Guest Commentary – Regulation’s Unheralded Effects

Friday night again and this week I have a submission for guest commentary! I have to say, as I always do, that I love when other folks become passionate enough to write about a topic and share their thoughts and research with all of us here at Stand Up For America. Over the last couple of weeks, I have read a lot of comments that espoused the idea that we have to begin taking action. I hear those calls, and I certainly echo them. There is much to be said for action. We must make sure that our actions are in line with our philosophical discussions in order to ensure that the results are what we want. But action is needed now. For all those who read here regularly, I urge you to write an article that outlines the actions that you believe we need to be taking. That allows all of us here to read the plan, evaluate it, and make sure that it falls in line with the principles and values that we all commonly share. The first step to action is a plan. I understand this. I wish that I, as the author of this site, had all the answers to cure the ills of America, but alas I do not. But I have thus far gathered an impressive group of folks. I am sure we can compile and implement action items if we can just get them into the discussion realm. So get writing patriots!

Tonight’s article comes to us from one of our longest participants at Stand Up For America, and someone who has offered several guest commentaries in the past. I value his input because he always presents things in an easy to understand way and offers insight into areas that I might not be thinking about. This article is no exception, as it spurred the thought for a new article for me, while also tying together some of the discussions that we have been having this week. Our guest commentary comes from Life of Illusion.

The Unheralded and Unintended Effects of EPA Regulation

by Life of Illusion

The EPA makes changes to vehicle emission standards, supposedly based on need supported by science. There have been some changes in the last few years that escaped notice of most of the public.

EPA Standards for New Trucks and Buses

Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter Cost increase

  • 1984 10.7 0.6
  • 1991 5 0.25
  • 1994 5 0.10
  • 1998 4 0.10
  • 2004 2 0.10 $5,000
  • 2007 0.2 0.01 $7,000

I first noticed these changes and saw some of their effects in 2008, when I noticed all diesels had a fuel line connected to the exhaust. I remember thinking fuel + exhaust = bad things

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/03/superdutyflame.jpg

“The Detroit News is reporting today that the Ford Motor Company told dealers to temporarily stop selling certain 2008 F-series Super Duty diesel pickups after receiving reports of flames shooting out of the vehicle’s tailpipe.

http://blogs.dieselpowermag.com/6205554/whats-new/ford-recalls-37000-2008-super-duties/index.html

Ford said it was recalling 37,400 F-Series Super Duty trucks with 6.4-liter diesel engines. The majority of the pickups _ 29,000 _ were still on dealer lots, the automaker said.

Ford spokesman Dan Jarvis said it received three reports of flames coming from the truck’s tailpipe, caused by leaking fuel that ignited in the exhaust system’s diesel particulate filter near the tailpipe.”

On Aug. 29, 2008, the EPA announced new standards that would require an 83% reduction of NOx for 2010, from the 2007 level. Makes one wonder how much responsibility diesel vehicles have for all the pollution, and the EPA has thought about that as well.

1999 National Emissions by Source of Nitrogen Oxides says:

  • 44% Non-mobil Source
  • 34% On-road Mobil Source
  • 22% Off-road Mobil Source

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/neidb.html

Hazardous Air Pollutant Source Categories

For hazardous air pollutants, the Clean Air Act defines these categories of sources, which the NEI database incorporates:

Major

Point sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of any one HAP, or at least 25 tons per year of a combination of HAPs, are major sources. Examples of major sources are electric utility plants, chemical plants, steel mills, oil refineries, and hazardous waste incinerators. These sources may release air toxics from equipment leaks, when materials are transferred from one location to another, or during discharge through emissions stacks or vents.

On-road Mobil Sources:

  • 42% diesels
  • 33% cars and motorcycles
  • 19% light gasoline trucks

Off-road Mobil Sources:

  • 49% diesel equipment
  • 22% rail roads
  • 18% marine

And what is the cost of reducing the 2007 emissions 83%?

“The major truck manufacturers have announced their price increases for 2010 emissions-compliant engine-powered trucks. For Class 8 trucks, Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) targeted their SCR “surcharge” at $9,000 – lower than Volvo Trucks SCR at $9,600 and higher than Navistar A-EGR at $8,000. While some may think a single-digit percent price increase is tolerable for the industry, we can only say that planning has accelerated to change future purchase plans.

Analysis

First of all, most of us in the trucking industry don’t want to pollute and not cause anyone any harm. The emission rules for diesels for 2010 will make them better than almost anything else on the road. Even the old smell is gone. All of this is good, but it comes with consequences.”

http://www.glgroup.com/News/2010-Compliant-Diesel-Truck-Price-Increases-Out—The-Changing-Purchase-Paradigm-42461.html

Since 2004, the cost of a diesel engine has gone up:

  • $5,000
  • $7,000
  • $9,000
  • $22,000 total

Here is what you get for nine grand to comply with the EPA’s mandates;

2010 EPA emission standards have changed, requiring a reduction of nitrous oxide gas from diesel engines. Most builders are addressing this by injecting DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid), which is made up of 32.5% UREA (a product of natural gas). International is the only manufacturer not using a DEF system to meet these standards, instead, they have “tweeked” their engines where the combustion is at the ideal temperature, not too hot or cold, where pollutants are more completely consumed.

Urea is used in SNCR and SCR reactions to reduce the NOx pollutants in exhaust gases from combustion, for example, from power plants and diesel engines. The BlueTec system, for example, injects water-based urea solution into the exhaust system. The ammonia produced by decomposition of the urea reacts with the nitrogen oxide emissions and is converted into nitrogen and water within the catalytic converter.

DEF freezes at 12F, degrades at 86F or above, at 122F, will emit ammonia gas. Average usage should be 0.6 gal. per 1000 miles. DEF cost is estimated to be from $2.50-$4.00 a gal..

How does this boring information affect us at SUFA? Do you ever wonder why the cost of eggnog (and everything else) keeps going up?

When I first read this information from LOI on the impacts of the EPA regulations and the rising cost of Diesel engines, I thought to myself, “I already know this, so what is the point?” As I began thinking about it I realized that as we speak about the idea that government does all the things that increase the national debt, they are relying on the American taxpayer to foot the bill. In other words, they need us to spend money so they can tax us when we do. The less we spend, the less money we give them (hence, George W Bush making the mainstay message to the people that we need to get out and shop and act as we always have after 9/11. Regardless of what else is going on, the government must ensure we spend money. Otherwise they only get to tax it once). I realize that I just provided a great reason to spend on nothing but the necessities, in the hopes of bankrupting the government.

My essential point to this is that everyone needs to understand how the government hurts the economy in two separate and distinct ways. First they manipulate the economy by increasing the national debt and printing money, essentially lowering the value of the dollar we have. Second, they implement controls and regulations that severely raise the cost of goods that Americans would buy. LOI’s article touches on that topic. It is essentially like you borrowing more money from VISA while simultaneously changing jobs to move to a lower paying position. It is setting yourself up for failure. Government, in its zeal to gain control, is simultaneously gaining control in ways that limit the country’s ability to pay its bills. Idiotic at best. Criminal in reality.

This last week we had a lot of discussion around the EPA formally announcing the inclusion of CO2 in the realm of dangerous gases that must be regulated. And they can do this without a vote from Congress, and with blatant disregard for what the American people think. Take another look at how the cost of a diesel engine has skyrocketed over the last ten years. THAT is the result of EPA “regulation”. Now we add CO2 into that realm. Can you imagine what the economic impacts will be of regulating CO2?

We spend a lot of time here at SUFA discussing the actions of Congress and the President. What I want everyone to understand is how the entire federal government as a whole is driving us economically into the tank. I am contemplating a separate article that discusses how government is ruining us economically. Hopefully I will find the time to write it soon!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. LOI,
    Interesting article.
    Do you have any numbers on the overall cost of this regulation to our economy?
    How does this change affect fuel economy – better or worse?
    Is the trucking industry delaying the purchase of new vehicles to avoid this cost increase?
    What is the average cost of a new Class 8 truck?

    Class 8 trucks are the largest on the road. The big 18 wheelers. In 2005, there were 250,000 produced X $9000 = $2.25 billion in added cost.

    According to the automatically generated link – http://reclaimagency.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/wake-up-diesel-emissions-the-silent-killer/

    One would think that 21,000 lives shortened each year and about 3,000 deaths from lung cancer would be a wakeup call to most people. Yet, diesel emissions are still heavily polluting our limited clean air and in 2010 health damages from diesel emissions will amount to $139 billion.

    So spending $2.25 billion to save $115 billion ($139 billion X 83%) doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Yes, I know that doesn’t quite compute that directly…

    So what’s the alternative to government regulation? What would happen if we repeated the last 100 years without any government regulation on vehicle emissions? Do you think the auto/truck industry would regulate itself better?

    I can speak more directly to the Clean Water Act.

    The Clean Water Act (1972) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution.[1] Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983.

    I grew up in Green Bay, WI. The Fox River starts in central Wisconsin and runs Appleton north to Green Bay. The river is lined with paper mills in Appleton and Green Bay. In the early 1970’s, the Fox River was noting more than a sewage pipe. Downtown Green Bay stunk – even in the winter. The river was so heavily polluted it rarely froze over in the winter.

    In the mid 1980’s, we brought our boat to Green Bay and I water skied on the Fox River – thru downtown Green Bay.

    Do you think that type of clean up would have occurred without the Clean Water Act?

    When the Clean Water Act was enacted, people were screaming that it wouldn’t do anything to clean up the river, but it would destroy the paper industry and all the jobs. The paper industry is still there. So are the jobs. And the river is now an asset instead of a liability.

    Personal Responsibility has been discussed here many times. Aren’t we responsible for our impact on the environment? Or is it Ok to just trash it and let the next generation worry about cleaning it up?

    • Todd,

      Good questions for this early in the morn’, and good morning to all.

      Do you have any numbers on the overall cost of this regulation to our economy?(none whatsoever, great question)

      How does this change affect fuel economy – better or worse?
      (fuel economy is slightly improving, but its hare to say honestly. Manufacturers have their estimates, but they do not control how people operate the equipment, which can have a effect)

      Is the trucking industry delaying the purchase of new vehicles to avoid this cost increase?(absolutely, and without research, I would bet there are far more light trucks
      purchased, and this will have a greater total effect
      ambulances, airport/church shuttle buses, fire trucks, farm trucks(I have seen farmers pulling a spray rig in a 120 acre field, you do not want to buy that low mileage vehicle next year)wreckers, just to name a few)

      What is the average cost of a new Class 8 truck? (don’t know, but I can say these figures are pretty close, light trucks should go up only 6-8 thousand)

      I am not against regulation. I think they acted too soon, not allowing technology to keep pace. I would also advocate
      incentives vs regulation. Watched Stossel last night, he said California passed a Zero Emissions law in 1990, no one could meet that mandate, law was repealed, no one noticed.

      I think its worth looking at how we polluted in the past, and how we have improved. Stossel has two books that mention
      examples such as yours, well worth the read.

  2. There should be regulation within industry to curb pollution and waste.There is no doubt of that.Simply put it seems what started out as a good thing has ended up being turned into an instrument of taxation.There is a huge difference between regulating known contanimants and their impact versus falsifying data and counter views in regards to others.

    • Tex,

      Not sure I agree this is about taxation. The NO2 reductions seem to be agenda driven to me, and damn any cost considerations. Just as Obama stated he would tax the coal power industry out of business, they have the ability to do the same thing with the transportation industry.

      I’m on dial-up, so have not watched your video yet.

  3. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I have long thought that deregulation is the most important topic for our economic survival.

    Questions: How much has a large diesel pickup truck risen in price?

    In a complex world economy do we need an industrial/manufacturing base on U.S. soil?

    Obviously overregulation costs us jobs here on U.S. soil, but does overregulation and the loss of our industrial/manufacturing base devalue our dollar? Or does it not matter where “Coca Cola” actually produces cola as far as the value of the dollar is concerned.

    I ask all this because our dollar is worthless paper if not backed by our creation of REAL wealth (A tangible product or service rather than money games).

    Help me I am confused.

    • Puritan,

      I am a bit confused, or conflicted as well. I like free markets and think that would result in a more prosperous America, and in turn, would help raise the standard of living for the world. But after what Goldman-Sachs did to the housing and oil markets, I think regulation or limits to the size of companies is necessary.
      https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/guest-commentary-goldman-sachs/

      A one ton diesel truck cost has gone up about 16-18 thousand
      since 2004, due to EPA mandates.

      “do we need an industrial/manufacturing base on U.S. soil?”
      Some will dis-agree, but I say yes, we cannot survive without
      that. I have looked into our school system and found that of those who graduate, only 40% go on to college, and only 20% of them graduate. What does the other 60-80% do for a living? And true educational reform would change those numbers, but would NEVER change the fact that not everyone wants to be, or can be, a computer geek or lawyer, etc..

      And we still need plumbers and electricians, and I know some who are very sharp people. But the more industry we loose, the more we will increase our dependent class, which seems to be what the current government wants.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        A one ton diesel truck cost has gone up about 16-18 thousand
        since 2004, due to EPA mandates.

        Puritan says > Holy S***!!! I had no idea!

        I agree we need an Industrial/Manufacturing base simply so U.S. citizens have jobs. Looking at aerial shots of suburbs around a city can be scary if you stop and think how many of the population down there has a wealth creating job.

        Some have government jobs. Some are on S.S.. Some are on disability. How many are actually producing real wealth? All real wealth and the value of our dollar comes from business. Government simply takes money from business for it’s ‘needs’. I just think we Must stop attacking our business with regulations and expenses and taxes. We are cutting our own legs off.

        We must feed ourselves or one day that suburb I see from the air is going to become a chaos I can only imagine.

        • Puritan, consider Judy’s post yesterday, how government jobs are expanding while the private sector withers. What government agencies generate revenue? Post Office?(joke)

          Judy Sabatini said
          December 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm

          For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
          Average pay $30,000 over private sector

          By Dennis Cauchon
          USA TODAY

          The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

          Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

          Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

          The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

          When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

          The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

          “There’s no way to justify this to the American people. It’s ridiculous,” says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House’s federal workforce subcommittee.

          Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

          USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management’s database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM’s data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.

          The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker’s pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

          Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

          •Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

          •New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

          •Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency’s leader. But if Congress lifts the boss’ salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief’s salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees’ had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

  4. USWeapon,

    Second, they implement controls and regulations that severely raise the cost of goods that Americans would buy.

    But this is the true cost.

    If you host a party at your house, cleaning up after the party is one of the costs – and if you invite me, Mathius, Charlie, and Ray, I’d plan on extra clean up costs!!

    If you don’t pay for the clean up costs, someone else will, and Mrs USWeapon won’t be too happy about that!!

    It is essentially like you borrowing more money from VISA while simultaneously changing jobs to move to a lower paying position. It is setting yourself up for failure. Government, in its zeal to gain control, is simultaneously gaining control in ways that limit the country’s ability to pay its bills. Idiotic at best. Criminal in reality.

    I don’t quite follow your example here, but to me, it is just the opposite. It is Criminal for us to not clean up after ourselves.

    Take China for example. Their economy is growing very fast, but they are not paying the environmental costs of that growth. The rivers in China are now worse sewage pipes than the Fox River in Green Bay was 40 years ago.
    Do you think they’ll ever clean up their environment?
    Or will they just pollute away until they kill half their population?
    I guess they have some people to spare…

    And they can do this without a vote from Congress

    Congress already voted to give EPA this power. And the reason Congress gave this power to the EPA was to try to remove politics from the decision making process.

    Could you imagine if every EPA rule had to be debating in Congress?

    Now the argument might be that it’s still political because of Obama’s tree-hugging appointees. But the reason that’s necessary is because of Bush’s oil-well-hugging appointees… 😉

    and with blatant disregard for what the American people think.

    The American people voted for Obama. Democrats are usually more environmental friendly. The EPA is doing what the government, elected by the people, want…

    To me, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness includes not dying from someone else’s pollution.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Todd said >

      Congress already voted to give EPA this power. And the reason Congress gave this power to the EPA was to try to remove politics from the decision making process.

      Could you imagine if every EPA rule had to be debating in Congress?

      Puritan says > “remove politics” or “remove responsibility”?
      debating every EPA rule would be a Great thing! it would slow them down.

    • Todd,

      You are either ill informed or you are letting your dogma fog your thinking.

      “Congress already voted to give EPA this power. And the reason Congress gave this power to the EPA was to try to remove politics from the decision making process.”

      No way Jose’. Congress does not use federal agencies to eliminate politics from the equation. It is the only way they have of implementing their politics on the people. Which leads to the next comment.

      “Could you imagine if every EPA rule had to be debating in Congress?” They are debated and reviewed by Congress, but many folks don’t realize that. When agencies propose new rules the public responds to the agencies and the lobbyists go to work on the congress. Those congressmen who’s ox is gored step in on the rule making. There is strong political influence in this process from all sides. Why do you think it can take a year or more for new rules to be approved?

      “Now the argument might be that it’s still political because of Obama’s tree-hugging appointees. But the reason that’s necessary is because of Bush’s oil-well-hugging appointees”. I know you put up a smily face but if you want to get REAL then keep going back in time. The Algorians before Bush, etc, etc.

      And for the record Todd, you are almost certainly not going to die from anyone’s pollution today. This is nothing but cheap rhetoric. I think you are capable of better than that.

      • JAC,

        They are debated and reviewed by Congress, but many folks don’t realize that. When agencies propose new rules the public responds to the agencies and the lobbyists go to work on the congress. Those congressmen who’s ox is gored step in on the rule making. There is strong political influence in this process from all sides. Why do you think it can take a year or more for new rules to be approved?

        So USWeapon is wrong. Congress does have a vote if it wants?

        The Algorians before Bush, etc, etc.

        Yes, but it is easier to undo regulation then it is to clean up the mess from lack of regulation.

        And for the record Todd, you are almost certainly not going to die from anyone’s pollution today.

        In the US, yes, thanks to the EPA.

        But in China and Third World countries, I wouldn’t be so sure. Even though it’s illegal, we export shiploads of e-waste to Thailand (or some place near there). They melt it down for the trace gold, silver, etc, and burn off the mercury, radium. Cancer and birth defects are out of this world in those areas.

        That’s what happens in un-regulated countries…

        • Todd:

          No. That is what happens in countries without a moral foundation.

          That was the issue in the 50’s and 60’s.

          A nation brainwashed into believing the Govt needs to do everything.

          The result is a loss of individual responsibility.

          Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

          • Once again JAC,

            How are we going to return to a moral foundation?

            Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            I follow the rules for the Greater Good. I expect you to do the same… 😉

            • But the Greater Good cannot exist. It is a contradiction.

              There is no Good that can be applied to all.

              Thus, you simply justify abusing innocent people for the benefit of other people.

              What part of that is “good”????

        • Todd:

          “So USWeapon is wrong. Congress does have a vote if it wants?”

          Not a vote like you are thinking. Thus USW is partly right.

          Congress does get involved and depending on which Congressman’s Ox is gored there can be blow back to the agency.

          Such as making sure the appropriations bill specifically prevents the agency from spending any money on implementing their new idea.

          So it would be more accurate to say that “some of Congress get to vote”.

          Most vote without even knowing. Just as most regulations are passed without the average citizen knowing. Thus your statement about the people electing the govt and thus the EPA is doing what they want…….is FALSE.

          The vast majority of people have no clue what is actually being done. All they know is the environmentalist and industry rhetoric and talking points they get on TV and Radio.

          Hope your nap goes well.
          A rested body means a vibrant mind.

          JAC

          • JAC,

            So now you’re back tracking and saying Congress does not vote?

            Yes, they could change the laws to take away the EPA’s power, or reduce it’s appropriations to punish it, but Congress does not vote on EPA regulations.

    • Todd,

      USW host’s a party at his house, cleaning up after the party is one of the costs – and if you invite me, Mathius, Charlie, and Ray. USW informs you guys before the party that all will have to help clean up to Mrs. Weapon’s standards before leaving. All agree, but Charlie smokes a cigar during the event. Mrs. Weapon can still smell that foul stink, and insists the house will have to be fumigated, and you guys will be paying the bill. One of her old cheer-leading friends was there as well, and she is now a man hating lawyer. After hearing her threats, all of you have grounds to sue her for causing impotency.

      By the way, we heard it was a great party!!!

    • Yes, Charlie does like to eat … 🙂

      Hey, LIO nailed it with Goldman Sachs … no regulation and it’s one big ponzi scheme … and we all get to foot the bill. The shame of this administration (and the last) is how long it has gone without the regulation. What happened yesterday in Congress (without knowing the specifics) is about 1+ years too late). The consolidation of big banks was criminal (at the cost of small banks they encouraged into bankdruptcy).

      No matter what the issue, regulation is a necessity. A totally free market does not protect us unless all who partake in it are honorable and we know that just isn’t the case. Corruption in a free market will NOT weed itself out (or it never would’ve happened in the first place).

      Off to the gym … will check back for thrown objects …

      • Charlie

        You blow hot air and cigar smoke to go with it.

        What EXACTLY was the regulation that didn’t exist?

        Exactly what was it about Bank consolidation that was responsible for anything?

        Stop throwing “talking points” around and start doing the hard math.

        Regulation is not necessary if those involved pay the price for their immoral or unethical, or just plain stupid behavior. That was removed decades ago by the Govt. Thus your claim that it can not work is FALSE, as it worked just fine before the govt became a partner to immoral practices. You do not need to have everyone be a moral upstanding character. Only the majority. But you do need a majority to be INTOLERANT of such behavior.

        Just as the vast majority were willing to accept the consequences of no TARP and to make the bad guys pay with bankruptcy. But Uncle had to step in. That is the underlying cause of all the pain and suffering. The culprits never pay a price.

        You lefties got to let go of this paradigm before it drowns you. Pollution of the mind is much more deadly than drinking the water from the Hudson. It takes longer and is not only affects you but those around you.

        Hope your gym time goes well.

        JAC

        • Hot air AND smoke?

          I’m floating …

          Are you seriously arguing that there were regulations in place to stop what happened with AIG, Goldman Sachs, et al?

          I would’ve been fine, by the way, with their bankruptcies (at least we’d all be in it together).

          So long as you argue what is ethical, moral, etc., you come up with goose eggs from where I sit. It shouldn’t have been legal for banks to tell me I was eligible for a $770,000 mortgage. We took a $150 on a 280K home. That offer was criminal (as well as stupid). Obviously not everybody took the lower end of what the banks offered. You can blame the person taking the money and/or the one offering it, but so long as the one who offered it got bailed out, it’s a one-way street. I’m not a proponent of any kind of welfare that isn’t necessary, but corporate welfare? Forgetaboutit …

          I’m going to light my cigar now … be back later.

          • Charlie,

            Regulations are in place that should have prevented Worldcom, Enron and Bernie Madoff. The SEC does a crappy job and is sometimes upstaged by the NY city
            Attorney Generals office? And how many high government officials worked for Goldman before becoming public servants?

            Careful where you blow that smoke….

            • Hey, I’m all for executing the clowns responsible for looking the other way. Why not, some of those who lost everything committed suicide; it seems fair to me.

              The questions is why did they look the other way? Are you suggesting they did it for the greater good or some more selfish reason?

              • That’s it Charlie!
                This is all for the greater good, but you have to be looking long term.

                First create crisis after crisis to allow you to build the biggest gov. in the history of the world.

                Then, every time there is a problem, use it as an excuse to add more people to the government.

                Eventually, gov. runs or controls
                everything. In my state, they spent $30 million looking for a woodpecker, and never found it.

                See #15 & 17. Also, look at China & Russia, who are imitating the free market principals that made this nation great, and shaking their heads in wonder as we destroy those same beliefs.

                It will truly be the workers paradise though, imagine our healthcare run by the same people who are in charge of the housing projects.

              • You make very good points, LOI … except, just because it’s run badly now doesn’t mean it has to. Also, the progress in China is at the expense of their workers (never mind the shit they send us over here that kills our dogs and kids). They are using our model (and without gov’t restraint) because they don’t care much for human rights.

                I’m saying meld the two (gov’t free enterprise) with some purpose/structure but that would require revamping this fugazy (fake) political system we now have (which is an absolute sham).

                not to worry, though … the Bills won today … must be close to the end of the world.

          • Charlie

            Yes, hot air and smoke!!!

            We have covered, in detail, on this site all the factors that caused the crash. Lack of regulation was not among the top contenders.

            My problem with your rhetoric is that you constantly ignore that information and just continue spewing your cheap rhetoric.

            We all agree the SOB’s should have suffered the consequences. The Congressmen and women who pushed what you call “criminal” loans should be tried for TREASON at best and TREASON PLUS FRAUD at worst.

            There were many warnings. The Electeds just kept pumping. This is the perfect examply of how a Govt’s behavior spills over to the private sector. When congress should have been screaming for a pull back they were instead pushing for full speed ahead. The bankers got the message and pushed.

            Now you and the lefty cronies want to lay ALL the blame on bankers and lack of regulations. Bull Shit.

            Your precious Govt caused the damn problem and I for one am tired of hearing about the evil, corrupt, immoral bankers. They have not honor but you can directly hold the govt responsible for that. And now it continues under the camoflauge of “Recovery”. Recovery my ass. The only thing being recovered here is the wealth of a nation. It is being recovered to the pockets of the immoral cowards who caused the whole damn thing.

            See there Charlie. We cowboys can throw a riggin fit once in awhile also.

            Hope your trip to the gym was productive.
            Plan on doing the same tomorrow AM.

            Best to you and yours.
            JAC

            • Charlie:

              What Congress did last week to deflect the blame from themselves is pass some type of bill (in committee) that would enable the government to examine, audit, review any business whose failure could lead to systemic failure within the economy. This is unheard of power. Any business that is large and growing will find government looking over their shoulder, as if the government knows anything about business. Remember, government needs villains like banking, oil, any big business, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance, etc.

              I want to add another book to your reading list. Read Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny. He reviews statism fairly well and covers what happened in the banking industry. Government created the problem.

    • Todd,

      Before you can destroy the right of action of some one else, you have to prove harm.

      “No Harm, No Foul”

      I do not want someone else’s pollution too – but if an action of another does me no measurable harm, how can I claim harm?

      The problem with government is that it does not STOP harm – it profits from it. If, instead, YOU got the money from the ‘fines’ or ‘taxes’ that are leveled to reduce pollution – then that’s good! You are be compensated.

      But using government is foolish. You are not compensated. You actually PAY MORE!!!

      Does that make sense to you???

      • Black Flag,
        No, it doesn’t make sense.

        I don’t want to be compensated for harm. I want the harm stopped.

        If you want to build a factory, mine, or oil well, prove it won’t harm me or the environment.

        Government doesn’t always stop the harm, but it’s better than industry that’s just looking at the $$$.

        • Todd,

          First, the onus on you is to prove harm. The onus is not on the factory, mine, or anything else.

          Remember Todd, freedom FIRST. I can act if I do not impose.

          Obviously, if there are things that are directly imposing (like stealing or killing) those are directly prohibited.

          But for other things – the opposite applies.

          If I set up a factory in the middle of desert – how can I know if it harms you 1000 miles away? Why would I care? How would I know?

          I can not ‘prove’ what is not happening.

          You can only prove what is happening.

          Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove harm.

          “No harm, no foul”

          If successful, the next step is two-fold;

          1) stop the harm

          and/Or

          2) receive compensation.

          For example, if my neighbor’s fence crosses into my land.

          1) harm = I can’t use that part of the land.

          2) I can demand him to move his fence OR take a rental payment.

          Apply this to your example.

          The problem with government, Todd, is it does not stop harm.

          It legislates it

          This is so important to understand, Todd – because it is the reason pollution continues.

          The government dictates how much harm you will receive. It sets the ‘standards’ of your poisoning.

          Once those standards are in place, even if you are dying from it, you have no recourse.

  5. Sorry all, this did not stay in column form. Poor(no) proofreading on my part.

    EPA Standards for New Trucks and Buses

    Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter Cost increase

    * 1984 10.7 0.6
    * 1991 5 0.25
    * 1994 5 0.10
    * 1998 4 0.10
    * 2004 2 0.10 $5,000
    * 2007 0.2 0.01 $7,000

  6. Todd:

    Lets start with the end and work back.

    Yes, we are responsible for our own actions. And remember, we can not impose or use coersive force on the innocent. That includes creating pollution that actually harms people. So obviously it is not OK to trash the place and leave it for our kids. Your questions however, are based on assumptions you are making about the underlying motivations and values which are in turn based on the old paradigm. You know, the one we generally agree needs to be changed.

    You fall into the trap of condemning a better way based on the behaviors and structures of the NOT better way. This is the biggest fallacy used by the greenies and lefties when condemning efforts to return our individual freedom and liberty.

    Would clean up have happened without the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? I believe it would have happened but perhaps at a slower rate. Lets not forget just how fed up the public was with breathing through filters and rivers that would catch on fire. But lets look a little deeper. By the time the public had enough pollution it had already accepted the paradigm that ONLY the govt could address the matter. And, Govt had already established the structure to affirm this belief. Thus it was relatively easy to get public support for this legislation.

    But you see, our legislators could have simply given us the ability to deal with the issues through nusance and personal injury litigation. But that didn’t fit the environmentalist agenda at the time. They wanted FEDERAL control. It was assumed that this was the only way we could stop the polluters.

    Looking back on it today, I wish we had used the other strategy. But we didn’t. We accepted the centralized, federalized solution to pollution. As you probably know, these laws also rely heavily on states implementing the federal rules via agreements with the federal agencies. This was done to make us think that the federal wasn’t overstepping its constitutional bounds.

    But like all Federal Govt programs, they couldn’t just stop with addressing the serious pollution. Almost every year brings a new round of tighter regulations. Few of which are based on any truly defensible data regarding impacts to humans or our environment. We used to have air you could cut with a knife and rivers that burned. Now I can drink from a river that DOES NOT meet the clean water standards. I can breath air without coughing and that does not smell and that DOES NOT meet the clean air standards.

    The claims regarding deaths, illness and costs associated with diesel fuel are a joke. There is absolutely no true scientific studies that can prove such a claim. You will find the same types of assumptions and modeling predictions in that arena as we have seen with man caused global warming. We have reached the point of diminishing returns with many of these federal regulations. We have also reached the point where the luxury of our wealth will not allow much more in the way of clean up. Because that wealth no longer exists.

    But what we fail to recognize is the actual implication of the govt analysis for its actions. If the cost of stopping the pollution had outweighed the benefits (i.e., the value of lives saved) the pollution would not be stopped. We have already given the govt the authority to decide when DEATH for some is an acceptable outcome of its decisions based on the value to the Greater Good.

    Trust me, the federal govt (executive branch) already has all the power and authority it needs via the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts to completely stop our economy in its tracks. The only reason it hasn’t happened is because the various agencies know that if they go as far as they could, and some argue should, Congress might take their power away, they could lose the act all together. Now put in place a congress and administration whose agenda is to “remake” our nation and our economy and guess what you get.

    Hang on folks, its goin to be one hell of a ride.

    • Sorry JAC,
      I’ve gotten 10 hours of sleep this week. Been up all night completing an install of 18 months of work. The good news is everything worked, but I don’t have anymore energy right now…

      I’ll try to check back later today.

    • JAC,

      I am going by memory, but think Stossel indicated that market forces had already started industry onto cleaner production
      before regulation began. Sorry I can’t confirm, have got to stop lending out books.

      Where has your “Kilroy” gone?

      Just
      Another
      Citizen was here.

      • LOI

        I do recall some forces working but there is no doubt that federal standards had a major effect.

        But look at Calif. it was the State imposing even tighter standards that helped people see across the LA basin again.

        I do believe market forces would have done the job, if the proper mechanisms were in place. But we always forget that it was govts jurisdiction over pollutants that allowed the pollution to occur.

        My JAC is doing fine. Just busy with Christmas preparations. I have two birthdays and christmas to put on from Dec 18 to 25th.

        Have you been out there writing articles or editorials and using JAC?

        JAC Was Here.

    • JAC,

      Great explaination and very easy to understand, even at 5am Sunday morning! ;o) No tuer words spoken about about diminishing returns on federal regulations and the luxury of wealth. Liberals seem to think that abundance will always be theirs, no matter what Daddy Government does. They are like children when it comes to their adoration of government. I just don’t understand it.

      How are you today JAC? Are things still frozen today? I’m getting plenty of over time this week and next. I’m looking forward to my week in Pohnpei over the New Year. After the past few weeks, I won’t feel the least bit guilty about my mini vaction. Eat, shop, eat, shop, maybe go for a snorkel, eat, shop.

      • OK, when we gather the SUFA group together, I suggest Cyndi hostess! It’s a little warmer here today; my computer says it is 18 degrees, but your talk of sunshine and warmth sounds really good!

        • That’s funny, Kathy! I’d love to have ya’ll but it can’t happen on this island. However, if we go a few hundred miles west, its very doable if you have several thousand doolars for airfare and two days travel time each way, if you don’t get stuck somewhere along the way, LOL! Right about now, its worth the trouble isn’t it?

          I’ll send ya’ll warm tropical thoughts while I’m riding my bike to work this morning. We’re not allowed to have cars. No lie.

          Time to get in the shower and go earn my keep….

      • Cyndi P

        Good morning. Been very very frozen.

        Warmed up yesterday and this morning…….to 10 F.

        Another Arctic blast falling on us as I write.

        Predictions for blizzard conditions this afternoon through monday.

        Perfect for the Christmas mood. Out shopping this morning. As usual, many stressed looking folks. But still many whistling along with the store music and smiles for strangers.

        Big hugs your way today.
        JAC

    • JAC,

      I disagree with a lot of this, but that’s Ok.

      What I’d really like to see is your solution? This stuff has been hashed around here many times. I’m still waiting for the Plan to go from our current government/society to the one you envision?

      You need to define the better way. I don’t mean platitudes like returning to a moral bases and no evil. I mean details on how we’ll get from here to there and how you’ll pay for it without coercion. The impact it will have on our society, and some of the potential “unintended” consequences that will occur.

      You can go on and on about how government is the problem, but I’d like to see just a little bit of evidence that our society could function without it?

      • Todd,

        What I’d really like to see is your solution? This stuff has been hashed around here many times. I’m still waiting for the Plan to go from our current government/society to the one you envision?

        The very first thing, Todd, is for you to accept that the current system does not work.

        I’ve been down this road with many people before.

        They want to know ‘how it will work’ before they walk the path.

        But what happens is that they don’t like the answers – they are too ‘hard’ – it means they have to be more responsible – that they can’t simply take what they want – they have to work hard to get what they want…..

        and they don’t like that, so they throw up their hands and go back to beating people over the head.

        I exampled my wife, when discussing how the highway we were on cut through a farmer’s land.

        She asked “How would your ‘way’ build the highway”.

        Me: “Buy the land”

        She: “He won’t sell”

        Me: “Then go around it”

        She: “It will cost a lot more”

        Me: “So? Because it costs more allow us to steal it from him???”

        She: “You’re unreasonable. What happens if it costs too much??”

        Me: “Then we can’t build the road, and have to figure something else out”

        Eventually, she had an epiphany. Just because it is too expensive, too hard, too difficult – doesn’t make stealing it “right”.

        And because that ability to steal is gone, sometimes the answer will be “you can’t do it”.

        The challenge then becomes that people who have still “one foot stuck in the old paradigm” is that they abandon the process, and fall back into the old paradigm of violence.

        As long you remain outcome focused, and willing to sacrifice moral principles so to achieve outcomes, you will be trapped inside evil and immoral means

        The impact it will have on our society, and some of the potential “unintended” consequences that will occur.

        Huge unknown consequences, for sure.

        It will mean that some of the things you get to do today – such as the legal right to steal from your neighbor – will no longer be justified.

        The implication of that is huge.

        There is no human being that can show you unintended consequences – by definition. To demand that they be described prior to action is an irrational request.

        However, we can reason this.

        If our means of action are moral, the consequences of those actions will tend to be moral

        If our means of action is immoral, the consequences of those actions will tend to be immoral

  7. Did the same thing, closes all blank spaces. Will insert periods.

    EPA Standards for New Trucks and Buses

    ………..Nitrogen Oxides…..Particulate Matter….Cost increase

    * 1984…….. 10.7………………..0.6
    * 1991……….5………………….0.25
    * 1994……….5………………….0.10
    * 1998……….4………………….0.10
    * 2004……….2………………….0.10……………$5,000
    * 2007……. 0.2………………….0.01……………$7,000
    * 2009…………………………………………….$9,000

    Damn computers, Flag, are you causing this?

  8. There are few EPA regulations that I am familiar with. In 1995, the EPA implemented an oxygenate requirement for fuels in many “non-compliance” areas, mostly big cities and states with dense populations. Some states enhanced these regulations (CA for one). This was reformulated fuel which led to local designer gasolines. The oxygenate of choice for refiners was methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) because it could be made from petroleum. There were a few other choices, ETBE, TAME and ethanol. MTBE has a high octane value so could be mixed with normal gasoline without degrading the knock performance but does not have the same energy content hence mileage suffered.

    Oxygenates came out of a study conducted in Denver in the late ’80s. It was initially studied to reduce pollution from older, pre-controls (<’68) and out of tune vehicles. Most of the fleet at that time did not have injection, although all cars after '75 had catalytic converters. The theory was that incorporating oxygen into the fuel promoted cleaner burning in vehicles that were running rich. Naturally adding oxygen into the fuel meant that the fuel was already partially combusted, hence the lower energy content. A side effect of the Denver study was a new component in the smog around Denver, formaldehyde (embalming fluid), a byproduct of poorly combusted MTBE.

    It took several years to develop the oxygenate standard with the oil and auto industries cooperation. At the same time, several other improvements in gasoline formulation were also introduced, reduced benzene content, reduced vapor emissions, olefin controls, reduced sulfur content (300 ppm since brought down to 30 ppm), etc. These other changes in fuel design had more impact on the emissions from vehicles than did the oxygenates. Of course, by ’95, the auto fleet had substantially changed as many older vehicles (the target for the oxygenates) were off the road and fuel injection under computer control with internal knock sensors were becoming the standard set up on engines. The oxygenate content was still mandated despite some warnings that MTBE could lead to other environmental problems. The skeptics, like AGW, were ignored.

    Around 2000, CA discovered MTBE in well water and in Lake Tahoe. It seems that leaking gas station tanks and outboard motors, spread MTBE into the water supply where even in trace quantities it cause foul smelling water and a real health threat. It dissolves easily in water and spreads throughout the aquifer. CA banned MTBE and asked the EPA to be excused from the oxygenate requirement since it no longer had any real value in cleaning up emissions. The EPA refused and today we have ethanol in our fuel.

    This is an example of the law of unintended consequences that results from not listening to the skeptics and not answering their concerns. It is also an example of the inertia the environmental movement can generate. Once a victory is won, they will not back down, even though there is little value but much costs in their implemented solutions.

    With respect to injecting urea into diesel exhaust, ammonia (NH3) injection has been used for some time to remove NOx from industrial smoke stacks. This can be done using a catalyst to enhance the reaction or by a thermal process where tight temperature controls are required. If the process is not controlled properly, NH3 breakthrough occurs, thus emitting another toxic, smog, green house gas into the air.

    • T-Ray,

      Please don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up, I’m sorry what was the question again? I will have to accept your information, as it is way over my head.

      A funny thing I KNOW. If, in the near future, you pass a semi or other diesel roaring down the freeway at 55 MPH or 5 MPH, the EPA is the likely reason. After all these years of cars talking to people, they decided to make people listen. The new regulations require a warning issued when the urea gets low (1,000, 400, 175 miles). At 100 miles supply, the computer will regulate top speed to 55 MPH, and will continue this for 20 starts. After those 20, the next fuel fill will have the computer regulate the speed to 4 MPH. So a bad sensor or computer error might make driving a lot more fun in the days to come.

      • You must be assimulated. We are the BORG! The machines are taking over.

        Even though I work daily with high teck stuff, I still have the old fashioned notion that I should control the machine.

        Sounds like you have the makings of a perfect protest. A convoy of trucks on an interstate at 5 mph. I remember the 55 mph rolling road blocks that some state police did during the ’73 oil crisis. It created massive backups on the interstate. I viewed them as decidedly dangerous as everybody was tailgating. Cars running up on the jam from the rear would try to weave their way to the front until they realized what the problem was. My solution was to get off the interstate and take the back roads.

        What kind of sensor are they using for measuring NOx and NH3? In know of no cheap ones like O2 sensors on cars. Both measurements are difficult to do. We developed an IR CO2 laser system in the ’80s to measure NH3 beakthrough on smoke stacks. Not economically practicle. Most of the instruments are UV. I cannot see either on a truck.

        They have been reducing sulfur in diesel for the last several years. The last I looked it was to be 30 ppm by now but eventually I think the target is 3 ppm. I know CA is forcing most diesel trucks to be upgraded (repalced engines). I did not know they were using NH3 injection to reduce the NOx. Thanks for your post.

        • T-Ray,

          Have no ideal of the sensors used, but problems can cause a “flame thrower” exhaust. They have been using urea in Europe for several years, so its a proven system. The fact that Internation has achieved the same emissions in cylinder
          makes me think incentive would have achieved the same results in the near future, without the cost.

  9. LOI, thank you for the guest article. This whole area is where I just read and learn; thanks to all that give me that opportunity!

    • Kat,

      Glad you like it. I also learn from coming here. JAC had a post last week that only touched on forest fires in the US, and where the government has caused greater destruction. (would make a great article JAC)

      Question, how many regulations does the EPA have? How many billions have they cost America? Their regulations do not have any “cost” considerations.
      If they claim a snail, a smelt or a sand turtle MIGHT be endangered, they can force anyone to obey.

      Another question, how many government agencies have EPA like power?

      I hunt a little, am no friend to poachers. Recently two drunks were caught at night spotlighting(illegal). Game warden arrested them, seized their guns and their truck. They can also take boots/clothing/ATV’s, anything deemed to have been used in committing the crime. I have shed few tears, but if the sorry SOB loses his job because he had his only means to/from work taken(will be sold at auction), that means he will be a burden to we, the tax payers. Strikes me as excessive, punishment should fit the crime.

      • OSHA, IRS, FDA, FCC, FAA, … and here in CA, the worst CARB (CA Air Resources Board).

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        LOI said >

        I hunt a little, am no friend to poachers. Recently two drunks were caught at night spotlighting(illegal). Game warden arrested them, seized their guns and their truck. They can also take boots/clothing/ATV’s, anything deemed to have been used in committing the crime. I have shed few tears, but if the sorry SOB loses his job because he had his only means to/from work taken(will be sold at auction), that means he will be a burden to we, the tax payers. Strikes me as excessive, punishment should fit the crime.

        Puritan says >

        This reminds of a Supreme Court decision maybe 10 years ago. A man used his wife’s car to pick up hookers. He was caught and the car was seized. If I remember correctly they ruled 5-4 upholding the seizure. Same for drug seizures, using the argument the item seized was ‘tainted’ even if the owner of the item is not guilty of any crime.

        I wonder if I am guilty of spotlighting game when I leave outside spotlights on, around my orchard, to make it easier for my Dogs to spot Moose/Deer eating my trees.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I should add, in the State of Maine I believe you can be quilty of spotlighting game even if you have no guns in your vehicle. The idea being you ‘might’ be spotlighting for someone hidden in the woods for example.

          • I suspect you are right, a deputy friend once told me that Game & Fish officers have more authority than any other enforcement official, including entry and searching your home, if the have reason to suspect a crime involving wildlife.

            Isn’t it great living in a “free” country?

  10. Government regulation, taxation and intrusion into business = manufacturing jobs shipped out of the country. Many of our progressive friends at SUFA complain about this very thing happening yet call for more restrictive actions that will insure more jobs lost.

    • Excellent point Bama, and one that I constantly attempt to make to those on the left I talk to. They never have an answer for that one.

  11. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All

    Just checking in to say hi, and I hope all are doing well and keeping dry as possible.

    Hey T-Ray, how’s the weather your way? We’re getting snow right now, and it snowed last night with more for the rest of today. Got about 6 to 8 inches last night with about the same for tonight. Then suppose to clear out tomorrow, with another system moving in on Wednesday.

    Hope you’re doing well today T.

    • Judy, the snow is gone as of this morning, rained all day yesterday and started again around noon today. The temperature is mild. T’was a fun week. 9″ of snow Sunday night, no power for 37 hrs (no internet!), could not start generator, removed tree from neighbor’s drive, no daycare workers could get here Monday and Teusday, I missed 2 days of work, freezing temps Monday through Wednesday, got home from work Wed. and found a broken a pipe, had to shut off the water Wed. night, got truck stuck in front yard (useless vehicle in snow or mud), capped pipe Thursday morning, restored water, took wife for blood test Thursday, worked Friday to prepare for CSA (Canadian Standards Assoc.) inspector on Teusday, R&R time today.

      Enjoy the snow, there is not much sense in fighting it. Just be thankful for global warming as it could be the beginning of a new glacier.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi T

        Sounds like you had one heck of a week. I don’t mind the snow, just don’t like driving in it. Had to do shopping this morning, and the roads were covered with snow and ice, and by the time I got done, the roads were pretty much cleared. Started to snow right after I got home, and been snowing off and on since.

        Guess we got pretty lucky, no busted pipes here, but our cousin had a broken pipe in his kitchen. We did have exploding sodas in the garage though. Had to bring them in, they all froze out there. Just waiting to see if any explode while being in the house.

        The one thing I am grateful for is, is that we didn’t get any wind around here, it’s really been a calm storm if you want to call it that. Usually , we have strong winds with these storms, but this time very calm.

        Glad we’re going to be getting a break for a few days before the next one hits. Maybe it will give the snow we have now a chance to melt some. Had to clear the drive way this morning just to get my car out of the garage.

        Global warming, uh, I don’t think so. More like global cooling right now.

        Enjoy your weekend T.

  12. I don’t really know if this is within this topic or not, if it isn’t I apologize in advance. Not trying to hijack this thread.

    Read this article really late last night – (somehow USW manages to stay awake 24/7, he posts about 3AM my time) – and was way too tired to write a coherent response/comment.

    I am trying to look at the “big picture” rather than just at little things. Why? Because that is what the Progressives have been doing for the past hundred years or so, putting the emphasis on the little things.

    Years ago one of my “bosses” in military intel told me that the way subversives work in politics is to chip away at what may seem as insignificant little things, bending the facts (not outright lying, just stretching the truth enough to make things sound plausible) just a little bit to make the idea more appealing to the masses. You know, like how they got abortion to be legalized so easily by emphasizing the horrors of illegal abortions vs abortions performed in a medical environment. (yep, folks, that is exactly how they pulled the wool over your eyes)

    Glenn Beck calls it “nudging”, and that is just about the gist of it. We are all being “nudged” into – what?

    On another blog there was a question about a one world government conspiracy, and now I am beginning to wonder just what all this little stuff is leading to. As a former cop I have my suspicions, but I do not have enough facts to make a case as yet. However, knowing that all criminals are driven by an insatiable greed -(and that greed can be for anything, not just money)- I am asking myself just what it is that all this is leading to, who is getting what from all this, and why? I admit that I do not have any answers as yet, but I cannot help but think that there is something that is driving these folks to chip away at our freedom, our economy, our basic needs for life.

    I guess that what I am trying to get across to all of you is this – ASK THE DAMN QUESTIONS! Not just of ourselves here on this and other blogs, but to our politicians, banks, auto manufacturers, etc. And don’t buy the lame excuse that it is for the overall good of mankind, because if our economy is destroyed it cannot benefit all mankind!

    LOI – you just added another piece to the puzzle, and like all investigations I have been involved in, the more I learn the more questions I have.

    USW, et al – Get everyone you know to start asking the question of just what good is this new law, regulation, requirement, etc. will do for us as individuals. Tell them to not accept “the greater good of mankind” BS that is being handed out.

    As for me, well I just don’t know where all this stuff is leading to, but my local politicians are starting to avoid me like the plaque because I always ask the hard questions and do not accept any lame excuse whatsoever.

    (the problem with proof reading ones own writings is that one has a tendency to want to change it all, over and over until it all sounds like the inane ramblings of an old fart – I guess that comes with age too, so I hope this hasn’t rambled on too much)

    • Papa,

      The hijack is welcome as the thought behind the article is what else is going on that we are missing? All these little pieces seem to be adding up to a picture none of us will like.

    • Papa,

      What IS your suspicion? I wonder if its similar to mine….

      • Cyndi P

        Like LOI said, what else is going on that all these little things are adding up to?

        I do not know where all this is leading to, but it has to be leading to something. It is just way too much to be just a coincidence.

        Just what that is remains to be seen.

    • Well PapaDwag, lloks like you’re not exactly alone when it comes to suspicion. This arrived in my email…

      The No Bull Newsletter is written by a group of attorneys in Australia .. You may learn more about them by googling the name “No Bull Newsletter”. This article does give you a great deal to think about!

      The NoBull Newsletter

      Who’s Really Running the Show?

      I have been having a nagging intuition lately that something is not quite right about Barack Obama. I am not suggesting there is something wrong with the man, per se. Nor am I talking about the crazy, even dangerous, policies coming out of the White House.

      No, lately, I have been wondering if Barack Obama is, in fact, the person who is actually functioning as President of the United States .

      I mean, there’s no doubt that he fills the position of POTUS but is he really the one in command? The man actually seems lost at times. He seems to be reacting to ideas about which he does not really have a clue. He has left the writing of this health care bill to Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives and she, in turn, has farmed the writing out to several fairly radical community action groups.

      When questioned about health care, he seems not to know or understand the details and even with his silver-tongue seems unable to demonstrate any leadership on the issue.

      With respect to Afghanistan and the rest of our foreign policy, he seems equally lost. Especially when it comes to dealing with other world leaders. He makes beautiful speeches but seems to be unable to cut deals which benefit our nation. He seems to be acting as a pawn of much more clever world leaders.

      The more I watch the man, the more I see a person who appears to be the “face” of some other entity or group. He seems like a “front man”. And it is becoming clear that his strings are being pulled by someone else. He does not appear to be the man in command of the ship of state. At least, he is not in the driver’s seat.

      You might recall that people said about Bush that he was a front man for the neo-cons and that it was really Dick Cheney that was running the show. It turns out that Dick Cheney was not as influential in Bush’s second term as many thought but, perhaps it is true that the neo-cons, whoever they may be, were pulling some of Bush’s strings.

      On the other hand, with Obama, it does not appear that there is anyone who is visible to we the people, or the media, who is pulling the strings. If they are there, they are not in elected positions as Cheney was. They are better hidden than that.

      We know that Obama has been, and remains, surrounded by life-long radicals, professed communists and anti-capitalists, some of whom he has even appointed as czars in his administration. Thirty six czars, to date.

      But is it Obama who is picking the czars, or is it the czars who are running the show and propping up Obama as their front man?

      I know all this may sound crazy but, really, when you look at the man without the idolatry and media worship, does he really look like he knows what he is doing? Does he seem to have a direction? Firm convictions? Something he deeply believes in? The more he talks now, the more his words seem empty of content. Platitudes about America and the American people which, when he says them, simply do not ring true. They are words being mouthed but not believed by him.

      Okay, so maybe he is really clever, is firmly moving the ship to the left while mouthing the words of a centrist. But I don’t think so.

      What I used to think was that he was a really slick conman who was making us watch his left hand while he was manipulating us with his right. But, now I don’t think that so much. I think the man is more plastic than real. Now I begin to see him as the “Great and Powerful Oz”: a fearsome presence who is being manipulated by men behind the curtain. And while Obama does not have strong convictions, the men behind the curtain do. And they are moving this country down a dangerous path. All the while, we are being distracted by Obama and what he says and does.

      Okay, maybe I am simply a mildly paranoid conspiracy theorist. Why, you might ask, have Obama up there? Why not have one of the actual people behind the curtain run for President. Well, being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I can come up with an answer to that question.

      Those other people behind the curtain have backgrounds that are so radical that they would never have made it past the first few days of a campaign. Additionally, they are life-long community organizers and they know what kind of face can be effective if you wish to radically change the nation.

      First, you need a black man to gain the support of the vast black minority.

      Second, you need a pale skinned black man so as not to be too much of a threat to white Americans. For the same reasons, you need a mixed race man who allies himself with the poor and down-trodden.

      And you need someone who speaks well enough to co-opt the language of the right and appear to be a uniter, not a divider. Someone who sees, or at least can articulate, both sides of an issue.. This is the kind of man you would pick to be your front man so that while you move things drastically and dramatically left, the vast majority of Americans will not believe that was the intention of the moderate appearing front man.

      Yes, Obama was a community organizer. Yes, he could be clever enough to have all this be his idea. But he really wasn’t a community organizer for that long. And when he was, he didn’t do anything truly radical. It was more a time during which he was being trained than a time when he was driven by a personal sense of commitment to anything in particular.

      There are people who are now in his government who have been community organizers and radical left wing activists for 20-30 years. These people have deeply ingrained commitments to changing the system and have been actively trying to do so for all that time. Obama is not one of them.

      In my view, Obama has been trained and used as a puppet by others for a long time. His successes seem to have come too easily, as if they have been orchestrated. His life appears to have been pre-planned.

      · I mean, Harvard Law Review without publishing a single paper of note. That is unusual.

      · A community organizer for a short time.

      · A State legislator for a short time.

      · A freshman US Senator. (143 days)

      · A convention key-note speaker.

      o And then POTUS. How does that happen? A person with zero governmental administrative experience is running the entire government of the United States …

      How do 1100 page documents get developed and put out in such short order?

      Who is writing all these proposals?

      Does it not seem that something is just not quite right here?

      Forget about the specifics of the policies for the moment. Have you ever seen this level of activity in the first few months of any other administration in your lifetime?

      Does Obama seem like the kind of person that could manage this level of activity in so short a time?

      Too much does not make sense here.

      So, slowly but surely, I am becoming convinced that it is not Barack Obama who is running the show. The White House has been captured by a group of people who are using Barack Obama as their front man. He is nothing but an articulate but empty suit. We have to start looking behind the curtains to find out who is really controlling the “great and powerful Obama”.

      Something to think about…………..

  13. Bottom Line says:

    USW – ” Over the last couple of weeks, I have read a lot of comments that espoused the idea that we have to begin taking action. I hear those calls, and I certainly echo them. There is much to be said for action. We must make sure that our actions are in line with our philosophical discussions in order to ensure that the results are what we want. But action is needed now. For all those who read here regularly, I urge you to write an article that outlines the actions that you believe we need to be taking. That allows all of us here to read the plan, evaluate it, and make sure that it falls in line with the principles and values that we all commonly share. The first step to action is a plan. I understand this. I wish that I, as the author of this site, had all the answers to cure the ills of America, but alas I do not. But I have thus far gathered an impressive group of folks. I am sure we can compile and implement action items if we can just get them into the discussion realm. So get writing patriots! ”

    BL – A couple of weeks ago I got about 20 paragraphs into typing an outline of the steps for a systematic multi-stage plan to take the country back. I had only started. Instead of writing 80 more paragraphs, I erased it as it is all a moot point.

    We CAN take our country back, but we won’t. We’re all gonna talk in circles ’till it hits the fan…

    …then we’re gonna die.

    The answer to the call to action is to teach the next generation the principles and philosophies to use as a basis when they rebuild society.

    We’re not gonna stop it. We’re late.

    It’s all going to hell.

    And we’ll likely all be too old or dead when it comes time to rebuild.

    Youth is king.

    Order out of chaos.

    • Are You Listening?

      Wow! If you haven’t been to the Web site lately, you may want to check out the number of visitors who have. You will be impressed!

      Houston’s ABC affiliate ran a short segment on GOOOH that was outstanding. Click here to watch the two minute video. Please consider forwarding this message to every person you know. We now have well over 100,000 members and watchers; 500,000 is critical mass. If you are ready to fire the politicians and elect true citizen representatives, make it your mission to get five others to join us. Remember, we do not want or need money right now—just an email address.

      We have established leadership teams in most of the 50 states. Their impact has already been felt, but we need additional help. Contact your state leader if you are willing to join your state’s team. You will be given occasional assignments, like the following, that take but a few minutes. Collectively they are working brilliantly, spreading the word and recruiting new members. Actions you can take today:

      1) Contact Neal Boortz – he asked his listeners for information about GOOOH
      2) Join the Patriot Call GOOOH group

      3) If you support the FairTax, join the FairTaxNation GOOOH group

      4) Add the GOOOH logo to your email signature, and use it everywhere you can

      5) Join a GOOOH Meetup group in your area, or start one. Or, link your meetup group to the National GOOOH group

      Our 25,000+ active members have created a buzz that has begun to stir the nation. What feels like a gentle breeze will soon become hurricane force winds that will blow the politicians from OUR House. But we must work to generate that force. Nobody else will. You, personally, must be willing to dedicate your time and energy to make it happen. Will you commit to recruit new members for just 15 minutes each week? Consider this: every time someone calls you, ask them to do you a favor and check out GOOOH.com. You will be amazed at the response you get.

      The parties have built a formidable wall around OUR House, but it can be breached. They have used legislation to stifle competition, including setting absurdly early deadlines for ballot access. The sooner we get to 500,000 members, the easier it will be to unseat the scheming politicians who have done everything possible to ensure we do not have an honest choice. They know the polls show that over 80% of us disapprove of the job they are doing, and they have no intention of competing honorably or fairly. They have convinced themselves that of the 660,000 members in their district, they alone are the ONLY person capable of representing you and me. They have accepted that it is reasonable to collect a million dollars in special interest bribes to fund their campaign and then repay the financiers with pork projects funded by our tax dollars. They have no qualms voting the way their party tells them they must while ignoring their constituents. They truly believe the general welfare clause in the Constitution gives them carte blanche to do whatever they darn well please. It is time to say ENOUGH!

      As the Christmas season draws near, and we become consumed with work, shopping, parties and dozens of other activities, I request that you ask yourself this one question, “How much longer can we allow our country to continue on its current trajectory?” Both Parties, red and blue, have amassed this $12 trillion deficit. They have both left the borders wide open while unemployment soars above 10% (17% by some measures). They funnel $65 billion to a bureaucracy that allows one third of our kids to fail. They have created a 78,000 page tax code not even they understand to ensure those who fund them are financially rewarded. They ignored incompetence and financial failings at Fannie and Freddie so they would not offend voters—permitting the housing market to crash. They fund government monopolies like Amtrak and the Postal Service that lose billions of dollars each year. I could go on, but you get i t. You are reading this because you know in your heart we must do things differently.

      GOOOH is the solution. The plan could not be any simpler. God has blessed our nation. You are being called to help save it. I know you are listening. Now, you must get everyone you know and meet to do the same.

      In liberty,
      Tim C

      And then there are the Tea Parties and Project 9/12,,,

  14. From John Stossel’s “Give Me a Break”

    In 2000, the city of Austin began marketing bottled water to the public for “promotional purposes”. City water poured into tanker trucks, then bottled.
    A case of 24 sells for $6.00, but cost $8.90. Only a government monopoly, with no competition, can sell tap water for more than the price of gasoline, and still manage to loose money.

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs has two billion dollars unaccounted for. There have been no demotions, firings, reprimands or indictments.

    At the Pentagon, the accounting discrepancies total 2 trillion.

    Jersey City, New Jersey had foul tasting water and sometimes failed safety test.
    City workers said the could not fix the rusted pipes. Mayor Bret Schundler bid the water contract out to private companies. The low bidder fixed the problem in months, and saved the city $35 million.

    The New York Times ran a front page story on Aug. 19, 2000, featuring a picture, stating “The North Pole is Melting”. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean has turned to water…something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting the climate.

    Opps…ten days later the Times apologized, saying it”misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientist say, because about ten percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice during a typical summer”.

    But by then, The Washington Post, USA Today, AP, NPR, American and Canadian TV had all reported on the warming story. NBC Nightly News said a “mile wide” stretch of water where ice should be”. CNN said the ice cap “is loosing its ice”. CNN, CBS and Canadian TV all interviewed the same “global warming expert”, who was quoted by the Times.

  15. v. Holland says:

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Well damn V, that made my eyes tear up. I liked the song though.

      Hope you’re doing well tonight.

  16. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BA45320091211

    IRS hires “hundreds” for new wealth unit

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new Internal Revenue Service unit set up to catch rich tax cheats hiding their wealth in complex business entities is rapidly taking shape with the hiring of hundreds of employees.

    The IRS high wealth unit, part of a broader effort to combat international tax evasion, is focusing on “the entire web of business entities controlled by a high wealth individual,” IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told a tax conference this week.

    Another IRS official told Reuters “hundreds” of people have already been hired to staff the new unit, including some from within the agency.

    “We have drawn top talent within the IRS that have expertise involving wealthy individuals as well as examination of their related entities,” said Mae Lew, an IRS special counsel.

    The high-wealth unit is focusing on trusts, real estate investments, privately held companies and other business entities controlled by rich individuals.

    While use of sophisticated legal structures can be legal, in other instances they “mask aggressive tax strategies,” Shulman said.

    Tax authorities in Japan, Germany and the UK have also created similar units.

    The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a $387 million boost for the IRS for the fiscal year that started October 1, in part to fund the high-wealth unit. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure on Sunday.

    NEW GLOBAL FOCUS, JOINT CORPORATE AUDITS

    The IRS is also opening new criminal offices in Beijing, Panama City and Sydney to focus on funds flowing out of Europe and into Asia, in part because of a heightened focus on international enforcement in Europe.

    The goal is to get those up and running during this fiscal year, which ends September 30, according to Barry Shott, IRS deputy commissioner for international issues for large and midsized business.

    At the center of the agency’s offshore effort is its legal cases against Swiss banking giant UBS AG. UBS agreed to turn over nearly 5,000 names of individual American clients and paid $780 million to settle a criminal case for aiding tax evasion.

    The IRS has also begun initial steps to join forces with other governments to scrutinize corporate tax filings to prevent “tax arbitrage” by companies seeking the best regime.

    President Barack Obama has proposed tightening tax rules for U.S. multinationals, including one in which companies delay paying taxes on income earned offshore, a legal practice known as deferral that officials say is abused.

    Some tax practitioners expressed worry about such coordination.

    “With any new thing, you never want to be the guinea pig,” Mary Lou Fahey, general counsel for the Tax Executive Institute, comprised of business executives, said.

    Shott said a likely scenario will likely be two countries getting together and decide to examine a narrow issue. In the beginning it will operate like a pilot program where the corporation examined would agree to take part.

    “With rare exception … the taxpayer will absolutely know they are subject to a simultaneous examination,” Shott said.

    Still, he said there could be cases where the audit needs to be kept quiet, such as when a criminal probe is ongoing.

    Initial partners would likely include Canada, the UK and Australia, Shott said.

    ________

    Institute an onerous tax system and behavior will change to avoid payment. How much money is wasted each year just avoiding, calculating, investigating, collecting, etc. taxes because the system is so complex and rates unnecessarily high? When health care is passed, the IRS will have direct access to your bank account. How much money will go under the mattress?

    • I have a big chunk already under the mattress, well, in the safe. If they were interested in results, they would target large political donors and lobbyists. Every Goldmanite, Freddie/Fannie exec. would receive a rectal exam looking for ill gotten gains. Woops, did I say that outloud?

    • The FairTax

  17. Should be a video of a F-350 shooting flames out exhaust.

  18. Snow is falling, wind is cold and,

    The Univ. of Montana just beat Appalachia State at the gun. They now play Vanderbilt for the National Championship.

    Here that BCS jerks? A national champion determined by a playoff. Four games total.

    Will be over before Christmas.

    What was all those excuses you had? Yeah, students need time for final exams? Wonder how all the other divisions manage to get their final exams done and still have a playoff.

    What famous NFL player comes from Vanderbilt?

    No Googling, got know off the top of yer head.

    The best to all this evening
    JAC

    • Snow falling? No clue to your NFL’er, but

      Amy Grant is probably the best modern Christmas singer.

    • CORRECTION

      Montana will play Villanova not Vandy for the national title. The radio announcer gave the wrong name. I checked ESPN to make sure as it didn’t seem right.

      I have made a grave error and applologize to Vandy for moving you down a division and to Villanova for not recognizing your great effort.

      Since Vandy won’t be playing I will go ahead and give one more hint on their famous player. He played for a true Black Flag of a team (not the Bucaneers) and loves to talk.

    • Saw that game JAC…. App State is big news here in Carolina. A lot of those kids come into my store. They gave themselves a chance there at the end. I thought he was gonna catch that last pass at the end. Disappointing loss, but Montana deserved the win.

      By famous do you mean “a name people know” or “good”. Jay Cutler came from Vandy. If I recall he was the SEC offensive player of the year a couple of years ago. Is that who you are thinking of?

      • USW

        Yes it was a great game. Only listened on the radio. That QB for Appy is sure something. If not for him MT would have won going away. Well that and the mistakes the MT QB made. Tossing a pick was one thing, but getting sacked for -10 yards when the game is on the line late?

        The last play was a perfect pass (saw highlights on ESPN net). If not for the freezing snow it would probably have been caught. The temps were in the teens as well. The MT coach said before the game that the Appy QB was probably the best offensive player to ever play at Grizzly stadium. He just hoped it would also be his last game. Guess sometimes HOPE works out OK.

        MT got their fanny spanked last year. Will be interesting to see this year. The two best might have played today.

        The Vandy player I am thinking of is both famous and good. I didn’t remember that Cutler was from Vandy, but not him.

        Hope you had a good day my friend.
        JAC

        • Perhaps Bill Wade. I know that is going back a while, but I think he won a Championship with either LA or Chicago. Those are the two big ones I remember.

          • USW

            OK, since your the only one playing.

            I do believe Howie Long played at Vandy and finished with great grades as well.

            Good morning to you and family.
            JAC

          • USW:

            Twice in one day I got Vandy and Villanova mixed up.

            Just realized I mixed the two up regarding Howie Long as well as who was playing Montana.

            Howie Long WAS a grad of Villanova, which IS playing Montana.

            That is why I thought of him when they announced the other winner in I-AA.

            Anyhow, I srewed up the big quiz…………sorry.

            Laughing at myself
            JAC

  19. Time to get down and dirty folks.

    Guarantee you will be reaching for the Kleenex. But not for the reason you think.

    True spirit of giving ala Denny Crane.

    Ho, Ho, Ho.
    JAC

    • Can’t watch right now, but I suspect I’ve seen it. BL was one of my fav’s. Loved when he refused to represent that rapist.

    • I take it he is a proponent of gun control.

    • Loved it JAC… I have grown to love Shatner over the twilight of his career. I also like his “Raw Nerve” interview show he does. Watched him interview Limbaugh last week. Thoroughly enjoyed the interview.

  20. You Know You’ve Had Too Much Christmas Cheer When…

    1. You notice your tie sticking out of your fly.
    2. Someone uses your tongue for a coaster.
    3. You start kissing the portraits on the wall.
    4. You see your underwear hanging from the chandelier.
    5. You have to hold on to the floor to keep from sliding off.
    6. You strike a match and light your nose.
    7. You take off your shoes and wade in the potato salad.
    8. You hear someone say, “Call a priest!”
    9. You hear a duck quacking and it’s you.
    10. You complain about the small bathroom after emerging from the closet.
    11. You refill your glass from the fish bowl.
    12. You tell everyone you have to go home… and the party’s at your place.
    13. You ask for another ice cube and put it in your pocket.
    14. You yawn at the biggest bore in the room… and realize you’re in front of the hall mirror.
    15. You pick up a roll, and butter your watch.
    16. You suggest everyone stand and sing the national budget.
    17. You’re at the dinner table and you ask the hostess to pass a bedpan.
    18. You take out your handkerchief and blow your ear.
    19. You tell your best joke to the rubber plant.
    20. You realize you’re the only one under the coffee table.

    • Congress’ Night Before Christmas

      “Twas the week before Christmas and those sly little elves,
      Our congressmen, labored to better themselves.
      They cared not a whit what the public might think
      “Let them eat cake,” some said with a wink.

      And putting their thumbs to the tip of their nose,
      they waved as they shouted “Anything goes!”

      They scoffed at the thought that we might object,
      to a tax cut for the wealthy of a posh percent.
      They’ve got prerequisites-franking, per diem, and more —
      bargain-priced haircuts and gyms (three or four!)

      Paid speaking engagements and meals on the cuff,
      celebrity status — (they’ve sure got it tough!),

      Yet they claim they’re in touch with the man on the street,
      as John Q. Public struggles to make both ends meet.
      If all workers decided what they were due,
      they’d be getting those fat paychecks too!

      But while we take cutbacks or raises quite small,
      and one out of 20 has no job at all,
      our millionaire Congress decides on the budget
      land trimming Medicare and Medicaid will do it, they say.

      In this season for giving, our Congress is taking.
      We’ve had it with them and our backs are breaking.
      With hard times, disasters, and layoffs on our dockets,
      we bit the bullet and they fill their pockets!

      Oh jobless, oh homeless, oh desperate and needy –
      dare anyone say our Congress is greedy?

      If in this feeling I’m not alone,
      take up your pen or pick up your phone.
      As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
      let the road of your anger mount to the sky.

      Indignant, outraged, appalled and beset
      let your congressman know that you won’t forget!
      When election times comes — and certain it will —
      you’re voting him out for passing that bill.

      More rapid than eagles, their elections assured
      they toasted each other and laughed at the herd.
      And I heard them exclaim with adjournment at hand,

      “Merry Christmas to us, and the public be damned!

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    We’re having snow here like you wouldn’t believe, snowing like crazy with more on the way for tonight. Suppose to have up 6 to 8 inches of this crap. Sorry, I just can’t take it anymore, been snowing since last Monday, or was it Sunday, can’t remember. And we still have Jan., Feb, and March to go through. Cabin fever has set in upon me. Just wanted to share all the wonderful snow we’re having. Looks like some of you all are getting the same thing.

    Hope you all will have a great rest of the night and a great tomorrow. I know I will.

    Hope to see you then.

    Love you all

    Judy

    • Aren’t you in Vegas??

    • Judy,

      Just had another 5.5 hr power outage. It was a tree limb right in front of the house. You had some big cells move through tonight with lightening and thunder and sleet. Brace yourself for more as I am sending it over the summit to you. What a week.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey T

        Whatever we get, I’ll be sure and share with you. You can have it. It snowed so bad last night, it was unbelievable. Had a mixture of rain combined with it, now we have that slushy wet snow, and it’s going to be a bitch to shovel. A lot more heavy. Sun’s out right now, so hopefully, it will melt some of it today.

        You’re getting bombarded with bad weather yourself there, with the wind and all. We haven’t had any wind yet, but you never know. I’m grateful for that though. We haven’t lost any power either, thank God, then we’d all freeze our butts off.

        Hope you will have a better day today T.

        Judy

    • Hell, wait until this new Arctic blast collides with all your wet weather.

      It might actually miss Nev and Utah, but is set to angle across Idaho as it heads east then turns northeast.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        That Arctic cold is hell to go through here. Nothing like having temps drop in the teens during the day, and below zero at night. We’ve had that at the beginning of this past week. One night was 6 below, with a high of only 18, but it’s gradually warming up for now.Suppose to get into the 40’s, then by Wednesday, another system is coming in with more snow. I can hardly wait. I’m sick of it already, and still have another 3months of this stuff. But, what are you going to do, can’t change it.

        Global warming my foot. I think Al Gore is cracked.

        Have a great day JAC

  22. Now that the climate hoax is falling apart, its time to move on to the next big scam – Over Population

    Point:
    http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

    The real inconvenient truth
    The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy

    Diane Francis, Financial Post
    Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009

    Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
    The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

    A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

    The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.

    Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

    The intelligence behind this is the following:

    -If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

    -By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

    -Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

    Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.

    The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

    None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

    China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

    For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

    The point is that Copenhagen’s talking points are beside the point.

    The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.

    dfrancis@nationalpost.com

    Counter Point:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/furious-reaction-to-sick-editorial-calling-for-global-one-child-dictatorship.html

    Furious Reaction To Sick Editorial Calling For Global One Child Dictatorship

    Francis advocates brutal regime that kidnaps, drugs women, and carries out forced abortions in China

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, December 11, 2009

    An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

    In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

    Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

    As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

    Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

    Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

    Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

    Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

    As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

    We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

    Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

    China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

    Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

    In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

    In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

    “According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

    “The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

    This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

    Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

    If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

    On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

    A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

    “Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

    “You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

    “That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

    “I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

    “It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

    “This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

    “And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”

    Posted in response to Papa’s suspicion of the nudging…..

    The good news here is that most people have the good sense to know forced population control is a very bad idea.

    • Cyndi,

      I watched a little of that the other day. I think I have joined you and other “nutcases” in how this looks for our nation. The extreme left has control of our government, and their agenda will result in total fascism. A ruling elite
      controlling the masses.

      • Welcome to the club. That fact that so many people don’t even want to hear about what’s going on, muchless take things seriously, makes our destruction almost inevitable. I’m petty much finished trying to inform people of what’s going on. I’m tired of the hostility or dismissive attitudes. You can’t save someone who doesn’t want saving. I figure these are the people who will keep the elites busy while I save myself. It reminds of me of the how-fast-do-you-have-to-run-to-out-run-an-alligator joke. Answer: only a little faster than your buddy.

        • When I first started reading and posting here I thought most of the events were not really planned and controlled. The liberal extremists
          on abortion, health care and the environment had common beliefs, but were focused on their
          issues, and paid little attention to the others
          worthy, but less important priority.

          Today, things seem way to coordinated. When healthcare goes to the senate, and climate change takes over the media, damn, could that have been planned?

          • I don’t believe all of this is coincidence. The 1960s radicals have had 40 years to work their plan while the sheeple were busy enjoying the green, green grass of Capitalism. Well, the wolves have now surrounded the herd and are moving them into the trap for slaughter. The few sheep that are smarter than rest can slip away because the wolves are focused on main herd.

            I think you’re somewhat correct in stating that most of the events weren’t planned and controlled. I think they were co-opted by a malvolent group of 1960s radicals. Things now ARE controlled but there is still a large group of useful idiots that give the impression of small groups of extremists working to their own ends. This gives cover to the malvolence at work. In addtion to having two parties of corrupt politicians feeding at the trough, we have a group of 1960s radicals with their international allies actively trying to destroy America and her citizens. The nutjob in Iran stated it perfectly: Imagine a world without America. That is their goal.

            • I have come to agree with your take on it. I hope and believe our 2nd amendment will make a difference, that we will not allow them to force us to an action. Their success has been with coercing. Many are not sheep, wildebeests perhaps, willing to go along with the herd for the most part, but will fight before being driven over a cliff.

              • By the time Americans commune with their inner wildebeast, America as we have known it, will be gone. The silver lining there is the leftist coalition that has been working to destroy/neutralize America will fracture once they acheive their main objective. Diversity will work against them as it has worked against us. The Remnant MIGHT be able to use that to their advantage. That will allow them to survive, maybe even prosper a little, but overall, the world as we have known it, is about to end.

                And on that note, I must end for a few hours. I have to head to work again today. More OT! Have a good one LOI and I’ll catch you later when I can put my feet up!

              • v. Holland says:

                Tracy Chapman — Crossroads lyrics

                All you folks think you own my life
                But you never made any sacrifice
                Demons they are on my trail
                I’m standing at the crossroads of the hell
                I look to the left I look to the right
                There’re hands that grab me on every side

                All you folks think I got my price
                At which I’ll sell all that is mine
                You think money rules when all else fails
                Go sell your soul and keep your shell
                I’m trying to protect what I keep inside
                All the reasons why I live my life

                Some say the devil be a mystical thing
                I say the devil he a walking man
                He a fool he a liar conjurer and a thief
                He try to tell you what you want
                Try to tell you what you need

                Standing at the point
                The road it cross you down
                What is at your back
                Which way do you turn
                Who will come to find you first
                Your devils or your gods

                All you folks think you run my life
                Say I should be willing to compromise
                I say all you demons go back to hell
                I’ll save my soul save myself

  23. Bottom Line says:

    This was originally written in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper on March 7, 1985 By a man named Charlie Reese under the title “Looking For Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start”.

    It has been since modified and circulated with the title “The 545 People Responsible for America’s Woes”.

    It’s an interesting read. You may have already read it.

    Looking For Someone To Blame? Congress Is Good Place To Start

    By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

    I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

    No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

    A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

    Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

    The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

    O’neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

    REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.

    I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

    When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

    There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

    Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

  24. Judy Sabatini says:
  25. v. Holland says:

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi V

      Great video and I like the song too.

      Hope you’re doing well today.

      • v. Holland says:

        Doing good Judy-Hope you are too-I love the above song-one of my favorites.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Doing just fine, except for all the snow we got over the past few days here. Finally got a break today, sun is peeking out between the clouds, so it’s helping in melting some of the snow. Not as cold either, but cold enough.

          Just going to be biding time until the next ones comes roaring in on Wednesday.

          Glad to hear you’re doing good.

  26. Judy Sabatini says:

    Excuse me, but didn’t he tell those financial institutions to loan people that money?

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/vid/default.aspx?videoId=18049

  27. Judy Sabatini says:

    Looks like ole Tiger isn’t out of the Woods yet.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580125,00.html

    • v. Holland says:

      I gotta say, I personally don’t think what Tiger does is any of my business and I hate the way the media gets a hold of a story like this and just won’t let it die-As far as the women involved in these relationships, you would think they would have enough pride to have a little shame and would just shut up.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I personally think it’s a way for them to get their names in the paper. Look what happened to Bill Clinton and all the women that came out of the wood work there. But I think for the most part, I agree with you, but then he shouldn’t have done what he did.

        I read that he is a sex addict, now whether that’s true or not, I couldn’t say. But, some people just don’t learn.

        • v. Holland says:

          Most of us don’t learn until there is a cost to pay-as far as him being a sex addict-just a way to try and excuse his behavior-what bothers me more about situations like this one is the change in what is accepted in our society, now you mess with a married man, speak up and you can write a book and become rich.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I really feel sorry for his wife and kids in all this. I understand she went back to Sweden to be with her family.

            He says he’s going to try and make amends with this, but how can somebody honestly make amends once this gets leaked out. He’s going to be paying bi. Heck he’s already been dumped by most of his sponsors. I don’t think he’s going to be playing much golf in the future, he has really made a name for himself now, hasn’t he.

      • The comment from “The Dark Knight”

        You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain

        Tiger lived too long in the spotlight.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          You think so Flag? What makes you say that? Honestly, I found him to be rather on the arrogant side. Didn’t get his way on the course, he’d get mad and break his club. Sounds more like a spoiled little brat to me.

          But, that’s my opinion too.

        • v. Holland says:

          Good quote and very true-although you have to admit that he really did push it, unless some of these women are lying or he really wanted to be caught or he’s just vain enough to think he could get away with it. Whichever, I feel compassion for his family and I really wish the media would back off, as titillating as some might find it, it really isn’t necessary for us to know all the sorted details.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Very true V, but you know how the media plays everything up. Look what they did to Palin and her family, dragged her daughter through the coals, saying how her down syndrome son was really her daughters, even though she was already pregnant.

            I think if you have a big name, and you play the game, it’s bound to come out. And I don’t mean just playing golf either.

            I agree with what you said about leaving them alone, I really don’t want to hear about all the sorted details either. Let him and his wife work it out without the media or any one else being involved, because it would/could make things worse for him, if that’s possible.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hope they’re happy now. Looks like out taxes are going up to pay for all this.

    Senate OKs $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

    FOXNews.com

    The Senate passed on Sunday a massive spending bill that wraps up $1.1 trillion of the $3.6 trillion annual budget for fiscal year 2010, which started Oct. 1.

    The Senate passed on Sunday a massive spending bill that wraps up $1.1 trillion of the $3.6 trillion annual budget for fiscal year 2010, which started Oct. 1.

    The House has already passed identical legislation, and President Obama has indicate he’d sign it.

    The 1,000-plus-page bill covers spending for the Departments of Education, State, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, among others. In all, six of the 12 spending bills Congress is required to pass each year is folded into one measure that raises spending for its designated programs by an average of about 10 percent, or well above the inflation rate.

    The bill puts the government on track to create a $1.5 trillion deficit in annual spending projected by the Office of Management and Budget this past summer. Defense spending is the only appropriations bill remaining and is likely to get bipartisan support if it doesn’t include an amendment attached by Democrats to raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion.

    The Senate voted Sunday 57-35 on the legislation. Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri voted against the bill. Republican Sens. Thad Cochran of Missouri, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Richard Shelby of Alabama voted for it.

    The measure includes $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in entitlement spending for federal benefits programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It pays for veterans’ programs, the NASA space agency and the FBI. It provides a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers. It does not include Social Security and other Medicare health insurance entitlements

    An estimated $3.9 billion goes to more than 5,000 home-state projects sought by individual lawmakers in both parties.

    Republican Sen. John McCain issued a list of pork projects included in the bill and urged Obama to veto it.

    Spending for the programs that didn’t go through the regular channels includes millions for music and arts, fisheries and botanical gardens and transportation and medical research studies.

    McCain noted $2.7 million goes to supporting surgical operations in Outer Space, a program studied at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

    “Maybe we need to support surgical operations in outer space. Do we need it at the University of Nebraska? No,” said McCain, who then added really only “Trekkies,” or Star Trek fans, actually think the U.S. should pay for surgeries in outer space.

    Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said the spending vote marked “a black day for our nation.”

    But the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said the measure restores money for programs cut under former President George W. Bush such as popular grant programs for local police departments to purchase equipment and put more officers on the beat.

    The legislation also:

    — Includes an improved binding arbitration process to challenge the decision by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to close more than 2,000 dealerships.

    — Renews a federal loan guarantee program for steel companies.

    — Permits detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be transferred to the U.S. for trial, but not to be released.

    — Calls for federal worker pay increases averaging 2 percent.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Are We Still in a Recession?

    FOXNews.com

    White House economic adviser Larry Summers says that everyone can agree the recession is over and Americans have “walked back from the brink,” as experts predict that the unemployment rate could climb higher.

    As the Senate votes to pass massive $1.1 trillion spending bill that raises the federal borrowing limit, do you think the recession has ended?

    Do you think the recession is over?
    Yes. We’re out of the woods, and the jobs situation will improve.
    No. More still needs to be done.
    It’s too soon to tell for sure.

    • Judy,

      You have to remember the definition: If you are out of work it is a recession, if I am out of work it is a depression. So your view is different than mine.:)

      We have been seeing a steady increase in spending by big corporations for the last 5 months. It is still not what it was. Now a lot of this is spending captital money that disappears at the end of the year, so they saved their resources until the last minute. We also see increased spending on supplies so they are again emptying their budgets for the year. Hence, I expect spending to slow down in the first quarter as everyone reassess the situation. My guess is moderate improvement throughout 2010 with moderate gains in jobs. This will last until the election. Then inflation will start to hit and we could be in for a depressing second recession. If that happens, Obama’s goose is cooked unless he can buy enough votes with what is left of the our borrowing power. I feel sorry for the one that follows.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey T-Ray

        Well, I am out of work right now, got laid off in October when our cousin bought my brother in law’s lab. So, I guess I’m still in a recession then, right?

        My husband is only working there on a part time basis in getting samples and doing other things there, and we’re not bringing in the money we were before, so I have to be tight right now.

        I keep hearing about these jobs that were suppose to be happening, but I don’t see it. Hell, people here are still looking for work, and if you do apply, you have to know how to speak Spanish, and that gripes my butt like you wouldn’t believe. Why should I have to know how to speak Spanish? Shouldn’t they know how to speak English?

        Reid keeps talking about all these jobs he’s brought to Nevada, and I keep asking, where? Unless you have some sort of degree or can speak Spanish, you’re screwed. Brought jobs my you know what.

    • v. Holland says:

      I do not know enough about economics to know whether we are in a recession, entering a depression or ripe for inflation-I personally think most of this doublespeak is just a play on definitions, so I’m gonna borrow JAC’s words and just say-I may not know the above but I know that “WE ARE SO SCREWED”

  30. v. Holland says:

    From The Times
    December 14, 2009
    Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger
    Catherine Philp in Washington

    * 16 Comments

    Recommend? (5)

    Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

    The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

    An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece

  31. Judy Sabatini says:

    This government and all it’s spending, these people in Washington don’t have a clue what’s it’s doing to the people, and how they’re trying to keep afloat as it is. We’re just one of many households as it is in making sure we can pay all our bills on time.

    Sure, there they are, flying around all over the world and on who’s dime? They have their limo’s private jets and planes, people to do everything for them, except to wipe their butts, but then, you never know about that too. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least, if they have a handy dandy butt wiper waiting.

    They pass all these bills and not even read what’s in them. Lets just get it passed and not worry about the little guy who is trying like hell to make ends meet, or the person who is going to college and try to get a degree, and how they’re paying for it. No, I’m not talking about those who have rich parents or those who are going to school on the G I Bill, I’m talking about those people who might have to work 2 to 3 jobs just to be able to make tuition. Now I understand they want to raise tuition fees as well. What are thy suppose to do, quit school because they can’t afford to continue with their education?

    These people who run this country couldn’t make it in the outside world if they had too. Aren’t most of them rich anyway? Money doesn’t matter to them and how they spend it, whether it be theirs or ours. And what about those who are on a fixed income? How are they going to survive if they have to pay higher taxes with this new bill? I don’t believe for one minute, that only those who make less than $250,000 will not get shafted. I don’t know anybody who makes that kind of money, do you?

    I don’t know about anybody else, but our money tree quit blooming a long time ago. Maybe next year, we’ll have better luck, I don’t know. These people in Washington had better wise up and start listening to the people and quit ignoring us because I think if they don’t they will be losing their jobs as well. God, I hope so anyway.

    Sorry for the rant, but I’m getting very tired of being told what’s good for me and my family, and what’s not good for us, that I can just scream at the top of my lungs. They don’t know me, they don’t know what’s good for me, they could care less about any of us, except for their own well being and what they can get from from us.

  32. Judy Sabatini says:
  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Now, who you going to believe? One person says it’s over, and another person syas it’s not.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/top-economic-adviser-of-course-recession-isnt-over/

  34. Interesting article. This is an interesting site and you may want to check it out.

    http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/merrick/merrick6.html

  35. v. Holland says:
  36. Judy Sabatini says:

    A real classic with Abbott and Costello

  37. According to the date, this was written FIVE YEARS AGO. Hmmmmm…..

    http://www.amerigold.com/the_seer/index.php?mod=cnt&act=cnt&id=35

    Be Careful What You Wish For
    November 4, 2004

    Many investors and traders that have a keen desire for higher gold complex prices, believe that it will be wonderful when gold finally breaks free from the shackles that have long restrained it, and soars wildly higher in price. Some of these individuals believe that gold is headed towards $600 while others can barely contain their emotions believing that the sky’s the limit. Many of these excited souls ponder the extent of their future wealth when the noble metal ultimately surpasses its earlier $875 high set in 1980, and soars to the $2,000, $3,000 or even $4,000 level that certain conditions may ultimately justify. Unfortunately, few direct their thoughts to even remotely consider the events that must first unfold in order to propel gold to these mind-boggling prices. Further, far fewer have any understanding of the consequences to our great nation and its citizenry, themselves included, that will result if these underlying driving forces truly play out, and propel the eternal metal to the untold heights that they believe are its fate.

    I feel that the majority of gold community members who believe that the yellow metal is destined to greatly rise, ascribe to the belief that the dollar will sharply fall in parity against the currencies of our international trading partners. They rightly recognize that our current account, balance of payments, and fiscal deficits cannot be sustained, and will one day prove damaging to our nation. They give lip service to the recognition that at some point other countries will demand a real form of payment, in return for the valuable goods and services purchased by our country, rather than continue to solely accept declining dollar credits. Yet, they avoid believing what they see when they gaze into the future.

    It has been incredibly beneficial for America to possess the world’s reserve currency. Our officials learned long ago how to use this condition to their advantage. It provided our Federal Reserve with the ability to literally create dollars at will, without the need for our inhabitants to be similarly productive as did all of those who supplied us with their wares. Heretofore, controlling the reserve currency came with the responsibility to maintain its integrity and value. This was the case for decades because it benefited international trade and fostered both a strong American economy and financial system.
    Unfortunately, for various reasons this goal has been abandoned. At the forefront of these, is that possessing the world’s primary currency allowed our country to become supported by the sweat and efforts of those toiling in far away lands, without our giving them anything of value in return. All that was necessary was to create dollar credits literally from thin air, and use them to pay for our foreign purchases. Sadly, this state has caused America to become accustomed to living far beyond its means. This, without the knowledge, recognition or understanding of this true underlying reason by most of our fellow citizens.

    The enormous and increasing U.S. budget deficits on the other hand are similarly unsustainable. To date, countries such as Japan and China along with the European Union members have helped fund these deficits. They acquired Treasuries with the expectation that the dollar would maintain its value, and gladly purchased our bills, notes and bonds with the belief that they made a wise investment. History taught them that when they desired to sell these assets they would not only receive a similar or greater amount of their own currency in return, but would also gain interest on their holdings in the interim to boot. They were in for a shock.

    I believe that gold is presently quite undervalued. To my mind the purchasing power of an ounce of gold is far greater than the current $425 for which it sells. However, in order for gold to trade far in excess of the $600 or so that I feel conditions currently warrant, a number of events must first transpire.

    The United States has been riding the crest of a growing tidal wave since 1971. This began when President Richard M. Nixon “closed the gold window”. That infamous day occurred in August when I was first honeymooning in Europe. During the ensuing week or so after the announcement I could not exchange more than a $20 bill or traveler’s check for any local currency. It was that fateful announcement that removed the final vestige of gold backing from the dollar. This opened the door to an unconstrained issuance of paper money, and later electronic dollar credits, by our Federal Reserve System.

    Throughout the subsequent period our country became increasingly dependent upon the rest of the world’s generosity, or some say naivete. Initially, they bought our Treasury paper with the expatriated dollars that flowed from our land in exchange for their products. This helped fill the gap and largely paid for our government’s chronic fiscal deficits. Later, our ever kind trading allies gladly accepted our readily produced dollars in exchange for their valuable services and goods. They were thrilled when the dollar soared in value on international markets between 1995 and 2001, and barely batted an eye when the greenback reversed course and began its present descending path.

    We have all heard the euphemism that, “the U.S. pretended to pay foreigners with dollars and they pretended to be paid”. In truth, it became a symbiotic relationship. The U.S. government found a way to finance their growing deficit spending propensity, and our trading partners required an eager outlet to sell their goods and services. This in turn helped improve their economies, their employment rates and the standard of living for their citizens. It also helped keep their leaders in power.
    The result was an unprecedented explosion in both global economic growth and the creation of U.S. dollar credits. Unfortunately, just as it appears that we are in the twilight of the world’s greatest, widespread economic boom, we are also at the dawn of what will likely become the demise of the heretofore almighty dollar.

    At some point, one by one, our trading partners will balk at being reimbursed with dollars for delivering their goods onto U.S. soil. The likely trigger for such an event will be the declining parity of the dollar. The question is the level of pain that each country can withstand, i.e. the extent to which the dollar must fall against their local monetary units, before they rebel.
    What few people recognize or care to consider are the events that will unfold when this time arrives. True, gold will be at a far higher dollar price. But what economic and social price will be its cost?
    When the world begins to reject the dollar they will sell their accumulated U.S. Treasuries. They will no longer desire these vehicles to act as a store for their dollar holdings. This will cause a sharp increase in domestic interest rates as their Treasury paper is sold into the market. Our earlier loyal trading partners will then take their received dollars and sell them for their own currencies. This will act to further depress the dollar’s value on the world market. Further the Federal Reserve, who will be the ultimate redeemer of the Treasuries, will be forced to issue new dollar credits. This will create a flood of dollars entering our monetary system, will balloon our money supply, and threaten a serious outbreak of domestic inflation.

    The combination of increasing interest rates, a falling dollar, and a sharply rising money supply will produce a second series of events. The higher rates will damage the balance sheets of our country’s businesses and will threaten the housing market. Further, the monthly interest payments on our already highly debt burdened populace will soar. Stocks will weaken and single family home sales will decline. This will drive consumers to limit their purchases.
    These damaging events will be amplified when the “wealth effect” begins to wear off and Americans experience a triple whammy. Stocks will plummet, homes values will fall, and the news of layoffs will fill the airwaves. This will act to further restrict consumer spending and will foster a sharp decline in business activity.

    Additionally, the falling dollar will increase the price of imported goods entering our markets. This, combined with the sharply rising money supply, will not only add to the cost of living but will promote the threat of inflation. Further, foreigners will reduce their U.S. stockholdings for fear of additional currency and stock market losses.

    Consumers, already reeling from their increased cost of living, the fear of additional stock and home equity losses, and the threat of reduced incomes or their own unemployment, will further retard their spending. This will add to the damage sustained by our fragile economy and place still more workers on the unemployment rolls. These will swell while personal and business bankruptcies soar, and the cycle will feed upon itself and spiral lower.

    Of course the Federal Reserve will attempt to counteract these forces. We have already been comforted by statements from Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, a Fed governor, that they will create dollars at will if needed through various schemes to circumvent a catastrophe. However, if they execute their methods they will only worsen the outcome. Yes, the Fed’s machinations will likely temporarily forestall a severe economic downdraft and may indeed avoid a derivative meltdown, but at what cost. If they aggressively act in this fashion their deeds will only further damage the integrity and value of the dollar, drive gold far higher in price, and likely precipitate a damaging inflationary event. In fact, we may be forced to endure the worst of all worlds where our domestic prices are soaring while business is stagnating or collapsing.

    I have not painted a pretty picture of the potential outcome when the world ultimately refuses to accept the dollar. I have done this with the desire to warn readers to protect themselves. “Forewarned is forearmed.” I would highly recommend that you greatly reduce all forms of debt. Further, I believe that you should not only increase the percentage of your gold and gold share holdings but Americans should also add to their cash positions and hold them in the form of short-term U.S. Treasuries. I hope that our leaders have prepared for such an event and are successful in the execution of their contingency plans. However, for those who will continue to anticipate a joyous and happy ending to soaring gold and gold equity prices remember, be careful for what you wish.

  38. Another tidbit that’s five years old…

    http://www.amerigold.com/the_seer/index.php?mod=cnt&act=cnt&id=41

    Economic Heroin
    Print Page
    December 13, 2004

    By Alex Wallenwein

    Debt-based fiat money is the economic equivalent of heroin. It has the same effect on personal, national, and global economies as heroin has on the human brain. Just like heroin removes the addict from interaction with other humans based on the common ground of everyday reality, debt money removes the financial decisions of individuals, organizations, and governments alike from the common ground of economic reality.

    Natural and beneficial economic stimuli, both positive and negative, are replaced by a false sense of prosperity, the false panacea of never-ending global economic “growth”, and phony sense of security. This addiction is constantly fed by ever-increasing amounts of additional debt – an empty, zero-calorie fuel devoid of real ‘nutrition’ that powers this massive, Matrix-like web of illusion, deceit, and enslavement of human productive capacity.

    The best way to demonstrate how this works is to briefly look at the genesis of the world wide fractional reserve banking system, which culminated in the creation of the US Federal Reserve. Author G. Edward Griffin has already written “the bible” on that subject, but here is a super-brief synopsis of only the highlights as they pertain to the points made in this article.

    In the mid-1600s, successful merchants and money lenders combined to persuade a government (the King of England) to give them a monopoly over the creation of currency for the realm. The pay-off was an unlimited “line of credit” on which the King could draw to fight his at that time losing war against the French. (Needless to say, the King was broke when these “benefactors” approached him.)

    Thus, the Bank of England was established. It would have the exclusive right to print currency, which the King could borrow – at interest, of course – to fight his war and finance whatever other spending programs he had in place at the time.

    The King in turn could tax his subjects to repay the money, so he didn’t need to worry about his “credit rating” with the Bank. Because of this devil’s bargain by which the King sold off his independence and mortgaged his subjects’ futures forever, the King’s money was no longer the King’s. The Bank of England was now the owner of the money, and the King ended up forever in debt to the Bank. The more money he received from the bankers, the more he owed them. All was well in Banker-land. Successive waves of bankers convinced their countries’ governments to enter the same Faustian bargain – with exactly the same result.

    There was a big fat fly in the ointment, though. The money the Banks could print and loan to their respective monarchs was unlimited only in theory. In practical reality, it had to be backed by a certain amount of gold in the royal treasuries, or the public wouldn’t accept it. There needed to be 100% convertibility for the money circulated among the subjects, so a minimum of roughly 40% of the paper-bills outstanding had to be backed by gold.

    It took a couple hundred years before the public was sufficiently accustomed to using paper as money before a large-scale exit from the classical gold standard could be attempted. It occurred in successive waves until, in 1933, the US as the last major country went off the gold standard internally. About forty years later, in 1971, then-president Nixon completed the dirty deed, and central bankers were now free to finalize their effective control of all the world’s political systems through having the exclusive license to fund their spending needs. The transfer of the Money Power from individuals, through governments, to the central bankers was complete.

    Since 1971, all so-called “money” (officially created and circulated currency) has consisted of nothing but debt. All you need to do to verify that is to look at a dollar-bill. It states in big fat letters across the top that it is a “Federal Reserve Note”. A “note” is defined in law as a written instrument evidencing a debt. This note is now useable in place for real money only because governments decree by law that these notes shall be “legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

    This so-called debt “money” is backed by absolutely nothing. If you want to redeem your note, the Fed is obliged to pay you – in precisely another note of the same kind.

    This currency we call “the dollar” today is nothing but irredeemable debt. It is a sad testimony to how low our republic has sunk to see that it lends its lawmaking power to such an obvious ruse as to call something that is nothing but evidence of a debt itself a “payment” for all debts, public and private!

    Americans – like citizens and subjects of any other country in the world – are forced to use this totally denuded currency for utter lack of a viable alternative. They are forced to work for this debt, or acquire it by conducting a business in order to feed themselves and their families. In effect therefore, legal tender laws effectively force you and me to work for nothing – in return for the questionable privilege of being able to “pay” others with the exact same thing!

    Fast forward to today’s Fed:

    In addition to the Fed’s outright printing privileges, currency is also created by lower-level banks in the federal reserve system. These banks make “loans” to private and corporate borrowers by creating nothing more than a bookkeeping entry showing a “credit” on the borrower’s account. The bank in question simultaneously books an increase in its total “assets” that corresponds to that “credit” – because the borrower now “owes” that debt to the bank, and must work to repay it – or face collection procedures, a “bad credit rating,” and eventually a lawsuit or repossession of any collateral.

    So, in short, the bank only creates an entry in its books “crediting” the borrower with the sum borrowed. It gives up precisely nothing. No physical cash is transferred. But the borrower must work himself to the bone to repay an essentially fictitious debt. The irony is that the borrower must work to acquire more debt (incorrectly called “money” in common parlance) in order to “repay” its debt to the bank. That’s how crazy things have become under a denuded world-wide currency arrangement based not on any kind of real wealth, but on negative wealth instead!

    If you step back from this rat-race and look at it from a distance, you can immediately see that you are observing a modern, somewhat sanitized form of slavery.

    In the old days, slaves at least knew that they were slaves. They were left in no doubt about that -and accordingly they were able at least in theory to do something about it. But this new and improved form of slavery is something to behold, indeed. As Goethe noted as far back as the late 1700s: “None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”

    Involuntary servitude (open slavery) was outlawed in the US with the 13th Amendment. But voluntary slavery (it should be called “ignorant slavery”) is perfectly fine to this very day. And the central bankers of the world and their political henchmen are surely taking advantage of that fact.

    How this system in effect works is allegorically depicted in the science fiction movie trilogy called “The Matrix.” If you haven’t seen these movies yet, go and check out all three sequels and watch them, one after the other, this coming weekend. You will immediately understand my allusions to it.

    If you are not inclined to waste your time with midern pop-culture nonsense, here is a short run-down:

    Humans create machines to serve them, but the machines develop consciousness and rebel. A war ensues. Th machines win, and they enslave humans by suing their life-energy as human batteries to power themselves. They have no independent life force.

    In order to keep their human batteries happy and “productive” they plug their minds into computer programs that fake an ordinary, everyday “reality” in which all humans believe they live – while actually existing submerged in liquid and encased in pods attached to huge power plants.

    Through an apparent malfunction in the system, some humans awoke from the program and saw their ugly reality. They learned to manipulate the program to enter the programmed “realities” of the other human batteries in an attempt to wake them up to make them join the resistance. In the process, these new candidates for the resistance are given a choice: Take a blue pill and forget they were ever contacted by the rebels, or take a red pill and wake up to the ugly reality of the lie they have been living.

    To decode the message of the movie and relating of the movie set-up to our world economic situation, consider the following:

    The “machines” of the movie are political systems, governments, banks, and central banks which humans instituted to serve them, but they developed a mind of their own and surreptitiously enslaved human productive capacity to serve their own ends.

    This essay, and a number of others written on the subject, are intended to have the function of the “red pill.” Wake up from your mental conditioning, from your peaceful programmed slumber, see the ugly reality, and refuse to serve as a human battery of sorts to work for our economic masters for nothing but debt.

    The economic Matrix system we live in can be likened to a number of other real-life scenarios as well. To return to our drug simile, the US Fed as the world’s largest central bank issuing the world’s reserve currency is acting like the king-pin of a drug cartel. The big-boss pusher gets the US government hooked on his debt-drug, and the government promptly sells its soul to him in return for unlimited blank-check writing powers. The government, in turn, is like a corrupt family father who gets his wife and children (its citizen-subjects) to work for him to make him the money with which he can buy more heroin from the pusher. In other words: the government must tax its citizens to repay the Fed-pusher for the debt-currency borrowed, with interest.

    Who do you think has the real power in this arrangement? The supposedly “sovereign” government – or the pusher?

    Don’t even talk about sovereign citizens here. No one who owes money can claim sovereignty in any way. True, the founders wrote the Constitution so the citizens would be sovereign – but we citizens have squandered our birthright in return for the illusory convenience of this drug-like debt money.

    We are debt-addicts, one and all.

    Sorry to depict the truth in such a crass and unflattering way, but the truth just happens to be exactly that crass and unflattering. The hope is that this crassness will rattle a lot of people’s cages and make them want to do something about the situation, and hopefully not just “something” – but the right thing.

    It is time to take the “red pill” and join the resistance.

    But we are not advocating armed insurrection here, nor are we advocating any form of sabotage or yet another “voter initiative” or some other useless device that only serves to strengthen this abusive system.

    What is being proposed here is the cure. Not just another addiction substituted for the current one (as the fiat-euro happens to be), but the cure for the world’s economic ills.

    It is very possible to do this. Almost everything needed to make this a reality is already in place.

    The US Fed ‘drug king-pin’ is losing its power because it no longer has the monopoly on pushing its debt-drug ‘in the hood.’ There’s a new kid on the block, the euro, and most of the addicts want to get off the dollar-drug and switch to the euro-drug in the hope that they risk of economic suicide might be lessened.

    This causes the ‘street value’ (forex value) of the dollar-drug to go down as demand is diverted by the competitor. The switch can only be accomplished slowly because the addict-countries economies are so hopelessly dependent on keeping their own currencies low against the dollar (to ensure export competitiveness) that they cannot afford to just ‘switch.’ However, the trend is already in place, and it is irreversible. The dollar is losing market share.

    But the euro is no angel, either. It is just as much a debt-drug as the dollar is. There is only one little difference: The euro’s central bank, the ECB, is predisposed against ‘opening the gates’ and flooding the EU and the world with liquidity. It has a firm non-inflationary policy bias in place, and it is upholding that bias against enormous pressure from member-country governments.

    That makes the euro a little less lethal in the eyes of the rest of the world, and thus makes it the preferred debt-drug. The euro can therefore be likened to methadone, a drug often used to get heroin addicts off the ‘brown sugar.’ But methadone is also an addictive drug – only less so than heroin. The euro acts just like methadone.

    In truth, the euro is he central bankers’ last straw. They are intelligent and educated people. They know that their fiat-dollar system cannot last, and they are hoping to forestall the inevitable collapse by instituting the euro.

    They may forestall – but they cannot cure the fiat disease with yet more fiat. All currencies are debt. Switching from one drug to another cannot cure the world’s ills.

    Only switching from a drug-laden intravenous feeding tube to real food can cure the disease.

    The world’s workers, businessmen, savers, and investors taken as a whole are like a mental hospital patient hooked up on intravenous feeding tubes. The patient needs to be kept sedated because, if fully awake and able to make his own decisions, he is far too much trouble for the ‘doctors’ (central banks) administering the drug. Therefore the economic ‘food’ these doctors are feeding this patient is heavily infused with economic heroin (dollar-debt).

    Recently, the ‘doctors’ have concluded that the patient won’t make it if they continue to give him heroin, so they decided to switch to the monetary equivalent of methadone (the euro). But this patient’s salvation does not lie in switching him from heroin to methadone. To make it, this patient needs to get up and rip the entire IV-contraption out of his arm, suffer the withdrawal symptoms, and get on with his life while eating real food. Translated back into economic terms: he needs to get on a strict gold an silver diet.

    Sounds simplistic? You bet! It’s got to be.

    If the solution isn’t simple, if it can’t be easily understood by ordinary people, then it’s worthless – because then the “experts” (the doctors) can take over again and convince the rest of us to “leave these things in their hands.”

    That’s precisely what got us into this trouble in the first place. We allowed “the experts” to obfuscate things to the point where not only us regular folks, but even they don’t know anymore what “money” really is. The grand wizard of the fiat-Klan, Al Greenspan himself, has said he isn’t sure anymore about how money can be defined! (Meaning: which paper-instruments can be properly called “money” and which can’t)

    ‘The cure’ is a viable, private, parallel, non-state-sponsored,100% bullion content gold and silver currency, whose value unit (also called “the money unit”) is stated in nothing other than its actual bullion-weight.

    Why denominate it in bullion-weight?

    Because it was the separation of the ‘unit of account’ function of money from the actual physical bullion content of former gold currencies that allowed bankers to slowly substitute paper-bills for real money. After all, both the bullion coin and the paper-bill were called a “dollar” before 1933, right? So, once the gold coins were confiscated and only paper-bills were left, people still had “dollars” to earn and pay their bills with, didn’t they?

    No problem. It’s still “money”, right?

    Imagine what would have happened if pre-1933 gold coins had been denominated in bullion weight only. A “one-ounce”, “half-ounce”, or “0.1 ounce” or whatever gold or silver bullion coin. Now picture that all prices in the economy were expressed only in terms of bullion weight.

    First of all, in such a situation it is far less likely that fractional reserve banking could have ever made it onto the world stage in the first place. Can you imagine accepting a piece of paper that claims to be an ounce of gold?

    Of course, the paper could still have been a ‘bearer note’ that said: “Pay to the bearer one ounce of gold”. And certainly, such paper could have been circulated in stead of the actual gold – but do you think FDR’s confiscation effort would have been successful under those circumstances?

    “Hello, Sir. We are from the FBI. We need you to give us all of your gold and accept these paper slips here that claim they are gold.”

    Don’t you think Americans would have resisted a little bit more if they had been used to counting their money – and had been paying for stuff – priced in actual bullion weight units rather than arbitrary “dollar” units?

    Under a full-blown Bullion-Weight Standard, the paper-notes would have never been confused with the real thing they represented. Nobody could be fooled into believing that paper is bullion, and it certainly doesn’t weigh an ounce, either. But when the paper note and the underlying asset are called the same thing (i.e., a “dollar”), then this confusion is far easier to instill in people’s minds.

    Can you imagine paying someone the full price of a home in return for only a paper deed to the home – without there actually being a home? Then why would you work for a paper-bill that says it’s worth an ounce of gold when you know there is no gold?

    This Bullion-Weight currency must be created if the world’s economies are ever to get on the right footing again. Anything remotely similar to the old gold standard with its denomination of currency units in arbitrary “dollars”, “francs” or “euros” will lead us right back to where we are today.

    You know that the world’s governments will never be moved to do this because it will stop their unlimited borrowing and blank-check writing power dead in its tracks. So private individuals have to do this.

    To find out more on how to help make this possible, you can go to this page.

    Gold investors will be sorely disappointed when the expected crash comes and they have to first trade their gold in for fiat before they can buy anything. If there are not even the rudiments of a viable “gold economy” where people can buy and sell for bullion only, and things are priced in bullion-weight terms, and all currency units are counted in bullion-weight units, there will not be much of an economy left to enjoy your investment profits.

    This is absolutely crucial.

    Got gold?

  39. This is some good information, I just finished up my paper for class and think I should go re-edit it lol. You may have just made me a regular 🙂

Trackbacks

  1. […] Guest Commentary – Regulation's Unheralded Effects « Stand Up For … Posted in Diesel, Diesel engines | Tags: bmw, Diesel, Diesel engines, diesel-exhaust, […]

%d bloggers like this: