Insider trading - does not apply to Politicians

Read more...

Occupy Wall Street

I do believe the "Occupy Wall Street" movement has authenticity.  However, as you can see from this lively clip, the participants simply have no idea "what" to protest or "who" to protest against.

Here, Peter Schiff, representing the wealthy1%, trys to communicate with the participants who seem to think that paying more taxes will solve our unemployment, unequality and other economic issues.

As Peter Schiff tells them, why would he work hard every day just to keep 30% of his income, while 70% goes to taxes. Moreover, he also presses them on how many people they have personally hired and created jobs for.

While they protest that taxes should be higher, they should protest high "government spending." While they protest at Wall Street, they should be protesting in "Washington, D.C."

Read more...

USA vs. China

Jim Rogers has an interesting insight as to what a trade war may look like with China.  The bill that was recently passed by the senate, regarding the Chinese manipulation of their currency, gives the Department of the Treasury the authority to impose sanctions on China.

He also discusses several courses of action the Chinese Government can take if the USA decides to impose sanctions.  The Chinese Government could:

1. Stop purchasing US Government Bonds
2. Sell US Government Bonds

These options above could send interest rates through the roof and/ or devalue the US dollar.   

The United States Government should be working on ways to make it easier for domestic companies to compete internationally, instead of passing legislation that may possibly invoke an international trade war.

Read more...

Government regulations are not the answer

The United States government have been extremely busy the last few years writing bills to regulate our society.  In the clip, Congressman Ron Paul suggest that a free market will help decide what products consumers demand, not government regulations. 

These regulations have become such a burden on small business in the United States, it makes it easier for foreign competitors to sell at a lower cost.  In a free market, the taxpayers would not have bailed out any of the companies that made incompetent, and in some cases, fraudulent decisions.  The majority of the companies that received money from the government would be out of work.  Companies that made smarter decisions would be able to pick up the pieces from the bankruptcies and gained market share.

I can't think of many industries in which the government interfered and made it better.  See the following examples:

1. Car industry - bailed out several auto manufacturers, and none are in a better situation.  GM is on the verge of bankruptcy (again)

2. Banking - The US government tinkered with loan provisions for banks, which basically forced banks to loan money to unqualified people, which led to a massive amount of foreclosures.  The US government is now suing these banks to recover the amounts lost from these loans. 

3. Healthcare - The recent legislation passed will soon be taken up with the United States Supreme Court.  I am hopeful it will be ruled unconstitutional.

4. Postal service - Postal service recorded a net loss of $8.5 billion the last fiscal year, and $3.8 billion for the year before.

5.  United States Government budget - our government officials continue to run the country on a budget deficit of close to $1,000,000,000,000 a year.  Our total debt for our country is now over $14,000,000,000,000.  The politicians cannot operate on any type of budget, which is why they shouldn't be allowed to run any business in the free market.

Read more...

The Federal Budget and Family Budget

I recently read a letter written by a Louisiana attorney regarding the US Federal Budget to put the recent budget cuts into the proper perspective.  Please review the breakdown below:

• U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $38,500,000,000 (approximately 1 percent of the budget)

In order to put these figures into amounts we can relate too, he removed eight zeroes from each figure and pretended it was the household budget for a fictitious family.  We will refer to them as the "Jones" family.

• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Amount cut from the budget: $385

The amount cut from the annual budget was not exactly significant.  These figures do not tell the us the entire story, due to entitlements that are not included in the above figures.  Social security and medicare will drastically increase the debt figures to an amount completely unsustainable. 

The burden of these disastrous decisions fall onto the 52% of Americans that pay annual income taxes.  The politicians do not seem to act a fidiciaries for the American public.  The only way to keep elected officials accountable to vote them out of office.  This can be an extremely difficult task, if they have excellent fundraising, or a constituent base that is satisfied with their politician.  Politicians are not forced to make sound financial decisions, as long as their are bringing home federal money and projects to their home state.

I firmly believe that if we were to force our politicians to operate as a business, with the taxpayers being the shareholders, the U. S. governement would not have annual budget deficits or an enormous amount of overall debt.  We should not expect anything less from our government officials, than they expect out of business owners.

I recently heard an interview on CNBC with my elected congressman, James Lankford.  He was praising the recent debt increase saying it was a victory for the American people.  If the figures above are remotely accurate, I don't see how the new debt ceiling increase can be viewed as a victory for anyone.  If borrowing more money that can't be repaid is the ultimate goal, then we will definitely be the victors.  However, if we are concerned about our future as a country, and the liabilities we are leaving to our children, the recent debt ceiling increase is an absolute embarrassment, and should be rescinded immediately.

If you do not know how your representative voted on this bill, please check it out.  If you are not pleased by his or her vote, I would urge you to send a note to Washington DC to let them know we are not happy with the "so called" changes.

Read more...

Debt Ceiling Increase Considered a Win for American People

The Oklahoma 5th district congressman considers the new debt ceiling increase a win for normal American citizens.  I really don't share his enthusiasm, or see how increasing current government spending without significant cuts to the US budget can be considered a victory for the American people. 

Rep. James Lankford happens to be the congressman in my district.  I recently sent him an email stating my disappointment that he voted for this increase.  I would like to get his logic or rationale on how increasing a credit line for a near bankrupt country would be sound advice under any circumstances.  I can't imagine any banker increasing a credit line for any person not living within their means.  It just doesn't make any sense.  If Rep. Lankford is confused on the bill, and is not sure if it will benefit the American people, he can look over Rep. Pelosi's shoulder to see how she is voting, then vote the opposite.

Read more...

The debt ceiling vs. US dollar

In this video clip, Peter Schiff discusses how we can avoid raising the debt ceiling by making common sense decisions.  The USA has enough money to service the interest payments on all current debt, so default on the debt isn't the underlying issue...prioritize spending, however, is. 

The USA has refused to make the necessary cuts to the budget, which would reduce the annual deficit and total debt.  Peter Schiff believes that raising the debt ceiling by any amount only prolonges the issue. As a result, the USA may eventually default on payments because of their current policy actions. 

Read more...

The Poor and Welfare Spending in the US

Since 1964, when the War on Poverty started, the United States has spent almost $16 trillion, which is a 17-fold increase since 1964. Despite "reforms," Welfare spending continues to rise. This year alone, Welfare spending is projected to be nearly 1 trillion!

What are we getting for the money being spent? As of 2009, the United States had approximately 43 million "poor" people vs. approximately 40 million in 1959. As a result, Welfare programs have simply failed to reduce the (1) number of poor persons and (2) causes of poverty.

How Poor are the American Poor? Well, Heritage.org compiled the following facts from various government reports about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau:

• 91% of poor households have either a landline or cell phone (32% have both).
• 43% of all poor households actually own their own homes. (The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. And, only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.)
• 80% of poor households have air conditioning. (By contrast, in 1970, only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.) 
• The average "poor" American has more living space than the average "non-poor" or middle class individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (Again, these comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• 75% of poor households own a car; 31% own two or more cars.
• 97% of poor households have a color television; over 50% own two or more color televisions.
• 78% have a VCR or DVD player.
• 62% have cable or satellite TV reception.
• 89% own microwave ovens, more than 50%  have a stereo, and more than 33% have an automatic dishwasher." 

As you can see, the average person defined as poor in the United States lives in a material world that is comfortable, especially when compared to the rest of the world. In the end, the growth of welfare spending is simply unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue unchanged.

Source Heritage.org

Read more...

Do you know about agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a United Nations global initiative.  It proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet's oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains.  It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas.  According to the American Policy Center, the objective of agenda 21 is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

President Obama signed his 86th executive order (13575) on June 9, which established the White House Rural Council (WHRC).  The executive order seems to be in line with the United Nations radical agenda 21, as it is designed "to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people.

The media didn't cover much of this legislation due to the Anthony Weiner scandal.  Most americans were completely consumed by the Weiner scandal, and didn't even notice that our President signed an order to exert broad powers over American farms. 

The people appointed to the Rural Council consists of: Eric Holder, US Attorney General; Janet Napolitano, Dept. of Homeland Security; Timothy Geithner, Treasury Security, Kathleen Sebellius, Dept. of Health, etc.  The list includes several other high ranking individuals in the Obama Administration.

Read more...

Do unemployment checks = welfare?

When do unemployment checks equal another form of welfare? Our government has continued to increase the amount of time a person can collect unemployment. In the above clip, Rush discusses what the US government is doing to help the unemployed by increasing the dration a person can collect unemployment.

There is NO incentive to find a new job.

If you think the level of unemployment is alarming, you’ll find the chart of the average duration of unemployment in weeks downright frightening:

The duration of unemployment benefits was increased to 99 weeks in 2010.  

Read more...

The Titantic and our budget...

Interesting commentary from Peter Schiff.  Government is conducting business as usual in DC at a time when we need strong leadership to make the important decisions.  I like how he compares their arguments to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

We are in desperate need of real leadership in Washington, DC to get our country back on track.

Read more...