All actions have consequences. Consumers living beyond their means, taking out loans for homes they couldn't possibly afford, resulted in the sub-prime crisis, Fanny and Freddie mess, and meltdown of the US economy.

The TARP bailout for $700-some billion has opened the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry industry standing in line for a bailout handout: the auto industry, rental car companies, ethanol industry, and credit card companies to name a few. States such as California and even Wisconsin might put their hands out as well. President elect Obama is talking about another bigger and better stimulus package too, asap.  

Our government acts like they can give out billions of bailout and stimulus money with no consequences.

But history tells us no economy can thrive by printing up and passing out dollars. It did not work for Germany, where you practically needed a wheelbarrow to hold your Marks to buy a loaf of bread. "In 1914 one egg cost less than one mark. Nine years later an egg was 80,000,000,000 (eighty billion marks)."*

To finance the new spending during Carter years, the joke was, Hey, Jimmy, just print up another roll of $20s! We know how well that worked.

So why do we think we can do what no other government could do in the past, by printing up new money to finance and shore up failing industries with no consequences? Arrogance maybe?

Money Morning sounded another warning today: With Billions in Bailout Funds Flowing, the "Peso-fication" of the Dollar Continues:  

The plethora of bank and corporate bailouts, stimulus plans and interest-rate cuts that the U.S. government has produced over the last three months can only lead to one outcome: The U.S. dollar has to decline.

During the crisis so far, the dollar in general, and U.S. Treasury bonds in particular, have been regarded as a “safe haven,” making the dollar strong and pushing long-term U.S. Treasury rates downward. In the New Year, however, this is likely to change – the weight of the added supply of dollars in circulation will be too great for the greenback to shrug off.

Much of that report makes my head spin, but I do understand the basic principle that you cannot increase the money supply so dramatically without inflationary consequences. The amount of deficit spending we have committed to so far is unprecedented.

Usually I check the stock market every day and look at how the dollar is trading too. Today, the US dollar was down in all trading: against the Canadian dollar - $1.23 vs $1.28 a few days ago, against the Euro, the dollar had fallen 4 cents to .76.  

If this trend continues, the dollar loses value, therefore, you need more of them to pay for purchases. Hence, the wheelbarrow will be needed to carry your cash to the store! On second thought, people will just use a credit card instead of cash, so no need for the wheelbarrows.

What we need is to tighten our belts and live within our means, be it at the local, state, or federal level of government. It is time to act like grownups and say NO to frivolous spending and bailouts. If we don't, the Carter years will look like the good old days for the dollar and us.

Did you contact Senators Kohl and Feingold about the auto bailout? Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold (202) 224-5323)

*From Richard Maybury's Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, Wallpaper, Wheelbarrows, and Recession, pp 52. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I first heard about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ads on Mark Levin's Friday, Oct. 24th broadcast. (About at the 40 minute mark.) Mark also discussed socialism and floated the possibility that Obama somehow considers his spreading the wealth as reparations.

Mark characterized the business community as being "officially horrified" at the prospect of being under a Democrat majority House, Senate, and presidency. From the Wall Street Journal, Business Finally Fights Back The U.S. Chamber of Commerce throws its weight against a filibuster-proof Senate: (My emphasis)

Ten days to election, and they are pouring millions into ads, canvassing neighborhoods, making calls, getting out the vote, enraging Democrats -- all in an effort to turn around a dire political situation. The Republican National Committee? No. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The business community is back in politics. After years of contented political gridlock, American companies are now officially horrified at what an all-Democratic Washington intends to inflict on the U.S. economy. The Chamber is throwing its extensive resources at denying the left a filibuster-proof Senate. In doing so, it has stuck its finger in the Democratic leadership's beehive, and is facing retribution.

It says something about the momentousness of this race that the Chamber doesn't care. While the trade group has always been a force, over this decade many businesses have inched back from in-your-face politics. They felt comfortable with Republicans in charge. They felt comfortable with Democrats running Congress, since divided government rarely brings change. They felt comfortable not offending either political party, and not inviting attack by liberal activists.

They do not feel comfortable now. The Democratic Party once respected the need for a healthy U.S. business community. That was in part because business was ferocious enough to demand respect. But a resurgent labor movement has asserted control over the party. And business has been more concerned with PR than principle. This, and the recent financial crisis, has emboldened Democrats to pursue a pure antimarket agenda.

Their "card check" legislation means thuggish unionism. Their tax policies would squelch American capital. They'll reverse tort reform. Their antidote for today's financial mess is a super-Sarbanes-Oxley. Trade? What's that? Energy? What's that? Henry Waxman will start so many witch hunts, he'll need a lottery to see who goes first...

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: