Who Said This?

We need a President like this who can cut! Who said this:

“The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’”

I have no objection to a safety net, but that is not this person's proposal. What this implies is an impossibility. The government can not provide for you, for you are the government. A government that tells you that you can rely on it is a government that lies. This is our current government.

Our deficit is 1.4 trillion a year. We need to cut our Government spending by 40%. When Bachman mentioned this unpleasant fact in one of the debates, the crowd gasped. This was a Republican crowd that should have known better. 

I favor the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Fat Cats. In fact we need to let them expire for everyone. The expiration of these cuts is already factored in the the Congressional Budget Office deficit estimates. Even with a 4 trillion dollar tax increase over 10 years, we still need to cut 10 trillion from our spending. No one but Ron Paul is talking about this. Paul proposes keeping the Bush Tax Cuts and cutting spending even more, I do not feel this is practicable. 

Folks, if you rely on the government you are relying on a false god who will fail you in the end. 

Why Save?

In today's economic environment there is very little reason to save. If you do you get the proverbial shaft, while the government keeps the gold from the mine. 

There have been many examples of this. The first that comes to mind is the shafting the GM and Chrysler bondholders got in their bankruptcies. Secured lenders got less than unsecured lenders. One Chrysler bondholder that said he was going to sue was threatened by the government and he did not sue.  I doubt that the government was responsible for the death threats that the investor recieved. Property rights mean nothing anymore. 

The rate of interest that a saver recieves right now is less than the inflation rate. Of course, they also pay taxes on this "interest." This is a direct consequence of the actions of the Federal Reserve. 

The Obama regime will continue this in its latest plan to "help" homeowners who owe more on thier house than it is worth. From the Wall Street Journal:

The latest iteration came Monday, when the Federal Housing Finance Agency unveiled changes to a program meant to make it easier for underwater homeowners who are current on payments to refinance into a lower-rate mortgage. 

On the surface this does not sound bad, but it is another example of savers getting the short end of the stick:

Missing from that winners' list: investors who finance housing markets by purchasing mortgage-backed bonds. They will fund this new effort. Here is how: As homeowners refinance, investors who bought mortgage bonds will be given back their money and will have little option but to reinvest at far lower yields. The transfer is the difference in yield.

It is not that the bondholder is paid off, as in a normal refinancing, the bondholder instead just gets a lower rate of return than promised-without thier permission. 

Why save? Why invest? The Banksters are just going to take it from you. 

Chickork

Can we trust our food labels? Appartently in the UK we can not. I doubt things are much different here. BTW, why do the Powers That Be allow water to be injected into chicken? 

A Chart Is Worth 10,000 Words

The following chart tells us why the West is headed for a crisis. Note that the debt listed here does not include unfunded liabilities. For America this is an extra 75 trillion for Social Security and Medicare. 

Thanks to Charles Hugh Smith for the chart. 

To Quote Liza Minnelli: Money makes the World Go Around

I am less and less interested in politics. The corruption is huge. From Washington Spectator:

Under the new rules for the 2008 election cycle, the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] asked rank-and-file members to contribute $125,000 in dues and to raise an additional $75,000 for the party. Subcommittee chairpersons must contribute $150,000 in dues and raise an additional $100,000. Members who sit on the most powerful committees … must contribute $200,000 and raise an additional $250,000. Subcommittee chairs on power committees and committee chairs of non-power committees must contribute $250,000 and raise $250,000. The five chairs of the power committees must contribute $500,000 and raise an additional $1 million. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel must contribute $800,000 and raise $2.5 million. The four Democrats who serve as part of the extended leadership must contribute $450,000 and raise $500,000, and the nine Chief Deputy Whips must contribute $300,000 and raise $500,000. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must contribute a staggering $800,000 and raise an additional $25 million. 

—Marian Currinder, Money in the House (2008)

Note that the article I am quoting is shocked by accross the board spending cuts. I am shocked that the proposed cuts are so small. Yes, we also need to repeal the Bush tax cuts. We need to be in balance now, while we still can make cuts rationally. If we wait and are unable to refinance our debt, the situation will be dire.