Democrats have done such a good job of misleading the American public on Iraq lately that George Bush had to go on TV last night to remind Americans why we are fighting the War on Terror. If the democrats are successful in brain-washing the public, as they appear to have been on killing any meaningful reform of social security, future generations of Americans will again suffer the consequences. And what is at stake in this case is the most basic human right of all - survival.
Headlines this morning proclaim that democrats are outraged President Bush had the audacity to connect the war in Iraq with the events of 9/11. Once again, the ability of the democratic party leadership and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media to manipulate public opinion is almost beyond comprehension. They are desperately working to turn Americans against the war by relying on their typical strategy of separating cause from effect, because if that can be done then doubts begin to surface about the legitimacy of the effect.
But guess what, folks. THE WAR ON TERROR IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO 9/11. Nothing can change that fact, but a continuous stream of misleading "news" stories and editorials misrepresenting reality by highlighting the bad and ignoring the good can cause people to forget it.
A friend of mine, who like most thinking Americans is concerned about the situation in Iraq and often questions his own support of the war, sent me the following email. "The question I struggle with is the statistic that up to 150 million people were murdered in mass, politically motivated killings in the 20th century. As a citizen of the one country in the world that has the greatest ability to stop the murders, should we insist our military save these people? Or should we close our borders and tell everyone else 'good luck' "?
My personal response to that question is if we could be 100% certain we could close our borders and escape the carnage occurring throughout the rest of the world, then I would be all for closing the borders and telling everyone else "good luck and God bless." But the history of human behavior has proven that course of action would be dangerously naive - and suicidal. Once tyranny rules the rest of the world, they wouldn't allow us to sit alone on our little utopian pedestal. Eventually, they would come for us. We have already allowed the forces of evil to grow to dangerous proportions. If we don't take them on now, it will soon be too late.
From their behavior it seems that democrats are either advocates of tyranny and rule of the self-appointed elite (as long as it is them), or are dangerously uninformed and naive about history and human nature. Terrorists have declared war on western civilization. They have been murdering anyone who happens to have a different opinion (and any innocent who happens to be in the vicinity) for decades. 9/11 was just one event of this war. It is a war western civilization cannot afford to lose.
It is tough enough fighting terrorists who kill indiscriminately, know no bounds of decency and easily blend in with the local population. It does not make it easier that most of the countries in continental Europe have already surrendered, as usual. But it makes it even tougher when, for purposes of nothing more than political and personal gain and with complete disregard for the survival of the American people, politicians in our own country conspire to mislead the public and turn it against our efforts to defend ourselves from those whose goal is to eliminate freedom and democracy from the face of the earth.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Friday, March 04, 2005
It's Called Capitalism, And It Is The Foundation of Our Economic System
It has been well known for some time that Democrats are opposed to capitalism and free markets. There is no hope of enlightenment for these close-minded socialists, who are blindly dedicated to fighting anything the Republican administration wants to accomplish. But it appears there are also quite a few Republicans who have no faith in the economic system their party advocates. Social Security Reform is really a no-brainer, but the debate is becoming filled with demagoguery, misinformation and obstructionism - and many Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats.
The foundation of the American economy is capitalism and free enterprise - i.e., private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Yet many Americans, and Congressmen of both stripes, do not seem to understand what that means. Although much of American business is conducted by privately owned family enterprises and small entrepreneurs, the pure embodiment of capitalism is represented by the stock market. The stock market is the way the majority of ordinary citizens, who don't have the means or the desire to own their own businesses, can participate in the wealth creation generated by free enterprise.
Democrats can be in denial all they want, but the fact remains that changes must be made to the current social security system. The problem is quite simple. Sometime around 2018, only 13 years down the road, the system will start paying out more than it takes in, becoming cash flow negative. Sometime around 2042, only 24 years after that, all the current cash "surplus" now invested in Treasury bills will be gone - meaning that all benefits paid to retirees must be totally funded by payroll taxes. At that time, unless payroll taxes are raised, benefits to retirees will only be 73% of what is promised - and less each year after that. In other words, today's 30 year old's and everyone younger are screwed.
George Bush wants to let the dynamics of free enterprise and private ownership solve the problem by directing payroll deductions to private investment accounts for each citizen rather than disappearing into the vast pyramid scheme that currently exists. Democrats and weak-livered Republicans argue that the stock market is too "risky" to let the average citizen expose his retirement assets to the stock market. Well, THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE RISK.
If each person was allowed to invest his private retirement account in individual stocks of his choosing, then of course it could be argued that the level of risk is relatively high. But that would not be allowed to happen, as the only equity investments that would be allowed would be in a broadly diversified market index fund. Today the social security "surplus" is supposedly invested in U.S. Treasury issues, securities that over time have returned on average more than 6.5% per year less than the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index. To me, investing in low return securities creates a VERY HIGH RISK of minimizing investment returns, and is irresponsible money management. It is the primary reason why the social security trust funds will be depleted by as early as 2042.
Now comes the good part. The research firm of Ibbotson Associates has been compiling for quite some time the annual returns generated by various investments since 1926. Over 78 years, the average annual return of the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 index, has been 10.4% (The average return for treasury bills is 3.8%). For any individual year the worst return was a loss of 43.3% in 1931, and the best a gain of 54.0% in 1933. So, for any individual year, the risk of loss in stocks is relatively high.
But over time the risk of loss diminishes dramatically. In fact, there has never been a 10 year period (1926-1935, 1927-1936, etc, through 1995-2004) that has experienced a loss. And if you are 42 (25 years until retirement) or younger, you might want to know that the lowest annual return generated by the stock market for any 25 year period is 6.0% (and for 35 year periods the lowest return was 8.0%), significantly above the low returns produced by treasury bills.
Let's assume you are a 30 year old today, making $30,000 a year. Under the current program, you have 6.2% of your salary, or $1,860, deducted from your paycheck for social security. Your employer matches that, so you have a total of $3,720 "invested" for you in your retirement account. Assuming the government invests the $3,720 in treasury bills (which of course it doesn't since most of it is paid right back out to current retirees), in 37 years at 3.8% that would be worth $14,786. Now assume that instead of the $3,720 going to the government, it all went into your equity indexed private account. At the average annual return of 10.4%, in 37 years it would be worth $144,677. That's right, $144,677, nearly 10 times as much. Do the math. The government would have blown $129,891 of your money from just one year's deduction. Mind-boggling, isn't it.
Again, that is from just one year's deduction. The effect is the same no matter what your age, only the future value of each years contribution falls marginally each successive year. And not only does the account grow, it is actually yours and your family's to keep, even when you croak - unlike the current system. On the payout side, the current monthly full retirement check at 67 is around $2,000, or $24,000 a year. In 37 years, at 3.0% inflation (the average rate since 1926), the monthly payout would go to around $6,000, or $72,000 a year. Certainly seems to me that putting each yearly deduction in a private account goes a lot farther toward meeting, and exceeding, that payout than the current program.
I am 56, so George's plan won't effect me at all. But if I was under the age of 55 I would be telling the AARP and each and every congressman that they had better get with the program, or else. And in fact, instead of just 4% being diverted to private accounts, as proposed, I would demand the whole 12.4%.
Steve Doud
March 4, 2005
The foundation of the American economy is capitalism and free enterprise - i.e., private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Yet many Americans, and Congressmen of both stripes, do not seem to understand what that means. Although much of American business is conducted by privately owned family enterprises and small entrepreneurs, the pure embodiment of capitalism is represented by the stock market. The stock market is the way the majority of ordinary citizens, who don't have the means or the desire to own their own businesses, can participate in the wealth creation generated by free enterprise.
Democrats can be in denial all they want, but the fact remains that changes must be made to the current social security system. The problem is quite simple. Sometime around 2018, only 13 years down the road, the system will start paying out more than it takes in, becoming cash flow negative. Sometime around 2042, only 24 years after that, all the current cash "surplus" now invested in Treasury bills will be gone - meaning that all benefits paid to retirees must be totally funded by payroll taxes. At that time, unless payroll taxes are raised, benefits to retirees will only be 73% of what is promised - and less each year after that. In other words, today's 30 year old's and everyone younger are screwed.
George Bush wants to let the dynamics of free enterprise and private ownership solve the problem by directing payroll deductions to private investment accounts for each citizen rather than disappearing into the vast pyramid scheme that currently exists. Democrats and weak-livered Republicans argue that the stock market is too "risky" to let the average citizen expose his retirement assets to the stock market. Well, THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE RISK.
If each person was allowed to invest his private retirement account in individual stocks of his choosing, then of course it could be argued that the level of risk is relatively high. But that would not be allowed to happen, as the only equity investments that would be allowed would be in a broadly diversified market index fund. Today the social security "surplus" is supposedly invested in U.S. Treasury issues, securities that over time have returned on average more than 6.5% per year less than the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index. To me, investing in low return securities creates a VERY HIGH RISK of minimizing investment returns, and is irresponsible money management. It is the primary reason why the social security trust funds will be depleted by as early as 2042.
Now comes the good part. The research firm of Ibbotson Associates has been compiling for quite some time the annual returns generated by various investments since 1926. Over 78 years, the average annual return of the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 index, has been 10.4% (The average return for treasury bills is 3.8%). For any individual year the worst return was a loss of 43.3% in 1931, and the best a gain of 54.0% in 1933. So, for any individual year, the risk of loss in stocks is relatively high.
But over time the risk of loss diminishes dramatically. In fact, there has never been a 10 year period (1926-1935, 1927-1936, etc, through 1995-2004) that has experienced a loss. And if you are 42 (25 years until retirement) or younger, you might want to know that the lowest annual return generated by the stock market for any 25 year period is 6.0% (and for 35 year periods the lowest return was 8.0%), significantly above the low returns produced by treasury bills.
Let's assume you are a 30 year old today, making $30,000 a year. Under the current program, you have 6.2% of your salary, or $1,860, deducted from your paycheck for social security. Your employer matches that, so you have a total of $3,720 "invested" for you in your retirement account. Assuming the government invests the $3,720 in treasury bills (which of course it doesn't since most of it is paid right back out to current retirees), in 37 years at 3.8% that would be worth $14,786. Now assume that instead of the $3,720 going to the government, it all went into your equity indexed private account. At the average annual return of 10.4%, in 37 years it would be worth $144,677. That's right, $144,677, nearly 10 times as much. Do the math. The government would have blown $129,891 of your money from just one year's deduction. Mind-boggling, isn't it.
Again, that is from just one year's deduction. The effect is the same no matter what your age, only the future value of each years contribution falls marginally each successive year. And not only does the account grow, it is actually yours and your family's to keep, even when you croak - unlike the current system. On the payout side, the current monthly full retirement check at 67 is around $2,000, or $24,000 a year. In 37 years, at 3.0% inflation (the average rate since 1926), the monthly payout would go to around $6,000, or $72,000 a year. Certainly seems to me that putting each yearly deduction in a private account goes a lot farther toward meeting, and exceeding, that payout than the current program.
I am 56, so George's plan won't effect me at all. But if I was under the age of 55 I would be telling the AARP and each and every congressman that they had better get with the program, or else. And in fact, instead of just 4% being diverted to private accounts, as proposed, I would demand the whole 12.4%.
Steve Doud
March 4, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Get A Grip
Howard Dean has just been elected as head of the Democratic Party. At this rate, before long the Democrats will become irrelevant to national politics and likely be surpassed by the Libertarians as the primary opposition party. They just don't get it. They continue to believe the religious right is solely responsible for their recent losses in the presidential and congressional elections.
If one is paranoid about something, they will see it everywhere they look. In order to explain why the majority of Americans do not buy into a particular point of view, there must be some sinister force at work the voters just don't understand. For the Democrats, the sinister force is religious zealots. It certainly could not be possible that the majority of clear thinking voters would actually prefer lower taxes or fighting against terrorists where they live. It has to be the religious nuts.
Do religious nuts exist? Of course. Do they all vote Republican? Probably. My mother is a perfect example. She wants the government to do everything for her - provide free health care and subsidized housing as well as clean air and the elimination of any bug that might enter her apartment. I tell her that she is really a Democrat, but since she is a religious nut she always votes Republican. Do I think religious nuts are scary? Yes, I do. But I am not arrogant and judgmental enough to believe I am 100% right and they are 100% wrong.
But the Democrats also have a significant number of rabid single issue nut cases who will always vote for Democrats. In my humble opinion, those who fanatically believe the world is a peaceful utopia and the United States of America is the source of global evil have severe intellectual issues. Those who unthinkingly hate George Bush because the New York Times, CBS and other major networks incessantly tell them to are downright scary. And those who believe abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues of our times are seriously mentally impaired. Yet those folks are arrogant, judgmental and self-righteous enough to believe they are 100% right, and they all vote Democrat.
Personally, I am not George Bush's biggest fan. I do not agree with many of the details of economic policies he has put into place, and I certainly could care less if democracy ever comes to the muslim countries. But raising taxes will not stimulate economic growth nor reduce the budget deficit, and the war against terror is not only a justifiable war, it is a necessary war - one that was declared on us way back in the late 70's but we ignored for too long.
Blaming the religious right for the Democrat's inability to sell their message is just plain wrong. And I see no evidence that every action George Bush takes is based on his religious faith. Again, in my humble opinion, it seems to me the actions he takes are designed to promote economic growth and protect American citizens from foreign enemies. That is his job. At the present time the economy is unmistakably growing, and those who dared to wage war on us are finally paying for it. And, last time I looked, women are still getting abortions, gays are still able to practice whatever disgusting behaviour they want, those who don't like the war don't have to fight it, and no government agency has closed down the New York Times or CBS News - and none of their biased writers, reporters or talking heads have been censored or incarcerated.
If one is paranoid about something, they will see it everywhere they look. In order to explain why the majority of Americans do not buy into a particular point of view, there must be some sinister force at work the voters just don't understand. For the Democrats, the sinister force is religious zealots. It certainly could not be possible that the majority of clear thinking voters would actually prefer lower taxes or fighting against terrorists where they live. It has to be the religious nuts.
Do religious nuts exist? Of course. Do they all vote Republican? Probably. My mother is a perfect example. She wants the government to do everything for her - provide free health care and subsidized housing as well as clean air and the elimination of any bug that might enter her apartment. I tell her that she is really a Democrat, but since she is a religious nut she always votes Republican. Do I think religious nuts are scary? Yes, I do. But I am not arrogant and judgmental enough to believe I am 100% right and they are 100% wrong.
But the Democrats also have a significant number of rabid single issue nut cases who will always vote for Democrats. In my humble opinion, those who fanatically believe the world is a peaceful utopia and the United States of America is the source of global evil have severe intellectual issues. Those who unthinkingly hate George Bush because the New York Times, CBS and other major networks incessantly tell them to are downright scary. And those who believe abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues of our times are seriously mentally impaired. Yet those folks are arrogant, judgmental and self-righteous enough to believe they are 100% right, and they all vote Democrat.
Personally, I am not George Bush's biggest fan. I do not agree with many of the details of economic policies he has put into place, and I certainly could care less if democracy ever comes to the muslim countries. But raising taxes will not stimulate economic growth nor reduce the budget deficit, and the war against terror is not only a justifiable war, it is a necessary war - one that was declared on us way back in the late 70's but we ignored for too long.
Blaming the religious right for the Democrat's inability to sell their message is just plain wrong. And I see no evidence that every action George Bush takes is based on his religious faith. Again, in my humble opinion, it seems to me the actions he takes are designed to promote economic growth and protect American citizens from foreign enemies. That is his job. At the present time the economy is unmistakably growing, and those who dared to wage war on us are finally paying for it. And, last time I looked, women are still getting abortions, gays are still able to practice whatever disgusting behaviour they want, those who don't like the war don't have to fight it, and no government agency has closed down the New York Times or CBS News - and none of their biased writers, reporters or talking heads have been censored or incarcerated.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
America At War
Western civilization is at war. We now live in a world where any small group of fanatics with a cause have access to biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons that can cause death and destruction on a massive scale. The current primary threat is radical Islam, which after centuries of dormancy due to its incapacity to spread influence beyond its borders, is now a violent malignancy that is metastasizing as weapons of mass destruction and strategies of terror have become effective methods in their battle against their perceived enemies.
The perceived enemy of Islam, as the murderous dictators, autocratic ayatollah's and ruthless jihadists have publicly proclaimed, are the naive, unsuspecting, fat and happy democratic societies and capitalistic economies of western civilization. Like any malignancy, if it is not diagnosed and defeated at an early stage, it will cause the demise of the organism it inhabits.
Unfortunately, there are many among us who still refuse to believe that we are at war, and criticize every effort to defend ourselves against this obvious threat. In America, the leadership of the Democratic Party and their propagandists have become more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Osama and his sycophantic acolytes may cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people, but they won't cause the demise of Western Civilization. Only Western Civilization itself can destroy Western Civilization, from within, and that takes pathetic snake oil salesmen like Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer to spread their outrageous lies and unsubstantiated accusations against those responsible for defending American lives.
But the most dangerous enemies of western civilization of all may be Michael Moore and the Joseph Goebbels inspired leaders of the fourth estate, who publish and broadcast their left wing opinions and slanted coverage of events to the masses, and call it news. They are much more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, because the pen, and the directed motion picture, are mightier than the sword, because the pen and the movie can lie and deceive.
The perceived enemy of Islam, as the murderous dictators, autocratic ayatollah's and ruthless jihadists have publicly proclaimed, are the naive, unsuspecting, fat and happy democratic societies and capitalistic economies of western civilization. Like any malignancy, if it is not diagnosed and defeated at an early stage, it will cause the demise of the organism it inhabits.
Unfortunately, there are many among us who still refuse to believe that we are at war, and criticize every effort to defend ourselves against this obvious threat. In America, the leadership of the Democratic Party and their propagandists have become more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Osama and his sycophantic acolytes may cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people, but they won't cause the demise of Western Civilization. Only Western Civilization itself can destroy Western Civilization, from within, and that takes pathetic snake oil salesmen like Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer to spread their outrageous lies and unsubstantiated accusations against those responsible for defending American lives.
But the most dangerous enemies of western civilization of all may be Michael Moore and the Joseph Goebbels inspired leaders of the fourth estate, who publish and broadcast their left wing opinions and slanted coverage of events to the masses, and call it news. They are much more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, because the pen, and the directed motion picture, are mightier than the sword, because the pen and the movie can lie and deceive.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Tactics of Those Without Substance
Last fall the Democratic Party's sole campaign strategy was one of making up outrageous lies about their opponent, and then accusing the opponent of lying. It appears, from the recent grilling of Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation as Secretary of State, that Democrats still believe that approach will eventually work.
Just What The World Needs
The one thing there is way too much of in this world is unsolicited advice. Therefore, I have started this new blog in order to add to the confusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)