. If the Republican party truly wants me and those of my ilk in their fold, I say actions must speak stronger that words. Show me a true belief in the freedom from an overbearing, nanny-state like government. Show me a belief in a government that keeps its hands out of my wallet and off my property. Show me a belief in a government with true ethics, not one in fear of loss of power. Show me these things, then I just might think about it.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Too Close To True

New York Times
by Robert Ludlum 5:16 PM ET

The Journal of the American Medical Association along with the Center of Disease Control have today released word of a groundbreaking discovery sure to change the world as we know it. JAMA and the CDC, in a joint statement, have issued word that the cure for cancer has officially been found.
This discovery has been called the single greatest medical advancement in human history. It cures, it seems, every type of cancer known to man. In one fell swoop, the leading cause of death in humans has been eradicated.
“It is truly a golden day in human history,” Judie Golberding, Director of the CDC stated. “We must express our greatest gratitude to the man responsible for this discovery, George W. Bush.”
“He is truly a great man and his discovery will end so much pain and suffering throughout the world,” Fil B. Fontana, Executive Deputy Editor of JAMA stated.
Mr. Bush was unable to be reached for comment, but a Halliburton spokesman informed this reporter that Mr. Bush would be speaking later in the week.
But all is not roses. For some there is a dark side. On Capital Hill there was obvious grumbling.
“Sure, he cured something simple like cancer, but what is he doing about foot and mouth disease?” Quipped senator John Kerry from Massachusetts.
“He said he would cure scabies! He lied! Bush lied!” Screamed Barbara Boxer, a senator from California.
“Does this mean I won’t need colon checks? AAAARRRGGGHH!!!” Howled Howard Dean.
“I guess I’ll have to scrap the idea for my next documentary...’Bush, A Cancer on Humanity’.” Michael Moore was overheard complaining.
“I never really thought cancer was that big a deal anyway.” Bill Maher stated.
And from outside the Capital, muffled chanting could be heard.....
“Cancer ain’t smack, what about Iraq? Cancer ain’t smack, what about Iraq?”

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Who Said It?

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Social Security Debate...My Two Cents

One would have to be liar or at least purposely ignorant to allege that Social Security, as it now constructed, is not in crisis. Unfortunately, many of our leaders fall into both categories.
It is, in it’s original form, a program that could only remain viable in a community with an ever increasing population. We are not that community. Our population growth has slowed to a mere trickle at 2.1335 births per woman. This is a disaster for the system as it is currently configured. With the coming baby boomer retirements, it puts a huge burden on the next generation and those that follow. In 1945 there were 20 workers for every retiree, now that figure is three to one, and falling. Soon it will be two to one...that means each of your children will be responsible for paying one half of every retirees allotted benefit. That is a massive burden.
Surely something needs to be done. And it is those elected officials that choose to ignore the problem, as it may be a political hot potato, that we can not suffer leading us to begin with. They very well know that those who will most bear the brunt of their inactivity rarely vote. “It is not the young who put me into office,’ must be their thinking. That thinking is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. For those young are our children. Our future.
But let us return to the point, and that is Social Security reform. First and foremost it must be stated that those who do not wish to privatize, will not be forced to do so. This is as it should be in a free country. We call it choice. One we do not now enjoy.
Next let us look at rate of return. A study found here states those born in the 1920's could expect a return on social security of nearly 5.7%. But because of the ‘pay as you go’ nature of the program rates quickly fell from there. Those born from 1950-1970 could expect a return of 2% and those born in 1998 could expect a dismal 1.5% return.
As bad as the above sounds, it is worse if you are a black American. In a paper for The National Center for Public Policy Research, John Meredith states:

‘Single, black low-income males born since 1959 who earn about 50% of an average wage, for instance, will get back only 88¢ for every dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.’


‘a single black American 21-year-old mom who makes the average wage for black American females can expect only a 1.2% rate of return on her Social Security taxes.’

This is in contrast to the Standard S&P which has had an average yearly return of 9.4% spanning from 1926-1996. Even a Real Long Term Government Bond earned 2.4% over the same span of time. In all seriousness, where would you want your money invested?
We should also look at who now holds sway over the money in the present system. As proven again and again by bureaucrats dipping their greedy hands into the trust fund, it is not you or I. Under a private system, the money grabbers would not be able to touch our funds. They would be truly private. As the system is now, if a spouse dies, the remaining spouse must choose which account to receive benefits from. The other benefit simply disappears into the great governmental netherworld. Under a private system the beneficiary owns their own fund. It is their money and can be willed to their spouse or remaining family. That is true ownership. And the route to amassing wealth.
Lastly, the money becomes active. It is reinvested into our economy. It can be invested in stocks, thereby aiding companies in research and development, increasing inventories, and/or updating resources. Or bonds to free up money for governments, corporations, or municipalities. In the end investment means jobs, and jobs are a good thing, right?
Let us not heed the liars and the idiots. Let us take back some of our freedom, a small piece of our liberty, and maybe even support our children in the process.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Chronicles of My Neighbor Part I

My neighbor has weapons of mass destruction. Myself and the rest of the neighborhood know this, he’s used then on his own children. He has ricin, anthrax, and small pox. We’re pretty sure his wife has botox.
I should do something about it, but the others say we should just ignore him. They say he just wants attention. So we’ve agreed not to wave at him when he’s out mowing the lawn. I saw him once at the grocery store and he said ‘hi’. I didn’t know what to do so I knocked out his Scuds and ran to my truck.
He invaded Karl’s house just South of his property a few years ago. Karl says he just wanted to borrow a cup of oil, but the rest of us know differently. He sure as hell didn’t get invited to the block party that year.
I know we should be more tolerant, him being a Catholic and all, but just look at all the problems those people cause. Damn warmongers. And, you know, they hate Democracy. Just who gets to vote for pope? Not the little guy that’s for sure.
I saw him this morning, out by his car. He was messing with something under the hood. Bet it’s a car bomb. Probably gonna ram his old Pacer into the Walmart. His sixteen year old son works there. Bet he’s mad he’s not earning a living wage. Looks like I’ll be shopping a Target for awhile.

His Wisdom Never Dies

Danger - if you meet it promptly and without flinching - you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never.

-Winston Churchill

Saturday, January 15, 2005

30 Seconds of Hell

Does everyone hate commercials as much as I do? They drive me nuts. They rarely influence me to buy the product they fact, they usually have the exact opposite effect. Below is a short list of my thoughts on some of my favorites.

-Hey Cialis, here’s a hint...If I have an erection that lasts more than four hours, I’m not going to see a doctor, I’m going to join a circus.

-Do you think the chick in that herpes commercial called her mom when she got the part? I would have loved to hear that conversation...
Chick: Mom, uh, I just got the lead in a commercial.
Mom: That’s great honey, I’m so proud of you.
Chick: Thanks, but...
Mom: Well, what’s the part?
Chick: Uh, I play a girl with herpes...
Mom: Um, that’s talk to your dad...
Chick: I’ll never work again will I mom?

-What is it about people in commercials dancing? Everybody dances in commercials. For no damn apparent reason. Ooh, I just got shocks for my Hundia, hey let’s lambada. Thanks, Chicago Wellness Center, I have colon cancer...think I’ll shake that bootie. Got to take my dog to the know what time it is...let’s grind ‘sum peppa! Aunt Flo’s in town, gonna shake her loose.

-Here’s a tip for the Captain Morgan admen...I realize you are trying to point out responsible drinking, but truthfully, I will now surely avoid drinking your rum just to be sure I never end up with a drunken frat boy riding my back.

-Where do these advertisers get their actors? Must be from the same agency. Couldn’t they at least try to find a male who is not an inept, couch potato, who can’t order insurance or stop himself from eating the take out before he gets home. Or a female who is not so much smarter than her oafish husband, who might let him vacuum once I awhile, or even let him do some cooking. These problems must arise from the actual actors they choose, as the scenarios bare little resemblance to any real world I know.

Enough for now...

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Ted's Blueprint for America

This from the vast, pint deep mind of Ted Kennedy(read here, the following is frighteningly close to the truth), whose very sweat is 80 proof....

‘I propose a new America. Ten simple steps to a truly progressive new, more fair way of life for every American. Paid for of course, by the endless government coffers:
1)Free medical care from cradle to grave. Fee medicine, free abortions, free euthanasia. Oh, but those cruel Republicans will have to pay for the pharmaceuticals used for their beloved capital punishment.
2)Unlimited finances for any American to pursue any education for which he sees fit, remembering of course, that substandard grades may injure his self esteem...we will have none of that. Straight A’s for everyone.
3)A minimum wage of $50.00 per hour. Hell, if we’re serious about a living wage, then damn it, let’s get serious.
4)Unlimited company payed sick/family leave. How much more efficient would an employee be for a company that gives her 50 weeks off a year to take care of personal business. Her morale would skyrocket, thus her production would increase exponentially.
5)Free day care. It is not fair that the American worker should be chained to the home by something as insignificant as his/her children. Let the government raise your kids, we do everything else so well.
6)An increase in Social Security payments along with lowering the age of benefits to 40 years of age. Hell, the program is in such great shape, why not expand it. Those dang ‘the sky is falling’ Republicans want you to face reality..screw that.
7)End all defense spending. It is obvious to every sane American that the reason the world hates us is we intimidate them. We will disband all our armed forces, they are filled with ignorant, value driven, gun loving, professional wrestling following, superstitious, environment hating red staters anyway. No country would dare hurt us when they know we have no armies to defend ourselves. They will surely know the UN would protect us and our way of life.
8)Profit will officially be a crime. ‘Nuff said.
9)Heterosexuality will be banned. Even Nature sometimes makes mistakes, whose says we have to follow Her laws? Laws are for the Judiciary to make anyway, right?
10)The word ‘God’ will be removed from all media...books, television, radio, bibles, etc. Any mention of religion will resort in a massive fine. Schools will teach an updated, modern version of world history. Government, as it should be, will be the new Deity.
I believe with these ten simple steps, we as Americans can finally at long last have the country that our founding fathers had envisioned for us. And lastly, I say glass has been empty since step 3, how the hell does a guy get a Stoli around here?’

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

How Free 'The Land of the Free'?

For anyone who has followed my blog for even a short period of time, it should certainly be obvious that I believe in freedom. Not the freedom that is sold to us by our schools, politicians, and/or the media. They mouth the word but I question if they truly understand it's meaning. No, true freedom. True choice in one’s life. True choice in one’s private property. Untainted by government intervention.
I believe in an individual's right to choose. I believe that as long as a personal choice does not involve an injury to another’s person or property, the government has no Constitutional right to involve itself in that choice.
I believe our freedoms, personal, economical, and social, are constantly under attack. They are taken by our ‘lawmakers’ and ‘judges’ under the guise of a better world or ceded by our very neighbors due to their own personal neurotic fears.
There are too many laws already. Thousands upon thousands of laws that tell us,...No, coerce us, through the threat of loss of liberty or property, how to act. Yet every year congress, and now even the judiciary, seem to find a need to force ‘we the people’ to follow whatever flavor of the month laws they seem to need to create.
What brought out my freedom ‘high horse’ this AM was this.... I stumbled across The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s annual study on the world's economies. According to the study, published as The 2005 Index of Economic Freedom, the USA finished a mere 12th. It doesn’t really surprise me, but I wish that it did. Again, we finished 12th. Shouldn’t the country founded on the very pursuit of liberty rank higher in it’s economic freedoms than Chile, Luxemburg, and Estonia?

