Category Archives: Serfdom

National Debt Made Simple

Budget In Toilet
US Budget is in the Toilet...
THE US CONGRESS SETS a federal budget every year (Before Obama*) in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

* US 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 cut: $38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to, so let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious 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

So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending? It's a start, although hardly an easy solution.

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt). One would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.

The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state. To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders.

It will be brutally hard, but not impossible, to reverse course and to insist the government stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now. In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab…

—Marco Nolo

* Neither Congress nor POTUS have offered up a budget these past two fiscal years, contrary to constitutional and traditional mores.

The Obama War On the Middle Class

middle class war
Middle Class Warriors
Ripped from the headlines at MSNBC:

The GOP has their whole economic theory UPSIDE DOWN and DEAD WRONG. The reason tax revenues have plummeted is NOT because America is broke. Both corporate profits and GDP are ABOVE where they were in 2007.

So why is there no tax revenue coming in? Because the money isn't going to WAGES, it's being siphoned off by the investor class.(See the chart)

When workers are paid wages, 100% of that money goes back into the economy. They pay both income taxes and payroll taxes (which account for 36% of U.S. tax revenue), and they spend the rest on goods and services right here in America.

But when the money earned for corporations by their workers is instead diverted to corporate profits and the investor class, tax revenues plummet (NOT grow, as Paul Ryan so history-blindedly predicts). Despite their vastly higher income levels, corporations' share of the tax burden is only 12% due to their vast amounts of tax writeoffs, credits and creative accounting. Both investors and corporations are more likely to move their earnings overseas (into either tax shelters or foreign investments). And foreign entities also hold a big share of the stock market, diverting corporate profits abroad before the American tax system gets a penny.

The investor class also pays an historically low tax rate of 15% on their earnings, as most are capital gains. And neither corporations nor investors pay payroll taxes, a factor which alone knocks a huge hole in the tax rolls. Even when investors do pay earned income tax rates on a portion of their income, those top tax rates are at their lowest since the 1930's. U.S. tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are far lower than many countries whose economies are recovering faster than ours.

The GOP solution? Cut off all the remaining government services that benefit the working class. Cut the top tax rate even lower. Drive wages down even further.

$4 trillion in cuts? This is the same guy that wouldn't agree to cut $60 billion for 2011 and I'm to believe he's serious about cutting anything?

Protect the middle class? I'm sorry Mr. President....the middle class gets almost no benefit from all the social programs you advocate. The middle class gets no benefit from your foreign aid. The middle class gets no benefit from excessive government pensions, your subsidies to the energy companies, your healthcare reform act, etc, etc.

This speech was just another useless campaign speech talking about all he's going to do with no direction and no formulated plan or specifics.

P.S. Really MSNBC??? You're going to quote a spokesman from Harry Reid? You couldn't find anyone more out of touch with the American voter except maybe Pelosi or Palin.

Nicking The "Late Feudalism" Attack Machine With The Vote

iranian street
Where Is My Vote?
IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME to realize that communism and socialism are just the rebirth of economic late feudalism. I kind of got it well enough before this one conversation, but it was something the son of a Cuban immigrant, whose father started his own small restaurant, that clarified it for me. It was simple: He said of the Europeans and their socialism, "Yeah. They want to have the money and not let anyone else get it." Doesn't sound profound, but it hit the nail on the head for me:

These rich advocates of socialism and communism, like a Bill Ayers, know they will always be part of a privileged class. They are not going to give away all their money. And they will not allow the government to take all their money. They will make sure their offspring are "cared for"—and not cared for by the state...

So, instead of selling off all their assets, donating almost all of it to the poor, and living off, say, $50,000 a year—they are willing to give up an ultimately inconsequential amount of their wealth in the form of taxes if the government will do the same to everyone in a draconian tax system that funds a government "wealth redistribution" system. That will make them feel better about being elite. The problem is—the draconian tax system ends up dramatically freezing social mobility. There has never been a system with as much social mobility as capitalism. Communism produced only revolutions in which old aristocrats were slaughtered by those who became the new ones.

Socialism is less bloody. It just freezes things as they are. Which is a pretty good deal for the rich. Competition is stifled and upstarts don't crash their dinner parties...

—USinKorea

gunrights
Join the NRA
B-I-N-G-O! Been telling my wife that for years. Obama did it for me. His disgruntled women Hillarycrats continue to be in denial about how false communism really works. Grab all the money, then...well, one can suggest that socialism is less bloody unless one actually counts the corpses of the state's enemies in the case of rigid communism, or a considerable slide in the quality of life for those trapped in the cage of confused and confusing socialism. While each of those centralized governing systems believes that practice makes perfect, we here at the Project still maintain that capitalism, and capitalism governed by a moral and just democratic infrastructure remains the purest form of communism every practiced.

But we do appreciate your insights. Oh yeah, the Hillarycrat women still think Obama is Bush III, as they did even before the election of 2008 in which they had their Hillary votes stolen at every turn right up to the Democratic Convention. So we learned a thing or two from these women, these lifelong Dems. But we immediately saw his special deep pockets connection to Wall Street a natural place for a pseudo-Marxist (the only kind the world has ever seen) in motion, to suck all the money upward, and truly cripple the economy. Part Two is far worse should he get re-elected. God forbid.

Doctors, Lawyers and the Ten Little Indians of Healthcare

nurse
Healthcare professionals...
IF HEALTH INSURANCE WERE like car insurance, I would be responsible for obtaining it as opposed to having my employer supply it for me. After all, it's my body and my health—why do I expect someone else to be responsible for it?

If health insurance were like car insurance, I would be able to shop around for the cheapest insurance with competitive rates from multiple vendors to find a plan best suited for my lifestyle. If health insurance were like car insurance, I would not be denied insurance unless I demonstrated repeatedly offensive and ill-advised behavior.

On the other hand, what if my car insurance were like my health insurance? My employer would be required to obtain my car insurance, which means I couldn't drive if I didn't have a job. Everyone would pay the same for auto insurance regardless of driving history. The system would breed lack of accountability since there would be no incentives for good driving behavior and no repercussions for accidents or speeding. Sure it would be economical for the irresponsible driver, but only at an exorbitant cost to the safe driver and society as a whole.

There is an urgent need for major overhaul of the health care system in the United States. While the debated health care reform bill addresses some issues that warrant change, it continues to penalize the delivery of care by cutting reimbursements without providing incentives for healthy lifestyles and quality of care.

The argument above was snipped from a thought-provoking piece by American Thinker contributor, Jon George MD. Uniquely unserviceable, the entire hypothesis of personal healthcare is stigmatized by tall tales, bald-faced lies, limp-wristed half-truths, rotten damned statistics, dubiously forgotten if not forbidden habits, twice wilted violets, luridly gilded stopwatches and post-convoluted twists of fate far too frankly philistine to be repaired in its current state.

And thus needs to be scrapped. The facts are these: there is the concept of literate self-reliance, bound by cold capitalist principle, personally tempered by an odd and multitiered assortment of fancy humane considerations. Then there is somebody else trying to oblige you your very existence. The whole "healthcare" argument is really about government control of populations. When I vote, I'll vote to keep my freedom as reckoned against belonging to the giant government-controlled family.

So in that spirit, I highly recommend the whole article, if only in the context of the rich reader commentary which follows it. The intelligent reader will quickly comprehend the bottom line is one's own and is ALWAYS the endgame, no matter how consistent or inconsistent the rules of play.

Don't be an accident statistic. Obey that nerve which commands choice and resolve.

You Kafir, You Must Submit!

Dalia Mogahed
Dalia Mogahed

I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING this semantic battle for years now. Our problem is NOT only with "radical Muslims"...it is with all of Islam! The heart of the "religion" is that the entire world must be politically conquered for "Allah" (a.k.a. Satan, or Lucifer) and all people must either bow down to "Allah" or be killed. No other choices are allowed, folks... sorry! I should also point out that the "peaceful Muslims" are the ones who fund the radicals, harbor the radicals, and celebrate the victories of the radicals over the "infidels" (infidels = you and me). The "peaceful Muslims" may not pull the triggers or slit the throats themselves, but they ARE complicit, and will side with their more active brothers and sisters once the crowd dynamic is favorable, by and large.

By the way, note the natural alliance between the Progressive Marxists and the Muslims: one of the Progressive "gods" is, Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer...

