Find the Light

What Dodd-Frank has Cost ME

2012-01-26T14:34:00.000-05:00

What a terrible piece legislation. It won't do anything to stop the crony capitalists who SHOULD have been taught a lesson by being allowed to go bankrupt. Instead, the government propped them up with taxpayer money, then passed this horrid piece of legislation to "prevent" a future occurance. Right. If you want to offset corporate greed, give them something to FEAR - that is, a loss of everything. All Dodd-Frank does is to make it MORE important for large corporations to cozy up to your elected officials and buy influence so that they can continue side-stepping the regulations.

Anyway, nearly 3 years ago, I thought it would be smart to play the Forex markets, which included spot silver and spot gold. I did very well for a few months, then got in deep on a silver position. Not having done sufficient research into fundamentals, I got scared and sold off my leveraged 300 ounces of silver at about $14.80 an ounce (having bought the 300 ounces at about $16.50 an ounce) for a loss of around $500. I closed my trading account and resolved not to trade Forex anymore until I had money I could afford to lose. Of course, silver is now trading at about $33 an ounce. Whoops.

In December, having done much more research into the fundamentals of silver and gold, and having a $500 that I could afford to lose, I resolved to once again open a trading account on the first trading day in January. I planned to buy 10 ounces of gold at 50:1 margin - which would have cost me about $320 since gold was trading at right under $1,600 - and hold the position for at least the whole year. At most, I'd lose my $500 trading balance (since Forex.com does not allow you to lose more money than you have in your account) and at best, I could make $7,000 if gold hits the $2,300 level that many economists predict by year end. Only problem was, when I went to open my account, I found I could no longer buy gold at 50:1 margin. I could still buy currencies at 100:1 margin, but gold had to be bought outright at 1:1. Since I still don't have a good understanding of currency fundamentals, and I didn't have $1,600 to buy an ounce of spot gold, I didn't open the account. So WHY couldn't I trade gold on margin anymore? A quick Google search turned up the answer: Dodd-Frank outlawed trading precious metals on margin beginning in July of 2011.

So, with gold trading above $1720 today, Messrs. Dodd and Frank, together with the rest of congress and the president, have, to date, cheated me out of twelve hundred dollars. Thanks a lot.

Think Ron Paul is Dangerous? Here's Why His Plan to Balance the Budget is Necessary for Our Security!

2012-01-06T15:02:00.004-05:00

I was reflecting today on a conversation I had with my employer at the time how I thought it was terrible that the national debt was more than 3 times the entire budget for the year 2008. He said it didn’t seem so bad, a person could easily carry a debt load 3 times their annual income, and they could have it paid off in a couple decades. True, but it was more like 4 times annual income when you took into account the budget deficit. So, how far have we come with a President who promised to slash the deficit? Let’s take a look:

2008:

$2,524,000,000,000    tax revenues
$2,982,000,000,000    total expenses
$458,000,000,000       new debt
$10,669,000,000,000   total debt year end

2011:

$2,303,000,000,000       tax revenues
$3,601,000,000,000       total expenses
$1,298,000,000,000       new debt
$15,243,000,000,000     total debt year end

Doesn’t look so good does it? But these are some awful big numbers, and they can be hard to interpret, so let’s make it look like a household budget by removing 8 zeros. I’ve also thrown in “bank approved” numbers based on the amount our bank told my wife and I we would qualify for if we applied for a mortgage. The bank would have approved us for a total debt load of about 3.2 times our annual income.

2008:

$25,240      household income
$29,820      total expenses
$4,580        on credit card
$106,690   total debt year end
$80,770      bank approved debt

2011:

$23,030     household income
$36,010     total expenses
$12,980    on credit card
$152,430 total debt year end
$73,700     bank approved debt

Yikes! We might have been okayish in 2008, but we’re in deep trouble now. Uncle Sam now has more than TWICE the amount of debt that a bank would allow for a regular borrower, and the picture is only growing worse by the day. Interest payments already amount to 20% of federal revenue.

At current rates, it will only be 47 more years until EVERY SINGLE PENNY of tax revenues go to paying interest on the debt. Every penny. Think about that. In less than 50 years, if we don’t change things, there will be zero money for defense, zero money for Social Security and Medicare, zero money for ANYTHING ELSE, every penny will go to paying the debt.

Think I’m being pessimistic? Social Security and Medicare payments, already more than 50% of federal revenues, are projected to skyrocket, thus adding to the deficit FASTER. Interest rates will spike drastically long before we get close to this theoretical borrowing limit since the closer to the absolute theoretical limit, the higher the interest rate that will have to be offered to entice lenders. Throw in sluggish economic performance resulting from government borrowing crowding out private sector investment, and you have a recipe for declining tax revenues as well. Look at it that way, and I think it’s OPTIMISTIC to say that I’ll make it to being a grandfather (my son is less than a year old) before the U. S. government officially defaults on its debt, with all the terrifying implications. You’ll find dozens of economists predicting that we’ll see a default within the DECADE.

Still think Ron Paul is dangerous?! Dangerous is ANY POLITICIAN UNWILLING to make the drastic cuts necessary to balance the budget. A large, technologically advanced military will only keep us safe for as long as we can afford to pay the soldiers.

Bin Laden is Dead, but Let Me Ask You This...

2011-05-03T15:59:00.000-04:00

In the past 10 years, who has killed more people, Bin Laden, or the American government? I think you know the answer.

Explain This One:

2011-04-04T13:13:00.000-04:00

To those who would say we can't allow guns for self-defense on airplanes due to the risk of depressurizing the cabin, this occured at 34,000 feet (otherwise known as full cruising height):

...and there were no serious injuries. The one death in 1988 from depressurizing that is mentioned in the article was from a poor stewardess being sucked out of the plane, not because of the loss of pressure.

April Fools!

2011-04-01T11:45:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party congratulates Congress for passing a budget that makes serious cuts in federal government spending, including the following:

1.Eliminating Department of Education programs, saving taxpayers more than $40 billion each year.

2.Getting rid of farm subsidies, saving over $20 billion each year.

3.Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other overseas deployments, saving over $100 billion annually.

4.Eliminating programs and subsidies in the Department of Transportation, saving about $80 billion annually.

5.Terminating federal housing subsidies, saving about $45 billion each year.

6.Giving overpaid federal employees a 10% cut in compensation, saving $30 billion annually.

7.Throwing out federal energy subsidies, saving $20 billion annually.

8.Reducing and reforming Medicare and Medicaid, saving about $100 billion a year for the next ten years.

9.Ending the federal War on Drugs, saving $15 billion annually.

10.Phasing out mandatory Social Security, and reducing the rate of benefit growth to save $40 billion a year by 2020.

"April Fool's!" cried Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict. "Congress hasn't done any of those things. Congress is causing the federal government to keep growing rapidly. And don't be fooled by the recent hype about Republican proposals for 'cuts.' Those 'cuts' are so small and so peripheral, that even if they pass, they won't have any effect on the fiscal catastrophe facing our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats continue to link arms and keep our federal government huge and growing."

Benedict continued, "We got that list of items from a Cato Institute advertisement that ran in several major news outlets today. Of course, we wish Congress would cut all those things, but we know Republicans and Democrats won't do it."

Now He's O-bomb-a

2011-03-21T15:27:00.000-04:00

In 2008, it was those pansy anti-war liberals and the (yikes!) Arabs who wanted Obama to win. Now, after keeping us in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan, he's decided to start raining explosives on Libya. Back then, his anti-war stance was the only thing I liked about him. Now, the Arab world has a more unfavorable opinion of the America than they did in the final year of the Bush administration! After ObamaCare, the CARD act (boy was I excited to see my interest rates go up and credit limits go down in the time between it was passed and when it came into effect), failing to raise taxes on the rich while increasing the deficit, failing to get the military out of 2 quagmires, and starting what hopefully doesn't become a third, I have to wonder, is he just trying to gain as many enemies as he possibly can in 4 years?

On This Day in History

2011-03-03T15:27:00.000-05:00

- 1985: My better half was born! Celebrating tonight at the Oasis!

Am I Missing Something?...

2011-02-16T16:40:00.000-05:00

...or did B. Hussein O. not promise to get us on a path OUT of Iraq and Afganistan? Yet now, here we are in 2011 with military spending higher than ANY year of the King George administration (!), and O thinks the Republican proposal to increase military spending "only" 1-2% isn't nearly enough! Seriously?!

You Might be Crazy, but You're Not Wrong

2011-01-11T13:56:00.001-05:00

Did you know that the Pentagon once listed [Aspartame] in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress? Or that the FDA unanimously rejected it in 1980, only approving it after the wheels were greased by some shady dealings, including some ramrodding by Donald Rumsfeld himself?

If that doesn't carry enough weight by itself, Cracked.com has several more government conspiracies for you, all of which contain credible sources.

Ben Franklin Wasn't Kidding

2010-11-16T14:11:00.004-05:00

When he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I'd add that they end up without either as well.

