Monday, October 16, 2017

The Legislative Thinking Mentality

The other day, on the news, San Diego is contemplating the idea of affordable housing for the homeless. Two problems here, the climate is so mild and it never rains so you don’t need a home, just a tent for privacy and a shopping cart for your belongings. Second, homes cost about $400,000. All a tent cost is about $100 and shopping carts are free. Figure $10 dollars a day for food and booze, no cigarettes, (they’re $10 a pack) you can be a beach bum for less than $3,650 a year. The problem with the tents intensifies when the owner picks up discarded items to more properly furnish his or her domicile. And the issue of trash removal and sanitation is nonexistent. At this point it becomes a health issue.

Then after the tragic Las Vegas shootings, Congress is contemplating tougher gun control laws. Criminals don’t shop at gun stores to purchase a weapon; honest law-abiding people do. There is no law we can pass that will stop someone from repeating what just happened. Almost everyone is entitled to buy a gun, if they do it before they break any laws. People are not born killers, but a law will not stop someone from killing if he is willing to die in the act. All gun laws do is process people into the jail system after they have fired their weapon (if they do not take their own life). Laws do not prevent bad behavior, they only punish it.

With these two examples, you might arrive at the conclusion; Congress believes that there is an obvious legislative solution to all of our problems. Of course, some problems solve themselves. 20 trillion dollars of national debt kind of explains why cigarettes went from 25 cents a pack to $10 dollars.

“Give the rich a tax break,” sets the Democrats ballistic. The bleeding hearts think the rich are obligated to foot the bill. At the same time, I haven’t picked up a newspaper reporting that someone in this country starved to death for any reason. I would bet that more than half of the people in this country on food stamps are severely overweight. Food stamps offer people the cell phone and cable tv option. But I digress.

Congress-i-anal stupidly assumes that low income people will spend their food stamp allotment and other monies on their kids. Not quite. But when anyone wants to change a program, it is pointed out that it is the kids that will lose out. The kids are used to earn more government handouts and believe me, the kids are the last ones to receive any of the trickle down from this. A 12 pack and a pack of cigarettes is $28.00 and the kids don’t get to drink the beer or smoke the cigarettes. They grow up eating macaroni and cheese with an occasional hot dog and some Kool aid. As a kid, I knew some of these kids, they would marvel at our refrigerator when they came over, it had food in it!

Reality is out there, it just depends on how your mind colors the pictures. Government should not be there to fix our problems, but rather to pay the bills.

California is the land of half million-dollar homes, and a climate that lends itself to the homeless on a $3,600 a year budget. Food stamps, a cell phone and a surf board, what a life!

Governor Jerry “Moon Beam” Brown will probably even get them registered to vote to boot. And then there is marijuana legalization. That old biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. The Democrats have started a party that even Harvey Weinstein might want to attend/fund.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Restaurant Menu Prices 1938

Here is a reprint from four years ago for some of you that might have missed it. This was during the Great Depression that was already into its 10th year.

I was searching through some picture albums of my parents from way back and ran into some restaurant menus  from the depression era of late 1930's.. The first 3 pictures are from the Manhattan  Restaurant


The Second menu (three pictures) is on the Union Pacific Railroad from 1937 somewhere in Wyoming.

This last menu is from the Hotel Windermere in Chicago 1937.

Double click on the images to see what the prices were back then.   Did you notice that the Manhattan offered a broiled (Whole) lobster for 65 cents?  In today's world, you'd be lucky to get half a lobster for $30.  Bear in mind, the people that read these menus in real time are probably dead by now.

The pay raise that everyone gets each year because of inflation is just an allusion. Look around, the new hires are starting out a few pennies less than what the seasoned workers are making.  The neat thing about inflation is that Congress doesn't have to raise the tax rates, you earn more, you pay more.  That's the real difference between the Democrats and Republicans; print as you go verses pay as you go.

The real odd thing is that the average person does not connect the dots. The relationship between government spending and inflation does not exist. Rumor has it, we've always had inflation-- I guess we're supposed to get used to it.  My wife bought a new battery and asked me to guess how much she paid for it, and I said $40.  Her answer; "That's the price you would have paid 20 years ago, the battery was $100."

Let's see,(from top menu third pic red part) I'll have the broiled lobster with coffee and a slice of cake--that's about 85 cents total, plus 15 cents for a tip.  The trouble is, 76 years of inflation have raised the prices a tad.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Taxing the Rich

The Democrats always cry tax the rich. Think about it for a minute. Say you have 20 million in the bank. That qualifies you as rich. Assume you have already paid tax on the accumulated 20 million, you leave it in a shoebox, it cannot be taxed again. However, at the current interest rates, 1.5%, you will get about 300,000 in interest over a year. This is taxable. At 33% tax rate, the person owes 100K in taxes if he isn’t in a rest home.

From a realistic point of view, the rich are not stupid enough to sit idly by while their bank accounts are milked, they are the ones already paying about 80 percent of the taxes. Irritatingly enough is the fact that 50 percent of the population pays no income taxes at all--- because “they don’t make enough money.”

The misleading statement that gets me from politicians is: “We do not need to give the rich a tax cut.” Where is the logic in this? Non-productivity is rewarded with no taxes and excess productivity is rewarded with more taxes. Kind of smacks of socialism. The guy who holds two jobs and works 16 hours a day is taxed at a higher rate than the guy who works the same job eight hours a day.

Poor people are entitled to more benefit than the middle class because they are poor. And if you are a minority, these benefits are god given rights. And guess what, if you are here illegally, you and your kids are entitled to benefits that I as a taxpayer have to pay for.

The voter cannot distinguish between the rich and the high-income earner. They think they are one and the same. These high-income wage earners are sports players, owners, doctors, Singers, various stage artists. So, tax the rich? What does that mean? If you earn a million dollars or more and get a W-2 form, they are going to tax the hell out of you. Of course, if you are a small business, you write your own W-2. Neat huh?

A doctor might form an LLC (limited liability corporation) and have his earnings dropped into that, and pays him\herself 30k a year. Naturally, the LLC picks up the mortgage payment on their home. So, they pay taxes on 30K. Not bad.

What we really need to look at, is the fact that the government doesn’t get a true estimate of earnings when the employer is the owner of the business. Look to Greece where there was a pool tax and only 5% of the population reported owning a pool, when the correct percentage was 95%.

What’s really happening, Congress is printing billions of dollars to pay for programs that there are no funds to pay for. Taxes collected verse tax money spent has no real correlation to reality.

The real question to ask, if taxing the rich is so successful, how come the national debt is now 20 trillion dollars? At what point does the debt amount become absurd? The answer to consider is that this borrowed money came from real people like you and me. We spent 40-hour work weeks saving for that rainy day and future retirement. And the government borrowed the money. The return of the physical paper money is not in question. What it might buy in the future, is what you need to consider.

Just a reminder, The Great Depression is now in its 11th year.

Monday, August 21, 2017

The Silence before the Collapse

Federal Reserve debt 4.5 trillion, national debt 21 trillion. 2.7 trillion in government bonds to Social Security. Figure about 30 trillion the government has borrowed and issued paper for. Then spent it.

Imagine that you have 10 billion in the bank. What you need to realize is that you have no way of realistically spending it. So, in this case, we have a person well off, that doesn’t need the extra dollars in his account. From an economic perspective, the money does not exist, because there is no opportunity for the owner to spend it, the sum is so large.

This 10 billion cash savings from one person represents a small portion the future buying power of deferred consumption. Count the total amount of funds involved for all the rich, the amount could be quite substantial. Since the inclination to spend it is absent, inflation remains low and plenty of product remains on the market. The extremely rich are holding on to dead money that will never enter the financial system to generate inflation. So, the government is happy with the rich getting richer, no appreciable inflation for just that reason.

Naturally the drive to get richer involves the rich as a group to suck more money into their grasps. The government loves the idea. A real millionaire in 1960 could buy a house and a car every year on the interests of 30,000 generated a year. In today’s market, 10 million dollars in the bank might generate 30,000 a year and might buy half a luxury car. To be wealthy today, you need to be a billionaire. Cigarettes have gone from 22 cents a pack in 1964 to 100 dollars a carton today.

This pretty much explains why schools don’t offer much education that revolves around the concept of inflation. Even if they did, it would do no good. Everything an 18-year-old wants to buy has always been that price. They have no historic memory of price. The funny thing is, for the super-rich, it is the same concept. Even though one zero drops off of their buying power because of inflation, they don’t see it. But in reality, the 10 billion has lost 90 percent of its buying power over the last 20-year period.

The cumulative savings in this country for retirement have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. An awful lot of individuals realize that they didn’t save enough to retire comfortably and are saving a lot more. They are now working longer to make up the difference. This too, decreases consumption and keeps inflation lower that it should be.

Some people argue that this game can go on forever. And I do not think it can. From 1960 to 1990 we lost a zero on buying power vs money in the bank. Then we lost another zero from 1990 to 2010. The thing to notice is that the gaps are getting shorter in time. I think it foolish to say that the next zero drops off in 2020. The progression of 30 years to 20 years to 10 years makes too many assumptions.

Once the rich realize that they are losing a zero (90% of their purchasing power) on their net worth over a 10-year timeline, there will be a very significant switch in asset allocation.

The investment model has to change. Compound interest is no longer the 8th wonder of the world. The rule of 72 where you divide your interest rate at the bank into 72 gives you the time it takes to double your savings. That kind of sucks when one into 72, returns 72 years. Compound interest at that interest rate will not make you rich.

So, with today’s back of the envelope calculation, 100,000 in the bank for 10 years will lose one zero in buying power. 10 years from now, you’ll have the purchasing power of $10,000 to $20,000. You are looking at 9 percent inflation per year. In reality, the bank should be paying the inflation rate plus 2.5 percent on savings.

You might disagree with everything above, but there are two things we can agree on. If there was a shortage of funds to borrow, interest rates would have to rise. And you cannot force people to borrow money. What you can conclude from that is there is a hell of a lot of dollars looking for an investment and surprisingly they are satisfied with the interest rate offered. Economically that puzzles me.

The other factor that bothers me is the spread between junk bonds and Treasury’s. Its 4 percent. It portends that every loan transaction is a viable and fungible event with a very high bond rating. More than likely, an older person is looking for the highest rate of return to keep from exhausting his retirement fund. The poor guy probably thinks triple D is like a bra size, very desirable. The small spread implies that there is very little risk in the market.

We are at a point where we have tremendous wealth and tremendous debt and it is kind of a zero-sum game. People are looking for a stock market crash, but it could be different this time, it could be an electronic credit and debit card crash that the structured internet cannot handle.

This could play out in the coming months. October is the month to watch, that's where the action has been in the past.

Friday, July 07, 2017

More Taxes Create Problems

Tax cuts for the Rich and 20 million people will lose their health care coverage. The headline kind of makes you wonder. If they repeal Obamacare, this is the declared outcome.

For some reason, it doesn’t hold water. A tax cut for the rich means they’re going to be taxed at a lower rate. How can 20 million people lose a benefit if they paid for it? If they didn’t pay for it, now that’s a different story.

When you lose a free government benefit, a taxpayer had to be paying for it. So, giving the rich a tax break limits the amount of largess the government has to spend on those who are broke. I get upset when I realize that food stamps allow a family the ability to have a cell phone and cable TV. Of course, you don’t see it from the kid’s side, “milk toast for breakfast and hot dogs and macaroni and cheese for dinner” every day until you graduate high school or run away from home. Many states have renewed the work mandate for food stamps that Obama ignored, and it looks like there has been a 50 % drop in food stamp applicants.

Notice how there is contempt projected from our Congressmen for giving the rich a tax break and how there is the implied request for sympathy for people who stand to lose their coverage. Your Congressmen mentally weights the issue and comes to the conclusion, “By God I want to get reelected!” and this should do it.

A new mind set is in the mix. The one issue voter. Guns, gay rights, black lives matter, abortion, save the earth, health care, etc. are gone. The Christian religion appears to be the new touchstone of American politics.

In the last election, the tables were turned upside down. The rich were represented by the Democrats as were the poor. Kind of a confusing mix. Big business and socialism don’t mix. On the other hand, the Republicans lost the Rich and gained the middle-class voter who felt that they were being neglected because of all of the special interest groups. I don’t think that it will be politically incorrect to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” this year.

The big thing to notice that just happened is the passage of the Illinois State budget over the governor’s veto. The state will increase the state tax rate about 32%. Another way of stating it, is that the present rate for individuals rises from 3.75% to 4.95% and businesses rise from 5.25% to 7%. The problem here is that you will be paying more and receiving even less in benefits than before. This is what happened during the great depression. States and Municipalities raised taxes expecting to increase their tax revenues. The net result, tax receipts declined, it was the exact opposite of what the legislators had expected. People voted with their feet and moved.
If you go back to President Eisenhower, we had a tax rate on the very rich of about 80% and it generated very little tax revenue. Rich people then were not stupid, they bought stocks and paid 15 percent in capital gain taxes.

In today’s world, governments need to live on more realistic budgets and that is just not happening. Reality is starting to settle in. When your police force or fire department pull up for gas in Illinois, it is cash on the barrel head no state credit cards accepted.

So here is what we can conclude. 20 million people on free health insurance is not even feasible in any government budget. The assumption that raising taxes will increase the amount of tax collected is false. The opposite is more likely.

The neat thing about states that run out of money is that there are no bankruptcy laws to expunge the debt. States can’t file for bankruptcy so you could have a long wait, to get paid. I believe that Missouri just recently paid off a delinquent state bond issued 120 years ago.

Where to from here? It is kind of one of those questions without an answer. We borrowed too much and have no way to pay it back. The 1964 dollar has gone to a dime, inflation wise. I guess the 2017 dollar will also go to a dime and if my math is right, that’s a 1964 penny.

“A penny for your thoughts.”

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Press Politics

I’ve been watching the news since the Trump election and marvel over all the leaks. It looks like anyone in Washington that says something, is taped. Every cell phone is monitored. Every foreign diplomat meeting is recorded. That doesn’t bother me much, but the leaking of what was said, violates all sorts of trusts we build up with other nations.

The only thing I can conclude, is that you say nothing, and use no electronic devices, while in Washington D.C. Under no circumstances, discuss anything in the White House, unless you want it in the paper the next day. That is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Lately, a lot of the newspapers have been writing news citing anonymous sources. Their sources are rather suspect and or non-existent. Today I was reading the morning paper about the Muller Inquiry. The paper quoted said “Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly,”—bla bla bla. Five anonymous people makes the newspaper’s story line creditable? Let me guess 6 people in the room and Trump is one of them.

On this investigation of the Russians and Trump by a privately appointed prosecutor, where are the supporting leaked documents? We know when the conversations occurred and with whom. It’s got to be either the CIA, NSA or the FBI that has the document. It has already been released to the press, why can’t it be subpoenaed? Irritatingly, no documents have been produced. I would figure that even if there was nothing indicating a crime, the document should have a physical presence as the newspapers claim.

It’s kind of tragic when the news is reduced to fictional anonymous sources. It kind of remind me of the Orson Wells broadcast of years back. Here is a quote from

On Halloween morning, 1938, Orson Welles awoke to find himself the most talked about man in America. The night before, Welles and his Mercury Theatre on the Air had performed a radio adaptation of H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds, converting the 40-year-old novel into fake news bulletins describing a Martian invasion of New Jersey. Some listeners mistook those bulletins for the real thing, and their anxious phone calls to police, newspaper offices, and radio stations convinced many journalists that the show had caused nationwide hysteria. By the next morning, the 23-year-old Welles’s face and name were on the front pages of newspapers coast-to-coast, along with headlines about the mass panic his CBS broadcast had allegedly inspired.
What bothers me, is that an awful lot of people believe whatever they see in print or on TV. I was a long-time subscriber of “The Economist.” During the election, the magazine was a political pulpit for Hillary Clinton. I didn’t agree with their political message, but it was only then, I realized this was not a magazine dealing with economics. They lost a subscriber.

It appears that the news organizations are trying to bend the news with a definite political slant. It makes no sense; the election is over. I can only guess that their subscriber base is mostly Democrats and/or the papers are owned by Democrats. In the past, newspapers were not dumb enough to enter into the political arena for one reason, it would alienate half of their subscriber base. Your subscriber base determines how much you can charge advertisers.

I am not sure where the level-headed people go from here. Can you selectively read or view what you deem non-political in nature, without developing a bias? I was watching FOX news the other night and a 27 story building was on fire. What do they do? They split the screen, the fire on the left, the program on the right and went on with their political discussion.

I guess that no one told the Democrats that they lost the election. When you lose an election, you hand the reigns over to the other party, and it doesn’t look like they are doing that. It kind of looks like the Democrats are searching for that [White/Black/Asian/Hispanic/GLBT] (pic one) knight in shining armor to come and rescue their country from the Evil Republicans. The grim reality, no more free stuff, go out and get a job.

The good thing is, with all of this "political news," no one has to lie about how great the economy is doing.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

The Budget

Trump put out his proposed budget and Bernie Sanders had this to say about it:

President Trump's budget is morally obscene and bad economic policy. It will cause devastating pain to the very people Trump promised to help during the campaign. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when 43 million Americans are living in poverty and half of older Americans have no retirement savings, we should not slash programs that senior citizens, children and working people rely on in order to provide a massive increase in spending to the military industrial complex. Trump's priorities are exactly opposite of where we should be heading as a nation.
The words “morally obscene” is a very peculiar in its descriptiveness. His choice of words, demonstrates his political adeptness at sodomizing the voter’s mind with an intangible abstraction.