Is it any wonder that BOTH the Muslims and the Progressives want to destroy traditional American society and "fundamentally change" it?

I also agree with the important point raised by Athletik in his comments: we REALLY need to define what constitutes a religion that may be practiced in the United States. Does that sound unreasonable? Well, would we allow the practice of a religion of Cannibalism here? How about a religion of Random Rapists? How about the worship of Moloch, where babies are murdered as sacrifices to a god? Until we come to recognize as a society, that allowing Islam to exist here is just like allowing a rabid dog to roam in your own home, we are signing our own death warrant. It cannot end well. Ask Europe...

You Kafir, yes you, you MUST submit!

Our Liberal Racist Media Goes Bust

ObamaCorps
ObamaCorps
Journalists who deliberately go easy on the president are practicing racism.

—T.K.Farrow, Pajamas Media

This week, Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson covers the month-old Pew Research Center study which found that “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

The study—which examined over 1200 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, NewsHour, and Newsweek—found more than 40 percent favorable coverage for Obama, compared to Bush’s 22 percent and Clinton’s 27. More significant than the percentage gap itself is the conclusion Samuelson reaches:

"But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he’s a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don’t want to see the first African-American president fail."

If Samuelson is correct, then the mainstream media is racist. And like most liberal racists, they don’t even know it.

No liberal media member wants to be branded a dissident of Obama, much less be accused of dissenting for racial reasons. So even the liberal reporters who don’t think Obama needs the help of the media have justifiable fear of being considered a hindrance to his agenda. And race, of course, is at the center of that fear.
In the late 1990s, author Jim Sleeper wrote a book titled Liberal Racism, which presented the ways in which the effort of many Caucasian liberals to close the historical racial divide and eliminate related inequities has gone horribly wrong. Sleeper writes:
    It was Congressman Major Owens, a black representative from New York City, who in 1981 first told me and other members of a small audience of liberal activists and journalists that “liberals are sometimes the worst racists.”

There are many African-Americans—including this writer—who would instantly agree with the former congressman. White liberals might be surprised at how frequently his observation is a topic of conversation among the “victims” that liberals wish to lift out of oppression.

Mr. Sleeper continues:

    Only gradually did I realize that liberal racism has several dimensions. Sometimes, prompted by misdirected and self-congratulatory compassion, liberal racism patronizes nonwhites by expecting (and getting) less of them than they are fully capable of achieving. … Liberal racism ends up perpetuating double standards by setting the bar so much lower for its intended beneficiaries that it denies them the satisfactions of equal accomplishment and opportunity.

No kidding! You think?

If Samuelson is right, then the media lowers the bar for Obama by consciously deciding to provide less critical analysis of his policies and performance. Under those circumstances, any presidential achievement is suspect because it’s shrouded in media assistance, rather than merely media coverage.

It also means the results of any disastrous Obama policy that manages to pass muster in the court of public opinion can be laid at the feet of those who are supposed to be the watchdogs of our democracy.

As a president suspiciously fond of holding two oppositional positions at the same time, I suppose it’s a no brainer to conclude that when Candidate Obama said, “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills,” apparently he was referring to his own rather scary administration.
To be fair, there must be some media professionals who would never want to be an accessory to disastrous policy such as cap-and-trade or single-payer, government-run health care. But these very same liberal media members may still be unable to write critical stories about Barack Obama or his policies, even if they don’t bear the “liberal racism” belief that the black president can’t possibly accomplish his ambitious agenda without the help of the newsroom. For that group of journalists, fear is the explanation for their absence of critical thought.

Candidate Obama’s campaign staff repeatedly showed they were not above branding Obama’s critics—see the repeated complaints by former President Clinton at having been so branded—and the candidate himself used race when he believed it to be beneficial: “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills.”

Some of the president’s ardent supporters participated as well, such as Janeane Garofalo with her response to the tea parties. And we’ve also seen liberal media members attack one another when one dares to disagree with an Obama policy. Although not related to race, Jon Stewart’s reaction to Jim Cramer’s criticism of economic policy was scathing.

No liberal media member wants to be branded a dissident of Obama, much less be accused of dissenting for racial reasons. So even the liberal reporters who don’t think Obama needs the help of the media have justifiable fear of being considered a hindrance to his agenda. And race, of course, is at the center of that fear.

Who said election of the first black president would make race less relevant in America? Whoever it was needs to think again.

The previous opinion was written by T.K.Farrow for Pajamas Media. We, at the Two-Fisted Quorum, completely agree with the author's honest assessment. Viewing folks as equals, in the flow of circumstances is the only way out of the maze. But be careful how you parse these simple but double-edged words. Egalitarianism is not patronizing, smug, condescending, or passed along on a piece of paper. Nor is it achieved by branding.

As a president suspiciously fond of holding two oppositional positions at the same time, I suppose it's a no brainer to conclude that when Candidate Obama said, “They’re going to try to scare you because I don’t look like all those other guys on the dollar bills,” apparently he was referring to his own rather scary administration.

Detroit And The Last American Value

Detroit
Detroit, Motor City, has seen better days...

JUST IN CASE you haven't been paying close attention to the news of the day, Detroit City, long on the frail side, is failing and failing fast. The key questions are centered, or at least, should center on the reasons of why the American automobile industry, once the paragon of manly strength echoing the pervasiveness of ingenuity, hard work, and the American Way, is failing. Even if you are sympathetic to this latest charade of tycoon muskateers looking for a bailout for their own house of cards, and want to believe in your hearts of hearts that everything is on the up and up—guess what—these empty suits are just there to collect a king's ransom, and even admit before Congress they have no clue how to turns things around.

Detroit's woes are not new. The irascible Pat Buchanan, in his latest column, has sounded a litany of reasons why this once proud industrial model has slammed into these hardest of times, placing the blame on the government and the unions. Or as another irascible character named Pogo once remarked, "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us."

Nothing really new here, but the article is worth a glance, just in case you haven't been paying attention. And here is a poignant if somewhat ideologically unsympathetic comment by one of Buchanan's readers:

Our problems are...

1. In winning WWII, we inadvertently (most of us, not FDR and his cronies) made the world safe for communism, so part of the resistance to commie expansion included opening our markets to foreign imports. We don't need an export-driven economy, but have to reestablish trade balance.
2. As Pat points out, we won WWII in large part because we could build the weapons and vehicles to destroy the enemy. Not only our external enemies and rivals, but also the leftists who are our internal enemies, have been working to destroy that advantage ever since.
3. Our tax system is utterly unprepared for the degree of foreign participation and ownership of our economy, and much of the income arising from what we consume is now no longer taxable by the U.S.
4. The U.S. dollar is currently the world's reserve currency, in part because probably no country makes it easier for foreigners to own real estate and businesses, and the tax system lets them do it on a largely tax-free basis. We need to domesticate our dollar and establish a barter at the border, goods for goods trade system, that no goods can come into the U.S. without being paid for right then and there at the border by goods going out of the U.S. That would enforce trade balance.

I keep reading about this border barter solution. What a logistical nightmare for the boys down on the docks. But then, that's what heads up business communication and moral leadership is supposed to be all about, not a culture weaned on astonishing golf courses where everybody knows your name and overwrought golden parachutes and getaway private jets around every turn for these self-serving song and dance resumè-builders and corporate thieves who do little but handsomely enrich themselves while grappling for the next rung on the ladder, while the very businesses they were hired to run falter, or fail.

But things are never that simple. American cars aren't the problem, the business model is. Robotics in Detroit has greatly reduced the toil of the average line worker who now makes over $70/hr including benefits. The car companies have gone as far as they can in reducing labor costs but have more people on retirement than in production. Toyota and all other foreign companies now producing in the US have 1/2 the labor costs and do not have to contend with the many years of retirement and health cost benefits.

I'd like to add that while it seems outrageous that the rank and file have nice comfy retirements as Detroit suffers, shall we not point out that so do the executives, who by the way, have lived a lifetime in excess privilege while it was they who mapped out the corporate plans with all their papers and pie charts, jetting around to meetings and rounds of golf, living high on the hog in mansions. The fact that the future in the car business did not turn out exactly as they planned was THEIR failure in doing their own cushy executive job. But now they want the workers on the line who popped and welded and bolted and polished and shipped the cars to market, doing their jobs on the clock, now, years later, to take the big hit. Somebody should throw those number crunchers to the Lions...

Read it all.