Dan's Thoughts

State of the Union: Why I won't be watching

2012-01-23T19:25:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow night is the State of the Union address by President Obama. As the title of this post states, I will not be watching.

It isn't because I can't find the time or because I believe that what he says will have no impact upon me.

I won't be watching because I can't stand to watch one more speech reminding me how President Obama's motivations are nearly the opposite of my own.

One item I expect him to take credit for is an agreement between some states and the 5 largest mortgage lenders (outside of the Fannie and Freddie) that gives $20,000,000,000 to people who over-purchased.

"$17 billion would go toward reducing the principal that struggling homeowners owe on their mortgages."

"About $3 billion would to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent."

Let me cut to the chase. The money does not magically come from thin air. It also doesn't come from those "horrible" CEOs who have contracts per-arranged with golden parachutes. It comes from 401k plans. (In other words, it comes from those of us who are trying to invest for our future retirement like good citizens.) (Please see previous blog posts if this leap here is too much for you.)

So, the President will most likely get on national TV to talk to me (and a whole bunch of other responsible Americans) and tell us that he is taking from us to give to irresponsible people who over-purchased on their houses.

Or, stated differently, we're going to take the allowance of the good kid who saved and give it to the kid who blew his money on the cheap toy that broke. And the reason is that the kid whose toy broke is sad.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not the President specifically announces this specific "great" agreement or 15 other ones. He has announced so many initiatives with the same consequences (punish the good/responsible and reward the bad/irresponsible) that I am simply tired of hearing how doing the right thing is going to cost me and other responsible people even more money.

Aloha.

I sense much fear in you.

2011-11-25T23:17:00.001-05:00

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."

There are many sources of fear. However, it usually boils down to the fear of being able to influence a situation is such a way as to make it turn out favorably for ones self. This could be true of losing a job (how am I going to support myself), being chased by a tiger (how am I going to survive), wetting pants in school (how am I going to live with the embarrassment) or failing a test (how am I going to explain the failure to my parents, how am I going to get into college, how will I live with the negative perceptions of my teacher and friends).

If you really believed you could turn the situation around for yourself favorably, you wouldn't be afraid. To use the above examples, if you had a new job lined up that paid more, if there was a cage around the tiger, if no one saw you, you were in the bathroom alone and you had a spare pair of pants to change into, or if you knew that the test wasn't going to be graded, or that you knew the questions ahead of time and knew the answers would you be afraid?

Fear comes from the belief that you don't have the ability to act in such a way as to make the situation acceptable.

There is plenty in this world to be afraid of. Unemployment is 9% nationally. Underemployment is around 18.5%. The national debt just surpassed 15 trillion dollars. The price of gas is high. Hole in the ozone layer/global cooling/global warming/global climate change is going to irradiate, melt or freeze the earth. Big banks/oil/retailers/anyone are making a lot of money (which must mean they are big, powerful, evil people). The costs of healthcare are increasing dramatically. Nuclear waste might pollute something. The plastic water bottle you used today won't ever decompose. Racism didn't end with the election of the first African-American president. Muslim extremists are going to blow up something else. Iran is going to nuke anyone they can. China is going to own the rest of the world. Europe's debt crisis is going to make the rest of the world implode. The zombie apocalypse is just around the corner. The Mayans predicted the world's end in 2012. Playgrounds don't have 5" of shredded rubber tires under the swings. Our kids aren't wrapped in bubble wrap. Guns might shoot me. Knives might cut me. And on and on and on.

However, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I'll pick one example from the list above and illustrate.

If I am afraid that I might get shot by a gun, I would want to do everything I could to limit the number of guns around me. So, I would be opposed to a "shall issue" concealed carry law. I would view anyone who was for a "shall issue" concealed carry law as someone who was personally contributing to my potential danger. I would view the "extreme" groups who supported the law as a group of people that cared more about their desire to have what they wanted, in spite of the danger posed to me. If I thought a group of people were actively trying to expose me to more danger, I would hate them. I would view their actions as a personal attack on my health and well-being. That would cause me to actively seek to stop them. If I had a strong belief that I would die as a result of their support of the law, I might even perform some extra-legal actions to try to stop them, with the reasoning that to save my life (and who knows how many other lives) extra-legal actions would be justified.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

The biggest problem with my example is that, statistically, it has been proven that, in that situation, people are safer with a "shall issue" concealed carry law. And there lies the biggest problem.

Fear doesn't have to be based upon fact.

And now we get to the reason I wanted to talk about this quote and fear. If you look at many of the important issues of our day, you typically get at least one side that is based upon fear. Unfortunately, many of these issues are being clouded by fear.

In the 70's it was environmental damage. In the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer. In the 90's it was global warming. In the 00's it was global climate change. I can't wait to see what it morphs into in the 10's. However, the major focus is on the fear that man's progress is somehow ruining the world.

The cost of healthcare is increasing dramatically. It was easy to see this coming. There was a clear imbalance between power and responsibility. Companies began offering health insurance as a perk. Insurance companies covered most services. Government, over the years, mandated that even more things be covered (wellness, birth control, etc.) The consumer had no financial incentive to make fiscally responsible choices regarding his healthcare. Costs increased. Eventually, a crisis point is reached. The fear is that I will get sick (truly ill) and not be able to be made well.

When you view situations in the future, examine whether one or many sides of the debate are acting out of fear. Then, try to discern whether or not their fear is justified. If it is not, run the other direction from their views.

For example, I have taken a look at the CCW, global warming, fear of the "rich", fear of losing a job/giving children a bad education and evil big oil arguments.

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/global-warming.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/true-answer-in-battle-of-ideas.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/08/tax-rich.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/school-funding-in-michigan.html

http://gung-ho-man.blogspot.com/2011/07/evil-big-oil.html

In retrospect, it is amazing how many of the issues of our day are shaped by fear.

Be good critical thinkers...and check your fear at the door.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Aloha.

Tax us!

2011-11-20T14:17:00.001-05:00

Tax us!

I have heard this from two different sources recently, so I wanted to talk about it.

What does it mean when someone says "Tax us!"? And why don't they say "Tax me!"?

I believe words have significance and are very important. This case is no exception.

If I were to go out and say "Tax me!" I should be laughed at. If I want to give more money to the government, I could. Now, I know that there was some discussion (and even a bill) about making sure it was law that wealthy people could give as much as they wanted to the federal government. However, based upon the research I have done, (and this website from the federal government http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html ) anyone can give to the federal government anytime they want (and has been able to since 1843).

If I want to give money to the government, I can. There is no reason to say "Tax me!" as that is like saying "Please force me to give you money, when I already want to give you money and you have specifically already set up a way for me to give you money if I want to." Again, a laughable proposition.

So, why the "us" instead of the "me"?

There can be a couple of reasons why someone would use us instead of me. One reason is that the person speaking is representing the group. This is clearly as laughable as tax me. If everyone in the group of "us" wanted to be taxed more, then everyone in the group could simply act as "me"s and donate more to the government. So, clearly that is not the reason.

In this case, the reason they say "us" is because they are trying to group a bunch of people together. What they are trying to say is "Tax all of my group". What they are implying is "Tax all of my group...some of whom don't want to be taxed." And, since desire to be taxed is implied in the request, it could be restated as "Tax all of those in my group who don't want to be taxed."

And that is the dirty little lie of "Tax us!" It is not really a request to tax us. It is a request to tax those in my group who don't want to be taxed.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people."

So, whenever I hear someone say "Tax us!" I view that person as a thief who is not brave enough to perform the act of theft himself...or perhaps as an accessory to theft. Overall, however, I realize that the person speaking is not trying to give of himself (which is what he wants you to think), but is trying to take from others.

The first time I heard this recently was when I heard of some millionaire in Washington D.C. to try to convince Congress to "Tax us!" (with the us being millionaires).

The second time I heard this was when FoxNews broke a story talking about a proposed "tax on Christmas trees". I then heard the "local reaction" on WOOD-TV. The idea was to tax Christmas tree sellers $0.15 per Christmas tree. This money would go to Washington D.C. and then be used to generically promote Christmas trees.

Now, I don't remember where exactly in the Constitution the clause was for "promoting fresh cut Christmas trees", but when you find it, please let me know. Besides that obvious problem, isn't a "Christmas" tree specific to a certain religion? By promoting "Christmas" trees, isn't the government specifically promoting a religion? I remember reading something somewhere about that not being a good thing.

The initial national story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/

The initial WOOD-TV story: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/christmas-tree-fee-delay-upsets-growers

The important thing about the local story is that it makes the same argument as the "Tax us!" people. In the local story you have a local tree grower upset because the government isn't going to tax everyone to pay for a marketing campaign.