43 million people are living in poverty. That’s about 13 percent of the population. You will not starve to death, on food stamps, but you could die of type two diabetes from being severely overweight. For what it’s worth, a lot of people work in the underground economy pay no income taxes, so they automatically fit the government’s profile for poverty. The neat thing about food stamps, is that it frees up money for cell phones and cable TV.

Half of older Americans have no retirement savings. The sad fact is that most people don’t feel old, so they put off saving for retirement. Reality clicks in about age 55 to 65 and then you realize that age snuck up on you. You were young and vibrant even in your 50’s and proud that you didn’t show your age. Reality and your age meld, and you realize that you haven’t saved a dime. Social Security isn’t going to provide the lifestyle you had in your dreams for retirement. Your new retirement reality, is sitting in a rocking chair watching TV reruns until you die.

The Federal government’s job is Defense of the country, protection of its citizens, and regulation of trade and commerce. The fact needs to be realized, we can’t have everything we want from government. When a lawmaker attempts to cut a program, some bleeding heart brings out a pregnant woman or a couple of very young kids.

There is a general disconnect between the taxpayer and what the government spends the tax dollars on. You have paid what you were assessed in taxes and assume that all of the bills will be paid. The bills will get paid, but with borrowed money. The taxpayer wasn’t given a true bill for services to be rendered. This concept eludes 95 percent of the voters. So, getting reelected is no real problem. You just have to prove to your constituents that you voted for "Save the whales" and Bill Gore’s "Green earth programs."

This uncontrolled spending by the government, is increasing the rate of inflation and ruining the savings of our nation. It is a tax on your savings for retirement. California Democrats looked at the idea of a single payer health insurance and came up with sticker shock. The cost of the program would run about 400 billion a year for the state. The current budget is only 175 billion. Common sense suggests that estimated cost doesn’t attempt to cover those here illegally.

When you examine the Congressional problem of financing the budget, the real question isn’t "where do we cut?" Rather your Congressman is mentally thinking “What benefits can I give away to get reelected?” It’s a little like sitting on the limb your sawing off of a tree. It works until it doesn’t.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Obama Care Vs Insurance

Universal free health care, what makes it free? If you can afford to pay health insurance now, you know the free market cost of it. Imagine if you also had to cover the premiums of someone else who could not afford to pay for it? Add the fact that a government plan doesn’t have to be concerned with making a profit. This would destroy the free market concept of health insurance. You only need insurance to protect you and your family from an unexpected event.

People need to know the terms of what is being tossed around.

Insurance is a form of family financial protection, planning for the anticipation of a future event. The cost is determined by the likely hood of the event occurring among insured participants. You have many options that allow you to select a price you can live with.

Medicare is the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).

Medicaid provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government. If you are bed ridden, very old, broke and need a rest home, this is where the money comes from

Obamacare is a health care plan that does not deal with insurance. It is a group plan that pays the cost of treatment for a group of people that may be very sick who have very little money to pay for health care maintenance that they need. The Government draws its finances from the group of people between the age of 18 and 65. Most people between the ages of 18 and 45 are never sick so, the premiums are nothing more than a tax. The group between the age of 45 and 65 are those that didn’t think they would ever need coverage, that is until something serious happed to them.

Notice one thing, without Obamacare, Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid covered all health care. There was one problem, the government ended up paying for those who couldn’t pay for their treatment. And who’s the government?--- you and me, we pick up the tab--our tax dollars.

With Obamacare, the net desire of the Congress was to double their tax base. A $4,500 health care charge for every working person in the US would not be considered an income tax, but rather an employee benefit surcharge like social security. You get to pay for your benefits in advance of using them. This could have raised between ½ trillion to about a trillion a year. This is what the Democrats are so mad about, the loss of a new tax source that never got fully operational.

You’ll notice that the Democrats blend Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamcare all in to one package when they talk about it. This is kind of like inserting an egg beater inside the average voter’s brain. A scrambled egg doesn’t have the symmetry of a poached egg plus the process is irreversible, the voter at that point cannot separate out the blended parts. Obamacare will destroy the insurance industry, because it eliminates the sharing of the risk, there is none. The government has no profit motive, and doesn't even have to worry about costs. An insurance company cannot compete against that sort of financial organization.

President Trump is not trying to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid or insurance. He wants to kill the government tax plan built around health care. Government has no business being in health care, they don’t have a bottom line to meet. Competency is not a job qualification. What we have to realize is that government is grossly inefficient. The private sector can always do a better job. The maddening thing is that Congress will take the money collected for health care and spend it on something else. Just like they did for Social Security.

Remember how you used to save for a vacation or a new car? Imagine $4,500 coming off the top of your paycheck every year. I remember being young and poor; health insurance wasn’t on the list, ahead of the wheels I could barely afford. It was about the age of 55 that I started seeing a doctor. Half of the people in this country have never been to a dentist; figure that one out. Your teeth will fail you way before age 50 without proper care.

I digress, but think about it. Real health insurance is not a government program. "Free health benefits" is story you tell your kids at night to get them to go to sleep.

Sunday, May 07, 2017

A Modest Proposal

It sounds so lame when Democratic Congressmen whine that the proposed tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. 50 percent of the people in this country pay no Federal income tax. We can be pretty certain that the other 50 percent pays all of the taxes. 10 million cash in a bank, doesn’t raise the sort of tax money this “tax the rich” concept is selling. Figure 200k in interest nets about 40 thousand in taxes. Thousands of immigrants have made their money elsewhere in the world and have moved here to enjoy our freedom and their untaxed wealth, without the burden of paying taxes.

Giving the rich a tax break means less money for the largess of Congress. It is really immaterial if we give a tax break to the rich. We are already spending twice as much as we collect in taxes. The rich pay twice their share because the poor pay nothing. How about a voting law; you get as many votes as dollars paid in taxes. This would give the taxpayers a say in their government. You pay a million in taxes, you get one million votes. You pay nothing, you get one vote.

The rich could buy the election, but at least they would get a say on where their tax dollars are being spent. And it certainly isn’t free drinks for everyone. Our current voting system favors those who want to distribute free government benefits. Bernie had the right name for it, Socialism.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Stupidocracy, the evolution of U.S. Democracy

In today’s world, Democracy has as many different meanings as there are people. Many may feel a common bond by sharing the perceived concept of Democracy, but each and every one of them has a different definition of the word.

Democracy’s don’t arise out of the ashes of dictatorship. In Syria, there is the move to remove Assad from power. It’s a little like telling the everyone in the US post office that they are fired. At that point, you have destroyed the infrastructure that delivers the mail. No big deal to appoint a new Post master, but that’s not going to put mail in your mailbox. We have destroyed several leaders in the Middle East, that had no religious agendas: Idi Amine, Saddam Hussain and we expect Democracy to flourish in their absents. Religion is the only remaining social institution in the Middle East, no wonder Islam flourishes.

Our Democracy got started by a group of wealthy people tired of the English rule of our land. They already had money and power. In today’s world, Democracy is not a goal of those seeking power. They want to get rich. Military power leads to wealth. So, when you destroy one dictator, you create several people vying to succeed him as the new boss. Pass out the purple ink bottles and let everyone vote. Ah yes true Democracy.

The liberal citizens of the United States believe every country should have Democracy. Of course, after listening to Congress, I’ve come to the firm conclusion that this country needs a dictatorship to set itself straight. Free speech is drowned out by riots and protests, whenever an event is scheduled to occur that is considered “not worthy.” Just what are these people scared of? When I was in college, I didn’t give a damn about campus speakers, I was too busy having fun with my friends in my spare time. All I can figure is that there are “townies” that want to influence what is done on a college campus. In my college days, most controversial speakers only got about 20 to 30 people to attend their lectures. Why do we have to have masked rioters shutting down a schedule lecture? It makes absolutely no sense.

We have a backlash of neo Nazis that think they can project their views of the world on us by protesting. Notice that they are masked in many cases (reminiscent of the white hoods of the KKK). Their agenda has nothing to do with free speech, but rather the ability to prevent speakers from addressing an audience. I have to question what they consider inappropriate speech. It sounds like in their opinion; the general populace needs to be guided to come to the proper view or perspective.

Democracy has a new meaning “Protest until the majority agrees to meet your demands.” If and when they do, the incentive to protest more vigorously, increases. Buy you bull horn on

Some of us are tired of the protests. Governments can pass a law to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The net result, a robotic system to cook hamburgers. Protestors win their protest, and the government loses their tax base, robots pay no taxes. It’s a little like rent control in New York City; only a nuclear bomb could do more damage.

Two thoughts to muse over; be careful of what you ask for, you just may get it. And the second, the road to hell is paved with very good intentions.

Here is a quote from a Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville who toured our country in the 1850's.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Look him up, he is a good read.