I've been reading materials on the constitution and found the following quotes from two inspired leaders....... although delivered in the 1950's and 60's they are very timely.
#1
"History teaches that when individuals have given up looking after their own economic needs and transferred a large share of that responsibility to the government, both they and the government have failed. At least twenty great civilizations have disappeared. The pattern is shockingly similar. All, before their collapse, showed a decline in spiritual values, in moral stamina, and in the freedom and responsibility of their citizens. They showed such symptoms as deficit spending, excessive taxation, bloated bureaucracy, government paternalism, and generally a rather elaborate set of supports, controls, and regulations, affecting prices, wages, production, and consumption." Ezra Taft Benson, BYU, 2/28/62
#2
We are placed on this earth to work, to live; and the earth will give us a living. It is our duty to strive to make a success of what we possess — to till the earth, subdue matter, conquer the globe, take care of the cattle, the ‘locks and the herds. It is the Government’s duty to see that you are protected in these efforts, and no other man has the right to deprive you of any of your privileges. But it is not the Government’s duty to support you. That is one reason why I shall raise my voice as long as God gives me sound or ability, against this Communistic idea that the Government will take care of us all, and everything belongs to the Government. It is wrong! No wonder, in trying to perpetuate that idea, they become anti-Christ, because that doctrine strikes directly against the doctrine of the Savior...No government owes you a living. You get it yourself by your own acts! — never by trespassing upon the rights of a neighbor; never by cheating him. You put a blemish upon your character the moment you do. (David O. McKay, Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States, p. 23, 3/14/35)
The government is not there to take care of us and it will fail if we expect it to do so.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Repeating History - Submitted by Reg Anderson
The dialog between you, Tony & others caught my attention and you asked for feedback and opinions. So - following are some observations from my perspective.
To paraphrase, "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it."
First, I want to assume that all sides of the political spectrum want the same things including healthy, happy, congenial lives with freedom to pursue our goals and dreams, so far as they don't infringe on others. Of course, this isn't always the case but let's start there. If the above assumption is correct, then the only question is "What is the best way to achieve it," and therin lies most of the squabbling.
I am reading a comprehensive history of Scotland beginning at about 3000 BC. I'm only about 70 pages into a 730 page book, but I am overwhelmed with the unending saga of wars and battles, with each one trying to take what belongs to someone else. And Scotland is not unique. Read the history of any country at any period of history and it is a similar scenario of conflicts.
In my opinion, war is the second dumbest thing that people can do, The first dumbest (to coin an old expression) is to live under a dictatorship when resistance is possible and to fail to defend our families and homes. See the Title of Liberty in the BOM.
One of the mantras of the "Hate Bush" coalition is his motivation in attacking Iraq. In my personal opinion, entering Iraq was an unwise thing to do. Not because of any ulterior motives or the lack of weapons of mass destruction, but because the basic assumption seemed to be that if we could eliminate Saddam Hussein, we would be joyously welcomed and that democracy and freedom would immediately result. I lived for many months in Saudi, Kuwait, Syria, Abu Dhabi and Dubai and I have great respect for many aspects of the Muslim culture in that part of the world, but it is a mistake to think that a culture can be changed overnight. It may take centuries, and almost certainly it won't be exactly as we would like.
It is somewhat hypocritical to blame Bush as a "war monger", when a cursory review of the wars that we have fought in the past two centuries shows that often they were initiated or exacerbated by the left side of the political spectrum.
As I consider the form of government that has evolved in the United States, it is apparent to me that we already have significant elements of socialism, to the extent that the government controls many aspect of our lives and commerce. Certainly some of this is necessary. We aren't likely to each one build his own road system, for instance.
Looking at the political spectrum with pure capitalism on the right and pure socialism or communism on the left, neither extreme has worked well historically. If you look at examples of either extreme, they fail for the same reasons: lust for power and greed and the end result is generally a dictatiorship of one form or another - ie, Stalin or Hitler.
One unfortunate outcome of the liberal bias in many universities today is the prevailing attitude among young adults that business is evil and that the profit motive must be eliminated. This undercuts the basis of the success of this country. Granted, there is greed and crime that occurs in the business world, and I have seen many examples personally, but I have seen many more instances of these things in the government organizations that I have encountered. The current rush to more government is not going to solve anyything. In any case, absolute power corrupts absolutely!!! We are racing deeper into socialism with the government attempting to control everything including finance, manufacturing and health care.
