The United States of America, Inc.

Why are "We" Giving the Government so Much Power over Ourselves?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:39:00 +0000

Here's yet one more program recently developed by our community organizer that has quickly failed: The Obama Mortgage Program.

Add this to Cash for Clunkers, the massively expensive 'Stimulus' (which assures indebtedness for every American for decades, if not centuries and was nothing more than a Democrat Pork Barrel dream come true) and the other "crises" that only government, not private citizens as always in the past, could solve. My favorite analogy to date is the Wizard of Oz, which hinges on another appropriate analogy: a movie set. There is nothing behind the curtain, and no substance to the actual players or set. It's a cardboard set with good lighting, believable actors and of course plenty of cue cards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain that you believed could give you a heart, brain, courage, and pay your car payment and stop an oil spill.

I think it's pretty clear to most that are paying attention that this administration is inept, excuse-laden, totally power-hungry, egotistical, and dirty. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll give you more evidence than would ever be needed to convince the wobbliest of jurors. Yet even in the midst of the latest fiasco, the Gulf oil spill, people are clamoring to get the government involved, as well as any other daily personal malady that normal people are faced with and used to handle themselves via work and smarts. That's something this administration would LOVE, and will continue to fully exploit. Nancy Pelosi had already said this is going to lead to her fighting to pass her "flagship" legislation, cap-and-trade. She also said she was "agnostic to the means that lead to the end," meaning law, procedure, public opinion, common-sense, research, contrary fact, and the pesky constitution all be damned. She and her commemorators will try to ram this down our throats, as we've already seen happen. Hopefully this will not come to pass, or else I'm moving to another planet. (If it does pass, and has already made it past Congress, we will be mandated to reduce our power consumption to the level of the year 1867 within 4 decades. I kid you not.

Incidentally, I saw a Rasmussen poll this AM that stated that 62% of Americans say that most politicians want more money and power for the government. Meanwhile, 58% of Americans want the government to have less money and power. Huh? I guess that sheds some light on why we are where we are.

Is This What It's Come to? A Modern Civil War?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:33:00 +0000

If you haven't heard yet, you will soon enough: a civil war is brewing between Arizona and Los Angeles.

So this is how we're going to go about unifying a nation: have America vs. Washington and the states and municipalities shutting each other down, economically and literally, because too many democrat's votes are at stake?

I have my doubts that the mayor of LA is really concerned with 4th amendment rights, and is actually more interested in amnesty for all illegal hispanics=larger voting base for himself: a hispanic mayor (whose girlfriend I know from S.C.) in a huge city with an enormous hispanic population. Call me a skeptic about this whole thing.

Obama's Transparent, But Not in the Way He Promised.

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:55:00 +0000

This is just becoming silly. Yesterday I expressed a concern that our President, (whose eloquence and wit like most actors and talking heads, is matched only by the number of teleprompters nearby, with other people's ideas scrolling away,) is quietly working to suppress media that point out his misdeeds, disagree with his policies, or he just doesn't care for. And I don't just mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but the entire network and system, including the internet. (Hmm...that sounds familiar, but I dare not point out the obvious past "leaders" that favor this tactic, and why.) With media companies hurting so badly right now, I can almost see the play: bail them out with taxpayer money in the name of "too big" or important to fail, then the U.S. government owns them as well, and that's the end of that. Our bedmate China surely wouldn't have a problem with that tactic.

In addition, he's also (scarily) working to have the White House only release and distribute news it sees fit to publicize, and just do away with all middlemen that may not only put the spin Obama needs, but even mention why this long stream of stupidity coming out of D.C. is completely treacherous and ill-conceived, especially for the middle and long-term. Sort of like how government schools choose what and how to release information/education to its unfortunate pupils, to prepare them for the most mundane and mediocre of lives, but be perfect government employees/subjects. However when the Freedom of Information Act is employed, it will be interesting to see how Obama skirts it and what sort of immunity he claims.

So, here's today's ridiculousness from the White House: our president, who (along with Pelosi and the other Dems currently on a major power trip), as I pointed out yesterday hasn't has a press conference in nearly a year, meets with the Mexican president yesterday. Seeing as how there is a small item in the news lately and an ongoing and increasingly heated and important battle about illegal immigration reform on this continent, one would think that would have been a nice opportunity to have a sit-down with the two people in charge of the countries' governments and discuss it, with goals set, action items laid out, and a meeting of the minds formed. In fact both Obama and Calderon stated there needs to be reform, which seemed to be the entire conference. Calderon wasn't even asked a question. Of course I hope it goes without saying that BOTH men would love a borderless arrangement. More money for Mexico, more votes and power for Obama; therefore, Nothing will be done by the federal government while democrats are in charge. Plain and simple. Another reason for the Eric Holder jump to blast AZ's bill without even reading it, and all the knee-jerk democrat reactions to a law that merely mirrors what's already on the Fed's books and in fact was used to create the AZ law. But I digress.

In what was already going to be a joke of a very expensive conference, it then was distilled down to only having 2 reporters allowed at the "event," and only one question asked, only to Obama, to which no real answer was given. That's a complete waste of time and resources like only the government could develop, but it makes me wonder: if this was Bush, would there still be an absence of outrage, especially from the left? So why is this getting a free pass (I ask myself that daily about the hypocrisy I see in America and politics in particular)? But no one seems to notice or care, other than apparently me. Obama's frequent and mighty promise of transparency has been broken over and over to the point it is now just a laughable whopper of a lie. In fact, it's beginning to come across as hiding, for which no one could blame him. But no outrage or even worry. The president is not only thumbing his nose at the media, which put him where he is, but now alienating them and, for some reason, staging faux press conferences.