So, I have to ask a question. What would keep all those who wanted to (including the local tree grower in the story) from getting together, paying $0.15 per tree, hiring a marketing firm, and promoting fresh cut Christmas trees from doing so? The answer is "absolutely nothing at all, except selfishness and a desire to control money/productivity they did not produce". So, why don't they do it? Because one grower doesn't want to pay for marketing that may benefit a competitor without the competitor also paying for it? Or because some tree farms have as much business as they can handle and don't want to do marketing? Or because some are small enough that they don't want to spend money on marketing?

Who knows exactly. But what it comes down to is that one part of an industry wants to use the government (aka the gun) to impose a marketing campaign on the rest of the industry who doesn't want it.

Or, stated differently, "Please use the force of the government (aka the gun) to take money from some other people."

So, whenever you hear someone say "Tax us!", make sure you remember that the person speaking is at heart a thief, not an altruist.

Aloha.

Unemployment Payments and Economic Growth

2011-11-06T00:46:00.004-05:00

I read this quote and had to respond:

"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth."

First, let me take away any possible suspense on where I stand on this by saying that, while this may be true, it is misleading at best, most likely intentionally misleading, and a blatant lie at worst.

Unemployment benefits are paid out of taxes collected (depending upon how the states choose to do it) by the federal and/or state governments. Those taxes are paid by businesses. Whenever taxes are paid by businesses they are passed along to consumers in the form of increased prices for products. This leaves the business with what it deems a reasonable profit.

What this means is that the average consumer, instead of paying $1.00 for a widget, pays $1.05 for a widget. This also means that the consumer now has $.05 less to buy anything else. So, while we see the consumer buy the widget for $1.05, we don't see the consumer fail to buy the piece of candy for his daughter for $.05. So, the tax has a negative impact upon the economy at least equal to the tax itself.

I say "at least" because the candy maker decides not to produce as much candy. Not only is the one consumer not buying the $.05 candy, but hundreds of other consumers (also impacted by a loss of buying power due to the tax) also don't buy the candy. So, the candy maker decides to not employ one worker for 1 hour. This costs the worker minimum wage of $7.50. That worker doesn't buy $7.50 worth of product and the whole process repeats itself.

As you can imagine, the exact impact upon the economy of a simple $.05 tax is difficult to quantify. However, it is clear that the $.05 tax has a greater impact on the economy than $.05.

This is how the CBO gets to the idea that $1 given to someone for them to spend can have a greater than $1 impact on the economy. They put this process into reverse and try to come up with an estimate (using tons of math) on the positive impact on the economy.

So, you ask, why did I sound so negative in the first place? It sounds like the CBO just did a reasonable thing...right?

No. Whenever a tax is collected, there is a net economic loss. This is always true.

Why? Because whenever the government takes money, runs it through "the system" and then gives it to someone else (or even back to the original payer) there is some cost to "the system". You might start with $1 going in, but when you run it through "the system", you end up with only $.50.

So, the government takes in $1, but only ends up with $.50 to spend, plus they have caused more than $1 harm to the economy.

So, to give away that $1 in unemployment, they have collected $2 and have caused more than $2 worth of harm to the economy.

That is how this statement is misleading. The $1 in unemployment already did more than $2 worth of harm, but now is going to do $1.90 worth of good to the economy.

The CBO should know this and should use even more math to figure out the initial negative impact upon the economy before calculating the positive impact of unemployment payments, and then tell us the whole story.

For example, let's say they determine the $2 in taxes that they collected cost the economy a total of $3.80. Then, they determine that the $1 in unemployment payments will generate $1.90 in economic growth. So, they should report that for every $1 in unemployment payments the economy lost $1.90 overall.

This is why I said earlier that this might be a blatant lie at worst. Most who have studied economics would understand this. Everyone at the CBO should understand this.

The ease of being able to detect the lie is easy, when you take the CBO statement to the (very logical) extreme. If $1 in unemployment payments generates $1.90 in economic growth, why not tax at 100%, pay everyone unemployment, and generate 190% of the economy?

The implication in the CBO statement is that the government (somehow) by taking money from someone and giving it to someone else has helped the economy without actually producing a single thing. Clearly, this belief is a load of crap.

"But that $.50 cost for 'the system' didn't just disappear. When the government takes in $1 it has $1, not $.50. It may use that money to pay salaries or other things. Doesn't that generate economic growth?"

Yes and no. When a government employee is paid, a certain amount is taxed and the rest can be spent. However, no actual economic productivity or growth has happened as a result of the salary paid to the government employee. So while, yes, the government employee is buying things like food, clothes and other items, thereby growing the economy, every penny of that salary came from a tax that was paid (ultimately) by the consumer. So, we run into the same problem with a government employee salary as we do with unemployment payments.

Additionally, every government employee is one that is unavailable for the private sector to employ. "But that doesn't matter in an economy with such high unemployment!" you might say. However, that would be missing the fact that many government employees could be highly skilled individuals who could contribute to actual production, even more so than some other people who are employed. The additional productivity of the otherwise employed government employees would reduce the costs of goods and services.

So, to wrap this up...

Whenever the government unnecessarily (not necessary to improve productivity (and I have never known the government to improve the productivity of anything)) puts its hands into something (or any other person/group unnecessarily puts his/her/their hands into something) there is a net harm to the overall economy. Once the money goes through government hands, there will always be a net loss to the overall economy, even if the government were to turn all money back to the original payers of the tax.

If you would like to learn more, please read Economics in One Lesson:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320563107&sr=1-1

Aloha.

Tax the Rich

2011-08-15T21:06:00.003-05:00

I saw a sticker on a very nice truck today. It said "Tax the Rich". It started me thinking about what Warren Buffett said. Basically, he said that the rich should be taxed more. I have some thoughts on Mr. Buffett and the concept of Tax the Rich.

First, if Mr. Buffett would like to contribute more to the American Government, he is clearly free to do so. I doubt the American Government would turn away a check from Mr Buffett in whatever amount he would care to give. He does not need to wait for "taxation" if he wishes to give away his money.

If Mr. Buffett believes anyone else should pay more taxes, that is his right, under our Constitution, to voice his opinion. However, just because Mr. Buffett wants to take other peoples' money and donate it to the American Government does not make it a good idea. Just as Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie deciding how to run our military does not make it a good idea. Just as Al Gore wanting global warming to be true does not make it so.

This brings me to the "Tax the Rich" sticker I saw.

Who are "the Rich". When you think that there are 925 million hungry people in the world (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world), there is a lot of need. Currently, the United States gives out more than $58 billion in foreign aid to countries. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwingfield/2011/01/29/making-sense-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-elsewhere/) Why can't we give more and take care of hunger, shelter, and other "standard of living" issues for the rest of the world. Again, we already give $58 billion.

So, again, who are "the Rich". If we look at the global level, "the Rich" would be anyone in the United States who works more than 18 hours a week at minimum wage. The Boston Globe puts the average world wage at around $7,000 per year in 2007 (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_worldwide/ ).

Clearly, anyone who could afford a car and gas in today's United States economy is "the Rich". So, it is ironic to see a bumper sticker on a car saying "Tax the Rich".

Frankly, if you make $2 / year, someone who makes $3 / year is "the Rich". Anyone who makes more than you is "the Rich".

And in this reasoning lies the problem with "Tax the Rich". What it means is "Tax someone else who is making more than me."

It boils down to selfishness. Whenever someone wants someone else to pay their way, you have greed and selfishness. When someone suggests the government take more from "the Rich" you are suggesting socially sanctioned theft.

Warren: If you read my blog (insert laugh here), feel free to donate whatever amount you want whenever you want.

Truck driver: Be careful. To one of the 925 million hungry people in the world, you are "the Rich".

Aloha.

The true answer in the battle of ideas

2011-07-31T14:14:00.003-05:00

The true answer in the battle of ideas is history.

Ten years ago, the state of Michigan was debating whether or not to ease restrictions on concealed carry permits. Previously, you pretty much had to be a judge, police officer, or know someone to get a concealed carry permit in the state. If you were "just a citizen" your chance of getting a CCW permit were nearly non-existent.

The argument for "right to carry" was that you didn't have to worry about the law-abiding citizens who would take a training course, have a background check, fill out the paperwork and legally purchase a gun. They were the law-abiding citizens.

The argument against "right to carry" was that, with the drastic increase in weapons on the street, crime rates would soar and Michigan would return to a state resembling the wild west with a vigilante on every street corner and body counts rivaling a war zone. The average citizen could not be trusted with the responsibility.

After ten years with the less-restrictive law, history has spoken:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/central_mich/10-years-later-gun-opposition-fades

http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

The fear mongers who wanted to deprive law-abiding citizens of their freedom have been proven wrong.

Data at the time of the original debate showed that other states who had relaxed their CCW requirements experienced no problems.

This should be a lesson to us today. As I write this, we are being blasted from the media about the great horror that will occur if/when we "default" on the debt by not expanding our credit limit. We are also told that failure to increase our credit limit will result in our bond rating downgrade.

Some have recently admitted (and Rush Limbaugh has pointed out for weeks) that the federal government takes in enough revenue to pay the interest on the debt. The chance for a default rests only in the possibility that the President would order the Treasury Secretary to not pay the interest on the debt and instead spend on other programs.

The linkage between raising our credit limit and a bond rating downgrade are specious.

How many of you have gone to a bank to ask for a loan? If you have, you may know that they check your credit rating. That rating is based upon how much money you make, your current debt, and other factors.

Have you ever had to pay a higher interest rate because you had a bad credit rating? Many people starting out (who have not established a credit history) have to pay higher rates, because they have not built a credit history worthy of a higher credit rating. In other words, they are a greater risk, because no one knows if they know how to manage their money and pay back a loan.

Let's take a look at this example:

A couple goes to a bank for a mortgage loan. Everything is good with the collateral and they are approved (barely) for a loan. But, instead of paying 5% interest, they have to pay 6.5%, because they have borrowed a lot of money for things like furniture, clothes and daily expenses. There is some concern that they may not be able to pay off the loan, so they have to pay more interest.

Now, let's say the couple goes out and opens three new credit cards and expands their credit limit.

Why would this make a bank say "this couple is more likely to pay us, now that they have a higher credit limit"?

The short and obvious answer is that they wouldn't. In fact, without a plan for the couple to pay off their existing debt and not borrow as much in the future, a credit limit increase may cause them to pay even more in interest because they become more of a risk.

It is exactly the same with the federal government.

What will assure the ratings agencies is getting a balanced budget in place, cutting long-term spending, and reducing our debt.

Don't just take my word for it, listen to what Moody's (one of the ratings agencies) says:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moodys-releases-statement-potential-outomes-us-aaa-review-now-says-virtually-any-deal-would-not

"If the debt limit is not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a potential debt default for a number of days. Revenues would be more than adequate for some period of time to meet those payments, although other outlays would be severely reduced as a result.

As to the longer-term outlook on the rating, the limited magnitude of current deficit reduction proposals suggest that even a timely increase in the debt ceiling will lead to the assignment of a negative outlook on the rating. The direction of the US government's debt rating will largely be determined over time by our projections of its deficits and stock of debt, but the focus of our current review for downgrade is the more narrow and more immediate "event risk" associated with a possible debt-ceiling-induced default and the precedent that such a default would carry. We will make an assessment of the government's efforts to stabilize the future path of its debt ratios when the review is concluded."

I am tired of fear mongering in the name of pushing bad ideas. History always shows the results of our ideas.

What will negatively impact our credit rating the most is continuing to spend spend spend without any attempt at balancing our budget.

What will positively impact our credit rating the most is fiscal responsibility.

Raising our credit limit without significant cuts leads us down the path of spend spend spend, which will negatively impact our credit rating.

Enough fear. Let's have a discussion of fact. Once we move into the arena of fact, the choices facing our nation are clear and simple. Cut spending, stop promising things we can't deliver to try to buy votes and start behaving like adults.

Aloha.

School Funding in Michigan

2011-07-08T22:54:00.004-05:00

I have heard great wailing and gnashing of teeth over expected cuts to education for next year.

"House Republicans approved a $13.8 billion education budget that slices a minimum of $430 per student in K-12 districts..."

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_massiv.html

That sounds like a lot. So, I did some research.

I live in a small town. Here are the per student funding levels I could find for my school:

Year Per pupil funding
93-94 $4,323.29
94-95 $4,566
95-96 $4,834
96-97 $5,101
97-98 $5,363
98-99 $5,363
99-00 $5,700
00-01 $6,000
01-02 $6,500
02-03 $6,700
03-04 $6,700
04-05 $6,700
05-06 $6,875
06-07 $7,085
07-08
08-09 $7,316
09-10 $7,162
10-11 $7,162

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DepartmentPublications/FoundationHistory94to07.pdf

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/07/modest_hike_in_school_aid_fund.html

I also see some conflicting data from the first story from mlive: "Snyder's original budget called for a $470-per-pupil cut. The current minimum foundation grant is currently $7,316. The Senate reduced the cut to $340. The impact on districts losing students will be greater as the House bill also eliminates a $20 million fund to compensate for declining enrollment."

If that last quote is accurate, the $7,162 never made it to finality. This seems to indicate the current funding level remained at $7,316.

Anyway, let's assume worst case scenario of $7,162 and a $430 cut. That takes us down to $6,732.

Dear God NO!!!! Say it isn't so!!

Many people I know have taken a 10% pay cut. That would have been $6,585 per pupil.

In 2009 I took an 18% hit in compensation from the company I worked for. If schools had done the same thing, they would have been brought back to funding at $6,000 per pupil.

In addition to the 18% compensation cut I experienced, employees had been subjected to pay freezes for 3-4 years before that. If school pay had been frozen 4 years before and had an 18% decrease as well, funding would be at almost $5,500 per pupil.

At the $6,732 per pupil funding levels, let's assume a better (although I can't say optimal, due to my lack of research on optimal class sizes) class size of 20 students. That is $134,640 worth of funding per class per year.

Given an average total cost of teacher total compensation (salary/benefits) of $83,415 (FY 2008 estimate), that should leave $51,225 for all other school costs for those students.

That doesn't include extra money the school receives for meal programs, millages, students with special needs, and any grants.

If you would really like to convince me that there is a funding issue, could you help me understand where that $51,000+ per class of 20 students per year goes and why it is insufficient. And, better yet, since most classes are 25 students, explain where the $84,885 goes and why it is insufficient.

Aloha.

Evil "Big Oil"

2011-07-08T22:20:00.002-05:00

I have heard a lot about taxing billionaires and millionaires. I have heard a lot about "outrageous profits" of big oil companies. I have heard a lot about "those rich people who own Exxon" and their "outrageous profits." I have heard everyone complain about gas and oil prices.

Frankly, I am tired of it.

If you would like to make "outrageous profits", why don't you go into the oil business?

Is there too much capital required to start up?

Is there too much risk? (Like Shell who just lost $4 billion because of "a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits.")

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/

Do you lack the knowledge to drill one oil well, or to refine one barrel of oil into gasoline?

Well, great news! You probably are earning some of those outrageous profits in spite of your lack of capital, aversion to risk and lack of knowledge. If you want to talk about outrageous profits, Exxon is the place to start and stay a while. They are setting records.

I direct you to the list of owners of XOM (otherwise known as Exxon Mobil):

http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?symbol=XOM&Holding=Institutional+Ownership

When I worked at a university, we had a retirement plan called TIAA-CREF. They own 35.6 million shares. That puts them in the top 10 institutional owners.

There are other names that you would recognize, like Vanguard, Fidelity, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, T Rowe Price, and State Farm.

The top 10 institutional owners own 18.5% of the company. So, if you have a 401k or own part of a mutual fund, you are a partial owner of Exxon.

So, as an owner, take personal responsibility to fix the problem.

Stop whining and realize that, while you whine about how much your 401k has lost in the last 5 years and yell and scream at your investor, you are also whining and complaining about how well one of your investments is doing.

Most of you are not only consumers, but you are business owners as well.

It is the same argument made by those who want to be able to buy cheap toys for their kids, and wonder why all the jobs go over to China.

Most people don't realize they are part of a system. Decisions as a consumer have an impact on you as a business owner and as a worker.

To summarize: Those people making big profits are you. Stop complaining to me or anyone else about you.

Aloha.

Global Warming

2011-07-08T21:56:00.004-05:00

You probably haven't been told by the Global Warming crowd, but there hasn't been any global warming between 1998-2008.

With all of the publicity surrounding Global Warming, a movie (An Inconvenient Truth) in 2006, substantial funding of alternative energy, and discussion of drastic increases in minimum MPG ratings for vehicles, the one thing traditional media and Global Warming Fanatics forgot to mention is that there wasn't any warming from 1998-2008.

However, for all of the fanatics out there, there is good news. There is a scapegoat to explain away just why Global Warming is still happening:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

To summarize: China burned so much dirty coal with sulfur in it, "Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space" and kept the Earth from warming. However, soon, Global Warming will start up again. And then, we are all doomed...really.

It took them 2 1/2 years for them to "explain" why a decade of warming didn't happen.

It is amazing and unbelievable. Not once did I hear from the media that no warming had happened since 1998. Not once. Did you?

And that's using data that has been shown to be faulty.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Global Warming is a scam to scare people into slowing development, which is the goal of people who believe free market economies are "unfair".

Aloha.

Bin Laden dead

2011-05-02T09:16:00.001-05:00

Bin Laden is dead.

Aloha.

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T18:26:00.001-05:00

I can't say it any better:

http://op-for.com/2010/01/a_memorial_day_speech_from_195.html

Let us never forget the sacrifice of those who gave all.

Aloha.

Our borders

2010-05-27T07:57:00.002-05:00

Why our President and Congress should do their jobs:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/26/terror-alert-mexican-border/

Aloha.

FAIL: Congress tried to intimidate businesses, but it FAILED!

2010-04-14T17:59:00.002-05:00

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/14/canceled-hearing-that-would-have-grilled-ceos-on-health-care/

So, the summary is that

1. Congress passes a massive tax and spend bill.
2. Companies tell everyone that they are going to have to pay the tax.
3. Congressman Waxman gets offended and tries to grill/intimidate businesses that told everyone that.
4. Someone educates Waxman (the Chair of the Energy and COMMERCE committee).
5. Waxman realizes that the company were following the law by notifying people how and when they did.
6. Waxman quietly cancels attempt to grill/intimidate businesses.

He is the FREAKING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE!!!! And he doesn't know about FASB and GAAP???? I don't even have my MBA yet and I know about them.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!

It shows that he didn't do any research or know what the **** he was talking about. He was simply offended and reacted emotionally by trying to bully people.

Yet another sign of socialism and socialist tactics.

Aloha.

What are we proud of?

2010-03-25T22:17:00.002-05:00

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/bidens-bleeping-internet-sensation/

It used to be that our leaders would be proud for inspiring kids not to use drugs, or to stand up for what was right, or for serving their country.

This is what our leaders are proud of now. Dropping the F-bomb.

Scratch that. That is what the clowns who are pretending to lead are proud of.

Aloha.

We are going to make history!

2010-03-19T14:15:00.002-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/health-care-obama-makes-push-fire-democratic-lawmakers/story?id=10147283

To quote President Obama, "We are going to make history."

I have no doubt that, if this travesty passes, he will indeed have made history. Now, let's reflect on other world leaders who have made history:

Lenin
Marx
Stalin
Hitler
Emperor Hirohito
Genghis Khan
Pol Pot

Aloha.

Just too out of place

2010-01-08T15:46:00.003-05:00

I was playing the impressively violent and bloody computer game "Left for Dead 2". In it, you play as one of 4 survivors trying to get to a rescue point to escape hordes of zombies. On the way, you have to shoot, blow up or hack to pieces the zombies in your way. Tons of blood.

Anyway, near the end of the game, I noticed something completely out of place. In a guard shack I noticed a "His Kids radio". His Kids Radio is a children's radio broadcast that uses a special radio to pick up the signal. They had taken the radio, removed the big words "Faith & Fun" from the label, flipped it side-to-side and stuck it in the game.

Pictures follow:

The top one is a picture of the radio at my house. The bottom one is from the game after I unflipped the image:

Here is a progression of shots from close to far away to show you that, yes, in fact it is in the game:

So, a Christian children's radio was an object in the game Left for Dead 2. Most people would not recognize it, but since I work for the same organization that runs HKR, I noticed.

How weird is that?

Aloha.

Further thought on silencing critics

2009-10-19T20:12:00.002-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-official-says-obama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/

Watch this video and then see if you believe these are the words one would associate with a group looking for freedom and bipartisanship. See if you believe that this administration is trying to control everything that gets out, everything that the American people see, everything that the media covers.

This administration has no desire to lead. They want to bully. The only way you could say this administration wants to lead is if you add the prefix mis- to the front.

That the mainstream media allowed itself to be lead around by the nose like a prize bull is despicable.

I urge you all to not just assume that everyone has your best interests at heart and start doing your own research on what people tell you (me included). People are lying to you without any hesitation whatsoever and most of you don't even try to care.

Aloha.

Silencing critics

2009-10-18T15:31:00.004-05:00

When Democrats try to silence opponents, they live down to all of the charges of socialism/fascism that are leveled against them.

They try to stifle discussion by passing legislation quickly, without discussion.

When they fail to ram legislation through, and are forced to actually listen to the people, they call the people "a mob" and write off the many voices of the many people as "only political".

They try to mute insurance companies by "investigating" them when they communicate with their policy holders.

When AARP comes out as neutral on the new health insurance legislation, the administration buys them off by including provisions in that new legislation to remove AARP's biggest competitor health insurance supplement (the most popular one, as AARP is #2). Suddenly, AARP is in favor of health care reform.

They say that they are going to cut budgets and provide transparency, but then fail to report on what they actually did.

When one of the major networks doesn't agree with them, "They're not really a news organization."

The same people that spent 7 years (and counting) criticizing President Bush about "his war" and "not listening to the American people or his critics" are doing everything they can to ignore their critics and the American people.

In fact, it is so bad that the extreme left Saturday Night Live actually made fun of the Democratic "bipartisanship" when Senator Snowe voted for a bill to come out of committee. The joke was "So, 1 vote is bipartisan?"

A healthy democracy allows and even encourages discussion. Socialism/fascism tries to silence critics through marginalization and intimidation. The Obama administration is doing everything it can to avoid actually listening to the American people. And this from an administration that was preaching about unity and bipartisanship in its campaign.

On top of that, the Obama administration is doing what it can to buy people, raising the national debt to amazingly bad new heights.

This is a dangerous warning sign.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage." - Alexander Tyler

Aloha.

Government managed health care

2009-08-14T13:02:00.001-05:00

It worked for Canada, right?

20 minutes, but worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Aloha.

Fairness

2009-08-14T12:12:00.002-05:00

Fairness is a word often used but seldom defined. Usually, when someone says "that's not fair" they could mean two different things.

They could mean that the rules set the advantage to someone else so that even if the competitors were evenly matched, one would be more likely to lose and one would be more likely to win.

Or, they could mean that there was an unequal outcome, that somehow the rules should have been set up so that no one could win or lose.

To keep this short, expecting fairness in line with the first one is fine. Expecting fairness in line with the second one is not.

Here is a case where where the concept of "that's not fair" has been abused:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-VMIS13_20090812-180402/285566/

Jackson must be rolling in his grave.

Aloha.

This + Socialist President = Scary

2009-08-05T22:27:00.002-05:00

Here's the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/07/24/paper-bush-considered-sending-troops-new-york/

The President considered deploying troops on American soil. This truly blurs the line that many thought had been clear.

"Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War."

Wow. We came that close.

Now, with a Socialist President and this background and the talk coming from the White House ("The controversy is part of a larger debate on health care reform that has led Democrats to portray town hall audiences protesting a Democratic-sponsored bill as angry mobs duped into hostile actions by special interest groups.") and we have a situation where those who don't agree with the White House are categorized as angry mobs/terrorists and troops used against them.

If you had asked me 12 months ago if something like this was possible, I would have given a hearty "no." Now, I have to say, I see the possibility.

Aloha.

Please report on your neighbor

2009-08-05T22:14:00.002-05:00

From the White House blog:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Big Brother says we are right and if anyone disagrees with us, you need to report them to us.

Again, another symptom of socialism. Anyone who disagrees with us is providing "disinformation".

Aloha.

Drink your problems away!

2009-08-01T17:21:00.002-05:00

I am certain that nearly all of you have heard of the so called "Beer Summit". President Obama put his foot in his mouth without knowing what the...heck...he was talking about and insulted a cop. It created such a national uproar, he invited his friend (who he was sticking up for with his original stupid comment) and the cop involved to the White House for a beer. Hence, the Beer Summit was born.

So, what did you learn today, boys and girls? Whenever you screw something up, that's OK...just go have a beer. Drinking will solve your problems.

I am still waiting for the Alcoholics Anonymous press release.

Aloha.

Global Warming

2009-07-26T08:59:00.001-05:00

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Global warming is a lie. The people who believe it are full of crap.

I know...sometimes I'm not direct enough.

Aloha.

Hi, I'm a good advertising campaign

2009-07-26T08:54:00.000-05:00

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10288022-37.html?tag=mncol%3Btxt

Apparently, the Microsoft commercials are having an impact. Good!

I had a lot more here, but in deference to some people I know who like them, I deleted it and will leave it at that.

Aloha.