2009-4-16 03:16:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group.]
JJ:
To "Roy," who suggested we have a Department of Humor...
We already have a department of humor. It's composed of those jokers that are putting together all the stimulus and spending bills.
We are creating funny money to buy funny things like pig manure suppression and tattoo removal.
A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon we're taking about real money.
I will stop laughing soon and start pounding my head on the wall in the hope my funny feelings will pass.
"Gimmie" writes:
"And, yes, interest rates hovered around 18% for a short period but one should not forget that the genesis of that problem lied with Nixon printing money 4 years earlier in an attempt to stimulate the economy immediately prior to his second election."
JJ:
So, by your reasoning, since Obama is printing about 100X as much money as Nixon did this must mean we will soon have an interest rate of 1800%.
JJ:
To "Moondoggy":
I was in real estate in 1979 and the interest rates did go as high as 20%. They forced me out of the business. I went back in a few years later after Reagan got them down to a reasonable rate.
Shannon writes:
"In actuality, this bill is like throwing a million darts at a dartboard hoping at least one hits the bull's-eye - birth control and emergency contraception."
JJ:
What in the world is emergency contraception? Is that where you are about to get lucky and the Viagra will wear off in five minutes so you don't even have time to go across the street to another drug store?
JJ:
Tom Britton says to "Use stimulus money to create long-term jobs."
Borrowing trillions of dollars and enslaving our children with debt is bad enough, but the spending is so scattered and unfocused we'll be lucky to get 20 cents on the dollar for value.
If they invested a little in Micron at least they could save a few thousand long term jobs here. If they bought some stock and later Micron recovered then the government could get its money back.
"Loki":
"Joseph - thanks for the nice pic of the spiral galaxy, makes it easy for me to spot your comments and skip them."
JJ:
And I'm sure skipping over valuable reasoning and facts is a habit firmly established in your life.
By the way, my picture is an artist's rendition of our own Milky Way Galaxy. For LOKI's sake let me explain. An artist had to use his best guess as to what it looks like because we could not take a picture of ourselves with the Hubble.
JJ:
It looks like even Obama's friends in Europe are waking up to his spending madness. I wish Congress were as intelligent.
Here are quotes from a Reuters article:
"'You can't think you can solve everything with taxpayers' money. Stimulus packages are already in place and taking us through this challenging time. We already have done a lot,' Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said at a summit of the 27-nation bloc."
"'This is a historic moment, the start of the debasement of the world's reserve currency, and it feels to many participants that in the grand sweep of history we are witnessing the end of 'Rome' on the Potomac,' said Alan Ruskin, an RBS strategist."
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsnews/idINN1959143220090320?rpc=33
Note: Nothing in this article was derived from Limbaugh or Fox News.
JJ:
"ConservoDem" made a feeble non sensible attempt to answer my question. First, tax cuts do not produce a transfer of wealth. A tax cut lets a person keep his own money. If a robber lets you keep half of what's in your wallet then by your definition he's transferring wealth to you.
Silly idea.
He's letting you keep some of your own money.
A transfer of wealth is when an entity takes or taxes wealth from one group and gives it to another.
Duh.
Then you say lack of regulation was the cause of the meltdown. How do you effectively regulate loans that are as high as 105% of the value of the property? As long as that government regulation is in place no other regulation could have saved us.
The pathetic thing is loans are still made to 105% of value so neither Obama, or the Democratic Congress that caused it, have corrected the problem.
JJ:
Great letters today. They renew my faith in the common sense of the American people -- that there are some out there that actually read the news and are properly informed.
The main point to be reinforced is that the bonus situation is the fault of Congress, and Obama, who let the legislation pass without reading it or allowing anyone else time to read it.
If Obama had kept his promise and allowed the public 5 days to examine a bill before it is passed then someone or group would have raised the red flag about the bonuses.
The transparency promised by Obama is an illusion.
Then to feign outrage and violate the Constitution by going after employee's bonuses by selective taxation is breathtaking.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Your ignorance is showing again. The FIRST AIG bailout did not even have any Congressional participation, Bernake and Paulson just did it. The SECOND bailout was a BUSH BAILOUT and AIG is overseen by what?"
JJ:
Here's a quote from "ConservoDem's" reference which I don't think he got from Fox News or Rush:
"Then, in January 2009, the company did it again. After all those years letting Cassano run wild, and after already getting caught paying out insane bonuses while on the public till, AIG decided to pay out another $450 million in bonuses."
Obama is responsible in that he signed the legislation that made those bonuses possible. The outrage is the hypocrisy of Obama's outrage when he could have altered the bill if anyone had time to read it.
JJ:
The national average to support a child in public schools is over $9,000 a year. For a class of 25 that adds up to $225,000 for one classroom. The average pay for a teacher is a little over $30,000 a year. Where does the other $195,000 go? Obviously, a lot of it goes to administration and perks.
Solution?
Even with cuts we could fire a few administrators, reduce perks, keep all the teachers and give them a raise. The fired administrators could apply for teaching jobs.
Then if we really wanted to save money, we could privatize all schools and save 50%. We could then give the teachers a giant raise and still operate efficiently on a trimmed down budget. In addition, the kids would get a better education as private schools are proven to achieve greater academic success. Why do you think so many politicians send their kids to private schools while encouraging us underlings to use public ones?
"Run" says:
"Joseph, where do you get your statistics? It seems like you're just throwing out a bunch of numbers without any support."