This, in addition to many other courses that are being set by this administration, cannot be good precedents, and undoing the tangles caused by this administration's attitude of entitlement will take decades, if not centuries to undo, if ever.

Same Country, Different Worlds

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Tue, 18 May 2010 21:47:00 +0000

I've been watching what this administration does as much as I can, and one of my smaller issues is quickly becoming larger, and I've mentioned it before on this blog. But lately it's becoming blatant: the "stealthy"(I am using that word euphemistically) manner in which the government is implementing "change" and for once not entirely what that change is and how it's leading to a status quo which few Americans want.

Obamacare is a scam that was run through using a legal technicality, and the outrage over that seems to have subsided, along with unpopular bailouts, the massive stimulus bill that hasn't even been spent and many states want no part of, and on and on. It seems if anyone would like to question someone who may have answers about any of this, they're quickly labeled a teabagger, Nazi, or provided some other uninformative retort.

I haven't heard much debate lately about whether the mainstream media is biased--maybe because facts that firms such as the Pew Center collect don't lie. Maybe it's because Obama is biting the hand that fed him, and actually seems to want to bite it off.

Obama hasn't held an official press corps meeting in nearly a year. He refuses to speak to them, as witnessed HERE. He recently claimed that the Internet is a poor place to find information, which was humorous, but alarming. The Internet helped put Obama in the oval office and he relied on it heavily during his campaign. He also promised all legislature that passed over his desk would be posted for at least 72 hours on the White House website for everyone to read before he acted on it, but that's another story. However, the weapon he used against McCain is turning on him, as an overpreponderance of facts and information are coming to light.

I'm not ready to jump overboard and claim Obama is a tyrant yet, but he is quietly implementing a plan to bypass the private media outlets and just release the "White House News" or whatever his focus groups deem catchy. One of the first steps tyrants take is to grab for media control, just as cutting power is one of the first steps when an army wants to immobilize an enemy camp.

Also, he now is futzing around with grabbing the Internet under the realm of the FCC. A court ruled the Internet was for information, not communication, so it fell under a non-governmental authority. We can't have that, of course, so now Obama is rigging it so the Internet may be covered by the government. Not much press play on this. Same with the Puerto Rico movement, which I really think has a chance as being passed, and PR being our 51st state. Especially since an earthquake hit it yesterday. No good crisis shall go to waste.

Also, I'm about to call Hell and see if it has frozen over. I agree with Bill Maher on not one but two(2!) points: Steve Jobs would rip this country into shape(Not that a sane person would ever want to be president of this country), and Obama's strategy of attacking the media is stupid, as far as he goes.

Funny, but not 'Ha-Ha' Funny

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:21:00 +0000

This is rich:

At around 5:00 Seth, Amy AND Tina decide to sarcastically lecture Greece about their rising debt and deficit, lack of work ethic which is in lockstep with their fast-growing entitlement programs, and no one paying taxes. Apparently anyone who isn't afraid of a camera can say anything, no matter how insane or unknowingly prophetic. This is the same course the USA is being steered down with the pedal to the metal. I think Tina Fey went to Harvard, which doesn't speak well of the political science/economics classes she may not have taken.

By the way, the "No Fly List," scarily, didn't have anything to do with catching the most recent bomber, whose ilk we should have no fear of(right?). That well-implemented plan failed. Army planes in the skies picked up the guy's cell phone signal and alerted agents at the airport.

USAA Pleads Sanity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:33:00 +0000

As I was paying my insurance bill this morning, I noticed this item from my highly trusted and successful insurer:

Legislative Update: Members Speak Out; More Details Provided

Posted on Apr 23, 2010 | Category: Latest News

We asked, and USAA members responded...in huge numbers. As of Friday afternoon, April 23, tens of thousands had contacted their senators to ask for an amendment to a bill in the U.S. Senate (S.3217). USAA appreciates the support.

Members have told us that they want to better understand this complex matter.

Take Action-Contact your U.S. senators and urge them to amend a portion of the bill known as the "Volcker Rule."

Quite simply, USAA is seeking to adjust one portion of the bill — commonly referred to as the Volcker Rule — to exclude insurance companies' investments. These investments are already strictly regulated by the states, and we prudently manage these portfolios.

Based on the feedback we're seeing, here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

Q: What are you proposing?

We would like the current Senate bill — the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S.3217 — to be amended by removing insurance company investment portfolios from the scope of the Volcker Rule. While other insurance companies with an affiliated bank or thrift would also suffer if the bill passes in its current form, USAA arguably would be disproportionally impacted due to the extent it has successfully grown and integrated insurance and banking operations to meet its members' needs.

In general, the bill has many other provisions that will impact USAA and its operations. However, we believe we can manage to those — we cannot continue to operate USAA in the manner we have for the past 87 years if the Volcker Rule is enacted as it is currently written.

Q: "Unless USAA is investing in hedge funds and other high risk investments, I fail to see the impact..."

If the scope of the Volcker Rule was limited to hedge funds and other "high risk" investments, USAA would not have a problem complying with the rule. Moreover, if the scope were limited to our bank's investments, USAA would not have a problem complying with the rule. Unfortunately, such basic investments as corporate bonds and traditional stocks are prohibited investments for not only our bank, but also our other business lines. It is the application to our insurance companies that creates the problem for USAA.

To illustrate the challenge, over half of the insurance companies' investment portfolios are invested in a manner that would not satisfy the Volcker Rule as currently drafted. Of those investments that would not comply, a significant portion are investment-grade corporate bonds. These are not the type of investment most would consider as "high risk" for an insurance company. In fact, when the market returns were very negative in 2008, USAA's diversified insurance portfolio returns were positive.

