Jump to content
I read in the U-B that a home was invaded by 3 people, if this happens at my home, since I don't own a gun, should I call 911 and hope the police arrive before disaster hits, spray them with pepper spray, ask them politely why they broke down my door, are they here just to rob me and do no bodily harm, run to the kitchen and grab a knife, prey? Or, since I still have my second amendment right for now, buy a gun? I guess I could also think like most people, home invasions happen to other people, but not me.
The politicians in D.C. are nuts, we all know investment, savings, education, hard work, entrepreneurship, and individual responsibility are no longer important or essential in maintaining our standard of living. All that is required is to continue to raise the debt ceiling, better yet, we should get rid of it all together.
I have no idea why those idiot politicians can't get it through their thick heads that all we need to do anymore is just keep borrowing billions of dollars each year, send everyone a check every month, and everyone will go out and spend the money, and we do it it all over again.
Borrow the money, give it away, spend it, sounds great to me. Heck, it has worked great for 40 years, why can't it work forever. Or at least until I'm long gone.
If it does eventually become a problem, I mean all that debt, the younger folks can deal with it.
So far the younger people who are living at home longer, postponing marriage and home buying, who most likely won't have any decent pension for their old age, are already paying a 10% sales tax (I paid 3% when I was young), paying $4 for gas (I paid 25 cents), who are already being hit with outrageous healthcare costs, oh, and who can't find a decent paying job with benefits even with a college education.... don't seem to care, that is, the young don't seem to care too much that they are already getting screwed, than why should I.
Again, if the debt does become a problem, let the young people deal with it.
If Obamacare is savings money why did Obama postpone the full implemation of the program by one year? Is it because: 1) Obama wants to postpone his own program because it saves money, or 2) Obama wants to postpone his own program because the program actually hurts small business, which the weak economy can't handle right now.
You may want to consider finding someone to write about money. Just as an example, I would bet that virtually everyone of your readers cares about money and if they were asked a few questions like which stock market performed the best in the last ten years Mexico or the US, what is fiscal policy, what is monetary policy, are they at maximum stimulus level, or minimum, what happens with fiscal and monetary policies when the next recession comes, what is going to keep the US from going from recession to depression if fiscal and monetary policies are already at maximum stimulus level, is the US Treasury market in a 30 year bull market, what does that mean to investors, why is the housing market improving, could it be that the Federal Reserve is buying $40 billion in MBS each month due to its last QE program, what's QE mean, how much does the FDIC have in reserves, how much does the FDIC insure, what will happen to all the outstanding bonds when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, the US borrows $1.3 trillion every year and who is really loaning us the money....that if you asked them about any of these issues the vast majority would be as lost as a duck in the desert. If the U-B had stories about these issues, nobody who reads the U-B could say they were not warned about the current fiscal condition of the US. However, if the U-B continues to just regurgitate what the mainstream press publishes, its readers, like I said before will be as lost as a duck in the desert with regard to a very important thing, MONEY.
When I was a kid growing up in WW, very few cars, houses, or bikes were locked up. I learned the word "gang" from watching the "Little Rascals" on TV and I never heard of a home invasion. Citizens trusted the system: law enforcement and neighbors. Personally, I think it is completely different now, I lock up everything I own, have burglar alarms protecting my home and cars, and frankly, if I do have to walk at night I watch my back, which is funny because I think to myself when I was 12, I walked all the time at night without a care in the world. If I believe the statistics it looks like I have everything backwards, which doesn't surprise me, I'm a lot older now and I'm probably just losing my mind.
Obama says $1.6 trillion in new revenue in the next ten years. That is $160 billion a year. Obama has proposed cuts of $100 billion a year at most. So he has come up with cuts and revenue increases totaling $260 billion a year. Obama borrows $1,200 billion a year (Obama's current annual deficit). Are any journalists, college professors, reporters, economists, pundits, or voters even the slightest bit interested in where he is going to get the other $940 billion? The fact is, even if Obama gets what he is proposing, he will still need to go to the bond market and borrow another $trillion dollars every single year for the next ten years, which the bond market will not be able to support.
Well stated Wally, please continue to post.
I learn more about local issues, especially issues on taxing, from your editorials than I do from any other source. Please continue to write editorials.
Unfortunately, the reason voters voted in the exact same thing is because they are worried, they are scared, even though they don't openly admit to it (and of course, those who feel their jobs or pensions are secure, most likely government in nature, may be the ones who still have some optimism left in them). Americans have given up on capitalism, free markets, and individual responsibility. They want a "safety net" if they are unemployed, and want one just incase they become unemployed, which is definitely a possibility. Obama is the "safety net" man. Time will tell, can Americans forget about hard work, good education, which means hard work when you are in school, investing, savings, entrepreneurship, and individual responsibility or can you simply vote for politicians who love borrowing and then giving away the money? I don't think the bond market will give Obama another $6-8 trillion like it did in his first 4 years. Personally, I'm saving more and spending less and preparing for a much worse economic future in America. I know that's crazy, with Obama, why should I worry, he is the man with the safety net. You can kind of see Obama in action when it comes to a crisis like hurricane Sandy. He is right there with his big talk and promises, but watch the news coverage, FEMA has signs up that say due to bad weather they are closed and people still without power. No, crazy me, I know that if a crisis occurs I'm more likely to get help from myself than the government.
Just to let readers know, recessions occur, on average, every 5 years. Depressions occur, on average every 70 years (we are due, the last one was about 70 years ago). The "business cycle," consists of expansions and contractions of the GDP. Anybody spending $millions, $billions, and $trillions of other people's money should be keenly aware of the business cycle and plan ahead. Instead, many of these people, even though they are aware of the business cycle, spend money like there is no tomorrow. And then when a recession or depression comes, get ready for the excuses. It is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Also, the only productive way of dealing with a budget crisis after the recession is here (the sensible way is to plan ahead and be prepared, the Boy Scouts teaches 12 year olds to plan ahead, but voters don't expect politicians to), is to increase business activity and therefore jobs and tax revenues. Yes, government can tax and borrow, but the truth is you don't know if the taxing will actually raise revenue because if people are paying more in taxes they may not be spending more in the local community, and as far as borrowing, there is the interest expense and if the debt gets out of control interest rates can rise rapidly like in Greece and the situation gets much worse (meaning, borrowing is not a win, win outcome). Even spending cuts can be a negative thing if the cuts come from a productive part of government, I know that is hard to imagine. It is interesting how this editorial talks about cutting spending, which may be the way to go, and raising taxes, which most likely won't be an overall good thing for WW, yes it helps the government, but hurts the private sector. The win-win things, which are to bring in more business, stimulate local business, get more efficiency from government, meaning to get more output with less money, are not even mentioned in the editorial.
Last login: Thursday, September 26, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.