Showing posts with label Debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debt. Show all posts

Friday, March 22, 2013

The sky IS FALLING (in graphs)

The NCAA tournament isn’t over yet but we know its coming to an end in exactly 16 days. If I was to tell you it’s not over yet, I would be correct. But does change the fact that is will end? Of course it doesn’t. For many people, because we haven’t seen bread lines or riots in the streets the “sky isn’t falling” yet. Does that change the reality that our economy is on the downside of the bell curve?

When the FED dropped interest rates back in ’07 the idea was that it would incur borrowing from the public & private business; therefore creating new/bigger business and in the process creating jobs or at least not hemorrhaging more than the economy was already in the process of doing. Then the rates kept dropping and dropping and wont go up until the very least 2014 and then what? Go up? The debt will explode in a hyperbolic fashion.

This graph shows we paid MORE in interest on our debt in 2008 (10,024,724,896,912.49) then we did in 2012 (16,066,241,407,385.89). How do you pay LESS interest on six trillion more in principal? There is only one solution; you pay substantial less interest. 

As we know, unemployment has dropped from its high of 10.0% back in ’09 to 7.7% as of last month but at what cost?

GDP has only seen moderate gains during the last five years and in fact, as you can see below, the last quarter actually seen our GDP in decline; despite the fact that private GDP rose in the same period. 

Some people will point to the cuts in defense spending as the main culprit and they would be correct (as defense have seen a 22% drop in spending) but if running nothing short of an empire and that is how we are keeping afloat in the first place, well… 

Mortgage rates are now at their lowest rate in recorded history and this has been a yearly trend these last few years. Only now in March of 2013, are we beginning to see signs of the real estate market coming back to life; despite a plummet in interest rates the last six years that were supposed to (as said in my opening) entice borrowers. Was it worth it?

Was it worth it and at what cost are the two questions I pose to you today. At what cost and is it worth it to live for today at the expense of tomorrow?

The CBO estimates of this nation’s debt keep getting worse, study after study. This is a quite simple process: the interest rates remain low, the debt piles up and the economy barley moves. These projections below are based on current conditions. Remember, zero is the end game; there isn’t much that can be done after that. We are basically at zero interest rates now.  

These examples I gave are just the tip of the iceberg and they are all interconnected. And that iceberg is the general public of this nation being so inundated in debt, so much so that we are getting to the point where offers of basically free money can’t move the needle any longer. These last four years of record low interest rates with barley a crawl until four, five sometimes six years later illustrates this quite luminously.

With wages not keeping up with real inflation (not the phony government statistics) and the globalization of the market, incomes for the average American (an overwhelming majority of) are stagnated; if not in decline. Is there any way that changes? Of course not, this is the new reality.

So to keep up, for most Americans, debt is the only logical solution. Afterall, we know saving via the conventional bank route is futile with rates being under 1%. And as we know debt = money, so when the economy can’t jump start and the FED’s QE programs don’t jump start growth; what else can the FED do? It’s been said by Bernanke that the quick death of deflation will not occur, so that only leaves one alternative; go to zero and close its eyes. Then hold on for limb and life as the decent to a slow death via hyperinflation begins.

The political process here has become a joke. A crooked game ran by self-serving lawyers and career politicians hell bent on seeing who can kick the can down the road the furthest. What was once a calling of statesmen has been replace by a bloodthirsty pack of statists. Republicans blame Democrats for not cutting spending despite having no solution themselves and god-damn you if you want to cut a bloated defense budget! Democrats want to actually ADD to the problem with a monstrosity addition to healthcare. While both “sides” will tell you it’s the other guys fault. Then all the puppets and zombies watching/reading the propaganda will parrot it. You think this is going to change?

At this moment, under these terms we are watching the beginning of the end finally become visible before our very eyes. Americans and their distractions have reached the crescendo. They can no longer afford them. The sky isn’t falling, but our economy is. It’s circling the drain, not as fast as Greece or Spain but its circling nonetheless. So move over American Idol, the freak show isn’t just in your living room its right outside your window. Get ya’ popcorn ready.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Turning Japanese? Turning Japanese? I really do think so.

That's why I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so

I know I cannot be the first to use this analogy, but god bless new wave music & the 80's, for this apropos song. 

With so much attention being paid to the Eurozone, specifically Greece’s departure from it and 165% debt to GDP ratio in tote, its surprising to me that nobody in the MSM mentions the king of living beyond its means. This is none other than the spawn of American ingenuity and the benchmark that all post-war reconstructions whom are modeled after… Japan.

Japan’s ascension from rubble after WW2 to the world's third-largest economy has been staggering, especially for a country that’s about the size of the state of Montana. With a population that values education as much as anyone in the world, Japan has become a standard to many and no more than those in the corporate world, noted for their dedication to innovation and organization. But if you dig a little deeper, Japan and with all its glitz, glam & refined style; it isn’t all what it seems.

Because, like all fiat facilitated economies, the debt monster is alive and well and the only way to keep from getting swallowed up is to keep pushing, keep innovating and never, ever under any circumstance become stagnant. Well, at least over the last 20 years or so that’s been the case.

This is precisely what happened to Japan in the 1990’s known in Japan and around the world as Japan’s “lost decade”. When the NIKKEI started to free fall and real estate prices started to fall with it, those asset bubbles burst. This left the government in panic mode, so like all bureaucracies do in a panic, they did the opposite of what was right and did what was easy - threw money at it, instead of letting the natural correction run its course. 

They began to doll out stimulus after stimulus (sound familiar?), bailed out banks and insurance companies (getting warmer?) with the economy still limping along they said the hell with it and raised its consumption tax 2 percent (doesn’t this sound familiar too?) which subsequently brought on another recession.

After about two decades, and even with stimulus’s keep piling on, Japan’s economy finds itself in a ditch. Since 2011, the Bank of Japan has issued quantitative easing programs in excess of 900 billion alone. With very little to no growth potential, an aging population and an exponentially escalating debt tab; Japan is running on borrowed time. 

In a recent interview with Spiegel Online's Anne Seith, The Bank of Japan's governor, Masaaki Shirakawa said: "At the moment, the effect of our monetary policy in stimulating economic growth is very limited. The money is there, liquidity is abundant, interest rates are very low -- and, still, firms do not make use of accommodative financial conditions, the return on investment is too low."

Doesn't this sound eerily similar as well? 

Japan is currently using 25% of its outlays just to service their debt. If they raise interest rates, the number will climb dramatically. This is why the US is so fearful of raising its interests rates well. The FED wont entertain raising interest rates until 2014, so imagine all the cheap money printed off until then? If we are to raise interest rates where we already pay 220 billion on basically 0% what will it look like if those rates go up? As I pointed out back in March, via Kyle Bass, for every additional percentage point it will also bring about $140 Billion dollars on top of the existing 220 Billion.

  President's FY 2013 budget, Congressional Budget Office

Japan’s current debt to GDP ratio is currently 220% according to IMF reports for comparison’s sake the US debt to GDP ratio is about 102% (but that number has doubled in just four years). Japan however, unlike the US, has a few unique circumstances that will either prolong a slow death or escalate to their death at the speed of sound. 


Japan is one of the few countries that its public finances most of its debt (an astounding 95%). Thus, if they are comfortable with virtually no return on their investing (0.75% average return) into the debt and increasing inflation, they can literally keep financing their own debt as long as they don’t mind saving up to go to the grocery store as if it were a vacation.

The other option(s) is eye popping and absolutely lunacy to say the least. Newly elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants the Bank of Japan to start issuing “unlimited easing” starting with a 120 billion dollar bullet into infrastructure. If that doesn’t get inflation where he sees fit and despite a declining Yen the threats coming out of Shinzo Abe’s mouth, will bring the death of Japan sooner rather than later.

In true, ancient Japanese kamikaze fashion, the Liberal Democrat Shinzo Abe with all his love for easing (hello Bernanke) is threatening to change the country’s laws and actually take the Bank of Japan over: read quite literally, socialization.  

So, as you can see, here in the US by all accounts, we are not Japanese yet. Although if we keep up this pace, follow the Japanese playbook and we look at the last four years as any indication; it should tell you it’s only a matter of time before we do.  

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Obama Wins (shocker) but where does he go from here?

Its been a while for me putting pen to paper, in fact it will be seven months & days days from now between posts and a lot has changed since. Nothing has changed in the grand scheme of things thou, not with having re-elected President Obama. Had it been Mitt Romney would it have been much different? I don't think so, but it couldn't have gotten much worse either. For full disclosure I'm not an anti-Obama guy. I think hes grossly under-qualified for the position and has gotten in way over his head. With that said, as i have stated many times on this blog, i think too much disinformation has been put out in efforts to soil the President and many of them are gross exaggerations - like this obsession with him raising taxes & running up the debt at a record pace.

Plain and simple, Obama has not raised taxes across the board like most think he has, in fact hes been a tax cutter (if you dont count the tax on tattoos parlors and tanning bed companies). Now with that now being said, that will dramatically change over the next few years as the Bush Tax cuts are set to expire and he has stated taxes will go up for the wealthy. Then factor in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and you are now talking about sweeping tax hikes, but to this point the narrative of him being a greedy socialist tax whore has been blatantly false.

The Debt? Hes run up the credit card at an alarming rate, but not much more than his predecessor George W Bush did in his eight years before Obama's election. When President Bush took office the National Debt stood at 5.7 Trillion, when he left it was 10.6. So when Obama took office he entered with the 10.6 Trillion, as of this morning it stands at 16.2 (bear in mind that 3/4 of Obama's first year of office was under a GWB budget). So nominally, Obama will easily be the biggest debtor in our nations history but he will will probably "only" double the debt, just as his predecessor did before him.

So, where does that leave us? I think we are in for another recession. The President will have the veto pen and i think if everything is left in place, economically its going to be a long and harsh recovery of virtually no growth. Jobs will not be plentiful and incomes will continue to be slashed through a combination of: lack of work, inflation and debt at every level, public and privately. If his broaden agenda is brought into focus and realized things will be worse. Cataclysmic economic meltdown filled with bread lines and riots in the streets? No. But stagflation circa mid 1970's? Yes.

Hopefully, the administration understands the situation we are in and does its best to curb the rising tides that are on the horizon. If not, Obama's legacy will be nothing short of a an economic dead zone. A presidency that inherited an economic crisis that was undoubtedly dire but after a stabilization, this was a regime that failed to turn the momentum around and instead kicked out its arms every-time it tried to get up off the floor.  An 8 year window of high unemployment, economic decline via the continued assault on the dollar through currency manipulation and reckless spending. "Hope" and "Change" were the buzz words of '08 and they were empty words based on the results of the last four years. Lets hope for some change in the next four. 

Thursday, April 5, 2012

A slightly out of the box solution to our gasoline/energy problem

Imagine a policy where the US drastically cut defense expenditures, increased our dependence on foreign oil, withdrew and stopped entering wars to protect or prop up the petrodollar and pay higher consuming costs not only at the pump and grocery store but everywhere else and in between. Would you believe it? Would you even accept this as remotely possible without destroying our economy? I know it sounds crazy and no, this isn’t a page out of the Obama playbook. This would be the policy going forward if I was sitting at the top of the elitist pyramid. It's not ideal but you have to play the hand that is dealt.

I know there are “greenies” or “tree-huggers” that are reading this and smiling. I hate to disappoint but it’s not a green agenda. No, this is a strategy that would keep America not only at the top of the neocolonial power structure; it would vastly strengthen its grip. How do you suppose this is possible? First and foremost it’s a strategy centered on oil.

We have all experienced the rising gas prices. We have seen the rising prices in commodities. We have felt the gouge in the pocketbook, as trips to the grocery store have become ever increasingly more expensive. The volatile relationship of humans and fuel has taken center stage as the issue of 2012. Emerging economies cannot grow without fuel and established markets crumble if they lose the access.

If it affects everyone, then everyone has an opinion on what to do about our dependency on fossil fuels. Some say, drive the prices sky high so we can jump-start innovation for green tech. While others say “drill baby drill” using our own resources to offset rising costs. Then there are those of us in the middle. While I can see the logic behind the green push and the tapping of our resources, the reality of the situation, unfortunately, is not so pragmatic.

Oil as we know is a global commodity traded around the world. What is traded and receives the most attention is crude oil. Crude oil is by far the most lucrative oil for its producers and the most inexpensive for the consumer. Its diverse applications make in the most valued of all fuels. As far as we go here in the states, it is true; we do have vast reserves of oil, but how much of it is crude oil is a big question mark.

The amount of crude oil we have here in the in proven reserves (as you can see above) is nothing like they have in the Middle East. This is why the Middle East remains so vital to the entire world. Just ask Dick, before he became "Vice Dick" back in 1999 while he was CEO at Haliburton.

 “The Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow” - Dick Cheney
 However, there are people like Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who say the US has billions of untapped crude reserves, just waiting to be put into production. According to Hamm and his exploration and production company, the Bakken region alone has 20 billion barrels of crude. That would equal the entire US total in proven crude reserves according to the EPA numbers. And that is just in North Dakota and Montana. 

Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, California, Alaska and off shore are all seeing a new oil boom. The amount of oil we have in reserves is rivaled by no other nation in the world. Again, how much of it is crude, is open for debate, there is no denying the vast supply of fuels however.

With crude being the most lucrative and easiest to refine, it will remain the preferred fuel until the time comes when supply of it is vastly outstripped by demand creating equilibrium amongst other types of oil. If you look at the crude oil rich Middle East (who supplies over sixty percent of the world’s oil demands), its crystal clear what kind of clout you receive having the breadbasket of energy in your backyard. 

That region is home to some of the most backwards societies on the planet; yet our President will bow to their king, because he knows how vital they are. Now superimpose that type of power to the US, who already runs the petrodollar scam. So it doesn’t matter really what our reserves are made from. When the supply of crude becomes so depleted you will have all types of oil becoming economically viable. At that point, all oil will be worth not only pursuing but manufacturing and refining as well. 

So, it stands to reason, in a Machiavellian-esque outlook, the US should do all it can to pump the world of its crude, as quickly as possible. This of course will be painful in the short terms but the reality is that the price of oil isn’t going down anymore. The days of cheap gas are gone. 

The US dollar is nothing more then a mirage, its no more valuable then the paper it’s printed on. We are trading paper backed in confidence for tangible assets from other nations that have to invest in our nation just to get oil 66% of the time. Then those nations who take the dollars reinvest them back into this country, yes, that as you know is the short version of the petrodollar recycling process but I think its important to understand the significance of this and the opportunity that lies within it. That’s about as good as a scam as one can devise. If you did it, it would be called counterfeit.

When the Middle East and OPEC lose their stranglehold, the dollar dies. We have accumulated too much debt since OPEC agreed to trade oil for dollars in the early 1970's. The recoil from that action will have a dramatic impact on not only our market but the entire world market.


So, I say NO to: “drill baby drill”. 

I say YES, take a hatchet to defense spending and reinvest that money towards balancing the budget or subsidize gas prices for the American consumer (further pushing up consumption).

I say YES to further litigation and regulation, stifling American companies from extracting oil in the US. Bring on Green Peace and bring on the environmentalists.

I say NO to consuming 1.oz of the 695.9 million barrels we have as a nation in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Do whatever it takes to use up the rest of the world’s fuels, trading worthless paper for them in the process. The ends justify the means.   

Monday, March 26, 2012

Get your Burl "silver" Ives on.

Everyone remembers the movie “Indecent proposal”. The movie where Robert Redford offered Woody Harrelson's character 1 Million dollars for one night with his wife, who was played by Demi Moore. The movie gave a complex view of how people value themselves in relation to money and it probably made a lot of people play the “what if” game because of it. I remember being a teenager playing the “what if” game myself. More often than not, it was centered on money as well. For example: 

How much would it take for you, to let Michael Jackson fondle you?
If reincarnation allowed you to come back as someone, who would it be?
If you won a million dollars, what would you do with it?
The first scenario was when MJ was in his heyday of molestation, so it was relevant then – not proud of it, but true nonetheless. That last scenario was the one I would think about often to myself.  Being that i was young, the answers were predictable for a kid who just wanted to play sports and nothing else. Those fantasy dollars were chasing imaginary possessions like: cars, houses and basketball court's in my backyard(s). You get the idea. As I got older, the view became more conservative, one built on investing and preserving that wealth. I’ll get back to that later. 

Up until recently I haven’t given the “what if” game much thought. That is until I seen this story of a woman in Michigan, who won a lottery worth: 1 million dollars. 

Amanda Clayton, a 24 year old unemployed female, won the "Make Me Rich!" lottery earlier this month as reported on by everyone in the national media. The overview is simple. Mrs Clayton took a lump-sum payment of 500K after taxes and bought two houses and a car. Or exactly what I would have done…20 years ago. 

The rub is that Mrs Clayton also collected $200 in food stamps monthly even after she had won. Now any reasonable person would understand or sense an obligation to end his or her case and stop receiving the foodstamps but Mrs Clayton does have a point. She went on record stating that:

“I thought, maybe, it was OK because I'm not working. It's hard. I am struggling."

You see she is struggling, she doesn’t have a job and if that wasn’t hard enough, maybe you will tear up when you know that she quote:

“I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses."

How is someone able to hit the lottery for seven figures and still legally be eligible for food stamps? Because, according to federal guidelines; gambling and lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don't count as gross income. Therefore, one could hit the Mega-Millions 350 Million dollar Jackpot and still collect their foodstamps. So technically speaking, she wasn’t breaking any laws. Technically is one thing, morally or ethically is another.

Now, you are probably asking yourself… what does that have to do with you and the “what if” game and Mrs Clayton striking it rich then still collecting foodstamps? It’s obvious that what Mrs Clayton did was unethical and really a microcosm for many in society, who feel they are entitled to benefits. Many times, those benefits are goodwill or tax dollars from others used to give the less fortunate a hand; to only be stolen and pillaged by people that could otherwise do for themselves but would rather go this route because it easier.

Now, when I played the “what if” game as I got older I would always say I would invest the money in a CD or save it in a Money Market or just conventional savings account. Back when I was doing my dreaming (in the mid-90’s) a Jumbo CD yield was anywhere from 4-6%. Obviously I would have taken out multiple CD’s because of the limitations of the FDIC, but that is really all you would have to do to live off the interest. Pretty simple, no money manager needed. Sure it’s not exotic but its conservative and simplistic. What about now? 

 Graph from:

In the 90’s we could live off of 35-40K a year, the yield we could expect from a million dollar investment. I assume that would be sufficient for Mrs Clayton (she may only be able to own one house thou) and I know it would be for me. Now with that said, let’s play the “what if” game in today’s environment. 

For anyone of us that frequent a bank and see the rates on the wall, we know the return isn’t worth them holding our cash. As you can see from the link below, a jumbo today would yield you at the most 1.15% with most of the interest rates being below 1%. Using today’s interest rates, it would have us collecting anywhere from $7,500-$13,000 off of 1 Million dollars in Jumbo CD’s. That is not livable by most standards.
What this says is what we already know: fiat money, fractional reserve banking and our entire monetary policy/system is starting to eat itself. The debt driven - black hole gathers strength. It’s hurting the poor and those people who rely on cash of course but like we see here, it hurts the savers (where true capital comes from) and instead, favors the wealthiest and credit whores. As I pointed out with pending interest rate tsunami that is coming when/if the FED raises interest rates and the fact that the American consumer is tapped out and saturated in debt, our demise is only a mater of time. Today, the “what if” game for me and hopefully anyone else (including you too Amanda) only consists of silver and gold… and some guns.  

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Hyperinflation, the end game or will it be crippling interest? Choose your side.

Recently I saw an interview done with Kyle Bass, which was done in early November as a part of AmeriCatalyst 2011. The interview was over an hour in but if you start at the 46-minute mark, I assure you will be glad you did as it will lead you to the same conclusion that I came to and its one I want to address today. That is concerning the Keynesian debt system and interest payments on the debt. 

Kyle Bass, who founded Hayman Capital in 2006, made a fortune betting against the sub-prime mortgage bond market. Yes, that same bond market that was at the forefront of the great meltdown in 2008-present. You can also find Bass’s surging rise to the top in Michael Lewis’s book 'Boomerang: The Meltdown Tour'.

Towards the latter part of this interview, Mr Bass says that if the FED raises the interest rates, for every 1% point moved higher it will “create an additional 140 billion in interest expenses”. That got me thinking.

The FED is already on record saying they will not move interest rates until 2014 at the earliest, so the amount of liquidity in the system will only explode until then. That we know is a given.

What isn’t a given is what happens when they do raise interest rates. Kyle Bass seems to think that the Keynesian end point is zero and that, of course, would lead to massive hyperinflation. I assume that to be somewhat true as well, although I think the FED will do something to intervene to prevent that from happening, because:

A. they are too arrogant not to
B. their sole responsibility is to control our money supply.

So, even with unemployment news getting better the last few months, we are still (as we have said before) in the period of time of the worst, extended lack of job growth; then any point in modern Keynesian history. There is another factor and that is the FED isn’t going to raise rates for the next few years; then it hit me.

What happens when the FED has to go the Volckeresque route and raise rates too early 80’s height to stave off inflation, assuming zero isn’t the end game?

Will we see a repeat of the “October massacre” of ’79 sometime in the future, where interest rates were raised dramatically? In 1979 inflation was running at 13%. After those interest rate hikes by Volcker over the next few years, inflation dropped to 3.2%.

That, however, was not the politically smart thing to do at the time but it was the prudent thing for the country going forward. It also brought on a recession and I can’t think of any politician let alone anyone from the FED willing to do so in this day in age outside of Ron Paul.
“Strictly speaking, it probably is not “necessary” for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk; too much water and the people catch on.” – Ron Paul
It is also important to note, that interest rate hike also made the perfect organic soil for a vast economic expansion to blossom as well, go figure.

If we know the interest payments are 450 Billion on the debt last year (combining both public and intra debt) and we have heard from Kyle Bass that for every point raised brings about an additional $140 billion in interest… and if we approached the prime rate today what Volcker’s prime rate topped out at 21.5 percent, what would our interest payment be?

It would be a whopping 2.9 Trillion in additional interest payments…annually. On top of the 450 billion currently obligated by law to pay… annually. Thus the interest payment today, on the debt, at early 1980 levels; would be about as much as the entire federal budget is today. If that isn’t a sign of the times and further proof of us living beyond our means, I don’t know what else is. No wonder Bass thinks the end game is zero. No wonder he has over 20 million nickel coins and bars of gold in his drawer… hyperinflation here we come!

Friday, March 9, 2012

Thou not lead us to temptation

When I was working on my last entry concerning FEMA and Ron Paul, I started to get into a bit of a tirade concerning the debt. This, in this writers opinion, is the United States greatest threat, not some foreign enemy. With most people showing no interest or regard for it, its up to those of us who do hold these truths to be evident, to keep putting that word out there... and that word is debt (specifically insurmountable debt) is slavery and nothing more then a transfer of wealth; from the many to the few. 

In this article I want to tackle two situations that I see problematic and the key cogs to insurmountable debt. First, there is the federal government and our elected "leaders" role in this failure to be reasponsible. Secondly, is the Federal Reserve and its banks, that have been culpable in allowing (through the manipulation of interest rates) this economy to take a path that will see it fall off a cliff. What the recoil will be from QE 2,3,4,5,6,7 bailouts and stimulus remains to be seen, but there can be only one thing we know for sure. 

That is, we are accumulating debt. And vast amounts of it. The implication of compound interest makes these actions basically treasonous by our elected leaders and criminal by the FED. How can Congress and the executive branch both complicity push the cost of running the government so far out of the realm of practicality? How is it legal for the FED to lend huge sums at what amounts to no interest to those banks that were all considered "too big to fail" who then take that liquidity and invest in T-Bills that will actually yield a 2-3% interest? These practices destroy existing savings and the incentive to save; thus creating only one desired effect - consumption. 

Because, without people borrowing and spending the whole thing blows up. Money = debt, debt = money.  The biggest problem is that the American population are over saturated in debt thus why the sub-prime in housing was needed. Like its population, the US government, is over saturated as well. They, unlike you and I, have no limits and that defies logic. Lets look at the executive's role.

The Interest payment is the only debt payment required by the Constitution that must be accounted for in the budget each year to be paid.

With that said, every President hopeful on the Republican side and President Obama have all released a budget or a proposed budget.

Not one of them have a plan to balance the budget next year, neither will any one of them do so in four years either (with the exception of Ron Paul). We will without a doubt have continuous mounting deficits that will probably be in the 1-2 Trillion mark annually regardless of who is in office (with the exception of Ron Paul). Starting to notice a trend here?

We have seen Obama’s appetite for destruction already regarding deficit spending; so let’s take a peek at the eventual Republican nominee’s (Mitt Romney) insanity.

Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending by putting 100k more troops on the ground and rebuild parts of the Navy and Air Force. He would not have left Iraq, appears to have an itch to scratch in Iran and will not leave Afghanistan until its won (the forever war) or at least until his generals say to leave??? His budget has the wealthiest Americans (who pay the most income taxes) getting a significant tax cut on top of the existing tax cuts that are already in place.

Romney has no plans to offset the lost revenue that will surly happen when these cuts take place, nor does he have any plans to make any significant cuts in existing outlays to recoup the ramped up defense spending. This defines logic. Mitt Romney's plans are contrary to anything sane in regards to the federal government living within its means. He’s fiscal policy’s will be train-wreck like.

That however, is not how Romney sees it. He thinks if he cuts taxes the gains in receipts will pay for this increase in spending. The problem with that is that the FED doesn’t think the economy is going to grow by all that much… and they control the money supply. This leads us into the second part of the equation: the insurmountable tag team.

 The FED’s long term forecast is a relatively weak one going forward with long term GDP growth outlook being in the 2.3 to 2.6 percent ranges. The FED has also said it will not look to raise interest rates until, at the earliest, 2014. Here you have the economy just barley keeping its head above water for the foreseeable future, the FED continuing its non-stop intravenous liquidity therapy into bank’s reserves creating a soon to be inflation tsunami all the while our elected representatives continue to show no regard for the situation.

I want to take a look at two charts that really speak volumes for what is going on and what we will being seeing soon enough in our own backyards. Lets start at 2006, when the FED stopped tracking M3. As you can see below, when Shadowstats picked up the tab of tracking M3, the growth in money supply was steadily rising until early 2008. As the recession came, the Fed lowered interest rates to avoid the fire of deflation but banks weren’t loaning, so the money supply dropped with it.  

A curious situation started occurring by the middle of 2010. M3 started to rise and its rising still as of now. Meanwhile, Interest rates from 2009 on have stayed basically at zero and as we’ve already heard from the FED, they will remain that way for years. This does not bode well for the dollar or anything equity wise going forward in my opinion. If the economy continues its "recovery” like so many in the media says it is, the eventual outcome will be a pretty substantial increase in inflation. This would, by default, put relatively the majority of commodities into buy, buy and buy more mode. Most specifically gold and silver.

Equally alarming will be the federal governments penchant for debt as we have also seen, they will not live within our means, thus piling more debt on to the insurmountable existing amount. What happens when the FED has to raise interest rates? If we are seeing 450 Billion interest payments already (Intragovernmental and Public) imagine what will happen to those when interest rates go up? They could look something like this:

Just for a little perspective. In 1988, the national Debt was 2.6 Trillion. The interest payment on that in the budget was 214 Billion. The interest payment in 2011 was 450 Billion, roughly double. The principal, as we know, was 14+ Trillion.

The US government will not cut spending and we will continue to finance the welfare/warfare system. What happens in 10 years from now will be interesting thou. Can the FED really raise rates, without completely tanking the economy? And if they did, what would happen to the interest payment on the debt outstanding (besides sky rocketing into the trillion dollar mark). If the FED does not raise rates out of the fear of deflation, isn’t massive inflation the only alternative?

George Carlin said it best:

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

Get 'ya Popcorn ready!

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The token FEMA "critique starlet" (Dr Paul) takes his final bow.

As we all know by now, unfortunately, we had another unexpected natural disaster last week, this time in a vast multi-state reach, covering much of the Midwest and into parts of Tennessee. This was a deadly storm that took many lives resulting in tear jerking tragedies. Like this heart wrenching story, where a 15th month old survived the initial trauma from being thrown by a twister into a nearby field. Her entire family perished that day; both parents and two siblings. Sadly, she suffered the same fate just a few days later. Or like this 36-year old mother, who lost both of her legs; in order to protect her children.

The economic impact of this storm will be in the hundreds of millions, if not approaching the billion dollar range when its all said and done. This will require all hands on deck including those at FEMA. With that said, it appears, like every Tornado and Hurricane season, a reporter (or I should say reporters), tap Congressman Dr Ron Paul on the shoulder to ask him his view on the role of government in the event of natural disasters. This is by no accident.

Dr Paul's response was already prerecorded and written on their notepad, all the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the I’s was already done. That is because Dr Paul’s consistency, can and will always allow, a lazy reporter to get a cheap story that will attract buzz, with little effort in terms of leg work. All they need him to do is go on record and their story is complete, a Presidential candidate says something off the beaten path; It’s a win-win for the reporter and his publisher.

Here is the problem with this.

Does Ron Paul believe FEMA should exist? No.
Does he believe in the federal government having a hands on role in natural disasters? No. 
Is FEMA one of the worst bureaucracies in government in terms of lack of accountability and waste? YES. 

Why does Dr Paul feel this way? Its because the constitution doesn’t specifically allow for it to be funded… period. It’s that simple. So why do they cherry pick this story? Because, asking him what role we have in building up an empire then the subsequent invading of other country’s or allowing the FED Reserve to manipulate interest rates, creating bubbles, isn’t a story. Even though the amount of wealth, blood and treasure those “programs” waste are astronomically higher and oh yeah; neither are written in the constitution either (sorry neo-conservatives, what we have isn’t a defense, its clearly offense).

Now, as Ron Paul has said many times, he has a prioritized pecking order in which he would see programs and departments eliminated and/or trimmed down; specifically aiming at the most costly and unconstitutional programs or agencies we have. Do you know where FEMA would rank on that list?

First, you would have to look to see where FEMA's budget comes from and that would be none other then Homeland Security. How fitting, an agency that was created in 2002 overseeing another program that was initially funded and created in 1979. Hardly constitutional and it fits the exact model and voting record of the self described “defender of the constitution”, but I don’t want to defeat my own point before I have even made it, so I will ignore that tidbit.

Last year, FEMA spent about 13 Billion dollars. That is a big number but it terms of our budget? Is it? It is roughly 0.003% of our budget. I would assume clearly, Dr Paul would look elsewhere for the cuts. Why not start with the national debt? Sure, we couldn’t pay off the 15 Trillion, but what about that 250 Billion interest payment on that debt? Imagine the savings if we actually started to balance the budget annually?

Why not defense? The funding for defense, as I have reported numerous times, is outright offensive and hardly a defense department. Its become a slush fund for big business and a "global force for good", their words, not mine. There is not any justification i can understand in fighting rouge terrorists who claim no allegiance to any nation on principal, let alone for the amount we have spent, and to boot - in this economic environment. The Department of Defense’s base budget has increased 81% nominally and 43% inflation adjusted since 9-11. Throw in the Nuclear budget, and that spending itself has increased 21% (inflation adjusted) since 9-11.

Imagine the savings if we knocked those back to the 2001 levels or at least cut them in half? Or, what about the 1.3 Trillion spent in endless wars in the Middle East? Surly we could find savings there. We are talking about saving TRILLIONS, not to mention lives on both sides and actually using our defense to I don’t know, maybe even defending our own borders? Now that is a novel approach, eh? Using the National Guard to actually guard the nation, as opposed to fighting wars across the globe? Who knows, maybe even providing assistance, logistics and overall support for natural disasters would be available??

Quit these wars, bring the troops home. Let them spend their money here. Let’s have a real stimulus package. We are up to our ears in debt. Trillions and trillions of dollars and no end in sight for these wars. Then we could take care of our people. Matter of fact, I have even proposed on many of these programs that I don’t fully endorse because technically they are not permissible under the constitution. But taking care of sick people and the elderly and children I have nothing against that… IF YOU CUT THE SPENDING. - Ron Paul

Those are places where Ron Paul would start. Even though FEMA is one of the worst bureaucracies in terms of waste and inefficiency, its small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, it would not be a top priority. Cutting FEMA or asking about the role of food stamps surly create emotional responses, but in reality these issues are not what is draining us. In a vacuum, those are philosophical questions that would make an interesting debate… but we are living in a time where the stakes couldn’t be higher as we fight to remain solvent, vacuum type thinking is irrelevant. We need solutions to problems and until we start asking the right questions, we will never have those debates; thus we will never fix the real problems.

"Republicans are starting to realize you cant say “oh, lets cut money for food stamps but not the food stamps for the military industrial complex” because its just not going to work. - Ron Paul

So, the next time a reporter wants to tap Dr Paul on the shoulder for a quick story when hurricane or tornado season comes around, he wont be around. He is retiring form congress at 76 years old. He, as I write this, is well behind on Super Tuesday; thus he will not be our next President. They will have to find someone else to do the work for them. Maybe, they could go out and do actual reporting. Cover the minutes from the FED meetings. Maybe go out and find Stephanie Decker, the mother who lost her legs and bring her story to the masses. Or maybe seek out these heroes from Branson Missouri, who risked their lives in order to save others in the face of a deadly tornado or the hundreds of others  if not thousands from this past week who saved lives.

There are plenty of stories waiting to be told, they just need to be reported. If that’s not juicy enough, cover the destruction of our dollar and our nation through crony capitalism, fractional reserve banking and a debt driven economy that results in war and more spending (debt) to finance it. That, however, may not make it past their publisher or editors desk. We can’t have people actually learning how bad off things really are, now can we?

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Dumb and Dumber: Yes im talking about Congress and the Executive branch.

Remember the movie Dumb & Dumber? When Lloyd and Harry "found" a suitcase with a few million dollars and they spent it on anything and everything and then replaced each item they bought with a piece of paper... an IOU?

Now, Harry and Lloyd have no money, they, like our government, are broke losers (I was referring to the movie actors as losers but this will play here as well). How do you suppose they pay it back? They would borrow it? But from whom? What if they borrowed from the people that now hold the IOU's, you know, the people whom they "borrowed from" initially? Lets keep this scenario for an exercise later, bare with me until then.  

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extended the payroll tax cut this past Wednesday, putting between $20-$2000 dollars back into the pockets of working Americans each week. While I firmly believe cutting taxes is always a good measure, I have to question this particular measure, as how to pay for it; just doesn’t make sense.

It was the same logic of George Bush Jr who cut taxes, slashing revenue and dramatically expanded government. Sure, it’s more money back in peoples pocket but it’s going to be much more expensive down the road in the form of interest payments on the accumulation of budget deficits that end up making the public debt liability in the national debt.

When you cut taxes, it has to come from somewhere. So, anytime you cut taxes and do not make cuts in existing programs or services to pay for them its not really a tax cut, it’s a loan at interest with dollars that are becoming worthless by the day. To call it a tax cut, while already in a 1.3 Trillion projected hole without cutting a single thing from even the deficit, further expanding the budget deficit is counterintuitive if not just flat out a lie. Unlike the Bush and the Republican favored (and flawed theory) of supply side economics, coupled with increase spending, the means to pay for this tax cut comes right out of the coffers of… Social Security.

I find that interesting because when Obama was running for President he was singing a different tune and  from then senator Obama's website:

"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century" 

The reason we had a surplus in Social Security was a payroll tax raise (the opposite of what’s going on here with Obama’s tax cut) by Ronald Regan. I’m not a big fan of “the Gipper” like so many are, that call themselves a fiscal conservative (because he wasn’t one). However, he knew baby boomers where going to retire and need to collect from a diminished population numeric wise; thus a surplus was needed. He then, proceeded to raid it in 1987 as did George Bush Sr following him and lest not forget Bill Clinton. Hell, this goes back to LBJ in the sixties if you want to see who is culpable for raiding social security.

According to the Social Security Administration, as of 2010, Social Security should have had a 2.6 Trillion dollar surplus, but I find that odd? How can the federal government put into its budget each year a bill for Social Security when the FICA tax is already being removed from your paycheck to pay for Social Security? Is this not the essence of double taxation? So, where is this surplus? It’s been raided and spent and replaced with IOU’s (bonds) with things like wars in Afghanistan/Iraq and other toys that politicians want - but don’t want to pay for… like this tax cut. In other words, it's a gigantic slush fund used by politicians to keep their feet from the fire.  

(Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.)

In 2005 George W even had the chutzpah to admit it... while raiding it !!!  

“There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.” 

It’s rather humorous to me that this is the only measure where you will find bi-partisan support in such a partisan political scheme that is Washington these days. Its also why I write my blog, to show this type of fraudulent partisan logic, as if there was really a difference on the important issues. Why the bi-partisan support? Because its politically expedient for both parties.

The Democrats can say they are helping out Joe-six pack with more money in his pocket, while the Republicans can hold up their oath to Grover Norquist. The best part of this tax cut is it comes out of an existing program that so many people & elected leaders from both “sides” rail on for not being solvent. We have heard about the entitlement tsunami that is coming… I wonder why?

Now, both parties can appease to their constituents so that they can be reelected; totally disregarding what the cost/benefit factor is. The "rich" (anyone over 110K), who won’t collect social security anyway, can get some of their money back. Joe-six pack can break even now, to make up for the rising gas prices and other commodities and maybe even save spend a few dollars (literally a few) at Wal-Mart buying Chinese trinkets or Snuggies (never mind, they are via China as well). It’s a win-win. I guess.

But don’t tell that to Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
“I never thought I would have to see the day when a Democratic president of the United States and a Democratic vice president would agree to put Social Security in this kind of jeopardy. Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president would be the beginning of the unraveling of Social Security.”

Now think back to the beginning with the movie exercise. We, are the person that the suitcase belongs to. Harry and Lloyd are your local congressman and President and Senator... not only do they borrow the money, but they do so at interest or whats called the coupon, through bonds (IOU's). How can we have an outlay (and subsequent budget deficit and then subsequent accumulating national debt) for social security in the budget each year with FICA coming out of our checks to pay for it?

Because of this budget deficit you will also incur a bill that will be an interest payment on the principal of the national debt, which again, is an accumulation of every budget deficit in our history. This is simply because you are spending more then you're collecting in revenue. So, unlike Harry and Lloyd, we are not just going to borrow from the suitcase owner to payback the IOU's we replaced the initial money with. No, the government takes it one step further and promises to pay back those IOU's with future obligations, ie taxes and the circular logic continues. This will go on forever if drastic measures are not taken to stop this, but without strict terms limits, I cant see that happening. After-all, intergovernmental debt doesn't have to be paid back, right? In the words of Lloyd Christmas:

Its as good as money sir, those are IOU's... go ahead and count it, every cent is accounted for. 

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Vest wants to spend to offset spending - but dont call him a liberal

Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate" conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.

Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.

Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was going on as it didn't take long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:

 "Because he's a fake".

The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic).  It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including...


... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.

What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.

So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say that I've always been very public that, as president of the United States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....

Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.

Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Iran, a nuclear threat? Or... Dollar threat?

(Graphic courtesy of

Is Iran a threat? Are they a threat to the US? Are they are threat to her allies? Is Iran a threat to the region? The answer to these questions are all, yes, they are. However, they are a threat for different reasons to each entity. Israel has long had problems with Iran. It’s well documented and that will never cease; at least not in our lifetimes.

The Middle East region is very complicated and convoluted. With the Arab Spring now working its way into other totalitarian regimes, established dictators and theocracy’s, the region remains sensitive to any waves. Iran is the most powerful state left in the Middle East. They are predominately Shi’a Muslim’s (85%) while the rest of the region is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim (90%). If we remember the problems with the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it was complications of various religious sects and the sectarian violence that ensued because of those divisions, was what caused the greatest problems.

Religion was also in part the basis for Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 that lasted eight bloody years resulting in over 1 Million deaths. This was the same war that the US backed Saddam’s Sunni invasion supplying both weapons and intelligence to Iraq in proxy war against the Shi’a Iranians. It was during and after the Iraq invasion that Iran became more isolated the ever before and when you include they speak a different language (Persian) and have another belief system from their neighbors; it only compounded the isolation.

Recently, there was the wikileaks cable that quoted Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir recalling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urging the US to attack Iran’s nuclear program. To quote “cut the head off the snake (Iran)”. Last month, Saudi Oil Minister, Ali al-Naimi, said that the Kingdom will be able to make -up for any shortfall if Iran remains in a defensive posture; further indicating their approval for regime change. 

"It is because of our ongoing investment that Saudi Arabia is able to respond to shortages around the world - take issues with Libyan production last year for example. 'And it's because of our investment that any future shortages will be handled."

In fact, most Arab nations do not receive the Iranians well and do not want them to go nuclear. The Arab League has isolated Syria (Iran’s only ally) as it has halted both diplomatic and economic ties with the nation. If that wasnt enough of a statement they will lend political and material support to the Syrian opposition. It appears Syria will come to some type of regime change similar to what happened in Egypt and Libya. The Arab spring is said to be based on freedom of individuals and elections are a part of that; if and when the revolution takes power, it will not replace the leadership of Assad with a pro Iranian government.

What is happening is Iran is walking the proverbial plank. They have no allies. Everyone around them either wants their leadership removed or they simply don’t care either way. Both bordering nations of Iran have been vaporized by the United States. Its only logical that another member of the “Axis of evil” stuck smack dab in the middle of US occupations is next.

They know it and they also know they only have a few cards to play. First, they must go nuclear BEFORE an attack, being that a nuclear nation has yet to be attacked by the United States. Will this deter them from being attacked by the West? Nobody can say for sure, but it will at least give them pause and possibly buy the Iranians more time. Secondly, and the Ace of Spades, is that they will divorce themselves from the dollar.

With the drumbeat of war ratcheting up from the US to heights not seen since 2002, Iran, like its neighbor Iraq once did, is poised to play chicken with the US and its European allies engaging the US in economic war. The first strike was launched by the US in new sanctions signed by President Obama back in December and there was a response by Tehran with a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. 

Now, we have Belgium-based SWIFT - who is a lifeline to international trade, as they oversee an average of 18 million payment messages per day between banks in 210 countries prepared to cut off Iran, virtually forcing international trade with Iran to a standstill. This is a remarkable revelation and a clear indication of the clout the US still carries as the reserve currency of international trade. Never, has SWIFT removed a nation since its inception in 1973.

"Kicking Iran out of SWIFT is both unprecedented and another dangerous step toward turning a financial war into a military conflict," said Reza Marashi, National Iranian American Council's research director.

Not only does this hurt all Iranians, but more importantly it hurts Iran’s military as well. Without fuel you cannot mobilize your military and logistics become impossible. Logistical failure has been the downfall of some of them most important conflicts of the last 300 years and with Iran being economically cut off it would inevitable. While Iran maybe the 3rd largest supplier of crude in the world, it’s also relying on 40% of its petroleum and diesel consumption to come way of imports due to both refinery dysfunction /inefficiencies and just flat out a shortage of new refineries. That however is being addressed and eventually Iran will not be so dependable on importing gasoline but yet still vulnerable if those refineries were knocked offline.  

At one point, Iran was planning on getting out of the dollar as early as 2002 (if not long before) and then Iraq (who tried getting out of the dollar in 2000 after a decade of sanctions) got blitzed and Tehran went eerily silent. Then a few years later and coincidentally enough with the US bogged down in two stagnate/unpopular wars... Tehran began chatting aloud about dumping the dollar again. It was The Iranian Oil Bourse, created in 2008, that set the stage for this showdown that will officially end the petrol-dollar relationship with Iranian crude oil beginning on March 20, 2012. That is just a little over a month to go.

Now that we are facing our own debt problems, drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan and have a President who may be perceived as weak, the Iranians threw down the gauntlet. What are we to do? All this adds up to one thing and that is why we are seeing a strong military presence in the Middle East, coupled with tough talk from talking heads here in the states. I see a major push to invoke war with the Iranians.

I've always felt and said that nuclear weapons and terrorism have always been more of a perceived threat then an actual threat concerning the Middle East. 9-11 was the exception and it wasn't state sponsored either. Are nuclear weapons that much of a threat to warrant all this attention? I have my reservations. Iran has plenty of nations around them that don't particularly care for them and are nuked up as well, and those that don’t posses nuclear capability's, I assume would be more then happy to have nukes from the US/West planted on their soil as a deterrent.

Iran maybe a nutty regime but mutual destruction is a deterrent to even the crazies, no matter how much “cooze” Allah can (sic) promise. It’s simply a self contained regional situation in spite of what the saber wavers might otherwise say, even if they did get nukes. The idea of supporting terrorist and getting nukes however is easier for people to grasp then how the Petrodollar recycling machine works and its more inline with the average person’s moral views: good vs evil is easier to understand vs then say what it really is and that is the Machiavellian battle of high vs low mach, or some might say survival of the fittest.

Hell, the majority of the country does not even believe in natural selection!? Can you really blame our government for running with the: 'scary dudes in turbans, armed with rocket launchers and hiding in caves reading Korans under camp fires - alongside a gaggle of virgins, who also want to nuke you…because they hate you, because you are free' story?  

That's where this web gets tangled. See, as Americans we like our standard of living. Is it inflated? Is it driven purely by consumption and debt? Is it made possible by a rigged game that allows us to trade pieces of paper for all types of goods and commodities that the rest of the world has to break their backs for? The answer to those questions is also - yes.  

If it was just about nuclear weapons we would have eliminated North Korea's capability's long ago. If it was about terrorism, we would have went after our own allies like Saudi Arabia or never would have clandestinely funded so many right-wing gorilla operations in Latin and South America the last 50 years. 

Anyone that threatened to flip the monopoly board over and not participate (and publicly denounce the petrodollar) in the petrodollar scheme and trade with other currencies, has already been or will be (Hugo Chavez) neutralized. From Libya - Iraq - former IMF chair Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Iran. 

With the Petrodollar recycling process being the single - most vital element to the United States hegemony, it is imperative and absolutely essential that nations (see OPEC) continue to exchange their oil for US dollars. Or, the world as we know it here in the States will be much different... and not for the better. You can rest assured, that we will be putting a boot up the Ayatollahs ass and carpet bombing the Caucasus before our leaders (see corporations) allow us to fall into that state.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.


Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  
Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).