There are a number of misguided individuals who believe that every effort must be made to reverse the apparent trend of the economy toward a recession or ("gasp") a full fledged depression.
Poppycock.
Bring it on, I say.
A depression is a natural response to an unhealthy economy. It is nature's way of saying, "There are too many idiots among you who haven't the faintest notion of what money is for".
A depression isn't a symptom, it is a cure.
There is a belief that those that have money have earned it. That they have contributed to society in some way and thus should be rewarded. I agree that this can be true. But many who have money have it only due to the fact that they were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and have no more made any contribution to society than Commerce City is a nice vacation destination. Those that have the skill and motivation to earn money by what they give to others will regain what they have lost. Those that can't will be working at King Soopers.
Depressions are nothing to fear. For many, we are and have been in a depression for years. They are called "poor". For them, a depression would change nothing. It is the wealthy that would be most affected by a depression. History is written by those in power. Our current view of the "horrors" of the last depression were written by those who do not care if it happens to others, but cannot stand the thought of having to deal with the challenge of having no money themselves.
Depressions have a way of bringing out the best in people. People turn towards each other and help their neighbors during a depression. In the absence of material possessions they begin to create their own entertainment. There is a reason they called it the "Great" depression. Look at the contributions in art and culture that were created at that time - Duke Ellington, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jackson Pollock, John Steinbeck, "Gone With The Wind". The 80's were a time of great economic prosperity. What did they bring us? The Pet Shop Boys.
Think about it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
What Are They Trying To Hide From Us?
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my devoted readers that the current administration is not always very forthcoming with information regarding the inner workings of the government. I would even go so far as to suggest that my readers have come to suspect such conduct as the standard operating procedure for this administration.
I have, over the years, learned to find out what others wish hidden. One cannot successfully bring those companies which ignore the safety of our citizens to trial without having learned a thing or two about bringing to light those facts that others wish to be in the dark.
There is a tremendous tool available to us that can expose those secrets the government wishes to deny us.
Census data.
That is correct. There is a wealth of data in those numbers and any properly motivated and educated individual can find them.
Take, for example, Roseland, Indiana.
The vast majority of you have never heard of Roseland and most of those that have will assume that there is nothing special about that town.
But those people are wrong.
If you glance at the census data for Roseland, you may notice an interesting fact:
Roseland is 82.6% women.
Yes. For every man in Roseland, there are 4 women.
And there is more. The median age in Roseland is 21.1 years old. 66.9% of the citizens are single. This is a town full of young, available, and, in all likelihood, attractive women.
What is the government trying to do in Roseland?
There is no natural explanation for why such a thing would happen. There must be some plan by the current administration to gather and exploit nubile females. There is little information coming from Roseland in this matter.
There was, though, an incident that revealed much of what their plan is. Apparently an argument ensued between the only two male members of the Roseland town council. Perhaps this was some hormone induced mating ritual, vying for the largest harem. Who can say? The subsequent result of this event was that the only female member of the council was removed from office.
A town with over 80% female population with no female representation in their government?
Something sinister is happening in Roseland.
And is it merely coincidence that the town's name sounds strangely similar to Roswell?
Think about it.
I have, over the years, learned to find out what others wish hidden. One cannot successfully bring those companies which ignore the safety of our citizens to trial without having learned a thing or two about bringing to light those facts that others wish to be in the dark.
There is a tremendous tool available to us that can expose those secrets the government wishes to deny us.
Census data.
That is correct. There is a wealth of data in those numbers and any properly motivated and educated individual can find them.
Take, for example, Roseland, Indiana.
The vast majority of you have never heard of Roseland and most of those that have will assume that there is nothing special about that town.
But those people are wrong.
If you glance at the census data for Roseland, you may notice an interesting fact:
Roseland is 82.6% women.
Yes. For every man in Roseland, there are 4 women.
And there is more. The median age in Roseland is 21.1 years old. 66.9% of the citizens are single. This is a town full of young, available, and, in all likelihood, attractive women.
What is the government trying to do in Roseland?
There is no natural explanation for why such a thing would happen. There must be some plan by the current administration to gather and exploit nubile females. There is little information coming from Roseland in this matter.
There was, though, an incident that revealed much of what their plan is. Apparently an argument ensued between the only two male members of the Roseland town council. Perhaps this was some hormone induced mating ritual, vying for the largest harem. Who can say? The subsequent result of this event was that the only female member of the council was removed from office.
A town with over 80% female population with no female representation in their government?
Something sinister is happening in Roseland.
And is it merely coincidence that the town's name sounds strangely similar to Roswell?
Think about it.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I Took A Break
While I generally do not find a need to rest from my efforts to find and punish those companies which do damage to the citizens of this nation or, more recently, my campaign to become the next President of the United States, I did indeed do just that the other night. My assistant Tree Sing, suggested that I enjoy some popular entertainment at a nearby theater. Actually, she did not so much as suggest it as deceive me by telling me that she was taking me to a press conference. When we arrived, I was sorely tempted to drive myself home, if I could, in fact, drive myself. Alas, after my accident those many years ago I find that attempting to drive a car at over 20 MPH causes me to whimper noticeably. According to Tree, revelations of this sort will help to humanize me and improve my image. If that is what the people want, so be it.
I am, however, glad that I stayed.
We attended a comedy show in Denver entitled "Convention?" at the Avenue Theater. It was highly entertaining. It depicts a behind the scenes look at the political process of campaigning for President. The show is, as they say, "improvised", meaning they could not be bothered to create a script. It was, nevertheless, quite amusing.
The show was created by Misters Chris Gallegos, Brian McManus, Ben Reed and a Ms. Meredith Winfield. The show featured a number of performers including:
Bravo! Kudos to you all.
Their show runs every Tuesday at 7:30 through August. I heartily recommend it.
Now, back to work.
I am, however, glad that I stayed.
We attended a comedy show in Denver entitled "Convention?" at the Avenue Theater. It was highly entertaining. It depicts a behind the scenes look at the political process of campaigning for President. The show is, as they say, "improvised", meaning they could not be bothered to create a script. It was, nevertheless, quite amusing.
The show was created by Misters Chris Gallegos, Brian McManus, Ben Reed and a Ms. Meredith Winfield. The show featured a number of performers including:
- Galloway Albright
- Carl Anderson
- Kathleen Boland
- Dave Karasik
- Amanda Kennedy
- Keith Rains
- Yvette Rebik
- Rick Rothenberg
- Shannon Wood Rothenberg
- Mark Shonsey
- Sam Tallent
- Betsy Vajtay
Bravo! Kudos to you all.
Their show runs every Tuesday at 7:30 through August. I heartily recommend it.
Now, back to work.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
I'm No Quitter
My so-called "opponents" have suggested that I quit the race for President.
Their logic is deplorable.
They use the fact that my polling numbers are pathetic. They are ridiculously low and indicate that very few people have even heard of me, let alone are willing to vote for me. They suggest that for this reason, I should drop out of the race.
It is a fact that I have not been doing well in the polls. But this is exactly the reason why I should stay in the race.
Both of my "esteemed colleagues" would, if faced with the same dismal results, would quit. They have both made it clear by their suggestion that I do the same, that they would absolutely drop out under the same conditions.
They are both, in a word, quitters.
Is that the kind of president people want?
When the going gets tough, the quitters get going. The tough stay.
Do you want a president that gives up? Do you want a president that changes his mind simply because what he's doing isn't working? If recent history is any indication, Americans want a president who will stick to his guns no matter what the cost. That is the kind of president I will be, not some wishy-washy quitter, like those other people.
Their claim that I should quit is absolute proof that they should quit. Their demand for me to drop out is clear evidence of the inevitability of my eventual election.
I rest my case.
Think about it.
Their logic is deplorable.
They use the fact that my polling numbers are pathetic. They are ridiculously low and indicate that very few people have even heard of me, let alone are willing to vote for me. They suggest that for this reason, I should drop out of the race.
It is a fact that I have not been doing well in the polls. But this is exactly the reason why I should stay in the race.
Both of my "esteemed colleagues" would, if faced with the same dismal results, would quit. They have both made it clear by their suggestion that I do the same, that they would absolutely drop out under the same conditions.
They are both, in a word, quitters.
Is that the kind of president people want?
When the going gets tough, the quitters get going. The tough stay.
Do you want a president that gives up? Do you want a president that changes his mind simply because what he's doing isn't working? If recent history is any indication, Americans want a president who will stick to his guns no matter what the cost. That is the kind of president I will be, not some wishy-washy quitter, like those other people.
Their claim that I should quit is absolute proof that they should quit. Their demand for me to drop out is clear evidence of the inevitability of my eventual election.
I rest my case.
Think about it.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
On Taxes
Why do we have taxes?
Some would say it is to pad the purses of those in Washington and their big business cronies that they are beholden to.
It is difficult to refute this.
Certainly, this is what our current government has chosen to do with the money that they collect from us. But that is not what our founding fathers intended.
There is another purpose.
It is to assist the downtrodden among us. To lift up our brothers and sisters who have fallen on hard times. To bring us all together by making us more equal, monetarily speaking.
Our current and recent former administrations have failed terribly at this. The disparity between the poorest and richest of our people has grown far beyond what our founding fathers could have imagined. If our founding fathers could be here now, they would be vomiting with disgust. But it is not Dramamine that we need. It is a solution.
First, I propose that any family making less than the median household income ($48,201.00 in 2006, according to the US Census Bureau), not be required to pay any taxes whatsoever. Those that make less than the rest of us should not have to pay for our needs. If you take a friend to lunch and he makes less than you, it is natural to pay for it. I myself have never taken a friend to lunch, but I understand that this is a common practice.
Second, the tax rate would increase progressively from 0% for someone making the median income to 100% for someone making 10 times that ($482,010.00). All income in excess of that amount would go to help others.
Nobody needs to make more than that.
I know that there are naysayers among you who will claim that this will "hurt" the economy. Poppycock! According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, nearly half of all money spent in 2006 was by people making less than $70,000. Only %16 of the money spent was by those making $150,000 and above. If every person making more than $300,000 disappeared from the face of this earth, we would hardly notice it, fiscally speaking. And I personally would not miss them at all. If I wanted to spend my time with people, I'm sure that I would prefer to spend it with people who make approximately the same amount of money I make, not some rich people who think they're better than me and criticize my clothes or call me names behind my back or to my face or mistake me for some servant and say, "young man, please bring my Bentley around and take me to the club where I can play polo with my good friend Warren Buffet and laugh at your appearance". I'm not young.
Think about it.
Some would say it is to pad the purses of those in Washington and their big business cronies that they are beholden to.
It is difficult to refute this.
Certainly, this is what our current government has chosen to do with the money that they collect from us. But that is not what our founding fathers intended.
There is another purpose.
It is to assist the downtrodden among us. To lift up our brothers and sisters who have fallen on hard times. To bring us all together by making us more equal, monetarily speaking.
Our current and recent former administrations have failed terribly at this. The disparity between the poorest and richest of our people has grown far beyond what our founding fathers could have imagined. If our founding fathers could be here now, they would be vomiting with disgust. But it is not Dramamine that we need. It is a solution.
First, I propose that any family making less than the median household income ($48,201.00 in 2006, according to the US Census Bureau), not be required to pay any taxes whatsoever. Those that make less than the rest of us should not have to pay for our needs. If you take a friend to lunch and he makes less than you, it is natural to pay for it. I myself have never taken a friend to lunch, but I understand that this is a common practice.
Second, the tax rate would increase progressively from 0% for someone making the median income to 100% for someone making 10 times that ($482,010.00). All income in excess of that amount would go to help others.
Nobody needs to make more than that.
I know that there are naysayers among you who will claim that this will "hurt" the economy. Poppycock! According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, nearly half of all money spent in 2006 was by people making less than $70,000. Only %16 of the money spent was by those making $150,000 and above. If every person making more than $300,000 disappeared from the face of this earth, we would hardly notice it, fiscally speaking. And I personally would not miss them at all. If I wanted to spend my time with people, I'm sure that I would prefer to spend it with people who make approximately the same amount of money I make, not some rich people who think they're better than me and criticize my clothes or call me names behind my back or to my face or mistake me for some servant and say, "young man, please bring my Bentley around and take me to the club where I can play polo with my good friend Warren Buffet and laugh at your appearance". I'm not young.
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)