Reuters and a number of media sources have put out recent news that a senior China trade official says that it is hard for them to proceed on trade negotiations with the U.S. putting a 'knife to its neck.' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-talks/china-says-u-s-putting-knife-to-its-neck-hard-to-proceed-on-trade-idUSKCN1M509S
Translation: "We have an advantage in trade with The United States, and we are going to try to keep it anyway that we can." In other words, "It is the fault of the U.S. that we have insisted for years in managing our trade, currency, and foreign relations to the advantage of China, and we are not going to stop this, as it is to our advantage, regardless of what agreements we signed with the World Trade Organization in 2001 to not do, exactly what we, in fact, are now doing."
"Oh, yes, by the way, we are for free trade worldwide."
It is hard to believe that anyone anywhere thinks that this blatant hypocrisy from China is not balderdash.
Additionally, in recent days many of us have physically and mentally watched comments on BBC and CNN by other world leaders, which have parroted the same line of reasoning as the senior China trade official.
"Me too. Me too!"
Nonsense!
Clearly the other "Me too" nations and China are insisting on colluding in continuing to violate WTO rules of fair international trade, and these managed trade, managed currency violations and hypocrisy have gone too far and for too long.
Who could blame the U.S. for putting full sanctions on the lot of them, or simply preventing other nations from trading with The United States, for just cause and for gross violations of WTO international trade rules?
President Trump recently came to a new modified signed agreement with Mexico over NAFTA trade, and he signed a new modified trade agreement with the President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/trump-clinches-his-first-trade-deal-in-revamped-south-korea-pact?srnd=politics-vp
Although there was a most recent report that our President received some criticism at the United Nations over trade, there are also reports that President Trump has multiple trade agreements in varying degrees of readiness. Trump also had positive trade talks with President Macron, among other issues that the two presidents spoke to each other about on the sidelines of the UN.
In the past, President Trump has come to partial agreements with some European leaders, but, as of this moment, those agreements are not fully negotiated and ready for signature.
In a Bloomberg article earlier today, Josh Wingrove hinted that Prime Minister Trudeau wants to complete a modified new NAFTA agreement with the U.S. government. According to Wingrove, "...but it's his [Trudeau's] job to stand up for Canada's interests." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-25/u-s-canada-ties-can-survive-trade-friction-trudeau-says
References List:
Chen, Y., & Blanchard, B. (2018, September 25). Reuters.com. China says U.S. putting "knife to its neck", hard to proceed on trade. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-talks/china-says-u-s-putting-knife-to-its-neck-hard-to-proceed-on-trade-idUSKCN1M509S
Lee, Y., Tweed, D., & Leonard, J. (2018, September 25). Bloomberg.com. Trump Clinches His First Trade Deal With Revamped South Korea Pact. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/trump-clinches-his-first-trade-deal-in-revamped-south-korea-pact?srnd=politics-vp
Wingrove, J. (2018, September 25). Bloomberg.com. U.S.-Canada Ties Can survive Trade Friction, Trudeau Says. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-25/u-s-canada-ties-can-survive-trade-friction-trudeau-says
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Why so Few Articles on "Economic and Political Sanity" Blog?
Today the question was put to me, "Why do you publish so few and infrequent articles on your blog, 'Economic and Political Sanity?'"
The answer is simple: I do not write for a living but merely write and publish when something is important to me.
On the other hand, there are lots of subjects to write about, but I am not interested in writing to just scribble about something...anything. My gut and my subconscious tell me when and on what to scrawl an article.
My only deadline is when yours truly worries about something that concerns our country, economically or politically. There are many things to worry about in both of these areas, but this scribe works when there is a sliver of a chance that he can be a catalyst by getting through to a policy or decision maker.
"Economic and Political Sanity" has readers in 19 countries; one reader who is a former President of the United States and several who are current members of the U.S. Congress.
As citizens of this chaotic democratic republic, we should all concern ourselves about the future of this nation. Our survival as a nation depends on it.
Democracy is not easy; it is expensive and unruly to defend our rights and freedoms, but it is necessary to maintain our republic. Some of us just wish our political leaders would compromise more to get the peoples' business done, instead of digging their heels in on each and every issue.
The Revolutionary Founding Fathers of The United States did not have the luxury of not compromising, as Great Britain wanted their American colonies and tax base back. Therefore, we fought a second war with England in the early 1800s. Then France wanted us to fight as their ally in another war before America was able to even stand on its own.
Our politicians need to decide if their own egos or our democracy is more important.
Compromise in Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch to get the peoples' business done!
The answer is simple: I do not write for a living but merely write and publish when something is important to me.
On the other hand, there are lots of subjects to write about, but I am not interested in writing to just scribble about something...anything. My gut and my subconscious tell me when and on what to scrawl an article.
My only deadline is when yours truly worries about something that concerns our country, economically or politically. There are many things to worry about in both of these areas, but this scribe works when there is a sliver of a chance that he can be a catalyst by getting through to a policy or decision maker.
"Economic and Political Sanity" has readers in 19 countries; one reader who is a former President of the United States and several who are current members of the U.S. Congress.
As citizens of this chaotic democratic republic, we should all concern ourselves about the future of this nation. Our survival as a nation depends on it.
Democracy is not easy; it is expensive and unruly to defend our rights and freedoms, but it is necessary to maintain our republic. Some of us just wish our political leaders would compromise more to get the peoples' business done, instead of digging their heels in on each and every issue.
The Revolutionary Founding Fathers of The United States did not have the luxury of not compromising, as Great Britain wanted their American colonies and tax base back. Therefore, we fought a second war with England in the early 1800s. Then France wanted us to fight as their ally in another war before America was able to even stand on its own.
Our politicians need to decide if their own egos or our democracy is more important.
Compromise in Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch to get the peoples' business done!
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Entrust Has the Keys to the Kingdom, and it Needs to be Sold to the DOJ
Important U.S. partisan vested interests can and do find out anything that they want through the internet about any person or entity on this planet. No person or entity is safe, as it does not matter who or what they are. What do you think those same partisan vested interests use that information for?
You do not believe me you say?
Would it surprise you that Entrust, a private U.S. company that has worldwide operations, controls encryption keys for the entire internet? With encryption keys, Entrust and those associated with it can find out anything communicated on the internet by a person, government official or anyone else, anywhere on this planet.
Jerry C. Jones, a Democrat Party operative, and former law firm partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm, runs Entrust, and it is owned by another Democrat Party operative, Thomas Bravo (Bruce, A. 2018).
It might be to our mutual advantage for you to read Alexandra Bruce's article here: forbiddenknowledgetv.net/this-is-how-they-can-turn-off-your-chip/
There is not a person, corporation, or government in this world that uses the internet that does not need the encryption capabilities of Entrust. That kind of power should be based on need-to-know, not personal contacts at the U.S. Democrat Party Headquarters.
In a fair world, it is in the interests of the entire planet that Entrust be sold at a considerable profit to the U.S. government, and then controlled and directed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Why should it be in the hands of the DOJ? The U.S. Attorney General on the advice of his staff and other departmental attorneys can legally decide when to share that information with law enforcement, government agencies and sovereign countries.
Why would we want to do that? Simply put, we want criminal and terrorist activities to be preempted and/or caught and the guilty parties tried in a court of law, domestically and/or internationally.
If there is someone who does not want that to be the case, then they are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Reference:
Bruce, A. (2018, September 19). Forbidden Knowledge TV. This Is How They Can ‘Turn Off Your Chip’ – Forbidden Knowledge TV. Retrieved September 23, 2018, from forbiddenknowledgetv.net/this-is-how-they-can-turn-off-your-chip/
Stifling Opinions in a Democracy by Large Techology, Internet, and Large Media
Again, someone is preventing me from properly formatting and publishing an article that I have written because they do not like the contents of the article.
It is a good thing that this is precisely what the U.S. White House is currently investigating about big technology and big internet companies and their interference in publishing of what they do not want in the public domain.
The Legal Office at Google and other companies should listen up, or, shall I say, read up?
It is a good thing that this is precisely what the U.S. White House is currently investigating about big technology and big internet companies and their interference in publishing of what they do not want in the public domain.
The Legal Office at Google and other companies should listen up, or, shall I say, read up?
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
U.S. and China Trade Negotiations
The United States should stop trading with China completely and permanently.
China agreed to fairness in trade and economics when joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 (BBC staff writers, 2001), but that fairness has never happened, and it never will. Its government had promised to abide by all international standards to join the WTO, but it does not abide by adverse rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the WTO, as all members of the UN are required to do.
The government of China is using the technicality that it did not agree to the arbitration of the PCA in its spat with the Philippines. However, Article 288 of the LOSC (a.k.a. Law of the Sea Treaty) and Article 9 of LOSC’s Annex VII gives the PCA jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the absence of one party from the proceeding cannot stop the matter from going forward even if it was brought unilaterally by the Philippines.
China's leadership claims it has no obligation to abide by a decision of the PCA in the matter of The Philippine's case against China building military bases on territory claimed by other nations with senior claims to China's. In fact, China's government claims the entire South China Seas, with no historical basis whatsoever for that claim, except for a reference to an ancient map of a Chinese emperor's dynasty from long ago in antiquity, which proves little or next to nothing. The PCA ruled that there is no basis for China's claim to the entire South China Seas.
China's leaders say that the Philippines should have brought the claim in the International Court of Justice, not at the PCA (Puspitawati*, D., 2018). What do you want to bet that the Philippines would win that legal battle also, and China and its leaders will not submit to that future ruling, either -- even if it is submitted to the ICJ and won by the Philippines?
Selective logic from China's leaders means we are better off without China, totally, as it and its leaders are not reliable partners in anything.
When China and its government finally does come to the negotiating table, whatever they agree to will not be lived up to just as China agreed to abide by WTO rules and has not. Just like China agreed not to manipulate its currency and not to manipulate trade against other countries, and it has in both cases while maintaining that China is for global free trade. Not!
It is true that China allows joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, but the outsiders' companies must reveal all technical and trade secrets to their Chinese joint venture partners, the ones Chinese operatives have not stolen.
The government of China and its domestic industry leaders have no intention of changing its unfair trade tactics (President Trump, 2018). Indeed, Chinese producers are already beating President Trump's growing tariffs on Chinese goods by rerouting them through other countries, where they are repackaged in the second country and represented as non-Chinese goods, before they are sent to the U.S. to avoid tariffs (Nikkei Asian Review staff writers, 2018).
The truth is, China and its leaders are for global free trade only if China unfairly gets the best of its trading partners the majority of the time.
China is not worth the trouble that it causes, and we need to stop doing any business with them at all. It is a complete waste of our time and resources, which could be spent better elsewhere.
China has no intention of completely opening its markets, as required by the WTO, and China never had any such intention. The actions of China's leaders speak much louder than their words, which are meaningless.
The government of The United States, including its Executive Branch and all of Congress, needs to stop wishful thinking that China will open its markets to free trade, which is something China's leaders are not committed to and never will be fully committed to, no matter what China's leaders say to the contrary.
References list:
BBC News | BUSINESS | China joins the WTO - at last. (2001). News.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1702241
Puspitawati*, D. (2018). China And The SEA In Asia’s Troubled Waters – Analysis. Eurasia Review. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.eurasiareview.com/17092018-china-and-the-sea-in-asias-troubled-waters-analysis/
Chinese producers expected to beat US tariffs by rerouting goods. (2018). Nikkei Asian Review. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/Chinese-producers-expected-to-beat-US-tariffs-by-rerouting-goods
Statement from the President Regarding Trade with China | The White House. (2018). The White House. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-regarding-trade-china-2/
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Obama Plans Regime Change in November 2018 Elections
Former Democratic President Barack Obama recently spoke at the University of Illinois to give us our sanity back, as, according to him, something is not right in the current Whitehouse, or words to that effect. So Obama is out to foment an outright regime change during the U.S. House of Representatives election in approximately two months from now.
To say that Barack Obama is a Democrat-Socialist would be putting it lightly. It would be like saying that Bernie Sanders is a hardcore conservative constitutionalist.
In a 2014 article in The Western Journal, "Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?" Steven Baldwin clearly points to overwhelming documented evidence that Obama's entire life has been in the political company and association with Marxists and Socialists. Indeed, former President Obama made numerous appointments to these Democrat-Socialist-Marxists in both of his previous presidential administrations. (https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influen…/)
Who remembers when in a televised meeting between former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and former U.S. President Barack Obama that Chavez turned to the crowd and cameras and said, "He's more of a Socialists than I am?" The now deceased Chavez was in amazement that such a political radical was then President of The United States. We all saw it in Chavez' face expression.
It is hard to see how The United States of America was winning under the business-restrictive policies of Kenyan national former CIA operative Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. former President and Socialist-Democrat-Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. Of course, Marxist Obama is coming out against a progressive, winning President Trump who is renegotiating Obama's bad trade deals that were not in the interests of America. On the other hand, anti-colonialist Obama gave billions in bribes to Iran and helped his Muslim Brotherhood allies, while Ambassador Stevens was tortured, and, eventually killed, and Stevens' NCIS agents were murdered in Libya. Former U.S. President Obama is the same man who created ISIS and did everything he could to ruin America. Now Obama says, in essence, that there is something wrong with President Trump's America.
Yes, that is correct. We are winning, again! -- like we have not done since Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, arguably two of the best Presidents that The United States has ever had. The current Trump administration is not only renegotiating the bad trade and political deals of previous administrations, but President Trump has also delivered on his promises to the American people to create more jobs, bolster the economy, and he has brought back trillions of USDs from overseas holdings of U.S. corporations. Generally, our current President is running government like a business, not a "vote for me and I will give you any kind of largess you want to further ruin the credit of the U.S., while adding enormous debt to our nation." Actually, having the temerity to move our U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the favorite action of President Trump that many Americans love, both Democrats and Republicans.
The list of accomplishments of President Trump and his administration is too long to enumerate, but few Americans have been hiding under rocks. Our citizens know completely what those accomplishments are, though not all Americans are willing to give the Trump administration credit, even where credit is due.
Now deep state cheerleader Obama is fighting to have a mid-term regime change of the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of the Democrat-Socialist-Marxists so The United States of America will collapse, like Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Democrat-controlled Chicago. Eventually, that will usher in Obama's One World Government led by the UN.
It is not in the best interests of Americans for us to continue this political divide, those who want to destroy America and those who want to strengthen it. There was a time when all of us, on the left, in the middle, and on the right, politically, would fight for The United States, instead of tearing it apart for the vested interests of others.
Reference:
To say that Barack Obama is a Democrat-Socialist would be putting it lightly. It would be like saying that Bernie Sanders is a hardcore conservative constitutionalist.
In a 2014 article in The Western Journal, "Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?" Steven Baldwin clearly points to overwhelming documented evidence that Obama's entire life has been in the political company and association with Marxists and Socialists. Indeed, former President Obama made numerous appointments to these Democrat-Socialist-Marxists in both of his previous presidential administrations. (https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influen…/)
Who remembers when in a televised meeting between former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and former U.S. President Barack Obama that Chavez turned to the crowd and cameras and said, "He's more of a Socialists than I am?" The now deceased Chavez was in amazement that such a political radical was then President of The United States. We all saw it in Chavez' face expression.
It is hard to see how The United States of America was winning under the business-restrictive policies of Kenyan national former CIA operative Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. former President and Socialist-Democrat-Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. Of course, Marxist Obama is coming out against a progressive, winning President Trump who is renegotiating Obama's bad trade deals that were not in the interests of America. On the other hand, anti-colonialist Obama gave billions in bribes to Iran and helped his Muslim Brotherhood allies, while Ambassador Stevens was tortured, and, eventually killed, and Stevens' NCIS agents were murdered in Libya. Former U.S. President Obama is the same man who created ISIS and did everything he could to ruin America. Now Obama says, in essence, that there is something wrong with President Trump's America.
Yes, that is correct. We are winning, again! -- like we have not done since Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, arguably two of the best Presidents that The United States has ever had. The current Trump administration is not only renegotiating the bad trade and political deals of previous administrations, but President Trump has also delivered on his promises to the American people to create more jobs, bolster the economy, and he has brought back trillions of USDs from overseas holdings of U.S. corporations. Generally, our current President is running government like a business, not a "vote for me and I will give you any kind of largess you want to further ruin the credit of the U.S., while adding enormous debt to our nation." Actually, having the temerity to move our U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the favorite action of President Trump that many Americans love, both Democrats and Republicans.
The list of accomplishments of President Trump and his administration is too long to enumerate, but few Americans have been hiding under rocks. Our citizens know completely what those accomplishments are, though not all Americans are willing to give the Trump administration credit, even where credit is due.
Now deep state cheerleader Obama is fighting to have a mid-term regime change of the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of the Democrat-Socialist-Marxists so The United States of America will collapse, like Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Democrat-controlled Chicago. Eventually, that will usher in Obama's One World Government led by the UN.
It is not in the best interests of Americans for us to continue this political divide, those who want to destroy America and those who want to strengthen it. There was a time when all of us, on the left, in the middle, and on the right, politically, would fight for The United States, instead of tearing it apart for the vested interests of others.
Reference:
Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?. (2014). The Western Journal. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influenced-barack-hussein-obama/
Saturday, April 9, 2011
U.S. government finances from April 9, 2011
Today most citizens were gratified to learn of the agreement between the U.S. Democrats and the Republicans for a budget to get us through the rest of the current fiscal year. However, $38 billion this year and $500 billion in additional cuts over the next decade is not enough, considering the incredible amount of debt that we have as a nation, which will soon be over $14 trillion and which will be much higher than double that figure in one-decade from now.
Therefore, unless both houses of Congress and the President of the United States, right now, get serious about making substantial cuts in all of our future budgets, then we will have to consider if our current spendthrift ways will end in a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression and financial collapse.
Most Americans understand that it would not be in the best interests of the U.S. Federal Reserve and all U.S. banks to have hyper-inflation, as that would destroy their own assets; however, the U.S. Fed is merely reacting to the increasing governmental debt placed on us by our politicians.
As the U.S. House of Representatives originates all financial and monetary appropriation bills [voted on by the House, the Senate and vetoed or signed by the President of the United States], and it is the job of Congress to oversee the U.S. Federal Reserve, the most likely long-term outcome is hyper-inflation, not deflation.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent, but, in reality, it reports to the U.S. Congress.
On the other hand, either way, a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression will mean the end of business as usual, and a forced new way of doing business, which some call "financially responsible behavior" that will permeate the affairs of all private citizens, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats and politicians in the United States of America, soon.
In the not so distant future, out of dire necessity this new "financially responsible behavior" will be demanded by all Americans.
Though it will look like the end of the United States, in reality, it will just be a new beginning, which will make us much stronger, wiser and more cautious, again.
We are just one of a long line of nations and civilizations that will have had to re-learn these lessons of history, which play over and over, again, throughout time and probably always will.
In the end, human nature is always the same: we learn from lessons, then we prosper from those lessons, the generations that lived through those lessons die-out, and then we go through the painful process of re-learning all of those lessons, again.
Therefore, unless both houses of Congress and the President of the United States, right now, get serious about making substantial cuts in all of our future budgets, then we will have to consider if our current spendthrift ways will end in a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression and financial collapse.
Most Americans understand that it would not be in the best interests of the U.S. Federal Reserve and all U.S. banks to have hyper-inflation, as that would destroy their own assets; however, the U.S. Fed is merely reacting to the increasing governmental debt placed on us by our politicians.
As the U.S. House of Representatives originates all financial and monetary appropriation bills [voted on by the House, the Senate and vetoed or signed by the President of the United States], and it is the job of Congress to oversee the U.S. Federal Reserve, the most likely long-term outcome is hyper-inflation, not deflation.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent, but, in reality, it reports to the U.S. Congress.
On the other hand, either way, a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression will mean the end of business as usual, and a forced new way of doing business, which some call "financially responsible behavior" that will permeate the affairs of all private citizens, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats and politicians in the United States of America, soon.
In the not so distant future, out of dire necessity this new "financially responsible behavior" will be demanded by all Americans.
Though it will look like the end of the United States, in reality, it will just be a new beginning, which will make us much stronger, wiser and more cautious, again.
We are just one of a long line of nations and civilizations that will have had to re-learn these lessons of history, which play over and over, again, throughout time and probably always will.
In the end, human nature is always the same: we learn from lessons, then we prosper from those lessons, the generations that lived through those lessons die-out, and then we go through the painful process of re-learning all of those lessons, again.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Time is Right for Economic Solvency of the United States
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
The time is ripe for economic solvency of the United States, but how do we make it happen?
A 20-percent flat tax, with no exemptions, except for those with low incomes [to even the playing field] and a standard consumption tax on all discretionary new purchases would do it [given time].
Such a tax simplification would increase growth in the United States, increase tax compliance, and it would decrease the administrative costs of the IRS. Additionally, the United States would then see strong growth in the ensuing years that would make Ronald Reagan's economic miracle look just like a warm-up for the real deal.
It would be like Babe Ruth coming up to bat with the bases loaded in the last inning of the game with his team behind by one run.
Let's get busy on that Congress and Mr. President, sir!
Period.
The time is ripe for economic solvency of the United States, but how do we make it happen?
A 20-percent flat tax, with no exemptions, except for those with low incomes [to even the playing field] and a standard consumption tax on all discretionary new purchases would do it [given time].
Such a tax simplification would increase growth in the United States, increase tax compliance, and it would decrease the administrative costs of the IRS. Additionally, the United States would then see strong growth in the ensuing years that would make Ronald Reagan's economic miracle look just like a warm-up for the real deal.
It would be like Babe Ruth coming up to bat with the bases loaded in the last inning of the game with his team behind by one run.
Let's get busy on that Congress and Mr. President, sir!
Period.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Is Sarah Palin ready to be president, part two?
by Arnie Webre, Jr., republished from this blog, as a response to a comment from "Montana" about the original article, "Is Sarah Palin ready to be president?"
Montana, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that there are technical, detailed people who tell the general the information so he, or she, can make the decision.
Former President Ronald Reagan was a fine administrator and a likable guy, just like President Obama is. They both had, and one now has, the overview, but neither of them were, or are, necessarily the details guy.
Both of them were, and one currently is, the administrator, the overview guy, and I see Governor Palin in that light.
One day, she will be president.
Nevertheless, I am suspicious of the reports of Sarah Palin's vindictiveness, just as I am suspicious of the vindictiveness of the administration of President Obama's Chicago crowd.
By the way, I remember a number of gaffs by President Reagan, who was a very effective and likable administrator, as President of the United States, as was JFK, who was assassinated for his beliefs, which have turned out, historically, to be correct.
One more question, though LBJ was a likable man, using your philosophy, was LBJ brilliant because he graduated from Texas State Teachers' Normal College and former-President George W. Bush was, and is, an idiot because he obtain an MBA from Harvard University?
Is Dan Quayle stupid because he is an attorney, or did he just momentarily look stupid because he misspelled the word "potato," when the plural of "potato" is "potatoes?"
You make the call, Montana, as long as you think the call is a fair one.
One can easily, legitimately argue that Republicans, Democrats and Independents have all greatly contributed to the current deficits and the devastating national debt load, in their efforts to give the voters whatever they wanted, so they, the politicians, would be re-elected.
That is not leadership! That is weakness, cowardliness, and selfishness.
I do agree that President Bush should not have fought two-wars at one time, just as President Obama should not have radioed to our enemies the time-frame of when we are leaving Iraq or Afghanistan.
On the other hand, I was proud of President Obama's arousing speech to the U.S. troops a couple of days ago, and his closing comment, "God Bless America!"
President Obama has come of age as a leader, and he is trying to facilitate compromise between the posturing [for re-election] Republicans, Democrats and Independents, to get the legislative business of America done.
I am proud of our president at this moment in time. I think he is doing the right thing, under trying circumstances.
I just wish more politicians would put aside their selfish vested interests long enough to save America from its crippling national debts and deficits, and they should start by not adding to our national debt.
Every Congress and every presidential administration for the last 46-years, since the last true, un-manipulated United States surplus under JFK, has added to our huge national debt.
God Bless and Save the United States of America!
Montana, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that there are technical, detailed people who tell the general the information so he, or she, can make the decision.
Former President Ronald Reagan was a fine administrator and a likable guy, just like President Obama is. They both had, and one now has, the overview, but neither of them were, or are, necessarily the details guy.
Both of them were, and one currently is, the administrator, the overview guy, and I see Governor Palin in that light.
One day, she will be president.
Nevertheless, I am suspicious of the reports of Sarah Palin's vindictiveness, just as I am suspicious of the vindictiveness of the administration of President Obama's Chicago crowd.
By the way, I remember a number of gaffs by President Reagan, who was a very effective and likable administrator, as President of the United States, as was JFK, who was assassinated for his beliefs, which have turned out, historically, to be correct.
One more question, though LBJ was a likable man, using your philosophy, was LBJ brilliant because he graduated from Texas State Teachers' Normal College and former-President George W. Bush was, and is, an idiot because he obtain an MBA from Harvard University?
Is Dan Quayle stupid because he is an attorney, or did he just momentarily look stupid because he misspelled the word "potato," when the plural of "potato" is "potatoes?"
You make the call, Montana, as long as you think the call is a fair one.
One can easily, legitimately argue that Republicans, Democrats and Independents have all greatly contributed to the current deficits and the devastating national debt load, in their efforts to give the voters whatever they wanted, so they, the politicians, would be re-elected.
That is not leadership! That is weakness, cowardliness, and selfishness.
I do agree that President Bush should not have fought two-wars at one time, just as President Obama should not have radioed to our enemies the time-frame of when we are leaving Iraq or Afghanistan.
On the other hand, I was proud of President Obama's arousing speech to the U.S. troops a couple of days ago, and his closing comment, "God Bless America!"
President Obama has come of age as a leader, and he is trying to facilitate compromise between the posturing [for re-election] Republicans, Democrats and Independents, to get the legislative business of America done.
I am proud of our president at this moment in time. I think he is doing the right thing, under trying circumstances.
I just wish more politicians would put aside their selfish vested interests long enough to save America from its crippling national debts and deficits, and they should start by not adding to our national debt.
Every Congress and every presidential administration for the last 46-years, since the last true, un-manipulated United States surplus under JFK, has added to our huge national debt.
God Bless and Save the United States of America!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
President Obama set an example for Congress yesterday
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
On November 29, 2010, President Obama set an example for Congress and our entire nation by ordering no raises for United States civilian government workers for the next two-years. That is what true leadership is: taking unpopular but necessary steps for the good of our commonwealth.
It has put all of us on notice of the hundreds of hard choices that must be made, and if this democracy and the freedom that comes with it is to survive, we must all be willing to share in the sacrifices to come.
Our elected representatives in both houses of Congress must be up to the task of following President Obama's example of making hard choices without regard to re-election. The hundreds of changes in the pipeline that are waiting to be made are long overdue.
If this democracy is to survive, the time for a sea-change of responsible fiscal actions is now, as they have been put off by elected Republicans, Democrats and Independents for decades.
If all Americans are willing to share this pain, like President Obama and the USCS employees of the United States, we just might continue as a nation in its current form, contrary to expert international historians and economists.
I do not always agree with my President, but he is my President, and on this matter, he is dead-on correct!
Giving just a little more thought to the sacrifices that all us must make to save this democracy: my great-Aunt Kitty Neyland of Austin, Texas, before her death, told me, "I was there for WWII, working in an assembly line for the cause, while the soldiers and sailors were fighting in Europe. After all of our arguments and disagreements, Arnie, honey, you should see how America comes together, when we have too. We all came together as a nation to defeat the Nazis. It is something of tremendous beauty to experience."
Although Aunt Kitty is long gone, that tremendous beauty of us all coming together to defeat an enemy [the financial bankruptcy of America] is now something that I want to see, in order to insure the future for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The alternative is too horrible and upsetting to allow it to happen.
God Bless America!
On November 29, 2010, President Obama set an example for Congress and our entire nation by ordering no raises for United States civilian government workers for the next two-years. That is what true leadership is: taking unpopular but necessary steps for the good of our commonwealth.
It has put all of us on notice of the hundreds of hard choices that must be made, and if this democracy and the freedom that comes with it is to survive, we must all be willing to share in the sacrifices to come.
Our elected representatives in both houses of Congress must be up to the task of following President Obama's example of making hard choices without regard to re-election. The hundreds of changes in the pipeline that are waiting to be made are long overdue.
If this democracy is to survive, the time for a sea-change of responsible fiscal actions is now, as they have been put off by elected Republicans, Democrats and Independents for decades.
If all Americans are willing to share this pain, like President Obama and the USCS employees of the United States, we just might continue as a nation in its current form, contrary to expert international historians and economists.
I do not always agree with my President, but he is my President, and on this matter, he is dead-on correct!
Giving just a little more thought to the sacrifices that all us must make to save this democracy: my great-Aunt Kitty Neyland of Austin, Texas, before her death, told me, "I was there for WWII, working in an assembly line for the cause, while the soldiers and sailors were fighting in Europe. After all of our arguments and disagreements, Arnie, honey, you should see how America comes together, when we have too. We all came together as a nation to defeat the Nazis. It is something of tremendous beauty to experience."
Although Aunt Kitty is long gone, that tremendous beauty of us all coming together to defeat an enemy [the financial bankruptcy of America] is now something that I want to see, in order to insure the future for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The alternative is too horrible and upsetting to allow it to happen.
God Bless America!
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Americans should focus on our national debt before it's too late
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
Wow! Is it ever fun to have a huge party, but it can be hell to clean up afterward. In essence, that is what is happening, right now, in the United States of America, in regards to national debt.
Although Europe has debt problems also, we need to tend our own garden, at least until our national debt gets back to normal levels. The smaller our debt, the better, the more options we have, and the more competitive America will become.
While some people are trying to continue the party, I want to see everyone, including our elective representatives get the peoples' business done by compromise, as there is no other way to get anything done in the divided legislative bodies of the United States government.
That is what our politicians were elected for. Contrary to popular opinion, they can do what is right for America and get themselves re-elected, without continuing to spend money that we do not have and have not had since John F. Kennedy had the last true, un-manipulated U.S. national surplus. In the past, Republican and Democratic administrations would simply change the basket of commodities that make up the Consumer Price Index (CPI) if they needed to have a surplus, instead of a deficit, or they wanted a deficit to appear much smaller than it was.
Without compromise from all sides we cannot get anything done, politically or economically, about saving our over-indebted national government and a sputtering economy. Americans have enjoyed a high standard of living and way of life for countless Thanksgivings, Christmases, New Years, and every day of our lives, while much of the rest of the world has lived in greatly reduced circumstances.
If we cannot get our politicians and all Americans to compromise to get the business of America done, we and our way of life is finished, like burnt toast.
Now, just after Thanksgiving of 2012, we either all start worrying about America, and stop thinking about ourselves [how we are going to get something from the government or how we will get re-elected, even if the strategy to get re-elected is not in the bests interests of the United States], or we will be the ones soon living in vastly reduced circumstances.
To all politicians, no matter what your beliefs or party, either you get the business of America done, or I and millions of other Americans will vote you out, just as soon as we can get rid of your selfishness.
You were not sent to Congress, or other high office, to grandstand and not get the business of the people of this commonwealth done, so you can get yourself re-elected [it is the other guy's or the other political party's fault, not mine.] You were raised to your current position by the votes of the people of the United States, and you do work for us and the interests of our country, the United States of America, not your own selfish vested interests.
We have all known about this problem [the unsustainable debt of the United States of America] for a very long time, and politicians have, in the past, just pushed it down the road, so they could get re-elected. We no longer have that luxury. Currently, we are living off of the good graces of strangers and foreigners who buy our debt, U.S. Treasury notes, bills, and bonds.
On the other hand, there are clear signs that those strangers and foreigners are tired of the uneconomic ways of Congress and various presidents of the United States [Democrats and Republicans] spending their money, not ours, like it is water. If anyone does not see this as a problem, then consider who is buying U.S. Treasury debt, right now. The largest purchaser is Chairman Bernanke of the U.S. Federal Reserve, not China or Japan.
The party is over, and either you head for the door, or you will not be re-elected. You must change or your days in government are numbered. Who ever heard of U.S. Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents spending money borrowed from foreigners, like they were all drunken sailors on liberty? Since when did our standards get so low?
A debt to GDP ration of 30-percent or less would insure the survival of the United States of America as a free democracy for generations to come, as long as it did not get any higher than that. No debt, ever, would ensure that there would forever be a strong, free democracy in the United States.
Historically, too much debt destroys nations, and we are already overloaded with it. Therefore, we need to tip-toe, quietly and softly, away from the edge of financial disaster, as we are hanging over an extremely deep canyon, the fall from which will certainly kills us, figuratively speaking, as a nation.
So, to all politicians of the United States of America, if you cannot rise to this occasion, then get out of the way so we can elect someone else who can.