So why the hell do we have full-body scanners in airports?! Do I need to point out that last year, 33,963 people died in traffic collisions, with a fatality rate of 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled - the lowest rate on record! Meanwhile, from 1990 through the end of 2009, only 4,735 people died in commercial airline crashes*, INCLUDING the people who died in the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/01! That means in 2009 alone, 7 times more people died in car crashes than died from airline crashes in the previous 20 years combined!

Well, if you're going to strip search (via x-ray), pat down, and metal-detect every passenger going onto an airplane, why not do the same to everybody getting into a car? It would certainly cut down on the number of drunk driving deaths and cut drug smuggling to nil! Would you consider THAT an invasion of privacy?

Okay, so your argument is that airlines have a higher rate of deaths per mile traveled? True, including the 9/11/01 events, the rate for commercial airlines is 3.39 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, nearly 3 times the current rate for motor vehicles. However, if you exclude deaths on the ground (but still include those who died aboard the 4 planes) on 9/11/01, the rate for air travel suddently drops to 1.44 deaths per million miles traveled for the 20 year average - less than the 20 year average for motor vehicles (which was 2.08 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1990 and didn't drop below 1.4 until the mid 2000's)

Still, even taking the higher number, consider the train: according to the Federal Railroad Administration, there were 106.24 deaths per 100 million rail miles traveled in 2009! Not only is this rate more than 30 times the rate of deaths per air mile traveled, but in absolute numbers, about 3 times as many people die in rail accidents as in commercial air travel crashes every year!

So, more people die each year on average in automobile and rail collisions than die as a result of airline crashes, yet only the airlines are subjected to these draconian measures? This tells me that something other than concern for the loss of civilian life is behind this scheme. At the very least, it would be a whole lot cheaper in economic terms (and probably in direct cost to the government as well) to put an air marshall on every flight than it is to force every passenger to arrive early to go through "security" measures, pay rent-a-cops to patrol the gates, and buy extremely expensive radioactive scanners, metal detectors, etc., etc.

At best, allowing and encouraging civilians to carry their own sidearms onto airplanes would have prevented the vast majority of deaths that occurred on 9/11/01, (which, incidentally, is more than half of all airline crash deaths in the past 20 years) while preserving our liberties, privacy, and pocketbooks! Imagine that! Preserving freedom would have bought you that safety you wanted!

*This includes scheduled and non-scheduled section 121 flights (standard commercial airliner), as well as scheduled section 135 flights (connecting or commuter flights with smaller aircraft), but does NOT include non-scheduled section 135 flights (air-taxi) or general aviation flights. Source: National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB does not include the 2727 people who died on the ground on 9/11/01 in their figures.

Did You Know?

2010-11-05T10:56:00.000-04:00

That the 200 Million gallons of oil spilled after the deepwater horizon disaster is an amount so large that it takes the entire U.S. nearly - oh... um... whats that? less than 6 HOURS to burn?

This is Hilarious

2010-10-28T14:18:00.004-04:00

Oh, how those cold-hearted Republicans leave "Main Street" out in the cold while cozying up to the corporate fat-cats. That's why, when we elected a Democratic house, senate, and president 2 years ago, things have been looking up for the poor and downtrodden... oh wait, no. Actually, the uneducated, jobless, and low-income Americans are worse off while the investors and corporations are better off. Not that a Republican administration would have had better results, of course. Thisadpaidforbythewhyyoushouldvotelibertariancommittee(yourstruly)andnotauthorizedbyanycandidateorcandidate'scommittee.

License Plate of the Year

2010-10-20T11:02:00.000-04:00

EZ2BGRN

Seen on a 2 seat, rear drive, tire-smoking, 10 cylinder, negative MPG, but lime green colored, Dodge Viper. Just one of TWENTY-THREE Vipers seen in the Woodsville, NH elementary school parking lot on Sunday, October 17th, 2010.

Why is This Even News?

2010-10-15T11:45:00.002-04:00

Social security recipients are getting no raise this year! Oh, no!! Our seniors are going to die in poverty! At least, that's what the headline writers want you to think. Oh, wait. They aren't getting a raise because inflation hasn't gone up... and they got the biggest raise in a quarter century in 2009, due to the high energy prices in '08 - which promptly free fell and left them with a tidy sum. So let me get this straight, people are complaining about no raise, even though they recently got - and kept! - a huge raise right before energy costs dropped through the floor and erased the need for the large size of the raise... and inflation has been practically nil since then.

