What an amazing book. My wife, Janis, said she thought it was relevant when she read it and loved it in high school. I had never read it and was surprised to see how similar the thinking is now compared to what is in its pages. Maybe it is, and maybe it has always been and will always be so.

There are many parallels to today’s political discourse, and the one thing that struck me most is the constant theme of successful people only being in it for the money and not really caring about the public’s welfare. Conservative radio talk shows have circled this topic. But a thought became clear to me that these people, by being in business, have already contributed to society.

Perhaps Walter E. Williams has said this before, but it bears repeating. To preface, the “Occupy” movements certainly sound like the echoes of the naysayers in the Atlas book. The theme of the “haves” taking from the “have nots” seems to have a lot in common with today’s protests. However, how was anyone forced to buy a product (discounting Obamacare) or take out a loan they couldn’t afford? Besides, aren’t the producers already providing society with its energy, transportation, entertainment and day to day needs like food and clothing? Not to mention the number of people that are employed to provide these goods and services. How has everyone’s life been touched by these “greedy bastards” for the better?

While it’s true that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the filthy rich have probably done little to deserve their wealth, there are new million and billionaires all the time. They get rich “quick” by spending their lives inventing things that improve ours. How is that a bad thing?

I know I am preaching to the choir on this, but wouldn’t it be a great idea if everyone forwarded a short paragraph to everyone on their e-mail list so that the class warfare thing dried up? Sure, I am dreaming, but how has taxing the millionaires ever put a penny in my pocket or yours?

When people like Warren Buffett talk about how unfair it is that his secretary pays more in income tax than he does, I think several things:

• · Then pay your secretary more (of course, this will mean more taxes for her)

• · Or pay her taxes for her

• · Or pay what you owe for your Net-Jets company

All he and people like him (such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Hollywood actors and actresses and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein) are doing by touting liberalism is to deflect the attention off themselves so the “Occupiers” won’t come after them or their families. They are cowards by not standing up for the United States and Capitalism, the things that made them able to be as successful as they are.

- FedUpEditor

It’s a great thing that Barney Frank is not running for office again, but he seems determined to leave the country in chaos. Though it sounds like a wonderful “Robin Hood” story if Fannie and Freddie would essentially forgive principal on underwater homes, it is my opinion this would kill home values and throw the real estate market into more chaos.

Just as the real estate market is leveling out and things are getting better, Barney seems hell bent on throwing another wrench into a market that he nearly collapsed by forcing Dodd-Frank onto the lenders and giving loans to people who could not afford them. His term ends in January 2013, but why doesn’t he either a) drop dead or b) resign and leave us alone?

- Fedupeditor

Our politicians have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and now they have become the enemy. What will it take? Another armed conflict? No wonder liberals are for gun control!

Unfortunately, because Democrats run the Senate along with some squishy RINOS, we are in this mess. (Remember when Republican strategists said it would actually be a good thing that we did not take the Senate in 2010? Bah, humbug.) Yet even Obama himself recently said the extension needed to be for a year, but you will not hear that reported anywhere.

Once again, we are being led by people who base their decisions on polls not conviction. This is what finally got Republicans thrown out after taking the House and Senate in 1995. After several years of not doing what they were sent to do, people had enough and gave Congress back to the Democrats.
The optics must have been bad for Boehner, a career politician, so he decided to cave. Instead we got two more months of lower payroll “taxes” before they have to deal with the issue again. That’s about $40 a week for most people. Wouldn’t it have been better to extend it for a year like House Republicans wanted? That’s $320 ($40 times 8 weeks) the Senate passed versus $2,080 ($40 times 52 weeks)that the House wanted. Why can’t this case be made?

Yet there is a bigger issue that has not been addressed. One of our astute members who runs a business and actually has a payroll pointed something out. The money we are talking about is coming from the EMPLOYEE’s portion of FICA (Federal Insurance Compensation Act, government’s name for Social Security “tax”). Traditionally, employers have matched the amount that employees get deducted from their checks. But as our member explained, even though his employees’ FICA amounts have been reduced (for almost a year already), his employer’s portion has actually gone UP. By his calculations there is a dollar for dollar correlation to the reduction of the employee amount with an increase in the employer amount.

Of course, it makes sense that the money for Social Security needs to come from somewhere. Other than this payroll tax there is no mechanism for funding Social Security. If employees are not paying in then it would make sense Congress would deem that the employer must make up the difference. After all, if the money runs out, the game is up, right? The program would be shown to be the Ponzi scheme that it is.
This legislation can only hurt the long term employment outlook since it is costing more to hire employees. It will also hurt Republicans as people start to feel the 2010 elections were for naught. Therefore, it will be even more important that we elect Tea Party types to take over the Senate whether we win the Presidency or not.

So while it may look like the small increase in people’s paychecks is a good thing, it probably is not whether it’s two months or a year. Make no mistake. The future of our country is at stake in 2012!

FedUpEditor

FedUpEditor

Could it also be that black voters have very little money to give his campaign? Black leaders like Maxine Watters and Jesse Jackson are taking note, but will they vote Republican? Not a chance. There is no money for them from Conservatives.

It’s true some blacks are self-starters, but most have become takers of the welfare system. These people are dependent on government for their meager existence, and as long as they vote Democrat, it will continue. What they fail to realize is that the little checks they get from the government, and the fact they pay no income tax, it does not mean they are not paying any taxes to Big Government. Right now everything is taxed; from cable to cell service. What about sales tax? How about the government regulations that are sending jobs overseas and keeping our country impoverished? Instead, they want to blame the rich people that they are in their situation, not the liberal Democrats and Republicans who have created this mess.

If you look at our black community, how many of them have cell phones and big screen televisions, tattoos, fancy fingernails, expensive clothes, multiple piercings, etc.? They are already mentally “poor”.  Instead of investing in things that can get them out of their situations (like building a business as the Asians and Indians do – think service businesses and convenience stores), too many are spending money on instant gratification and waiting for Obama and the Democrats to stick to the rich so they can get MORE of their goodies.

And how much of this “bling” is purchased on credit? And how many of these credit cards go to collection? And because of our “easy money” policy toward the poor, how much of this debt is being written off or government subsidized? Just like the mortgage bail out, people usually don’t learn from continually being let off the hook. Before I go on, I am not opposed to people being able to spend THEIR money any way they want, but they are spending YOURS and MY money.

And please tell me the name of one person who has gotten rich or moved to the middle class from receiving welfare. When has any tax increase on the rich ever helped a poor person?

Besidesm if the poor  only knew how little of the money that goes to Washington for welfare actually makes it back to the people for which the program was designed, they might get the picture. An elected official needs to stand up and tell the public the percentage of money that actually goes to the recipients compared to the percentage that goes to generate the government jobs that administer the program (to buy votes?), pay for the administrator’s insurance, retirement, etc.

THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION! The golden goose is dying! Just as Socialism (and that is what we have no matter what Democrats say) has died everywhere it’s been tried because eventually we run out of other people’s money.

I know this is generalization, but the truth hurts. Why else would so many poor people turn to selling drugs or other crimes to make money? Because it’s EASIER and faster than going to work and building wealth. After all, not everyone gets caught, right?

- Fedupeditor

My point is that there is right and wrong. This debt “crisis” is just another example of what is wrong with this country. Raising the debt limit by $2 trillion immediately while cutting spending over 10 years is NOT a compromise, no matter what Boehner or other establishment Republicans say. Never mind the fact that Congress cannot bind another congress to a budget, how is this good for the Conservative movement? I have an answer.

It isn’t. While talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham say we should accept the deal and say, “we win,” she couldn’t be more wrong. If Republicans cave just because we can “get something done”, it will go a long way to pushing a third party. We should hold out for a much better deal or let the country default. It is not the Republicans who are causing this. It is the Democrats, and should be echoed over and over again that this is the case. How many plans has Obama come up with? (Here’s a hint: zero.)

Our country is broke. True, we have taxes (revenue) coming in all the time, but we have over spent years beyond those. The fact that the national debt is well over $14 trillion and soon to be $16 trillion should tell the story. But for some reason, liberals look past that fact.

As I pointed out in a letter to the IJ editor which I sent today, Marin do-gooders love to talk about all the wonderful social programs that government provides. What they fail to understand is that after the money gets to Washington, most of it goes to set up the bureaucracy to manage that program. Very little of that money goes to help the intended recipients. And these middle-class government bureaucrats are the ones who keep voting for the party that perpetuates their jobs. It is vote buying, plain and simple. They do not help the poor as they advertise.

Republicans need to understand that the time for “business as usual” is over. That is why the Tea Party caucus is holding firm in the House and is why they were elected. Just because we have been doing it one way for a long time (for example, slavery), does that mean we have to continue doing it that way? Not when it’s wrong.

- FedUpEditor

Fortunately for us, fhe Fed has announced as late as June 10, 2011, that it will not be implementing QE3, much to the shock of Wall Street. We can all breathe a sigh of relief… for now.

Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee as Federal Reserve Chairman, has practically decimated our economy with a policy which he continues to promote. Since 2006 our country’s loose monetary policy has been guided by his hand, and what have we gotten for it? High unemployment, a devalued dollar and a stagnant economy. We can blame Obama all we want, and we should for many things that are going wrong in our country, but Bernanke has a hand in this thanks to his poor decisions as Fed Chairman.

As the article in Dallas Morning News points out, QE2 sounds like an ocean liner, but should actually be called the Titanic… The bad news? We all have seats on it. Are we all going down? Time will tell. But here are a few facts.

QE1 and QE2 have done nothing to jump start the economy. Like the Heritage Foundation pointed out (much like my bathtub analogy) taking water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it into the other end may raise the water level in certain areas for a certain time as it ripples across the surface, but eventually the water level in the pool has not increased. So it is with quantitative easing.

The Fed prints money which we are essentially borrowing from ourselves and using to buy up bonds which have already been issued (monetizing debt) using this newly printed money. Supposedly the bond holders then have liquid capital to pump back into the economy. But since wealth is not being created, the increased money supply only waters down what is already in the economy. If you guess that this makes things cost more, you would be right. Inflation has been with us for a few years, but because energy and food are not entered into the equation, we have gotten doctored economic numbers.

So if QE1 had worked, wouldn’t our economy be humming? Okay, the argument is that our economy is so big it takes time to turn the ship around. So we got QE2 after QE1. How is that working for you? So well that now they are talking about QE3? Watch out for that iceberg!

FedUpEditor