If you want to get re-elected, you need to do like the politicians of Canada, Brazil, Chile and Singapore did, by enacting laws that decrease government expenses and inefficiencies, that increase revenue fairly, without an undue tax burden on any one group, by getting rid of unnecessary or counterproductive exemptions and special interests, change the way that politicians are elected and do produce balanced budgets and significantly decrease our national debt, before we elect someone else who can.
Leadership is about making right decisions, not popular decisions.
I am a proud American, and I want to be proud of our government and our political leaders again. Politicians in the United States have a horrible image problem right now. If you want to know how to repair your image, re-read this article and give it to your staff and make it mandatory reading.
God Bless America!
Wow! Is it ever fun to have a huge party, but it can be hell to clean up afterward. In essence, that is what is happening, right now, in the United States of America, in regards to national debt.
Although Europe has debt problems also, we need to tend our own garden, at least until our national debt gets back to normal levels. The smaller our debt, the better, the more options we have, and the more competitive America will become.
While some people are trying to continue the party, I want to see everyone, including our elective representatives get the peoples' business done by compromise, as there is no other way to get anything done in the divided legislative bodies of the United States government.
That is what our politicians were elected for. Contrary to popular opinion, they can do what is right for America and get themselves re-elected, without continuing to spend money that we do not have and have not had since John F. Kennedy had the last true, un-manipulated U.S. national surplus. In the past, Republican and Democratic administrations would simply change the basket of commodities that make up the Consumer Price Index (CPI) if they needed to have a surplus, instead of a deficit, or they wanted a deficit to appear much smaller than it was.
Without compromise from all sides we cannot get anything done, politically or economically, about saving our over-indebted national government and a sputtering economy. Americans have enjoyed a high standard of living and way of life for countless Thanksgivings, Christmases, New Years, and every day of our lives, while much of the rest of the world has lived in greatly reduced circumstances.
If we cannot get our politicians and all Americans to compromise to get the business of America done, we and our way of life is finished, like burnt toast.
Now, just after Thanksgiving of 2012, we either all start worrying about America, and stop thinking about ourselves [how we are going to get something from the government or how we will get re-elected, even if the strategy to get re-elected is not in the bests interests of the United States], or we will be the ones soon living in vastly reduced circumstances.
To all politicians, no matter what your beliefs or party, either you get the business of America done, or I and millions of other Americans will vote you out, just as soon as we can get rid of your selfishness.
You were not sent to Congress, or other high office, to grandstand and not get the business of the people of this commonwealth done, so you can get yourself re-elected [it is the other guy's or the other political party's fault, not mine.] You were raised to your current position by the votes of the people of the United States, and you do work for us and the interests of our country, the United States of America, not your own selfish vested interests.
We have all known about this problem [the unsustainable debt of the United States of America] for a very long time, and politicians have, in the past, just pushed it down the road, so they could get re-elected. We no longer have that luxury. Currently, we are living off of the good graces of strangers and foreigners who buy our debt, U.S. Treasury notes, bills, and bonds.
On the other hand, there are clear signs that those strangers and foreigners are tired of the uneconomic ways of Congress and various presidents of the United States [Democrats and Republicans] spending their money, not ours, like it is water. If anyone does not see this as a problem, then consider who is buying U.S. Treasury debt, right now. The largest purchaser is Chairman Bernanke of the U.S. Federal Reserve, not China or Japan.
The party is over, and either you head for the door, or you will not be re-elected. You must change or your days in government are numbered. Who ever heard of U.S. Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents spending money borrowed from foreigners, like they were all drunken sailors on liberty? Since when did our standards get so low?
A debt to GDP ration of 30-percent or less would insure the survival of the United States of America as a free democracy for generations to come, as long as it did not get any higher than that. No debt, ever, would ensure that there would forever be a strong, free democracy in the United States.
Historically, too much debt destroys nations, and we are already overloaded with it. Therefore, we need to tip-toe, quietly and softly, away from the edge of financial disaster, as we are hanging over an extremely deep canyon, the fall from which will certainly kills us, figuratively speaking, as a nation.
So, to all politicians of the United States of America, if you cannot rise to this occasion, then get out of the way so we can elect someone else who can.
If you want to get re-elected, you need to do like the politicians of Canada, Brazil, Chile and Singapore did, by enacting laws that decrease government expenses and inefficiencies, that increase revenue fairly, without an undue tax burden on any one group, by getting rid of unnecessary or counterproductive exemptions and special interests, change the way that politicians are elected and do produce balanced budgets and significantly decrease our national debt, before we elect someone else who can.
Leadership is about making right decisions, not popular decisions.
I am a proud American, and I want to be proud of our government and our political leaders again. Politicians in the United States have a horrible image problem right now. If you want to know how to repair your image, re-read this article and give it to your staff and make it mandatory reading.
God Bless America!
President Obama's socialism destroying U.S. economy
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20023852.html]
Bob, Please focus on the issue at hand.
President Obama is purposely spending as much of the newly printed greenbacks as he can to devalue the U.S. dollar. It is a very dangerous strategy, as it will ruin the U.S. dollar and your assets, though it will, eventually, inflate away our debt, dishonorably, while destroying our entire United States economy.
If you thought that the bankruptcy of the old Soviet Union was interesting to watch on your evening news, Bob, just wait, as you will be able to watch the bankruptcy of the old United States on your evening news, if President Obama has his way.
Yes, it would, eventually, help the United States in trade, but it would ruin our country as an international power, and it would humiliate all of us -- those of us who are still proud to be an American and who hold high the ideals of America, democracy and freedom for all.
Again, in just the first 18-months of President Obama's administration, our national debt increased by over one-third (1/3). Never in the history of the United States, since General George Washington and his troops defeated General Lord Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, has such a large, gross amount of U.S. dollars been spent by our national government in such a brief period of time [18-months].
Although I was proud of Barrack Obama and America when he was elected president, he has since proven that he will continue to devalue the U.S. dollar, and our national interests, by continuing his budget-busting national socialist programs.
Socialism leads to communism, not democracy and freedom. It is time for all of America to wake-up about that fact. As a nation, we need to be very clear about the evils of socialism and how it enslaves us.
Socialism is not democracy or freedom.
At this very moment, approximately, two-thirds (2/3) of our entire workforce in the United States, one-way or another, works for either the United States government, state government, or one of their many related federal or state programs.
The "business of America is business," not government.
Bob, yes, President Obama is likable, and I do genuinely like the man; however, he has proven to me that he is more of a socialist than President Chavez of Venezuela, and that President Obama is hell-bent on destroying our economy, and the United States dollar, for whatever the reason.
Is President Obama brilliant? Yes! I do admire that about him.
However, in 2012 I will certainly vote for either a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent for president of the United States, who is not hell-bent on destroying the U.S. dollar and our economy with it.
God Bless America!
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20023852.html]
Bob, Please focus on the issue at hand.
President Obama is purposely spending as much of the newly printed greenbacks as he can to devalue the U.S. dollar. It is a very dangerous strategy, as it will ruin the U.S. dollar and your assets, though it will, eventually, inflate away our debt, dishonorably, while destroying our entire United States economy.
If you thought that the bankruptcy of the old Soviet Union was interesting to watch on your evening news, Bob, just wait, as you will be able to watch the bankruptcy of the old United States on your evening news, if President Obama has his way.
Yes, it would, eventually, help the United States in trade, but it would ruin our country as an international power, and it would humiliate all of us -- those of us who are still proud to be an American and who hold high the ideals of America, democracy and freedom for all.
Again, in just the first 18-months of President Obama's administration, our national debt increased by over one-third (1/3). Never in the history of the United States, since General George Washington and his troops defeated General Lord Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, has such a large, gross amount of U.S. dollars been spent by our national government in such a brief period of time [18-months].
Although I was proud of Barrack Obama and America when he was elected president, he has since proven that he will continue to devalue the U.S. dollar, and our national interests, by continuing his budget-busting national socialist programs.
Socialism leads to communism, not democracy and freedom. It is time for all of America to wake-up about that fact. As a nation, we need to be very clear about the evils of socialism and how it enslaves us.
Socialism is not democracy or freedom.
At this very moment, approximately, two-thirds (2/3) of our entire workforce in the United States, one-way or another, works for either the United States government, state government, or one of their many related federal or state programs.
The "business of America is business," not government.
Bob, yes, President Obama is likable, and I do genuinely like the man; however, he has proven to me that he is more of a socialist than President Chavez of Venezuela, and that President Obama is hell-bent on destroying our economy, and the United States dollar, for whatever the reason.
Is President Obama brilliant? Yes! I do admire that about him.
However, in 2012 I will certainly vote for either a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent for president of the United States, who is not hell-bent on destroying the U.S. dollar and our economy with it.
God Bless America!
Is Sarah Palin ready to be president?
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-20023852.html]
Froter, I believe that you are correct that Sarah Palin would make an excellent president, and that is the problem.
However, being objective, she does not have as much experience as Mitt Romney nor his likely running mate, Jeb Bush, so I think the best way forward for Palin is to get experience in the administration of Mitt Romney.
Although Palin and Romney view each other as competitors, they would be stronger working on the same team together, as they and Jeb Bush are close philosophical and political soul-mates.
Palin is in her mid-40s; so after Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are through with their administrations, with the experience that Palin would gain in their administrations, I am fairly certain that she would have a better shot than anyone in getting elected president of the United States.
I, too, believe in God. We can ask him for what we want, but he is in control of what, if and when it happens. I hope that Sarah Palin will think about that and do the right thing for America, for herself, and for her ideals.
There are few people who believe as strongly as Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush that we have to do something about America's huge national debt.
On the other hand, a Hillary Clinton as president does not bother me, at all, as I think she is a responsible Democrat, and there are other Democrats that I would feel comfortable with; nevertheless, I am weary of President Obama's radical socialist agenda and the explosion of the debt of the United States government. It seems to be a recipe for a financial disaster and a coming inflation that will shock most Americans, when we get through with the current slight deflation.
I sincerely hope that our elected officials, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents will stop posturing for the 2012 presidential election and actually compromise on our pressing national issues. Without compromise, our economy, standing in the world, and our national debt will not come back to normal levels, like those of Canada, Brazil, Chile and Singapore did.
First thing, Congressional Republicans, Democrats, and Independents need to pass the tax and debt reduction recommendations of the recent bi-partisan Presidential Commission. We are in an economic [debt] mess that is out of control, and we have to turn it around, now. [If not now, when?] Then President Obama needs to sign the law. Of course, that would require that Republicans, Democrats, Independents and our Commander-in-chief all do what is right for the United States, instead of what gets them re-elected.
Either "business as usual" is now over in Washington, D.C., or soon, we are going to be very unhappy American campers as to what happens to the United States dollar, our economy, and the standing of our nation in the world, when the United States dollar is no longer the world's currency for settlement of trades.
If we allow that to happen, there will be nothing under the United States dollar but air.
God Bless America!
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-20023852.html]
Froter, I believe that you are correct that Sarah Palin would make an excellent president, and that is the problem.
However, being objective, she does not have as much experience as Mitt Romney nor his likely running mate, Jeb Bush, so I think the best way forward for Palin is to get experience in the administration of Mitt Romney.
Although Palin and Romney view each other as competitors, they would be stronger working on the same team together, as they and Jeb Bush are close philosophical and political soul-mates.
Palin is in her mid-40s; so after Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are through with their administrations, with the experience that Palin would gain in their administrations, I am fairly certain that she would have a better shot than anyone in getting elected president of the United States.
I, too, believe in God. We can ask him for what we want, but he is in control of what, if and when it happens. I hope that Sarah Palin will think about that and do the right thing for America, for herself, and for her ideals.
There are few people who believe as strongly as Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush that we have to do something about America's huge national debt.
On the other hand, a Hillary Clinton as president does not bother me, at all, as I think she is a responsible Democrat, and there are other Democrats that I would feel comfortable with; nevertheless, I am weary of President Obama's radical socialist agenda and the explosion of the debt of the United States government. It seems to be a recipe for a financial disaster and a coming inflation that will shock most Americans, when we get through with the current slight deflation.
I sincerely hope that our elected officials, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents will stop posturing for the 2012 presidential election and actually compromise on our pressing national issues. Without compromise, our economy, standing in the world, and our national debt will not come back to normal levels, like those of Canada, Brazil, Chile and Singapore did.
First thing, Congressional Republicans, Democrats, and Independents need to pass the tax and debt reduction recommendations of the recent bi-partisan Presidential Commission. We are in an economic [debt] mess that is out of control, and we have to turn it around, now. [If not now, when?] Then President Obama needs to sign the law. Of course, that would require that Republicans, Democrats, Independents and our Commander-in-chief all do what is right for the United States, instead of what gets them re-elected.
Either "business as usual" is now over in Washington, D.C., or soon, we are going to be very unhappy American campers as to what happens to the United States dollar, our economy, and the standing of our nation in the world, when the United States dollar is no longer the world's currency for settlement of trades.
If we allow that to happen, there will be nothing under the United States dollar but air.
God Bless America!
Sarah Palin's shotgun marriage: we can do this the easy way or the hard way!
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20023852.html]
Is it alluring and easy to genuinely like Sarah Palin's spunk, her direct manner of addressing the socialist cancer in our society, her independent nature and her character? In a word: yes!
Palin also abhors the "business as usual" attitude of the Washington crowd [Republicans, Democrats and Independents], who are continuing to use money [gargantuan national debt] that we, as a nation, cannot afford -- to get themselves re-elected.
However, her statement about the Bush "blue bloods" is disingenuous, at best, as she knows that the George Bushes [the first and second Presidents of the United States named "Bush"] and Sarah Palin are all direct-blood descendants of European royalty.
In fact, the Bush clan is correct that Sarah Palin cannot defeat President Obama. Already Obama is trying to say that the only reason that he went overboard with his socialist agenda, is that a dire financial emergency required it. Which reminds us that when Senator Obama was campaigning for the presidency of the United States, he talked like a conservative to dupe the American populace into electing the most liberal socialist in the history of the United States, as President.
The timing of that ruse could not have been worse, as we are so strapped with debt, as a nation, that we cannot afford a socialist president of the United States. At this time in the history of the United States, we have a number of individual states that are so indebted that they are virtually insolvent, like the government of the United States.
Since the fact has just now been written on this page, the heresy of writing the truth about our government, our nation and our individual states, and the desire of the majority of our citizens to be taken care of by the government, let us have a little more truth.
Mitt Romney is qualified to be President of the United States, and he is the best candidate, regardless of party, to get us out of this financial mess, national debt, honorably.
Jeb Bush's record as Governor of Florida speaks for itself. Jeb would make a strong complement to Mitt Romney, and Romney and Bush would be unbeatable. I believe that they could turn this boat [nation] around.
Though many of our hearts are with Sarah Palin, she needs to ingratiate herself with the coming reality, as she would make a hell of a U.S. Cabinet member, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the United Nations, or Ambassador to England.
Palin certainly has a lot in common with the English [and they know it -- I think they see character in her, like many of us do], and not just her blood, or the academics who run the Oxford Dictionary would not have just included one of Palin's coined phrases, or words, in that top-of-the-line publication, which is used around the world.
As a matter of fact, by the time Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush clean-up our national financial [debt] mess, it might be time for President Palin.
It sure would make a lot of people happy to see a President Palin, but it will not happen unless she speaks on behalf of the Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush campaign between now and election night in 2012.
God Bless America!
[Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20023852.html]
Is it alluring and easy to genuinely like Sarah Palin's spunk, her direct manner of addressing the socialist cancer in our society, her independent nature and her character? In a word: yes!
Palin also abhors the "business as usual" attitude of the Washington crowd [Republicans, Democrats and Independents], who are continuing to use money [gargantuan national debt] that we, as a nation, cannot afford -- to get themselves re-elected.
However, her statement about the Bush "blue bloods" is disingenuous, at best, as she knows that the George Bushes [the first and second Presidents of the United States named "Bush"] and Sarah Palin are all direct-blood descendants of European royalty.
In fact, the Bush clan is correct that Sarah Palin cannot defeat President Obama. Already Obama is trying to say that the only reason that he went overboard with his socialist agenda, is that a dire financial emergency required it. Which reminds us that when Senator Obama was campaigning for the presidency of the United States, he talked like a conservative to dupe the American populace into electing the most liberal socialist in the history of the United States, as President.
The timing of that ruse could not have been worse, as we are so strapped with debt, as a nation, that we cannot afford a socialist president of the United States. At this time in the history of the United States, we have a number of individual states that are so indebted that they are virtually insolvent, like the government of the United States.
Since the fact has just now been written on this page, the heresy of writing the truth about our government, our nation and our individual states, and the desire of the majority of our citizens to be taken care of by the government, let us have a little more truth.
Mitt Romney is qualified to be President of the United States, and he is the best candidate, regardless of party, to get us out of this financial mess, national debt, honorably.
Jeb Bush's record as Governor of Florida speaks for itself. Jeb would make a strong complement to Mitt Romney, and Romney and Bush would be unbeatable. I believe that they could turn this boat [nation] around.
Though many of our hearts are with Sarah Palin, she needs to ingratiate herself with the coming reality, as she would make a hell of a U.S. Cabinet member, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the United Nations, or Ambassador to England.
Palin certainly has a lot in common with the English [and they know it -- I think they see character in her, like many of us do], and not just her blood, or the academics who run the Oxford Dictionary would not have just included one of Palin's coined phrases, or words, in that top-of-the-line publication, which is used around the world.
As a matter of fact, by the time Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush clean-up our national financial [debt] mess, it might be time for President Palin.
It sure would make a lot of people happy to see a President Palin, but it will not happen unless she speaks on behalf of the Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush campaign between now and election night in 2012.
God Bless America!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Universal health care in America at any cost? No!
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
Last night, like millions of Americans, I watched President Barack Obama's televised news conference about health care reform.
Although he spoke in conservative terms about his very liberal, general ideas about universal health care in America, he had me until he said that taxing only rich Americans to pay for the health care reform would meet his criteria, or words to that effect.
I appreciated that the president backed off of the earlier insistence that all businesses would be punished for not providing insurance to their employees by billing them with high penalty fees.
Currently, the proposal is that small businesses that have an annual payroll of less than $250,000 are completely exempt from these penalty fees, and those with payrolls over $250,000 have their penalty fees capped at 8 percent of revenue.
That is much better than what the proposal was before last night; however, I still believe that 8 percent is too high -- it should be no more than 5 percent of any businesses revenue.
Although I genuinely admire and like President Obama, I was shocked to hear a sitting President of the United States say, in effect, that it was okay to tax only the richest Americans for the 46-million newly insured under his plan. I honestly do not remember when it was that the United States became a Marxist socialist [communist] nation.
As a matter of fact, I do not think that The United States of America is a Marxist socialist [communist] nation, and I do not remember such a thing having happened, while I was preoccupied with other things.
I have always given President Obama the benefit of any doubt because I liked him; he is affable, has a brilliant mind, and I was glad to see the United States get a worthy African-American as President. I think it was high time that we broke that glass ceiling.
Nevertheless, after I watched his televised newscast, I had a bad feeling about his approval of the idea of taxing only the richest Americans.
Communism (Marxist socialism) equals shared wealth.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the number one definition of communism is "1: social organization in which goods are held in common."
Well, I guess fiat money can be called a type of good or a type of asset. But in this case, we are not talking about asking only the richest Americans to pay for goods for the 46-million who do not have goods. We are asking a small number of rich Americans to pay for the health care services of 46-million people, who do not currently have it.
I call that Marxist socialism, communism.
President Obama calls it a community.
In an interview earlier this week, the president said that it was alright for him and other rich Americans to pay for the health care of the 46-million Americans who did not have it; "that's what a community is. We share with one another," or words to that effect.
Excuse me, but I remember very clearly when President Chavez, after having met and talked with President Obama, said that Barack Obama was more of a socialist than Chavez was, or words to that effect.
As much as I dislike what President Chavez' socialist regime has done to Venezuela, its people and its businesses, it appears that Chavez was, indeed, correct about President Obama.
Barack Obama, the U.S. President, was, as he explained his program to Americans on television last night, doing what he did to, first, get elected as a U.S. senator in the conservative state of Illinois and, secondly, to get elected as President of the United States of America.
He hid his real agenda by talking in conservative terms about his outlandishly liberal, Marxist socialist agenda. Clearly, President Obama has read The Prince, by Machiavelli. Obama understands that he must say one thing, but mean another, saying what people do not want to hear in soft, careful, comfortable, conservative language, while his real agenda is totally different than what he is projecting.
He has duped the American voters, as he is not what he represents himself to be.
Now more than ever, I thank God for the conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and the Republicans, who will not let President Obama make only the richest Americans pay for the health care of 46-million newly insured Americans(1).
That is not a principal of a democracy; that is not a principal of the United States, at all -- even if most voters want something for nothing, and President Obama wants to give it to them, so he will easily be re-elected in three-and-one-half years from now.
Most of all, I thank God for the checks and balances built into our democracy by our forefathers.
Please support conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and Republicans fighting the idea of only one select group of Americans paying for health care reform: the idea is un-American.
In a democracy, we help each other by choice, not by government dictate.
NOTE:
The author of this article is not a rich American, though he is proud to be an American.
Last night, like millions of Americans, I watched President Barack Obama's televised news conference about health care reform.
Although he spoke in conservative terms about his very liberal, general ideas about universal health care in America, he had me until he said that taxing only rich Americans to pay for the health care reform would meet his criteria, or words to that effect.
I appreciated that the president backed off of the earlier insistence that all businesses would be punished for not providing insurance to their employees by billing them with high penalty fees.
Currently, the proposal is that small businesses that have an annual payroll of less than $250,000 are completely exempt from these penalty fees, and those with payrolls over $250,000 have their penalty fees capped at 8 percent of revenue.
That is much better than what the proposal was before last night; however, I still believe that 8 percent is too high -- it should be no more than 5 percent of any businesses revenue.
Although I genuinely admire and like President Obama, I was shocked to hear a sitting President of the United States say, in effect, that it was okay to tax only the richest Americans for the 46-million newly insured under his plan. I honestly do not remember when it was that the United States became a Marxist socialist [communist] nation.
As a matter of fact, I do not think that The United States of America is a Marxist socialist [communist] nation, and I do not remember such a thing having happened, while I was preoccupied with other things.
I have always given President Obama the benefit of any doubt because I liked him; he is affable, has a brilliant mind, and I was glad to see the United States get a worthy African-American as President. I think it was high time that we broke that glass ceiling.
Nevertheless, after I watched his televised newscast, I had a bad feeling about his approval of the idea of taxing only the richest Americans.
Communism (Marxist socialism) equals shared wealth.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the number one definition of communism is "1: social organization in which goods are held in common."
Well, I guess fiat money can be called a type of good or a type of asset. But in this case, we are not talking about asking only the richest Americans to pay for goods for the 46-million who do not have goods. We are asking a small number of rich Americans to pay for the health care services of 46-million people, who do not currently have it.
I call that Marxist socialism, communism.
President Obama calls it a community.
In an interview earlier this week, the president said that it was alright for him and other rich Americans to pay for the health care of the 46-million Americans who did not have it; "that's what a community is. We share with one another," or words to that effect.
Excuse me, but I remember very clearly when President Chavez, after having met and talked with President Obama, said that Barack Obama was more of a socialist than Chavez was, or words to that effect.
As much as I dislike what President Chavez' socialist regime has done to Venezuela, its people and its businesses, it appears that Chavez was, indeed, correct about President Obama.
Barack Obama, the U.S. President, was, as he explained his program to Americans on television last night, doing what he did to, first, get elected as a U.S. senator in the conservative state of Illinois and, secondly, to get elected as President of the United States of America.
He hid his real agenda by talking in conservative terms about his outlandishly liberal, Marxist socialist agenda. Clearly, President Obama has read The Prince, by Machiavelli. Obama understands that he must say one thing, but mean another, saying what people do not want to hear in soft, careful, comfortable, conservative language, while his real agenda is totally different than what he is projecting.
He has duped the American voters, as he is not what he represents himself to be.
Now more than ever, I thank God for the conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and the Republicans, who will not let President Obama make only the richest Americans pay for the health care of 46-million newly insured Americans(1).
That is not a principal of a democracy; that is not a principal of the United States, at all -- even if most voters want something for nothing, and President Obama wants to give it to them, so he will easily be re-elected in three-and-one-half years from now.
Most of all, I thank God for the checks and balances built into our democracy by our forefathers.
Please support conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and Republicans fighting the idea of only one select group of Americans paying for health care reform: the idea is un-American.
In a democracy, we help each other by choice, not by government dictate.
NOTE:
The author of this article is not a rich American, though he is proud to be an American.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Universal health care in America
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.
So what is the problem?
The real question is how to pay for it.
Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.
Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.
Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.
In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.
We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.
Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?
The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.
As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.
Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?
We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.
Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.
We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?
Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.
We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.
On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.
When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.
Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.
Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.
So what is the problem?
The real question is how to pay for it.
Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.
Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.
Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.
In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.
We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.
Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?
The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.
As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.
Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?
We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.
Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.
We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?
Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.
We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.
On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.
When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.
Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
The United States government has a right to tax its citizens and the income of its citizens.
In its current form, The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act will prevent Wall Street, banks, hedge funds and other professionals who design and market questionable overseas tax shelters, from abusing secrecy jurisdictions, a.k.a. offshore tax havens. Ultimately, it stops high-earning Americans from dodging taxes, though not all high-earning Americans dodge taxes.
Why should we care about The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which is currently working its way through Congress?
Well, in addition to doing some good for the United States, it is also an attempt to look for demons to blame for the current economic and political problems of the United States.
A March 2, 2009, press release from the office of Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin(1) outlines parts of the proposed legislation:
"In a tax proceeding, any amount or thing of value – a) transferred to a U.S. person (other than a publicly-traded corporation) directly or indirectly from an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, or b) transferred from such a U.S. person directly or indirectly to an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, will be presumed to represent previously unreported income to the U.S. person in the year of transfer."
"Offshore secrecy jurisdictions" refers to 34-countries that have been labeled as uncooperative in sharing financial information with the United States, such as Anguilla, Liechtenstein, Panama, Switzerland and Vanuatu(2).
Who thinks they can win going up against the U.S. government, even if they are allowed to present evidence to the contrary? How could we intimidate a citizen more? I thought we lived in a democracy.
I do not think that we should demonize law-abiding Americans.
The onus should be on the tax havens, not those who legally declared all of their overseas financial assets and accounts on U.S. Department of the Treasury Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), a.k.a. TD Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), and, also, paid all taxes owed to the IRS.
As a matter of fact, economically and historically, any country that has nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, has not had a true national economic surplus for 45-years, and has printed too much fiat money, always ends badly.
On the other hand, I did observe that President Obama has aggressively been pushing a renewable energy agenda that seems to anticipate technological advances that could help us out of our current problems. I hope he succeeds.
If we want to demonize anyone for the current economic and political problems of the United States, we have no further to look than the voters and politicians of the U.S., who have been milking the system for everything it was worth for the last 45-years. It has been that long since the United States had the last true, un-manipulated surplus.
Republican and Democratic administrations alike, as well as Congress, have routinely robbed the Social Security Trust Fund and manipulated [changed] the basket of commodities that our monthly and quarterly inflation figures are derived from. That enabled our government to report serious deficits as not so serious ones, and it magically turned some deficits into surpluses.
That being said, there is much that is good in The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.
On the other hand, in the final analysis, we do want Americans, who legally report all of their financial assets and accounts to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and who pay all taxes owed to the IRS, to have assets overseas.
Why?
A currency default, which amounts to a national bankruptcy (a redenomination of one's currency), like Argentina, China, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Taiwan and many other nations suffered in the last century, is not pretty.
Since the year 2000, already there have been at least 11 currency redenominations, worldwide -- there are more waiting in the wings. Just one such example would be the year 2005, when 1 million old Turkish lira became one new [improved] Turkish lira(3).
If the worst should happen to America, there needs to be someone left who can re-liquify the American economy, other than just foreigners.
Let us think long-term of the consequences of our actions, not short-term. As a nation, we can work it out, for the good of our common wealth, if we are willing to put egos and party ideology aside for a sane compromise.
Let us redraft an honest version of The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which does not demonize law-abiding Americans.
Notes:
1. "Summary of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act: Title I - Deterring the Use of Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions for Tax Evasion."
2. "As of the time of publication of this article, some of the 34-countries on the secrecy jurisdiction list have agreed to share financial information with the United States."
3. "Since the year 2000, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ghana, Mozambique, Romania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe (3 times) have all redenominated their currencies."
The United States government has a right to tax its citizens and the income of its citizens.
In its current form, The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act will prevent Wall Street, banks, hedge funds and other professionals who design and market questionable overseas tax shelters, from abusing secrecy jurisdictions, a.k.a. offshore tax havens. Ultimately, it stops high-earning Americans from dodging taxes, though not all high-earning Americans dodge taxes.
Why should we care about The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which is currently working its way through Congress?
Well, in addition to doing some good for the United States, it is also an attempt to look for demons to blame for the current economic and political problems of the United States.
A March 2, 2009, press release from the office of Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin(1) outlines parts of the proposed legislation:
"In a tax proceeding, any amount or thing of value – a) transferred to a U.S. person (other than a publicly-traded corporation) directly or indirectly from an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, or b) transferred from such a U.S. person directly or indirectly to an account or entity in an Offshore Secrecy Jurisdiction, will be presumed to represent previously unreported income to the U.S. person in the year of transfer."
"Offshore secrecy jurisdictions" refers to 34-countries that have been labeled as uncooperative in sharing financial information with the United States, such as Anguilla, Liechtenstein, Panama, Switzerland and Vanuatu(2).
Who thinks they can win going up against the U.S. government, even if they are allowed to present evidence to the contrary? How could we intimidate a citizen more? I thought we lived in a democracy.
I do not think that we should demonize law-abiding Americans.
The onus should be on the tax havens, not those who legally declared all of their overseas financial assets and accounts on U.S. Department of the Treasury Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), a.k.a. TD Form 90-22.1 (Rev. 10-2008), and, also, paid all taxes owed to the IRS.
As a matter of fact, economically and historically, any country that has nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, has not had a true national economic surplus for 45-years, and has printed too much fiat money, always ends badly.
On the other hand, I did observe that President Obama has aggressively been pushing a renewable energy agenda that seems to anticipate technological advances that could help us out of our current problems. I hope he succeeds.
If we want to demonize anyone for the current economic and political problems of the United States, we have no further to look than the voters and politicians of the U.S., who have been milking the system for everything it was worth for the last 45-years. It has been that long since the United States had the last true, un-manipulated surplus.
Republican and Democratic administrations alike, as well as Congress, have routinely robbed the Social Security Trust Fund and manipulated [changed] the basket of commodities that our monthly and quarterly inflation figures are derived from. That enabled our government to report serious deficits as not so serious ones, and it magically turned some deficits into surpluses.
That being said, there is much that is good in The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.
On the other hand, in the final analysis, we do want Americans, who legally report all of their financial assets and accounts to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and who pay all taxes owed to the IRS, to have assets overseas.
Why?
A currency default, which amounts to a national bankruptcy (a redenomination of one's currency), like Argentina, China, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Taiwan and many other nations suffered in the last century, is not pretty.
Since the year 2000, already there have been at least 11 currency redenominations, worldwide -- there are more waiting in the wings. Just one such example would be the year 2005, when 1 million old Turkish lira became one new [improved] Turkish lira(3).
If the worst should happen to America, there needs to be someone left who can re-liquify the American economy, other than just foreigners.
Let us think long-term of the consequences of our actions, not short-term. As a nation, we can work it out, for the good of our common wealth, if we are willing to put egos and party ideology aside for a sane compromise.
Let us redraft an honest version of The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which does not demonize law-abiding Americans.
Notes:
1. "Summary of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act: Title I - Deterring the Use of Offshore Secrecy Jurisdictions for Tax Evasion."
2. "As of the time of publication of this article, some of the 34-countries on the secrecy jurisdiction list have agreed to share financial information with the United States."
3. "Since the year 2000, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ghana, Mozambique, Romania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe (3 times) have all redenominated their currencies."
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Economic and political changes
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.
Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.
I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.
As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."
Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?
Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?
Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?
Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.
On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.
America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.
While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.
I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?
On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?
It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.
On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.
In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.
On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.
We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.
Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.
Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.
At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?
Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.
In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.
Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.
Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.
Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.
This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.
There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.
By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.
It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.
On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.
From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.
It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?
Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.
As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.
After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.
Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.
That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.
My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.
I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.
Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.
On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.
Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].
Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.
I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].
When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.
Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].
Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.
I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.
I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.
Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.
I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.
As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."
Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?
Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?
Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?
Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.
On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.
America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.
While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.
I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?
On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?
It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.
On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.
In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.
On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.
We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.
Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.
Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.
At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?
Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.
In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.
Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.
Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.
Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.
This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.
There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.
By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.
It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.
On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.
From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.
It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?
Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.
As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.
After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.
Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.
That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.
My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.
I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.
Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.
On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.
Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].
Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.
I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].
When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.
Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].
Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.
I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)