Thursday, March 31, 2011

Liberal gets his butt handed to him over Libya

This is pretty funny, Ed Schultz has his head so far up Obama's ass that he cannot see that military action against Libya is a bad idea. I am sure if McCain had won in the last election he would be singing a different tune, but a partisan doesn't have to make any consistent sense, they only have to suck up to their masters in Washington and tow the party line. What is funny is to hear how the tune changes about war as soon as a democrat is in office.

I have to think Scott Horton is right on this and that the President is supporting the "freedom fighters" in Libya in an effort to change the story from "America is backing all of these evil dictators and giving them billions of dollars", to "America is supporting the rebels" (at least in this one country, and it has effectively changed the news coverage and the story is longer about how many dictators Obama is cozy with and how many billions we have given to horrible dictators who exterminate their own people.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Why pay off a mortgage with todays more expensive dollars?

I believe the US is going to go into a period of extreme inflation over the next few years.

The other day I was asked why would I be paying off my house sooner than needed if I thought inflation is coming, why pay with today's more valuable dollars what you can pay later with less valuable dollars? It is a fair question and deserves a fair answer. The reason basically boils down to I am trying to get my financial house in order before the shit hits the fan.

Although it may be true that in the future I could pay back my mortgage with reduced dollars, if gas is $10 a gallon and food is 3-4x as expensive as it currently is, if everything we buy has risen in price, sure my fixed rate mortgage might not seem like such an expense in comparison, but it may be that so many other things have risen in cost to the point where I can no longer afford my mortgage, no matter how relatively inexpensive to my other bills it has become. My mortgage is one of the few expenses I can pay off now, and this opens that money up for future expenses. Lets say that right now I make $2000 a month, and spend $1000 on mortgage, $500 on home related bills, and $500 on food and luxuries. I am living like most people and it is pretty much paycheck to paycheck. If everything remains constant then I am doing just fine, but what if the price of food and energy goes up and suddenly I need $750 for home related bills like electricity and $750 for food and stuff. I may be able to cut back to some extent, but how much? Could I cut back enough to keep those expenses at my current costs? Maybe I could make more money, but then again maybe not, I am getting older and some of my more valuable skills have lost some luster as technology has made them obsolete. In this scenario I have very little flexibility. Now imagine if I pay off the mortgage expense, I then have an extra $1000 a month in cushion and can absorb even a 100% increase in the cost of everything else. If I am wrong and the inflation does not hit, then I am even better off because I have an extra $1000 a month to invest or do whatever with and my other expenses have not risen. If I am right, I can handle the change mush easier than my peers, who will be scrambling to live a lifestyle even remotely close to what they currently live. I do not see a down side.

I cannot truly predict the future, but I can predict with great certainty that in the future I will need a place to live, I can also predict that the lower my living expenses are the better off I will be. I don't need a magic ball to see this.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Like it or not, tea party types, probably not sock puppets

One of my lefty friends posted an article on facebook about the military using software that creates fake online personalities that it then uses to promote its own propaganda. The idea is terrible and is likely to cause more harm than good, because then people will suspect that real posters with opposing views are merely fake persona's created by some ominous organization. Much like agent provocateurs, once someone is outed as a fake it will only add fuel to the fire of the opposition.

Now the fun part, as soon as he posted this article two of his friends posted some inane crap about suspecting that most tea baggers are probably fake profiles using this technology. I don't buy it, first off the article focused in on government agencies using this method to try and sway the conversation, so it is unlikely that the government would try and gin up support for a group like the tea party which is at least moderately anti-government. There are two types of tea party members, the majority are flag waving republican types who don't like Obomber, but love Glen Beck, the military, and all things republican. However, there is another group of tea party types who are much more radical and are more the Ron Paul faction of the tea party then the Sarah Palin faction. I cannot see the government wanting to promote the agenda of Ron Paul in any circumstance.

I think my friend realized I was probably correct in my assertion that it is unlikely for the government to wish to promote the tea party agenda as so much of it is anti-government, anti-imperialism, and anti-Obama. So he changed tactics and said that it can be used by anyone who can afford the fee and maybe is being used by people like the Koch brothers. This seems unlikely as well, but lets pretend that this is the case and wealthy people are paying someone to create fake profiles and post articles and whatnot that support whatever the rich persons agenda is. Would it really matter much? Let's say Charles Koch pays some people to promote some issue he supports like lower taxes and he was successful, then George Soros pays people to pretend like they oppose lower taxes, then is it not a wash? Also many, many more of the extremely wealthy are left leaning democrats than any more radical republican or libertarian types. Rich tea party types and libertarians are far outnumbered by people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others who are more statist and liberal leaning and are also very rich. If anything the most likely to use this concept besides the government are those who benefit from the corrupt government policies, and that mostly consists of large corporations that make their money from government action like companies involved in the military industrial complex, banks, prison industrial complex, and colleges that get large grants from the government. Otherwise it may be companies who are involved in a PR nightmare, like BP during the oil spill, but that will pretty obvious.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Obey the Dot!

Fun with Larken rose.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Stupid Union Joke proven to be stupid even by liberal standards

One of my facebook friends posted this “joke” and then I see it on Livejournal a couple of days later:

"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the tea partier and says,"look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie".

It is not funny and not accurate. A more accurate, and equally as unfunny version would read something like this:

"A tea party member and a CEO form a working arrangement where the tea party guy contracts with the CEO to bake 12 cookies, the CEO takes 8 since it was his flour, water and sugar used to bake the cookies, and the tea partier keeps 4 cookies for his labor, then government takes two cookies from the tea partier and four from the CEO and gives it to the "public employee" who did not have anything to do with the making of the cookies".

What is not acknowledged in the original “joke” is the the public union employee will get his cookies one way or another and likely it is by using the guns of government to steal cookies from both the CEO and the tea partier (who to me represents the working class taxpayer for the purposes of this joke).