If USAA is unable to invest in the same diversified manner it presently does, the result is likely to be higher auto and home insurance premiums and significantly less competitive life insurance products and annuities. So, we are making every effort, and enlisting your help, in amending this legislation.

Q: As a military-oriented organization, why is USAA going against the direction of the Administration?

USAA supports financial services reform and is not opposing the bill. USAA is asking, however, that a provision within the bill be amended to ensure that it does not interfere with USAA's ability to continue to serve the military community and their families.

The amendment USAA seeks would apply both to USAA and other insurance companies who — like USAA — are subject to well-defined state insurance restrictions on their investments.

Q: Why is USAA getting involved in a political issue?

It is very rare for USAA to ask our members to contact elected officials, but the potential impacts of the bill on our member-owned association are so significant that we felt compelled to involve members, employees and friends. It is incumbent upon our USAA family to join in defense of our association.

Q: Why is it so urgent that I act now?

The bill is scheduled to be debated in the Senate this week, so we are asking members to contact their U.S. senators now.

Q: What do I do if I am experiencing website delays?

If you are having technical difficulties with the site, please do not hit refresh. We ask that you close the site and come back later.

Q: Is the USAA advocacy site safe and protected?

Yes. The site is secure and also includes a link to our privacy promise.

I have to think that USAA, being the insurer for the US military and millions of their relatives, has some clout in Washington. Nonetheless, it seems congress is just throwing anything they can think of into this stealth-plan(the only tactic usable with the awful legislature coming out of DC these days) and letting those it affects sort it out.

I'm starting to have a fear here. This will be very forward-thinking for some people but I believe Obama has his sights set on private 401ks and IRAs. I think somehow he's going to force the managers of these funds to include T-bills and notes that no one else will buy. When China wakes up and starts saying "no thanks, we already own you" and no one else will buy them, once again the producers and savers in the US will be on the hook. Change we can believe in, I guess.

If There's One Thing We can Learn from History, it's that we Refuse to Learn from History

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Sun, 02 May 2010 20:03:00 +0000

I just read this article, which is simply amazing.

Here's the scenario and what's happening. See if it sounds familiar: Due to some twist in legislation(which the author happily points out several times began with the Bush administration, but forgets he has long left the White House and another administration is in charge now) the U.S. government is making it VERY appealing and VERY lucrative for these crappy online colleges and glamorized beauty schools that have cropped up everywhere to recruit students. Student loans are easily available, and who would argue that education isn't beneficial? I would.

Problem is, the schools are going to homeless shelters and halfway houses to recruit new "students" because anyone with enough brains to attend and, more importantly, GRADUATE, from college would and should choose a legitimate institution. But the lack of academic rigor involved isn't the main problem here.

The people that are being targeted are, even according to the article which misses a HUGE point, homeless, "previous" drug addicts, mentally ill, and unstable in every way. They have multiple children, are single parents, have no means (common sense or otherwise) to provide for themselves, have become entrenched in taxpayer handouts, and just aren't student material by any measure other than the University of Phoenix and other "for profit" colleges as the author calls them. They may also be called "private," and charge tuition befitting such. In some cases four times what I paid per year for my MBA.

So, these "disadvantaged"(as labeled by the author) who have no money, no place to live, no means to obtain money, no idea how to handle money, and generally have exhibited a long pattern of irresponsible behavior and stupidity see the ads for these colleges. This article is devoted to recruiters actively going to homeless shelters and directly signing people up, while promising them jobs upon graduation. Good luck with that lie. The recruiter tells them they qualify for financial aid for their tuition, which being private schools, is quite high, even for someone with a home, a job, money and most importantly, a clue.

Federal Aid (read: your and my money and anyone who actually pays income taxes) to send these people to school to soon drop out, jumped from $4.6 billion in 2000 to $26.5 billion in 2009. I'm sure the default rate on these loans has followed suit.

I won't address the sleazy tactics these schools use, such as giving $700/month stipends to students to attend class "80% of the time" and maintain a C average. It's not hard to see through that totally unethical scam.

But for those that have extremely short memories, this is the housing disaster all over again. Dems want these people dependent on government, so saddling them with a lifetime of debt is no problem, and they'll bury their heads in the sand while the insane default and attrition rates that accompanies these loans skyrockets. Who bails them out? You and me. The tactic: argue that anyone who has a problem with this is a Nazi that doesn't want the "disadvantaged" to better themselves or have opportunities. Same as with the CRA; we MUST allow the poor "disadvantaged" of this country to be homeowners, their irresponsibility, lack of credit, ambition, collateral and job be damned. It's not their fault they have landed right where they aimed themselves with a lifetime of living day-to-day; it's that they're "unfortunate." Yes, they are, but handing them billions of dollars to never repay in the name of advancement is a program that only could come out of DC. Bush may have relaxed the regulations for this, but Obama is exploiting it and cashing in on the growing number of "disadvantaged" voters, as is his raison d'etre. It's hard for BHO to condemn preying on the ignorant, when that's his entire strategy.

I especially marveled at the woman who used her shelter's one and only computer for her classes, and went out and spent the last $700 of her loan on toys and a guitar for her kid, and then failed out when the shelter's computer broke and just walked away from it all. I guess that's one less PhD Princeton will have to interview for a faculty position.

This is the Shadiest Congress I've Ever Seen

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:05:00 +0000

Small item of note: Puerto Rico may be a U.S. state soon. Amidst all the financial reform yelling and shows in Arizona, it seems Congress will be voting on HR2499 today. It requires PR's to vote on whether they would like to become part of the US or not, and the resolution is worded in a way that is sort of tricky(surprise!).

The Dems would love to have that voter base, which they certainly would. I've been to PR, and have spent days driving around the countryside, from coast to coast to coast to coast, safety be damned. Actually there are pockets that I wouldn't recommend spending a lot of time in, but for the most part, it resembles many other parts of the mainland. But PR receives a LOT of welfare from the US, doesn't have to pay income taxes, and the quality of life there isn't bad, by most every measure. This will be interesting to watch.

I would like to see what the reaction would be if the GOPs wanted to create a new state of the same number of wealthy white business owners. For some reason I think it may get a little more attention.

Update 05/14/2010: Here's a much better summation of just how shady this congress is, if you don't believe me:
Gypsies In the Palace It's crazy that there are more PRs living in the US than in PR, and they could pull a vote on what happens on the island by being US citizens. This is going to be exploited fully by Nancy Pelosi and her slimy friends, I guarantee you. The dream we seem to be coming closer and closer to is to have every person who wants to be in the US as a citizen, whose religion, or unique peculiarity will be kowtowed to and accommodated in the name of political correctness no matter the cost to freedom or security or regard for the law, and to get them on welfare as quickly as possible. This can be done by using taxes as a device to penalize achievers (and apparently corporations which the Dem Congress is in the process now of trying to backdate laws to penalize Corps, which is another post), and to reward non-producers. Everything will be centrally controlled, a la the USSR (a very failed experiment by every measure), which is slowly coming. Major car companies? Check. Insurance? Check. Financial institutions? Check. Main stream media? Check. Mediocre education for the masses? Double-check.

I honestly believe that if we don't see incumbents thrown out in the next election, this country will go into a tailspin. Greece is the canary in the coal mine, but no one can seem to see we're pretty far down it as well and not losing distance.

Check Your Spine at the Door

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:38:00 +0000

What is it with these guys? I have been constantly disappointed with the spinelessness shown by executives that are dragged in front of congress to explain themselves, whether it be why, as a business, they must make money or why, in the case of the housing mess they did what they were told/forced to do by the very people grilling them.

I remember when the now-beaten up Ken Lewis and the country's most powerful bankers were hauled up there to explain why they had made so many risky loans to high-risk people. Not once did I hear: "Um, The Community Reinvestment Act, which Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and their ilk used to twist our arms to give money to those that cannot manage their money, have an unstable job, terrible credit, and no collateral." No one pointed out what went on at Fannie and Freddie, and no one simply stated the truth.

These hearings always have one of two purposes: to demonize an industry or to intimidate. Sometimes both. But these are heavy-hitters sitting in that room, both politically and financially. One would imagine they rose to the top by knowing how to negotiate a tough situation. Apparently not. When Levin presses him on the "Shitty deal" all he had to say was that it was someone's opinion, and nothing more. Personally, my strategy would have to bamboozle them with numbers. Politicians(especially these days) seem to have no concept of finance.

How Did I miss This?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:55:00 +0000

It seems union goon Andy Stern already had a position lined up for him, compliments of BHO for the union vote. I made a bet in early April that he would have a position, but hadn't counted on him already having one created for him. Since he's been to the White House more than any other civilian since BHO took over, that was something I should have guessed. He's on the panel for fiscal responsibility, which actually has an official 200 word name that only the government could concoct and I can't remember at the moment.

This panel is supposed to be bi-partisan and will serve as Obama's scapegoat when they recommend HUGE tax increases, and most likely a VAT. This doesn't sit well with me, unsurprisingly. The VAT aside, which is an awful idea, now we have yet another hack that hates the free market, doesn't know anything about finance(He left his union $85 million in debt) and has a personal agenda on a panel for fiscal responsibility.

Combined with the fact Obama has never had a real job, much less run any type of enterprise that requires adding numbers(other than the number of people he can charm), and that Tim Geithner, the tax cheat that runs the IRS, admits he has never had a real job, and we basically have me as a teenager running the country.

It's not the Lie, It's the Cover-up

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:41:00 +0000

Someone needs to remind Obama of this daily, because he's going to need to set aside a lot more time than he probably imagined to wiggle out of the messes he's creating for himself. I've come across blogs and conservative articles that list, in summary and incompletely, a looooonnnnnnng list of "misstatements," lines that were "taken out of context" and just flat-out lies that no one with a brain should believe. There has been debate of whether Obama believes them and which is worse: that he believes them, or he doesn't. That's all well and good for intensely confusing and unwritten legislation such as ObamaCare where anyone can say anything they want and the evidence hasn't been realized yet by those with no awareness of the past or future, but this was a simple yes or no, and he chose the wrong answer.

Anyway, here's something that will be largely suppressed in the media: Obama's relationship with Rod Blogo is beginning to be revealed.

About that "Costing $ to Make $" Line...

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:23:00 +0000

After reading this article: 4 million Americans to Pay ObamaCare Fine in 2016 I pondered something. 4 million rebels that for whatever reason don't pay the state their mandatory insurance premiums(This figure is an underestimation, but 'whatever,' right?) multiplied by the $1000 (Good luck getting that out of people that refuse to pay. The consequences will be a larger fine they can't pay as well, imprisonment[Yes, part of the change we can believe in is allowing the government to imprison us if we don't buy their insurance now] which places a very unprepared for surge in the jail population and expenses to keep their rights removed, or having to pay for higher medical expenses that you chose out of pocket because an auditor at the IRS deemed your procedure "Unnecessary."

That likely scenario, among other nightmarish ones, aside, is this even a cost-effective proposal? 4MM people*$1k=$4billion. Does anyone believe for a second that the cost of trying to recoup that $4B is not going to end up costing OVER $4B? What is the government's break-even point? Does it have one? (The answer, of course, is "no," which is another reason insurance companies, or anyone that the government decides to compete with, cannot sustain itself, contrary to Pelosi stating government involvement makes private businesses more competitive) .

Also don't think it hasn't been noted that these disasters will begin unfolding safely after the next Presidential election, God help us all.

I'm Not Buying It.

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:37:00 +0000

Rahm Emanual stated that the White House didn't know anything about the SEC investigation into Goldman Sachs until it came out in the news. Sure.

Now that Obama has his disastrous healthcare nightmare passed, he's going after financial institutions. His "reform" would undoubtedly involve regulating and strangling financial firms, and the system in which they operate. He demonized insurance companies, declaring their greed is what helped propagate the situation of universally affordable healthcare, while leaving out facts(like their WHOPPING 2.2% profit margins) or bamboozling ignorant voters with terminology they wouldn't be able to piece together. Turns out it never mattered, since when the US nearly went into revolt as the bill came up, Pelosi and Obama just instated it anyway.

Now we have GS, coincidentally being investigated the exact moment Obama needsa a talking point for his financial reform. I have no doubt the salaries of GS executives will be thrown all over the place and the sophisticated investment vehicles GS utilizes will be posted to confuse the Dem's target market: the poor ignorami that have far less of a vested interest in the success of a free America than do the people that generate the operating capital for this country.

Timing aside, there is also the question of why the SEC didn't return GS's calls the week before the investigation, and why some type of mediation effort wasn't offered, as is the norm in every other similar case?

Goldman Sachs just posted a 91% increase in earnings($3.46B), which no one seems to care about. If that can be spun into wealth-envy, greed, or any other anti-capitalist sentiment, I'm sure it will soon enough by the MSM. Time to create a crisis, which as we all know government is the only and best answer!

Incidentally, Chrysler, our new car company which our government is now in control of, just posted a $4B quarterly loss. Makes sense to me.

Tax Day Hangovers

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:52:00 +0000

I was about to keep on my weekly theme of pointing out the ridiculousness we've put ourselves in as a country, but that drum has been beaten to death. As someone who has been studying strategy for the past 2 years, a question I ask myself constantly is "why?" Everything that perplexes me (which is a lot) from why my Ford Explorer doesn't have rain channels over the windows to divert water from coming in if the window is slightly open, even for a second, to why Barack Obama is now President of the United States. Neither makes sense.
The former is much less important to me than the latter, and in the name of answers and understanding I read and watch a LOT of political, financial, economic and social media and debate the issues with any and everyone. I'm learning some things about the situation we're in, how we got there, and where we're headed from immersing myself in that smelly arena. Everyone likes to portray themselves as knowledgeable about important issues(including myself), but I'm afraid just not everyone is.

To that end, I'm thinking of compiling some items I've noticed that explain some things concretely. The Democratic party likes to appeal to voters that vote with their hearts and are ideological, so I expect some passionate responses to my declarations. These aren't meant to bash anyone or any party, believe it or not, but unfortunately and objectively, they will probably lean against current policy. I would REALLY like to hear logical disagreements, because I don't think there are any. If I'm wrong, which I often am, I'll make edits and point them out. This will end up being long.

So, let's begin:

Career politicians are cut largely from the same cloth: came from some family money, were 'C' students, and went on and became lawyers that opened their own practice because they weren't near the top of their class and couldn't get a good job with a large firm. Large firms DO take them on once they have done some "public service" and have name recognition. See: Dick Riley of SC. Few are adept at much specifically. These are the people making policy, reviewing financials, creating strategy and making life-impacting decisions for you.
Around 1/2 of this country not only pays NO income taxes at all, but most receive some type of "credit." This is the half that thinks Obama is doing a good job(although currently even that number has fallen into the 30-40% range. This is a sector that is largely made of people that have no plans to ever better themselves and be financially independent. They also have no foresight past tomorrow, and don't care.
Politicians are only interested in what will keep them in office. That, of course, is votes. How do you get votes? By giving the most people and the people that have the largest impact on large groups (unions, for example) what they want. What do they want? Money(taxpayers, taken in the form of a growing number and amount of taxes on those that produce money) and power.
As a country, we've slowly become a nation of security-seekers and wusses. The politically correct movement has cost untold lives and the quest for equitibility for every single human has made our children, adults and adult children soft and whiny.
Unions are tearing this country asunder. They work in lockstep with Obama's agenda of robbing Americans of individuality and putting everyone into groups, to be exploited and used for political gain and great economic and productive waste.
Our government is broke, and broken. There is no way we'll be paying back our debts, and if we do the only way to handle the increasing and unserviceable debt is to allow inflation to rise to such a degree that the dollar is worth pennies. See: Zimbabwe.
To be continued...

I'll leave with these two articles which elaborate on the retarded and expensive situations we allow ourselves to get into. Insane. Both about flushing a LOT of our money down the drain.

Let's pay Brazil not to compete with us in an unsustainable fight.

NY Rubber Rooms shut down, but the cost will be shifted to legal fights and administrative positions to handle these losers.

Have a good day!

I'm Taking Bets.

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:30:00 +0000

I hate unions, and anyone who knows me knows I hate them. They take the identity of individuals, their individual freedoms, and decisions, rob the free market of its intended force and potential, taxes the very business that they work for(I would also debate union workers feel they work more for the union than the company), and as the below article points out, is completely against the American work ethic. Their tactics are extortion, intimidation, outright lies and thuggery.

We had two attorneys in my legal studies class present pro/con stances on unions the other night, and by the time I left I was flush with aggravation. I once again experienced the Union mentality, and worse yet, from an attorney that represents and advocates them. His attitude was cavalier, in that he agreed they use underhanded and unsavory practices(those are light and diplomatic terms), are greedy(I also don't like that word, but the technical definition fits in this case), and represent everything hobbling America right now. But he seemed to think as long as it's within the law, hey, no foul, no harm. And as long as we have union cheerleaders in office, the laws can always be changed to suit political ambitions, as we've recently seen.

I present below an article about the president of the very same union I wrote about yesterday stepping down. This guy is not only an adviser to Obama, but is THE most frequent civilian visitor to the White House since Obama took office. Obama owes the unions; they helped put him where he is. The SEIU alone gave him $60 million.

So, who wants to bet against me that this guy is working in the administration before the summer?

Centralization: the 'dream'

AND part II: an article that does a great job of summarizing the way I feel about government's increasing role in our lives. Lazy blogging, sure, but this guy expresses it far more eloquently and concisely than I could in my very limited time. They can't run anything well at all, and we're handing over our freedoms to politicians to make decisions for us on EVERYthing. Their #1 job is to get re-elected, so I'm not sure how people that are for more government intervention think this will work. I can only presume these are people that: pay NO income taxes(the estimate for this group hovers, suspiciously, around 50%. It also hovers around the same percentage of Americans who are for Obama's Marxist policies), never aspire to ever pay income or capital gains taxes, have absolutely no foresight beyond tonight's airing of American Idol, are so self-absorbed they have no worries for their (probably several) children's future opportunities(or have just trained/written them off to be taxpayer sponges as well), do not know how the political system works in the US(people that couldn't tell you who their senators even are, much less about the intricate and colossal operations at work), or basic economics and finance, and value safety and flat-screen TVs over freedom. All of that bothers me, but it wouldn't be NEARLY as dire if our nanny[politicians] weren't so inept, short-sighted and self-serving. But they are, and increasingly so. The only people insane enough to want to be in politics are driven by power, and those that enter with intentions of helping their constituents are quickly discouraged and introduced to the "up or out" system.

Next bailout: the USPS?

Union Tomfoolery

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:00:00 +0000

We've been going over unions a lot in my classes lately-collective bargaining agreements, auto plants, Nucor, Wal-Mart, the role civil rights and EEO rules among other topics. Fortunately I'm in a room with other capitalists who have foresight. But the union talk has increased, and logically so; unions and young people put Obama in office and now it's payback time. We've seen a "thank-you" already to the youngin's via ObamaCare by allowing them to stay on their parent's insurance policies until fully grown adults, apparently this is now age 27.

I abhor unions and their hypocrisy, their devastating effect on industry, individuals(through intimidation[check-card law anyone?] and harassment) and businesses and consumer's bottom line. They will bite off the hand that feeds them entirely, as with Eastern Airlines, and will push an entire industry to the brink of insolvency, as seen with the taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler. We basically just paid unions to keep making cars no one wants at no profit. Nice business model!

Anyway, time being short, here are two items I ran across today for perusal. Make what you want of them:

"White Workers are so F-ing Rabidly Racist," from the VP of the VERY powerful SEIU

Unions cutting out the middle-man and going straight to the money well themselves
Interestingly, this article and take is from a Canadian.

Milton Friedman on the poor

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:00 +0000

This was shot in 1978 at Stanford University. Something to think about while you review these facts from the Heritage Foundation:

* In 2010, Washington will spend a record $31,406 per household.
* In 2010, Washington will collect $18,276 per household in taxes.
* The $13,130 difference between spending and revenue is our budget deficit per household ... on top of all prior government debt.
* Since 2008, government spending has increased by $5,000 per household. That's in just two years folks.
* Over the last decade, government spending has increased $10,000 per household.

How is this broken down? Take a look while you also ponder that the number of people that pay NO income taxes in this country increased 59% in the past 10 years.

* Social Security/Medicare: $9,949 per household
* Defense: $6,071 per household
* Antipoverty programs: $5,466 per household
* Unemployment benefits: $1,640 per household
* Interest on the federal debt: $1,585 per household
* Veterans' benefits: $1,052 per household
* Federal employee retirement benefits: $1,018 per household
* Education: $914 per household
* Highways/mass transit: $613 per household
* Health research/regulation: $550 per household
* Mortgage Credit: $470 per household
* All other federal programs justice, international affairs, natural resources, the environment, regional development, farm subsidies, social services, space exploration, air transportation and energy: $2,078 per household

Have a good day!

I Misnamed this Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:08:00 +0000

If the U.S. were run as a corporation, even if our government were bloated with bureaucracy, totally inefficient, overpaid, corrupt, despotic, and pretty much had every characteristic of the suddenly lengthening list of companies that have been hauled into congressional hearings to demonize them(please read this tongue-in-cheek), they would be/are still in business as long as the producers in this country continue to produce and allow their earnings to pay for, apparently, anything our president deems "is right" (The word 'Tyranny' comes to mind). He obviously has no problem bending/breaking the rule of law to use it to force people into relinquishing their lives, transitively. I could write volumes on this topic, and may one day, but each day that passes, I see something that continues to develop my concern for the future of this country.

Someone forgot to tell this president the rule of holes: once you're in one, stop digging. I also think he may be trying to see just how dumb Americans are. Probably not as dumb as he thinks they are, but still pretty stupid, thanks to our government staffed, operated and owned schools. Ignorance works out well for the politician who provides style over substance. Here's the latest claim from the White House that if Obama hadn't forced his legacy/disaster on us to the tune of trillions of dollars, we would have gone broke:

Obama obviously isn't paying attention to Greece and how they got into their situation, nor history in general. It hasn't been his best subject.

And just for your Friday amusement, here is the guy that unseated the maniacally unstable Cynthia McKinney in DeKalb County (Georgia) expressing detailed worry, using very poor grammar, to the Admiral who's in command of the US's Pacific Naval fleet, that sending 8,000 troops to Guam may capsize the island. I would love to know what was going through the Admiral's head upon hearing such a worry expressed by this US congressman.

This is the best guy they could find? We are in deep trouble.

Yikes.

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:46:00 +0000

This article in the WSJ is pretty scary. I'm starting to wonder if Obama isn't really a master stratgeist instead of a community organizer (whatever that is) with a few hundred days of related (and dubious) experience. There has been evidence of Obama hanging around with Marxists in college, and post-grad, he obviously hates the private sector, and believes there is nothing better than more government. Our unemployment rate is already sky-high for the US, and when people feel insecure, they'll turn to Uncle Sam. This seems to be exactly what Obama wants, since the more people on board for a more powerful government means more powerful politicians, and that is, of course, what politicians seek. By grabbing 1/6 of our economy, killing private sector jobs, creating 16,500 jobs alone just to audit health records(The IRS will determine what medical procedures are "necessary" for you now), putting as many (and increasing)poor on the (also increasing)entitlement rolls, he's positioning the federal government to be in charge of everything. I work in the career center for the graduate school at my university so I'm on top of jobs, and I've noticed the number of and salary for government positions, that used to be lower or in line with private sector positions have increased dramatically, as an understatement. Some of these positions are over 40% more than what a private employer would pay. How else to make working for the government more attractive? Corporations and wealthy individuals that either just can't or don't feel like handing over their heavily regulated and uber-taxed earnings to pay for the programs politicians deem we must have (like ObamaCare) will just leave, which is fine. Those left on board will appreciate the security and "social and economic equality" they've bought for themselves and their family for generations to come.

But a larger, unspoken direction we seem to be being led in is to squash private enterprise. ANYone with any knowledge of economics knew the effect this law would have on business, and it was explained explicitly by the business owners, with charts, graphs, powerpoints, animations...you name it. Consistently refuted by the administration, which makes you wonder who these experts are Obama has appointed to handle fiscal matters, along with blatantly manipulated numbers, falsifications, and outright lies. The number of lies Obama has told to date is staggering, but he seems to be getting passes on every single one. But I wonder if that's just not part 2 of Obama's vision.

This quote caught my eye, for obvious reasons:

"U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings."

Here's the article, which explains what we can anticipate:

Prosperity ahoy!!!

Post edit 4/15: After nearly every Fortune 500 company has (by law, remember) restated their earnings, they are all taking MASSIVE hits and writedowns. This is no surprise. What amazed me was that Henry Waxman wanted to haul the CEOs hides in for a hearing(read: intimidate them) to see just why they're trying to wreck this great program called Obamacare by having to take billions in writedowns and announce it (by law again) to the country. These greedy and uncooperative businessmen will stop at nothing, no?!

Well, after thinking about it for a while, Waxman realized this would only give businesses a forum to publicly explain how utterly destructive their new law is and how incredibly costly it will be to those born and unborn, financially and otherwise. So: meeting cancelled.

Finally! We're getting on the same page as Cuba!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:34:00 +0000

Funny quote from Castro about the U.S. government taking so long to seize our healthcare. I'm sure he peed in his pants when he heard about Pelosi saying this move was "just kicking in the door" for further insanity. See my below post about how she also thinks reconciliation is a sound way of passing anything politicians believe America needs, regardless of what we want(jobs, freedom, prosperity), don't want(more government, taxes, central planning) or are willing and able to pay for(nothing).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-cb-health-care-fidel-castro,0,470625.story

The Definition of Insanity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:45:00 +0000

...is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results each time. Except this insanity has a twist.

I've seen this "insurance for all' plan before. My first office job after graduating was as a claims adjuster for an insurance company in SC that serviced the "reinsurance" pool. Not a fun job. But the way it worked was that too many people in SC couldn't afford, didn't want to buy, or were here illegally and couldn't get auto insurance. They also seemed to be the people who caused most of, and usually ran from, accidents. Many times while drunk or driving in some sort of illegal capacity, other than not having insurance as well. The liberal tactic implemented was similar to Obamacare: add surcharges and make the people who could afford insurance and were responsible to pay extra, which would go into a "reinsurance pool"(welfare account) to subsidize those 'less fortunate.' It needs to be noted that these same people all had cell phones, $4000 rims on their hoopties and car stereos that cost more than my car. I Know this because I initially handled theft claims and regularly had to deny hucksters and liars caught in the act. I have a feeling a lot of the people that "simply cannot afford" health insurance also have flat screen TVs, satellite TV, expensive cell phones, and any other urban status symbol and creature comfort available.

Long, ugly story short: the whole state-wide operation had to be shut down. Didn't work. It was ineffective, expensive, mismanaged, and a disaster. The only executives they could find to work at my company were 3rd rate because of the government involvement and public-sector nonsense that had to be dealt with, our insureds were out of control and bankrupted the system MUCH more quickly than planned by the legislators that enacted the measure. Instead, SC decided to charge people for uninsured drivers mishaps through higher premiums for their uninsured coverage, which was mandated by law, as before. They let the private sector work it out with actual economics.

Obamacare is the same idea on a larger scale, except this entitlement program has so many more pitfalls, it will make SC's efforts look like a rounding error.

Since insurance companies can't discriminate for pre-existing conditions, no one is going to buy the stuff until they're sick. Same with youngsters who've never had insurance, or are coming off their parent's policies (at age 26). Being the healthiest of the lot, they'll decide to pay the penalty for not buying a product our government says we have to because most times it will be less than their premiums. This leaves the sickest and worst-off to take care of. With talk of healthcare professionals leaving the industry immediately being more and more common, I'm not sure how we plan to add so many millions to the rolls, with a decrease in service, but the cost according to proponents will decrease, and the quality will improve.

This comes on a day when the headlines are about the USPS going to a five day workweek because they're losing billions each quarter.

Healthcare rationing is coming, people.

The Most Dangerous Woman in Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:22:00 +0000

I'm sure the title gives it away: Nancy Pelosi. She has essentially, actually make that literally, done away with deliberative legislature through the technicality of reconciliation. Lindsey Graham made a good point about this division the democrats are putting between themselves and other parties, the government and the people it's SUPPOSED to serve and between the federal and state operations. He brought up the fact that even though Massachusetts, ground zero for socialized healthcare under Ted Kennedy, voted in Scott to explicitly demonstrate that this bill, which is now law somehow, is a piece of crap. Pelosi, et al. basically told Massachusetts they don't matter.

We have decided collectively (not really) to allow politicians to decide what's best for every single person in the US, legal and otherwise. Personally I liked the model where we had freedom to decide how we would live our lives, be responsible only for myself and those I choose, and have foresight beyond the next election. Obviously Obama DID have enough foresight , since this bill that had to become law NOW doesn't take effect until well after his next election. That will be an interesting election, since all Republicans need to do is work on the platform of undoing what is being done as I write this.

Below is a video of Pelosi saying using reconciliation as a ramrod to create laws at her leisure should be a model for the future. Change we can believe in, I guess.

Nancy Pelosi on 'reform'

I heard a congressman from Iowa this morning talking about how when he stood up to present his deliberations on the bill, an expected, usual, normal procedure, he was lambasted by a democrat for wasting paper and time. Afterwards, the senior dems went to a small room on the third floor of the capitol known as the 'hole in the wall,' where cameras have only been allowed twice in the history of the building, and that was where this bill was created. Behind closed doors with only proponents of Obamacare, with boxfulls of unpopular and nonsensical agendas to tack on later.

Thanks, Dems!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:28:00 +0000

For those living in a cave on the moon with their fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes, tomorrow (March 23, 2010)is a day to which historians (accurate ones, at least) will trace many, many near-future and long-range problems.

I have seen a few arguments from liberals, presumably, and short sighted, ideological, misinformed facebookers, definitely, that apparently see nothing wrong with abandoning checks and balances, law, the American way of life, capitalism, and general opportunity. That list goes on for a pretty long time.

It seems these people believe a few things that are not correct, at ALL:

Insurance companies have high profits. This comes from the demonization of these tightly state-regulated companies, and the mainstream media printing complicitous stories. These media have questioned nearly nothing that Obama does or says, from giving the queen of England an iPod to recklessly seizing 18% of this country's economy (and that has been proven time and time again-if you argue with that you may as well stop reading here.) Fact: Insurance companies' profit margin is 2.2%. If you think that's high, you need help.

The same ones that argue this also believe that this move will be good for business. This bill will impose so many and more taxes and penalties, that it's not funny. This is money that would have gone to hiring new employees while expanding, however now goes to paying for administrative costs, most likely to the IRS, who now has the authority to define what medical procedures are necessary for you.

I honestly haven't heard a single reason this is a good move in any way. The argument that "everyone should have access to healthcare" doesn't cut it. Healthcare isn't a right in this country even for citizens, much less all of our illegal friends in the US. Notice there is not mention of "quality" healthcare. You'll now need to go abroad to find that. Or at least in 2014, when this bill, that HAD to be passed NOW, doesn't start taking effect, safely after the Presidential November election.

Some items to consider:

I've read reports that up to 45% of doctors will now retire, quit or just change professions. Don't laugh-I know plenty of career-changers.

We're adding around 31 million people to the healthcare roll. The market for medical school looks a lot less appealing and the provider market will dwindle. Rationing will be the only answer.

The cost of this thing is going to not only push us further over the financial brink of insanity, but make it a lot easier for the BRIC countries to leave us in the dust. I really don't think it's unrealistic to see America go into bankruptcy unless equally dramatic moves are made. There's no way we can afford this, on top of everything else, which we also can't afford.

This was purely a political battle, not over improving healthcare. The battles are now going to be more intense and numerous, because so much political, economic, social and financial power is at stake. That's what it was about to begin with.

Jim Clyburn (D-SC) voted for it. Enough said.

Point being: I'm pretty sure I can shoot down any single argument FOR this bill.

Some Numbers to Consider

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:07:00 +0000

Greece, who is about to stage the biggest sovereign default in history, has a debt level equaling 100% of their GDP. The US is slated to have a debt level at 218% of our GDP in 2050. Those are the number generated by our own current Obama administration, not an objective, bipartisan study, so I'm SURE they are not being underestimated >Wink<. What do you think lies ahead? Prosperity and opportunity?

In 2007 our deficit was $160 billion. Last year after Obama took office it hit $1.4 TRILLION. This year: estimated to hit $1.6 trillion.

Here's an article from ABC News to scare you: DEBT! in 12 years the US government's biggest expense will be paying interest on our debt. That's going to be tough when in the not to distant future 80% of the budget will also need to be used JUST to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Using Obama's own numbers, his stimulus program has cost us $96,305.80 per "job" created, even though we have fewer jobs now than we did before the massive stimulus.

By the way, the amount it costs private enterprise to create a job is $31,169.

I love this "change," don't you?

Color Me Surprised!

noreply@blogger.com (Michael B. Musgrove) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:55:00 +0000

The Duke Lacrosse Rapist Accuser has really turned her life around, after ruining the lives of some young men who busted their butts to get into Duke, and played varsity lacrosse for their school. Her children don't quite have the same promising futures, but she's managing to ruin theirs as well.

Social Poison

(I know this has nothing to do with the theme of this blog, but hey, it's Friday)