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Our Little Whiz Head

The best thing about our little whiz head is that he's creating traffic on our blogs exponentially and we don't even have to pay for it. I love it when our little liberal-socialist participates in capitalism. "God I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." It's time to nuke the middle-east and take all their oil. I have an Excursion to fill.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

All Done

I installed Haloscan for you, and I listed IP addresses to be banned. You should all be set up now. St Louis sucks. Go Green Bay! Call or email me, and I'll give you the passwords and stuff.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Jamaica Me Crazy

My mother-in-law hates to fly. She calls planes ‘tubes of death.’ Well, I, my wife, my mother-in-law, and my father-in-law will be entering one of those ‘tubes of death’ in a little over 12 hours. We will be flying to the Carribean for a week of sun and relaxation. But, of course, as I was blog-rolling I had to come across this at rightwingnuthouse:

‘NEWARK, Dec. 30 - In the past week, laser beams of unknown origins have been shined into the cockpits of seven airplanes as they were about to land at various airports around the country, including Teterboro Airport. Federal officials announced on Thursday that they were initiating a major investigation to determine whether the episodes were related to terrorism.
(NY Times 12/31/04)
But the recent spate of incidents could presage some kind of terrorist attack on commercial aviation using relatively cheap and readily available hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. What are they using the lasers for?
Lasers are not being used to blind pilots. Lasers are being used to measure straight line distance from the ground to an aircraft at its most vulnerable state - landing. An aircraft on takeoff would be a more difficult target - maximum power and maximum climb. But a landing ship slows down to a speed just short of a stall and follows a prescribed path of flight .
The information regarding an aircraft’s peak vulnerability would be invaluable. Documenting landing approaches and straight line distances would be highly useful in target acquisition. That information is critical regarding available weapons systems .
Here's the nightmare scenario: Several teams of terrorists positioned at let's say 6 major airports around the country armed with shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles and using lasers to get an exact range from weapon to target fire off their missiles, all within less than 10 minutes of each other and bring down 6 jetliners carrying an average of 250 passengers. You not only have 1500 dead passengers you have scores, maybe hundreds of dead on the ground as the planes crash into suburban neighborhoods that surround most major airports and start huge fires initiating widespread panic.’

Interesting. Well, I’m pretty certain my mother-in-law is not aware of the above. Actually, as my phone has not rang, I am absolutely certain she isn’t. And that’s good. Except for one thing. I love to mess with people’s neuroses. The evil creature that dwells in my head tells me that in order to cure a fear a person must face it. Or so I tell myself. Me thinks I just enjoy stirring the waters.
So, what should I do? Just keep my mouth shut? Yes. That is what I should do. Yes, that is what I will do. Exactly that. And nothing else. But, of course, if it just happens to come up in normal conversation.....

Know Thyself

My wife, I love her dearly, for some reason had put on MSNBC this morning as I sat in front of my labtop blogrolling. My ears perked up as in the background I heard, “Has America given enough to the tsunami relief? Watch tonight on....” What the..?!?
“Why have you put this tripe on?” I asked.
“That’s not on now, it’s on later tonight.” She replied.
Somewhat appeased, I went back to my addiction.
That was not where it ended however, there’s always a however, as minutes later I paused to regain my eyesight. Because my laptop was on my lap and the remote on a distant table, this is what I had to endure....A reporter donning a blue(telling???) santa hat, surrounded by a violently jerking chorus, badly rapping about the holidays or something or other. Rapping? How seasonally heartwarming. I shook my head. Oh, but there’s more. As the spot ended, the camera went from one MSNBC ‘journalist’ to another each filling me with the love of the season as they personally wished me a ‘happy holiday’. A ‘happy holiday’? Not one single ‘commercial vender’ said ‘Merry Christmas’ or even ‘Happy New Year’.
That was it. I put down my laptop, the boys were getting a little warm anyway, and grabbed the remote. As my better half had gone to answer the phone, I could only curse these mythic words under my breath to myself , “Damn it, if I’m going to listen to propaganda, I’m going to listen to my propaganda!”
And I switched the channel to FOX news.