Quasi-Libertarianism in Action:

2010-10-06T13:55:00.004-04:00

Gene Cranick of rural Obion County in Tennesee had the opportunity to pay $75 per year for fire department coverage from the nearby city of South Fulton. He was mailed a letter every year at renewal time, and even got a follow-up phone call when he didn't send in his $75 by the due date. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong" he says. Now he and many others are upset that the FD let his house burn to the ground. He even says he offered to pay the full costs of putting out the fire if the FD would come out, but was told it was too late.

One commenter says "I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" (They'd responded to the scene to prevent the fire from spreading to his fee-paying neighbor's house)

To which I'd respond: How is a verbal agreement to pay while your house is burning "a reasonable expectation to be compensated"? Who WOULDN'T say they were going to pay while watching their house burn?! If Mr. Cranick could afford to pay the thousands it would have cost to save his house, why couldn't he come up with a measly $75 per year? If, on the other hand, he really thought it was a voluntary donation every year, (which is what one would assume from his statement - that is, if he isn't lying) why does the FD have a moral obligation to save his house when the guy is obviously not very generous himself?

Okay, so you trot out the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated, not as they have treated you in the past. So, I'm on that fire department, and now I've got a choice: take money from thousands of taxpayers and fee-payers in order to save one man some money, or let that one man suffer the monetary consequenses of his actions so I don't drive up everyone else's costs. I'd let his house burn too. Besides, the guy also had the opportunity to buy house/property insurance, which would cover his losses even if I let it burn to the ground. (The articles I've found don't discuss this issue so he might not have done that either.) This doesn't even take into account the possibility that hundreds more rural residents might decide to free-load on the taxpaying city dwellers if the FD had gone ahead and saved Mr. Cranick's house.

The only way I'd say that the FD had any obligation to do anything would be if human lives were at stake. Human life always takes precedence over monetary loss, even if it means taking that money from others. However, that was not the case in this instance. Mr. Cranick had the chance to protect himself, and he chose to take the risk of not signing up. He has no one to blame but himself, and no one should try to place blame on the FD or anyone else. End of story.

Incidentally, a true free-market FD probably would have put out the fire and charged him. Why? Because they'd sue for the money if he couldn't pay up. A government agency, as this FD was, doesn't want the hassle of suing.

5 Ways to Revitalize the Republic

2010-10-04T15:18:00.003-04:00

Michael Moore, that lovable (depending on whom you ask) buffoon (also depending on who you ask) has come out with 5 ways the Democrats can avoid catastrophe at the polls this November. In response, I've drafted 5 better positions they can take that, while they may not guarantee instant success this election, will certainly be successes for "we the people":

1) Instead of blaming who got us in this mess, get us the heck out of it! You don't like the wars, but why don't you call on O-bum-a to call the troops home?! It’s been nearly 2 years and we've still got the same (if not more) resources and troops assigned to killing islamics from the middle east, who - surprise! - hate us even more.

2) Instead of indicting the scape-goat offenders (Wall Street), why don't you tell the people which congress-critters voted for the Fannie-Freddie debacle that put millions of Americans into homes they couldn't afford (which, other than the wars, is what really caused the mess). Then, we'll all know which bums to throw out (there'll be as many Dems as Repubs in that line-up).

3) Announce a moratorium on all unconstitutional legislation. And yes, telling banks they can't foreclose on non-paying home-dwellers would be unconstitutional. The paperwork mess we currently have is no reason for a market-wide blanket moratorium. Just enforce the laws already on the books.

4) Who’s hiring? Everyone is!! That is, if you cut government taxes (and spending!) down to oh, I don’t know, a tenth of what is currently is. That will free up TRILLIONS of dollars for the much more efficient private sector to allocate, creating the fastest economic recovery in history.

5) How about declaring that no Democrat will accept any further Wall Street funds for THIS election cycle, and furthermore, the Wall Street money already in their coffers will be returned 100%. Not only will this be much more appealing to the voters than a flimsy promise to do something in the future, but we won’t be assaulted with all of your mud-slinging ads for the next month.

While these are all pie-in-the-sky-not-going-to-happen ideas, that doesn’t make them any different than YOUR ideas Mr. Moore. Oh, wait, they ARE different, because all my ideas can be accomplished without bending, twisting, distorting, or ignoring the constitution.

Did You Know...

2010-10-04T10:12:00.001-04:00

That World War I just ended?
Germany sold treasury bonds in the 1920's and early '30's to pay for its reparations debt agreed to (well... they didn't have much choice did they?) at the Treaty of Versailles. These bonds were promptly defaulted on by the Nazis, then payment was further delayed by the division between East and West Germany after WW II. In 1995, Germany began making intest payments on the remaining outstanding bonds, finally making the last $94 Million installment yesterday. Of course, the original $63 Billion (in US dollars) settlement was revised down to $33 Billion, (still worth over $400 Billion in today's currency) and then the interest owed was revised down several times. And it STILL took massive currency devaluation that exacerbated the Great Depression, another World War, and almost a century to pay it off. I hope the world has learned its lesson about the (lack of) intelligence of forcing a weary, war-tattered, loosing country to pay huge sums of money to the winners.

In Which I Hereby Predict the Headline for November 3rd, 2010

2010-09-28T17:22:00.001-04:00

The headline will be "VOTERS ARE IDIOTS" with a sub-head of "DESPITE STRONG DISLIKE OF BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, VOTERS FAILED TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND INSTEAD RE-ELECTED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS" Don't believe me? Well, read this article and then tell me what 3rd party candidates are currently polling at. VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2ND!

And Now, From the NO KIDDING, REALLY?! Department...

2010-09-09T17:01:00.000-04:00

The government has now admitted that health care spending under the "reform" bill will be higher than if the bill hadn't been passed. "Oh, but just by a little bit, you see, and we get all those other people insured." It hasn't even taken effect yet and they're admitting this? You can bet your best-loved possession they'll keep revising the numbers up bit-by-bit till (maybe) they are telling the truth... They know full well that a full up-front disclosure would have quashed chances of the bill passing - or else have risked a real revolution in so doing (not just the one that's expected at the polls this fall).

Chevy Trucks: The Real Truth

2010-08-31T15:52:00.004-04:00

By now you've probably seen those Chevy ads proclaiming that their trucks are the "most dependable, longest-lasting trucks on the road". As a long standing, strongly-biased Ford fan, I'm here to - confirm their claims?!

Well, unfortunately, after I did some research, I discovered that Chevy and GMC trucks are indeed the most dependable, longest-lasting trucks on the road.

The average Chevy truck is driven for 16.2 years before it is scrapped, to a Ford's average of 15.9 years. In addition, Chevy trucks have an average of 2.9 repairs done per year during that time, for an average annual repair bill of $852. Ford trucks have an average of 3.1 repairs done per year for an average annual repair bill of $897.

With numbers like these, it's obvious that Ford has the most effective advertising department of any company on the planet. How else do you explain the fact that the Ford F-Series has been the best selling truck in america for over 30 years straight?

However, in my research, I came across numerous photographs of the trucks in their daily routine, and I spotted a surprising theme in the Ford truck photographs, which was much different than the theme I found in the Chevy truck photographs. I have included the most indicative examples of each below.

Most Fords were doing things like this:

While most Chevys were doing things like this:

I didn't realize how important that "on the road" part was.

Politics from a Comedy Writer Who Doesn't Write About Politics

2010-08-20T11:49:00.001-04:00

3 Reasons the “Ground Zero Mosque” Debate Makes No Sense

Please go and read the article yourself, but for your convenience, here is a synopsis: 1) They don't want to build it at "ground zero", 2) It isn't a Mosque, and 3) Far from being illegal, the Bill of Rights protects their ability to build it. Amen, Gladstone.

Seen on the 'Net

2010-06-30T11:07:00.000-04:00

I wouldn't have dared to say this myself, but I have no problem reposting it!

"a few more good funerals like byrd and kennedy and our senate will be in pretty good shape"

(Comment posted by 'James' at 10:52 AM Eastern Standard Time on June 30, 2010)

The Good News Is...

2010-06-25T13:29:00.000-04:00

Most Americans now see B. Hussein Obama is NOT what this country needed... The bad news is he still has 45% fooled.

Dear KBB,

2010-06-09T13:33:00.001-04:00

Please pull your headlights out of your tailpipe.

As you can see, here I have a screenshot showing that a USED Scion XD, Automatic, with 30k miles on it, is supposedly worth $16,435. There's just one problem with that, and that is this:

Here, KBB is telling me a NEW 2010 Scion XD with zero miles and automatic transmission is supposedly worth only $16,370! I checked the exact same option boxes in both cases.

A quick check over to http://www.scion.com/ confirmed that the 2010 model with an auto transmission is indeed 16,370. How the @#*!# is a year-old car with two years worth of miles worth more than a NEW car???

The Second-Best Day of 2010

2010-05-28T10:28:00.000-04:00

It's sunny, seasonably warm but not hot, the Friday before a 3 day weekend, and my fiancee returns from a 3 day school trip... what's not to love?