Philosophically, I have no problem with a system that promises everything to everyone. However, pragmatically and historically it doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Because it removes all incentives. My example that you have heard many times: if you work 80 hours per week to try to improve life for your family and I go to the park and watch the grass grow for the same 80 hours and we are paid the same, how long will you contunue to work hard?
I also liked your example of the college professor that told the class that since they felt that everything should be equal, they would all get the same grade based on the cumulative average. Predictably, the scores were increasingly lower on each exam and, in the end, everyone got an F. That's socialism in action.
During the presidential campaign, Pres. Obama said repeatedly that one of his main goals was to redistribute the wealth. This idea is to cut up the pie into exactly equal pieces. Conversely, a well run capitalist system seeks to make MORE pie and provides incentives to do so. In some of his speeches, President Obama has also hinted at the idea of "Reparations". Scary.
Those who oppose socialism are accused of lacking compassion and charity, however, if you look at the statistics, we are more charitable per capita than the next most charitable country, Great Britain by several times over.
The fundamental question is this: If things are so bad here, when was it better and where was it or is it better? Let's all move there. I suggest that we all need to learn a little more history.
I hope and pray that we are not so political and so naive as to assume that we don't need National Defense and that organizations like Al Qaida will abandon their goals to eliminate the US and western culture if we just talk nice to them. I am very familiar with those cultures and they have leaders who would love to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in 6 or 8 American cities. They would do it in an instant given the chance.
Regarding Nationalized Healthcare, I am 72 years old in October and I don't look forward to being told, "You have cancer or heart problems. You're too old to treat. Just go home and die or come back in a few years and we'll see if we can find someone to talk to you." But it is true what they say, a healthcare system like that will definitely cut costs. It just depends on how strictly you ration it.
I agree, if there are people who cannot get healthcare inspite of Medicaid and Medicare, we need to find a way to get care to them. But who are they? The poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare. Let's concentrate on finding ways to solve the problem without taking over everything.
Arlene and I won't be around to see the full impact of the financial irresponsibility that is being thrust on us right now. It's our kids, grandkids and great grandkids who will inherit the burdens and have to pay the real costs. I appologize thet we couldn't find a way to proceed more wisely. but we certainly didn't vote for this.
John, sorry for this rambling, but you asked for some thoughts. Let's talk.
To paraphrase, "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it."
First, I want to assume that all sides of the political spectrum want the same things including healthy, happy, congenial lives with freedom to pursue our goals and dreams, so far as they don't infringe on others. Of course, this isn't always the case but let's start there. If the above assumption is correct, then the only question is "What is the best way to achieve it," and therin lies most of the squabbling.
I am reading a comprehensive history of Scotland beginning at about 3000 BC. I'm only about 70 pages into a 730 page book, but I am overwhelmed with the unending saga of wars and battles, with each one trying to take what belongs to someone else. And Scotland is not unique. Read the history of any country at any period of history and it is a similar scenario of conflicts.
In my opinion, war is the second dumbest thing that people can do, The first dumbest (to coin an old expression) is to live under a dictatorship when resistance is possible and to fail to defend our families and homes. See the Title of Liberty in the BOM.
One of the mantras of the "Hate Bush" coalition is his motivation in attacking Iraq. In my personal opinion, entering Iraq was an unwise thing to do. Not because of any ulterior motives or the lack of weapons of mass destruction, but because the basic assumption seemed to be that if we could eliminate Saddam Hussein, we would be joyously welcomed and that democracy and freedom would immediately result. I lived for many months in Saudi, Kuwait, Syria, Abu Dhabi and Dubai and I have great respect for many aspects of the Muslim culture in that part of the world, but it is a mistake to think that a culture can be changed overnight. It may take centuries, and almost certainly it won't be exactly as we would like.
It is somewhat hypocritical to blame Bush as a "war monger", when a cursory review of the wars that we have fought in the past two centuries shows that often they were initiated or exacerbated by the left side of the political spectrum.
As I consider the form of government that has evolved in the United States, it is apparent to me that we already have significant elements of socialism, to the extent that the government controls many aspect of our lives and commerce. Certainly some of this is necessary. We aren't likely to each one build his own road system, for instance.
Looking at the political spectrum with pure capitalism on the right and pure socialism or communism on the left, neither extreme has worked well historically. If you look at examples of either extreme, they fail for the same reasons: lust for power and greed and the end result is generally a dictatiorship of one form or another - ie, Stalin or Hitler.
One unfortunate outcome of the liberal bias in many universities today is the prevailing attitude among young adults that business is evil and that the profit motive must be eliminated. This undercuts the basis of the success of this country. Granted, there is greed and crime that occurs in the business world, and I have seen many examples personally, but I have seen many more instances of these things in the government organizations that I have encountered. The current rush to more government is not going to solve anyything. In any case, absolute power corrupts absolutely!!! We are racing deeper into socialism with the government attempting to control everything including finance, manufacturing and health care.
Philosophically, I have no problem with a system that promises everything to everyone. However, pragmatically and historically it doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Because it removes all incentives. My example that you have heard many times: if you work 80 hours per week to try to improve life for your family and I go to the park and watch the grass grow for the same 80 hours and we are paid the same, how long will you contunue to work hard?
I also liked your example of the college professor that told the class that since they felt that everything should be equal, they would all get the same grade based on the cumulative average. Predictably, the scores were increasingly lower on each exam and, in the end, everyone got an F. That's socialism in action.
During the presidential campaign, Pres. Obama said repeatedly that one of his main goals was to redistribute the wealth. This idea is to cut up the pie into exactly equal pieces. Conversely, a well run capitalist system seeks to make MORE pie and provides incentives to do so. In some of his speeches, President Obama has also hinted at the idea of "Reparations". Scary.
Those who oppose socialism are accused of lacking compassion and charity, however, if you look at the statistics, we are more charitable per capita than the next most charitable country, Great Britain by several times over.
The fundamental question is this: If things are so bad here, when was it better and where was it or is it better? Let's all move there. I suggest that we all need to learn a little more history.
I hope and pray that we are not so political and so naive as to assume that we don't need National Defense and that organizations like Al Qaida will abandon their goals to eliminate the US and western culture if we just talk nice to them. I am very familiar with those cultures and they have leaders who would love to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in 6 or 8 American cities. They would do it in an instant given the chance.
Regarding Nationalized Healthcare, I am 72 years old in October and I don't look forward to being told, "You have cancer or heart problems. You're too old to treat. Just go home and die or come back in a few years and we'll see if we can find someone to talk to you." But it is true what they say, a healthcare system like that will definitely cut costs. It just depends on how strictly you ration it.
I agree, if there are people who cannot get healthcare inspite of Medicaid and Medicare, we need to find a way to get care to them. But who are they? The poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare. Let's concentrate on finding ways to solve the problem without taking over everything.
Arlene and I won't be around to see the full impact of the financial irresponsibility that is being thrust on us right now. It's our kids, grandkids and great grandkids who will inherit the burdens and have to pay the real costs. I appologize thet we couldn't find a way to proceed more wisely. but we certainly didn't vote for this.
John, sorry for this rambling, but you asked for some thoughts. Let's talk.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Ignoring History.
He who ignores history is DOOMED to repeat it. We're wallowing in that ideology right now. We're ignoring history. On so many levels.
Friday, July 24, 2009
National Healthcare | The Facebook Dialogues
So - my favorite left-leaning nephew posts the following on his Facebook......Here's the dialogue that ensues. I'd love your feedback and opinion on either side of this equation.
Tony Anderson :
Harcore Republicans: What makes health care so different from things like deciding to go to war or whether or not police officers should patrol our cities? Next time we want to pick a fight with a country, I want to vote. I'm not picking a fight here, but I don't get why the line was drawn around certain things and not others. Why not complete anarchy? Why not total Socialism? Where does it stop on either end?
Hollie Anderson and Julia Ma like this.
Jeremy Thompson:
Amen.
Ryan Chabot:
What are you saying? Why are you calling out "Hardcore Republicans"? I don't recall voting for the ever expanding "Hardcore Liberal" bailout plan. I don't know about you but I do NOT want my doctors office run as efficiently (intended sarcasm) as the DMV and other government run agencies. Just ask any Veteran that uses the VA for their health care services.
Tony Anderson:
You know exactly why I am calling out "hardcore republicans". There are people who pick at everything the President does, no matter what the decision. As for health care, could it simply be that the reason places like the DMV are not efficient is that there is a fundamental flaw in how they are organized, but that the overall concept is not a bad idea?
Yes, giving health care to more Americans would necessarily create some inevitable chaos. But saying that you are against the idea and then not providing any solution is basically saying that you don't care about the millions of uninsured Americans. I'm not all for Obama's plan, because I think there are some unanswered questions about how all of this will be funded, but if (and this is a big "if") 1. More Americans will be able to get affordable health care, and 2. The overall costs in health care will go down, I feel that it is our obligation to at least CONSIDER such a plan, and not toss it away.
Tony Anderson:
I mean, if you think our government can't do anything right, then I return to my intial question: "Why have any government at all? Why not just let everyone do what they want and have complete and total survival of the fittest?" What makes us think that a government body should make such a monumental decision as telling us that we are going to war, but we can't even CONSIDER the idea of the government making health care available to a greater number of individuals. I understand the implications involved, but I feel that when people toss out the idea simply based on the idea that other government plans aren't very efficient, they don't have a very solid argument, because not ALL government programs run inefficiently, and if they do, then why have government at all?
John Anderson:
Chaos? What chaos? Question is....what IS the role of government? Is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide extensive healthcare benefits to every citizen (and illegal?) Its laid out pretty well in the Constitution. I definitely don't think the Federal government is there to provide national healthcare, though you MAY make an argument that it is a STATE level program - which, according to the Constitution, it is the type of program that should be governed and regulated at the State level. Now, there isn't time here to go into the math and finances of 'affordable' - we'll leave the quagmire of funding healthcare for another forum - Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that it IS affordable (and we'll even pretend that the affordable plan will be 'sufficient and adequate' coverage - yet another HUGE discussion for another time. So, let's just focus on WHO will benefit from this plan. The poor?
John Anderson:
They have 100% coverage through Medicaid (which we pay for). Seniors? They have the best benefits of all in America through Medicare - which we cannot afford. So, which group will 'benefit' by a nationally sponsored health plan? The middle class - you, me, and everyone remotely able to work. So, national health insurance will be offered to us at 'affordable rates' - but who is going to pay? We are. The working class. And here's my biggest problem with it - what about people who choose to NOT have insurance? Who want to save their money, or pay cash? Yes, there are millions in America without health insurance. But millions also choose to NOT have insurance. I just feel that there is a much better way to extend access to the healthcare system. I'd like to explore the concept of HSA's - both private and company funded - and a complete overhaul of the health pricing system. It's the only industry in the world where you go get a service and don't know what it will cost you...
Tony Anderson:
John, those are good thoughts. I do like the idea of exploring other options, and I don't support any system that would "force" health care on anyone. I think that would be extremely wasteful for those situations, as you mentioned, in which people choose not to have health insurance. But I think the current system is flawed, and agree with the President that a good deal of fat can be trimmed out of the equation.
As for the anarchy comment...My beef is this: we always go back to the Constitution as our source for everything, but neither you nor I had any say in how the Constutution was constructed. So, yes, according to the Constitution, all of the answers to my question are provided for, but that's assuming we all subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is complete as is. I don't really like the "it's in the Constitution answer", in the same way I don't like the "it's in the Bible" answer. My curiousity on this issue is broader than a legal document; I am asking why the Constitution was drafted in that way. Why is my individual decision to go to war any less of my personal business than my health care? I submit that it is not.
John Anderson:
Fat trimmed? Then please, let's not ad $1.5 trillion for the creation of a national healthcare program. That's the cost JUST to get it established, but the ongoing operational costs will be much higher. And, it won't be optional - once passed, it will be doled out to everyone whether we like it or not - hence the higher costs of covering those who don't feel healthcare is a pressing concern at their point in life. Look - it's a noble Robin-Hood-ish idea - which is my main problem with lefty perspectives - let's take care of everyone in a uniform one-size-fits-all fashion. It's enforced equality. But it ironically dilutes the better benefits for seniors and the poor, dumps benefits on the middle class, and makes everyone pay for it. You keep wanting to vote....So, when do we get to vote? And can we line-item veto the program? Again, there's just a much, much better way to revise healthcare while maintaining individual choice and opt-in.
I read the Constitution for the first time ever front to back this year. If you haven't had the opportunity to do it, I'd highly recommend it. Pretty inspiring. And depressing. I especially like Article V - very short piece on how to mend and amend the Constitution to help it breathe with the times. Interesting little tidbit in there that describes the two ways to Amend the Constitution. One way is very traditional - Senators, Congressmen, Bills, ratification, House, etc. The other is an unused, VERY possible option that bypasses Washington altogether and rallies the local State Legislatures. Did you know that the Constitution can be changed with unity among 2/3 of the state legislatures? Hmmmm. Very intriguing. There's a movement underway to do just that - I can't wait to see how it plays out. Takes ONLY 34 states to agree. First item on the agenda - term limits for Congressmen and Senators - the only group who don't have limits - and hence - status quo.
Question for all of us on this last matter is.....can you even name ONE local Legislator? Most people cannot, yet they have the same constitutional amending authority and power as Senators and Congressmen. They get voted in during the 2-year off-season vote (IE in 2010) (when there's typically only a 5% voter turnout!) With a little coordination, Legislators can make substantial alterations to the Constitution. And, if we took the time, we could have a much closer relationship with our Legislators who live in our neighborhoods and attend our town meetings than we could have by the big money lobby supported Washingtonites who quickly meld into the Washington-machine politics in order to maintain their unlimited term in office. But hey, don't get me going.....
Tony Anderson :
Harcore Republicans: What makes health care so different from things like deciding to go to war or whether or not police officers should patrol our cities? Next time we want to pick a fight with a country, I want to vote. I'm not picking a fight here, but I don't get why the line was drawn around certain things and not others. Why not complete anarchy? Why not total Socialism? Where does it stop on either end?
Hollie Anderson and Julia Ma like this.
Jeremy Thompson:
Amen.
Ryan Chabot:
What are you saying? Why are you calling out "Hardcore Republicans"? I don't recall voting for the ever expanding "Hardcore Liberal" bailout plan. I don't know about you but I do NOT want my doctors office run as efficiently (intended sarcasm) as the DMV and other government run agencies. Just ask any Veteran that uses the VA for their health care services.
Tony Anderson:
You know exactly why I am calling out "hardcore republicans". There are people who pick at everything the President does, no matter what the decision. As for health care, could it simply be that the reason places like the DMV are not efficient is that there is a fundamental flaw in how they are organized, but that the overall concept is not a bad idea?
Yes, giving health care to more Americans would necessarily create some inevitable chaos. But saying that you are against the idea and then not providing any solution is basically saying that you don't care about the millions of uninsured Americans. I'm not all for Obama's plan, because I think there are some unanswered questions about how all of this will be funded, but if (and this is a big "if") 1. More Americans will be able to get affordable health care, and 2. The overall costs in health care will go down, I feel that it is our obligation to at least CONSIDER such a plan, and not toss it away.
Tony Anderson:
I mean, if you think our government can't do anything right, then I return to my intial question: "Why have any government at all? Why not just let everyone do what they want and have complete and total survival of the fittest?" What makes us think that a government body should make such a monumental decision as telling us that we are going to war, but we can't even CONSIDER the idea of the government making health care available to a greater number of individuals. I understand the implications involved, but I feel that when people toss out the idea simply based on the idea that other government plans aren't very efficient, they don't have a very solid argument, because not ALL government programs run inefficiently, and if they do, then why have government at all?
John Anderson:
Chaos? What chaos? Question is....what IS the role of government? Is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide extensive healthcare benefits to every citizen (and illegal?) Its laid out pretty well in the Constitution. I definitely don't think the Federal government is there to provide national healthcare, though you MAY make an argument that it is a STATE level program - which, according to the Constitution, it is the type of program that should be governed and regulated at the State level. Now, there isn't time here to go into the math and finances of 'affordable' - we'll leave the quagmire of funding healthcare for another forum - Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that it IS affordable (and we'll even pretend that the affordable plan will be 'sufficient and adequate' coverage - yet another HUGE discussion for another time. So, let's just focus on WHO will benefit from this plan. The poor?
John Anderson:
They have 100% coverage through Medicaid (which we pay for). Seniors? They have the best benefits of all in America through Medicare - which we cannot afford. So, which group will 'benefit' by a nationally sponsored health plan? The middle class - you, me, and everyone remotely able to work. So, national health insurance will be offered to us at 'affordable rates' - but who is going to pay? We are. The working class. And here's my biggest problem with it - what about people who choose to NOT have insurance? Who want to save their money, or pay cash? Yes, there are millions in America without health insurance. But millions also choose to NOT have insurance. I just feel that there is a much better way to extend access to the healthcare system. I'd like to explore the concept of HSA's - both private and company funded - and a complete overhaul of the health pricing system. It's the only industry in the world where you go get a service and don't know what it will cost you...
Tony Anderson:
John, those are good thoughts. I do like the idea of exploring other options, and I don't support any system that would "force" health care on anyone. I think that would be extremely wasteful for those situations, as you mentioned, in which people choose not to have health insurance. But I think the current system is flawed, and agree with the President that a good deal of fat can be trimmed out of the equation.
As for the anarchy comment...My beef is this: we always go back to the Constitution as our source for everything, but neither you nor I had any say in how the Constutution was constructed. So, yes, according to the Constitution, all of the answers to my question are provided for, but that's assuming we all subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is complete as is. I don't really like the "it's in the Constitution answer", in the same way I don't like the "it's in the Bible" answer. My curiousity on this issue is broader than a legal document; I am asking why the Constitution was drafted in that way. Why is my individual decision to go to war any less of my personal business than my health care? I submit that it is not.
John Anderson:
Fat trimmed? Then please, let's not ad $1.5 trillion for the creation of a national healthcare program. That's the cost JUST to get it established, but the ongoing operational costs will be much higher. And, it won't be optional - once passed, it will be doled out to everyone whether we like it or not - hence the higher costs of covering those who don't feel healthcare is a pressing concern at their point in life. Look - it's a noble Robin-Hood-ish idea - which is my main problem with lefty perspectives - let's take care of everyone in a uniform one-size-fits-all fashion. It's enforced equality. But it ironically dilutes the better benefits for seniors and the poor, dumps benefits on the middle class, and makes everyone pay for it. You keep wanting to vote....So, when do we get to vote? And can we line-item veto the program? Again, there's just a much, much better way to revise healthcare while maintaining individual choice and opt-in.
I read the Constitution for the first time ever front to back this year. If you haven't had the opportunity to do it, I'd highly recommend it. Pretty inspiring. And depressing. I especially like Article V - very short piece on how to mend and amend the Constitution to help it breathe with the times. Interesting little tidbit in there that describes the two ways to Amend the Constitution. One way is very traditional - Senators, Congressmen, Bills, ratification, House, etc. The other is an unused, VERY possible option that bypasses Washington altogether and rallies the local State Legislatures. Did you know that the Constitution can be changed with unity among 2/3 of the state legislatures? Hmmmm. Very intriguing. There's a movement underway to do just that - I can't wait to see how it plays out. Takes ONLY 34 states to agree. First item on the agenda - term limits for Congressmen and Senators - the only group who don't have limits - and hence - status quo.
Question for all of us on this last matter is.....can you even name ONE local Legislator? Most people cannot, yet they have the same constitutional amending authority and power as Senators and Congressmen. They get voted in during the 2-year off-season vote (IE in 2010) (when there's typically only a 5% voter turnout!) With a little coordination, Legislators can make substantial alterations to the Constitution. And, if we took the time, we could have a much closer relationship with our Legislators who live in our neighborhoods and attend our town meetings than we could have by the big money lobby supported Washingtonites who quickly meld into the Washington-machine politics in order to maintain their unlimited term in office. But hey, don't get me going.....
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
California's IOU Woes....
Big Banks Don't Want California's IOUs
A group of the biggest U.S. banks said they would stop accepting California's IOUs on Friday, adding pressure on the state to close its $26.3 billion annual budget gap.
Read More -
Big banks stop cashing California IOUs
Californians have fewer places to redeem IOUs issued by the cash-strapped state. At least three major banks, Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), stopped accepting the IOUs.
Read More -
A group of the biggest U.S. banks said they would stop accepting California's IOUs on Friday, adding pressure on the state to close its $26.3 billion annual budget gap.
Read More -
Big banks stop cashing California IOUs
Californians have fewer places to redeem IOUs issued by the cash-strapped state. At least three major banks, Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), stopped accepting the IOUs.
Read More -
The U.S. Debt Clock
This a little tool that will allow someone to get a firm visual grasp on the magnitude of government spending in this country on a minute by minute basis. It also tracks population, check that out!
THE U.S. DEBT CLOCK - CLICK HERE
THE U.S. DEBT CLOCK - CLICK HERE
The Socialism Experiment
OK - I'm officially concerned about America's rapid descent into socialism - on almost all fronts. As the late Adrian Rogers said , "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Let's consider that premise and a basic example from the collegiate world that took place this last semester. An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but essentially could have failed an entire class this past semester.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism was promising for America simply because no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test , the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around , the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. And it's played out throughout history in countries all over the world.
Could not be any simpler than that. Professor is a Genius
Let's consider that premise and a basic example from the collegiate world that took place this last semester. An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but essentially could have failed an entire class this past semester.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism was promising for America simply because no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test , the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around , the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. And it's played out throughout history in countries all over the world.
Could not be any simpler than that. Professor is a Genius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
