I was doing what the cool kids do on a Sunday nights, and was glancing over Article I, Section 9 of the constitution. (Online source, Cornell School of Law - http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html)
Here is what I saw.
"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."
In Southern Indiana words, if you borrow our money so you can spend it, you best be telling us where it is ALL going. It is flat out in the constitution.
If congress can't tell us where every cent went, then they have no right whatsoever to use our money. I want to know.
- Where did ALL of the TARP money go?
- Where has ALL of the stimulus money gone?
- Where will ALL of the health care money go?
- Where will ALL of the cap and trade money go?
I am not talking a cute, little pie chart. I want to see it to the last cent. If it cannot be provided, than congress is violating the constitution.
Let's tell our congress that we want to know where ALL the money is going, and we will hold them accountable to the nation for either upholding the constitution, or violating it.
Another way to fight the tyranny.
My two cents.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Random Thoughts - 6/22/09
The dawning of a new year is upon me. Causes me to want to record some random thoughts.
Does the disputed election in Iran matter if they don't overthrow the Ayatollah and his council?
When does Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) become a government agency?
Who are half of the celebrities I see on "E! News"? If they are so famous, why don't I know who they are?
When do I get my own reality show?
I think if you want to change government, you need to vote all of congress out. Ron Paul is the only conservative I know of who is actually doing something, the rest of the Republicans seem to just talk a lot.
Is it just me or does President Obama make "W" look like a libertarian?
I wish someone would introduce a sport between NBA and NFL season. Baseball is as tedious as Sean Hannity.
Can someone really wealthy please put together a debate between Mark Levin and Barney Frank?
If someone brought up global warming for the first time today I may actually believe them. I sweat when I open the refrigerator.
Has Obama actually taken time to do anything? He must drive his kids nuts.
Is anybody else jealous that they didn't get to punch Perez Hilton?
Was that thought a hate crime?
Is 34 the new 33?
My two cents
Does the disputed election in Iran matter if they don't overthrow the Ayatollah and his council?
When does Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) become a government agency?
Who are half of the celebrities I see on "E! News"? If they are so famous, why don't I know who they are?
When do I get my own reality show?
I think if you want to change government, you need to vote all of congress out. Ron Paul is the only conservative I know of who is actually doing something, the rest of the Republicans seem to just talk a lot.
Is it just me or does President Obama make "W" look like a libertarian?
I wish someone would introduce a sport between NBA and NFL season. Baseball is as tedious as Sean Hannity.
Can someone really wealthy please put together a debate between Mark Levin and Barney Frank?
If someone brought up global warming for the first time today I may actually believe them. I sweat when I open the refrigerator.
Has Obama actually taken time to do anything? He must drive his kids nuts.
Is anybody else jealous that they didn't get to punch Perez Hilton?
Was that thought a hate crime?
Is 34 the new 33?
My two cents
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Random Conspiracy Theory
Here is a random conspiracy theory(with assistance from "Taking of Pelham 123").
Is it possible that Geithner, Obama, Bernanke, Soros, or various proponents of creating a large deficit, have invested heavily in gold or yuan in the past ten years?
Because with all the printing of money and increased US debt, those two instruments should be skyrocketing shortly. Could someone have instigated the financial crisis as a get-rich-quick scheme? Just a random thought.
My two cents
Is it possible that Geithner, Obama, Bernanke, Soros, or various proponents of creating a large deficit, have invested heavily in gold or yuan in the past ten years?
Because with all the printing of money and increased US debt, those two instruments should be skyrocketing shortly. Could someone have instigated the financial crisis as a get-rich-quick scheme? Just a random thought.
My two cents
Friday, June 12, 2009
Government Media Complex
Yes, I stole that from Michael Savage, but I think it is appropriate.
If the right doesn't get their stuff together, they will get smoked again in 2010. Why do I say this?
Here are my 2 examples.
Carrie Prejean makes her comment about gay marriage (which I agree with by the way). The media goes nuts attacking her. Therefore, much left and right wing media spend lots of time attacking/defending her.
Sarah/Bristol/Willow Palin. Letterman makes joke/comment, Palins are outraged (and for good reason). Left and right wing media spend lots of time attacking/defending Palin and Letterman.
While this is going on; government took control of tobacco, North Korea truly plays with fire with nuclear weapons, health care almost nationalized, etc. The point being, while the media runs on and on with Palin and Prejean, the government is taking over America. Keep watching the news, and you won't see what's going on.
If the right wants to take control, they will need to take action. First of all, get the focus on the really important things: economy, national defense, immigration; and off of personal matters.
Secondly, take action. Ron Paul's proposal to audit the fed is a great example of this. Don't whine and do something about what's going on.
We need to present solutions and actions, not just regurgitations of the problems. We need a strategy on how to take the power back (thank you Rage Against the Machine). We need a way to implement the strategy. While we spend our time talking about problems, the left is mobilizing and acting. Pay attention...
My two cents
If the right doesn't get their stuff together, they will get smoked again in 2010. Why do I say this?
Here are my 2 examples.
Carrie Prejean makes her comment about gay marriage (which I agree with by the way). The media goes nuts attacking her. Therefore, much left and right wing media spend lots of time attacking/defending her.
Sarah/Bristol/Willow Palin. Letterman makes joke/comment, Palins are outraged (and for good reason). Left and right wing media spend lots of time attacking/defending Palin and Letterman.
While this is going on; government took control of tobacco, North Korea truly plays with fire with nuclear weapons, health care almost nationalized, etc. The point being, while the media runs on and on with Palin and Prejean, the government is taking over America. Keep watching the news, and you won't see what's going on.
If the right wants to take control, they will need to take action. First of all, get the focus on the really important things: economy, national defense, immigration; and off of personal matters.
Secondly, take action. Ron Paul's proposal to audit the fed is a great example of this. Don't whine and do something about what's going on.
We need to present solutions and actions, not just regurgitations of the problems. We need a strategy on how to take the power back (thank you Rage Against the Machine). We need a way to implement the strategy. While we spend our time talking about problems, the left is mobilizing and acting. Pay attention...
My two cents
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Why Get Rid of Dealerships
Time for me to play a little devil's advocate.
I think it is good (financially) for Chrysler and GM to part ways with some of their dealerships (it would be nice if they were compensated, however).
Why? It limits supply, thus potentially creating demand. It is a gamble, but if it works, it could make both companies more profitable.
Not to sound like cold-hearted business guy (which I am not), but this happens in my industry a lot. I work in plastics, and when the price of plastic gets to low, the producers shut off their reactors to reduce the supply. Thus, when someone needs plastic, they are willing to pay more because it is harder to come by. The same goes with petroleum, when there is too much supply, producers turn off the pumps to raise prices. This is the basic premise of supply-demand that we learn in Econ 101.
Also, if the number of cars is limited, then those who truly need cars would be more willing to pay more. This is assuming that product produced by GM and DCX is equivalent or better to their competition (a big if). Higher prices, mean more % profit, which is the figure many shareholders find most important.
If there are less dealers, than GM/DCX need to produce fewer cars. This reduces labor costs, as well as the cost of running plants that are not being utilized to capacity. If fewer cars are made, than there is less aged inventory available. Why is that important? You cannot borrow against inventory over a certain age, which I believe is 18 months. Old inventory means less available credit.
Do I like this? No! I don't like people losing jobs, I don't like to see people lose their dealerships. I want to see this economy return to its vibrant self. However, due to our governments fiscal and monetary policies, I think we will see a lot more of leaner and meaner companies. I think this decision benefits GM/DCX, however it does hurt its employees and dealers as well. However, if they don't do this, they would possibly have to liquidate; which would be bad for our economy (that is why they are getting bailed out).
Personally, I would have liked to see GM and DCX go through Chapter 11 and reorganize to more profitable organizations, without government intervention. But whatever makes them profitable, increases the chance that our government will sell its share of the companies to private investors. These private investors will (if government allows it) be able to make these companies more successful, and perhaps introduce practices which will help them sustain their profitability.
My two cents.
I think it is good (financially) for Chrysler and GM to part ways with some of their dealerships (it would be nice if they were compensated, however).
Why? It limits supply, thus potentially creating demand. It is a gamble, but if it works, it could make both companies more profitable.
Not to sound like cold-hearted business guy (which I am not), but this happens in my industry a lot. I work in plastics, and when the price of plastic gets to low, the producers shut off their reactors to reduce the supply. Thus, when someone needs plastic, they are willing to pay more because it is harder to come by. The same goes with petroleum, when there is too much supply, producers turn off the pumps to raise prices. This is the basic premise of supply-demand that we learn in Econ 101.
Also, if the number of cars is limited, then those who truly need cars would be more willing to pay more. This is assuming that product produced by GM and DCX is equivalent or better to their competition (a big if). Higher prices, mean more % profit, which is the figure many shareholders find most important.
If there are less dealers, than GM/DCX need to produce fewer cars. This reduces labor costs, as well as the cost of running plants that are not being utilized to capacity. If fewer cars are made, than there is less aged inventory available. Why is that important? You cannot borrow against inventory over a certain age, which I believe is 18 months. Old inventory means less available credit.
Do I like this? No! I don't like people losing jobs, I don't like to see people lose their dealerships. I want to see this economy return to its vibrant self. However, due to our governments fiscal and monetary policies, I think we will see a lot more of leaner and meaner companies. I think this decision benefits GM/DCX, however it does hurt its employees and dealers as well. However, if they don't do this, they would possibly have to liquidate; which would be bad for our economy (that is why they are getting bailed out).
Personally, I would have liked to see GM and DCX go through Chapter 11 and reorganize to more profitable organizations, without government intervention. But whatever makes them profitable, increases the chance that our government will sell its share of the companies to private investors. These private investors will (if government allows it) be able to make these companies more successful, and perhaps introduce practices which will help them sustain their profitability.
My two cents.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
A Different Kind of Crisis
Crisis surrounds us.
Financial crisis, moral crisis, ethical crisis, military crisis, liberty crisis, etc. However there is a crisis that affect those who can do nothing about it. The orphan.
Throughout the Bible, we are implored to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves; those mentioned most often being the widows and orphans. I happen to have a soft spot for orphans.
Why? Well my 2 readers would know that my son was adopted from Guatemala. We all know what brings about orphans: war, disease, death, poverty, etc. However, it has become more and more difficult to adopt internationally. Why? For one, the press has criminalized adoption, making it seem standard practice for mothers to sell their children. This is absolutely not true. Also, Unicef has given money to developing countries to basically stop international adoption, feeling it is better for the children to grow in their own countries. This is regardless of the country's poverty, disease, and lack of opportunity.
International adoption is an answer. Children are able to leave a situation in which there is little to no hope. They are given an opportunity they would not have in their native country. But even more importantly, a family is blessed with a cherished child to join their family. I can speak from experience that the blessing I receive from my son is much greater than any blessing I can give him.
At Saddleback, both presidential candidates mentioned that there needs to be some type of action to help with the adoption crisis. Now would be a good time for this president to act. This action would bless thousands of American families.
Financial crisis, moral crisis, ethical crisis, military crisis, liberty crisis, etc. However there is a crisis that affect those who can do nothing about it. The orphan.
Throughout the Bible, we are implored to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves; those mentioned most often being the widows and orphans. I happen to have a soft spot for orphans.
Why? Well my 2 readers would know that my son was adopted from Guatemala. We all know what brings about orphans: war, disease, death, poverty, etc. However, it has become more and more difficult to adopt internationally. Why? For one, the press has criminalized adoption, making it seem standard practice for mothers to sell their children. This is absolutely not true. Also, Unicef has given money to developing countries to basically stop international adoption, feeling it is better for the children to grow in their own countries. This is regardless of the country's poverty, disease, and lack of opportunity.
International adoption is an answer. Children are able to leave a situation in which there is little to no hope. They are given an opportunity they would not have in their native country. But even more importantly, a family is blessed with a cherished child to join their family. I can speak from experience that the blessing I receive from my son is much greater than any blessing I can give him.
At Saddleback, both presidential candidates mentioned that there needs to be some type of action to help with the adoption crisis. Now would be a good time for this president to act. This action would bless thousands of American families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