JJ:
I can always support what I say.
In 2003, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the average national cost of educating a high school student was $9590. Washington DC with the highest percentage of Democrats) currently spends a whopping $24,600 per child or $738,000 per classroom of 30.
The most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Education show that in 2000 the average tuition for private elementary schools nationwide was $3,267. Government figures also indicate that 41 percent of all private elementary and secondary schools -- more than 27,000 nationwide -- charged less than $2,500 for tuition.
Obviously, we could save more than half by privatizing our schools plus the kids would get a better education. Even Obama knows this for he placed his own kids in a private school.
JJ:
Thanks for the references "Rastaman." The stark fact remains that the overall costs of private schools are around half or less than public. The main reason for this is that there is much less administrative costs and perks.
In addition to this the site you mentioned says that 52% of those surveyed think that private schools do a better job and only 19% think the public schools do.
Why we do not privatize and save half and do a better job shows the patients are running the asylum.
JJ:
Mr. Leitner seems to think that deficit spending during World War Two got us out of the Depression. A lot of people believe this.
However, if this is all that is required to create a good economy them we should be in great shape at the moment.
Why?
Because, until Obama came along, "Bush Two" was the biggest spender in history adding about 5 trillion to the debt. Only a small portion of that was for Iraq. A lot of it was for social spending just like it was with FDR.
With this $5 trillion thrown into the economy by Bush, we should be rolling in prosperity according to this theory.
Then with Obama trying to "out-Bush" Bush in spending we should all soon be as rich as oil magnates.
The real reason WW2 led to getting us out of the Depression is that circumstances forced FDR to work with business to win the war instead of fighting them as he did earlier.
A good book on this is "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.
"Brt929":
"You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I suggest you read the letter again. He never suggested that deficits lead to a good economy."
"CD" asks:
"If it wasn't the spending of WW2 that ended the Great Depression, what was it? (Hint: there was NO deregulation.)"
JJ:
There was lots of deregulation after the war started. "New Dealers" were replaced with pro business people who knew that business had to be less restrained to win the war.
The right amount of spending is important but too much spending can lead to hyperinflation as happened in Germany in 1923 when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Obama does not seem to understand where excessive borrowing can lead.
JJ:
I keep hearing here how dangerous and extreme Rush is. Those who say this only make the accusation and never say what it is that he says that is dangerous or extreme.
He says a few things that are politically incorrect to the hypersensitive crowd, but even these usually represent mainstream beliefs, but just stated in a provocative way. An example would be his statement that he wants Obama to fail, and then qualifying it by saying he is referring to his attempts to socialize the country. That turns out to be not extreme, but representative of over half the country.
My challenge then is to for the "Lefties" here to come up with even one thing that Rush advocates that is either dangerous or extreme.
I personally can't think of anything but Obama comes up with something almost daily. The latest is to install "Big Brother" temperature monitoring devices in every home.
I don't want one in my home. What about you? What if it malfunctions -- will they then haul you off to a facility?
"Mgun" wrote:
"There is NOTHING educated or thoughtful about Limbaugh, Coulter, ad nauseam."
JJ:
I'd match Rush up against anyone from the Left in a debate. He could make mincemeat of your best educated.
As far as Ann Coulter goes she writes the most intellectual and thoughtful column on the web, and also the most thought provoking.
Her latest one proves the Democrats are more beholden to Wall Street than Republicans.
Read it at:
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Read a couple more from her archives and you'll be hooked. I enjoy her columns even when I disagree with her.
"Shaunfrederick1" wrote (insulting Christians):
"85% of Americans think a man they have never met or talked to lives in the clouds."
JJ:
Are you talking about Obama on Air Force One?
JJ:
Good letter by Mr. Smith. It is amazing how both education and healthcare costs have spiraled out of control.
I was in an accident at age 13 in 1958 and spent a month in the hospital. My hospital room at that time was $8 a day. My divorced Mom and I paid it off through picking fruit, working for minimum wage and mowing lawns.
A while back a good friend of mine spent less than a month in the hospital and his bill was $80,000 or around $2600 a day or about 325 times the dollar figure I paid.
In 1958 we paid 39.9 cents per gallon of gas. If gas had gone up 325 times then we would be paying $129.68 per gallon.
The irony is that people complain much more about "Big Oil" than "Big Hospital" or "Big Education." When compared with education and healthcare I think Big Oil deserves a lot of credit for keeping prices low. If we replaced Congress with oil executives we'd be in a lot better shape than we are now.
"Claret" wrote:
"Joseph, the average CEO of any big oil company makes about 15 million a year plus perks. Tell us what a member of congress or teacher should make? I'm afraid Mr. Wilson has it right."
JJ:
The Governor is in an awkward situation. With a budget shortfall he will have to make some cuts and wherever he makes them will upset people.
As I said earlier the average national cost of educating a high school student was $9590 (A little less in Idaho.). This means that if a teacher has 30 kids in the class, $287,700 is being spent for one teacher. Just a small amount of that money goes to the teacher -- $30-$40,000. One would think they could make a substantial cut from the high administrative costs and give the teachers a raise and still cut the budget.
I think we would be far ahead to give members of Congress a million dollar bonus each year they balance the budget. That would cost us less than a billion and save thousands of billions.
"Always be a little kinder than necessary."
-- James M. Barrie (1860 - 1937)
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved