polifrog
Polifrog's first biannual Posting Carpet Bomb is now complete.
Despite the expected onslaught of reporting in the final 2 weeks of this election season polifrog retained near top google billing in the polifrog sphere of interest.
Posting Carpet Bomb = success.
Happy Halloween,
out
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Rep. Brad Miller -- Touting Affordable Housing or Just Pushing Unaffordable Loans?...
polifrog
What is affordable housing?
Both Brad Miller (D-13) and "Who are you?" Bob Etheridge (D-2) were in Zebulon, North Carolina basking in the glow of their stimulus housing funds.
According to Eastern Wake News Brad Miller had this to say:
What is affordable housing?
Historically (past 10-15 years) housing was made more affordable by reducing the down payments required to qualify for a loan. This is otherwise known as less skin in the game. It worked! People were able to get loans (homes in Brad Miller's parlance) they would not have otherwise been able to afford. This is an affordable home to Brad Miller.
But to someone living outside the political class, to a real American, Brad Miller's vision is better known as an unaffordable loan. These unaffordable loans were scattered across the US and they caused an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression.
Still, Brad Miller keeps coaxing people into his unaffordable loans through bills like H.R. 5409, The Residential Construction Lending Act which he introduced this year, while simultaneously laying blame for his similar past failed policies on a loan industry intimately regulated by Washington Bureaucrats and back stopped by Washington through Fannie and Freddie.
For real Americans Brad Miller's vision has resulted in the "Miller Homes" below; truly affordable homes made possible through Brad Miller's unaffordable loans:
Bessemer City, NC
$16,200
Find it here.
Durham, NC.
$15,300
Find it here.
Gastonia, NC.
$18,000
Find it here.
Winston Salem, NC.
$19,800
Find it here.
out
What is affordable housing?
Both Brad Miller (D-13) and "Who are you?" Bob Etheridge (D-2) were in Zebulon, North Carolina basking in the glow of their stimulus housing funds.
According to Eastern Wake News Brad Miller had this to say:
Miller said affordable housing is an important goal in troubling times for the industry. He said “old-fashioned greed” and banking lending practices caused the downward spiral that has led to record numbers of foreclosures.[emphasis added]
...“If you find yourself in a foreclosure, you’ve lost your membership in the middle class and for many of those families, they’ll never get it back,” said Miller.
“We have to reinvent our financial system,” he said.
Miller noted that it wasn’t affordable housing that got the country in trouble and that it still needs to be a priority.
What is affordable housing?
Historically (past 10-15 years) housing was made more affordable by reducing the down payments required to qualify for a loan. This is otherwise known as less skin in the game. It worked! People were able to get loans (homes in Brad Miller's parlance) they would not have otherwise been able to afford. This is an affordable home to Brad Miller.
But to someone living outside the political class, to a real American, Brad Miller's vision is better known as an unaffordable loan. These unaffordable loans were scattered across the US and they caused an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression.
Still, Brad Miller keeps coaxing people into his unaffordable loans through bills like H.R. 5409, The Residential Construction Lending Act which he introduced this year, while simultaneously laying blame for his similar past failed policies on a loan industry intimately regulated by Washington Bureaucrats and back stopped by Washington through Fannie and Freddie.
For real Americans Brad Miller's vision has resulted in the "Miller Homes" below; truly affordable homes made possible through Brad Miller's unaffordable loans:
Bessemer City, NC$16,200
Find it here.
Durham, NC.
$15,300
Find it here.
Gastonia, NC.$18,000
Find it here.
Stantonsburg, NC.
$8,000
$8,000
Winston Salem, NC.$19,800
Find it here.
out
Rep. Brad Miller -- A Grade School Economist...
polifrog
From Fabius Maximus:
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on Brad Miller, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) offered up H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
Brad Miller's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
Brad Miller, Grade School Economist.
out
From Fabius Maximus:
[emphasis added]
After three years neither the public nor many of our leaders see the driver of the housing crisis: we built too many homes. In some places (e.g., Las Vegas, California’s central valley) far in excess of any real demand. Outmigration from mismanaged and dying urban areas (e.g., Detroit) caused more over-capacity. Supercharging the bubble was the purchase of homes by people who could not afford the prices paid. But overcapacity was the primary driver.
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on Brad Miller, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) offered up H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
Brad Miller's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
Brad Miller, Grade School Economist.
out
Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) - Dressing Up Bank Bailouts as Saving Jobs...
polifrog
Brad Miller is at it again -- Dressing up Bank bailouts as jobs protection through an overtly friendly press.
Eastern Wake News:
And this is how it was done...
Wouldn't you like to be Capital Bank in this transaction?
The interest rate of a loan is usually based on the risk of the loan. In this case the loan is fully backed with assets plus, in the event of default, coverage for 80% of the losses in the loan value. Where is the risk? There is none, yet the bank presumably charges interest. The interest rate is not given in the article, but business loan interest rates are generally quite a bit higher than home loans. In any event, interest charged on a risk free loan above 3% (estimated cost of loan administration and profit) is a government subsidized giveaway to the banks. The interest rate charged by Capital Bank is certainly much greater than 3%.
--This is a possible win for employees of Mortex, if Mortex doesn't fail.
--This is an absolute win/win no risk event for Capital Bank, whether Mortex survives or not.
--Supporting a weak business in a dying industry on the backs of taxpayers is a no win for America.
But how did Eastern Wake News report all this in the opening paragraph?
Brad Miller added:
It must be nice having friends in the press who are willing to throw reputation to the wind for the cause of your election.
Imagine the influence, though, -- Mortex beholden to government, Capital Bank beholden to government handouts, employees beholden to Brad Miller, and government under pressure of a $3.o8 million payout to keep Mortex from failing.
Now imagine weakened business across America taking advantage of such loans and the government giveaway (whether the business defaults or not) to Brad Miller's Bank friends at the expense of the productive class. Risk is for the little people not for the Miller's friends at the banks. Meanwhile Brad Miller dresses up this fleecing of citizens as a jobs saver. Immoral governance.
Are these connections likely to end in economic vitality, or or will they result in increased government influence for the ruling class and a loss of influence for the citizens of America?
Lastly, this sort of activity is what got America into the over leveraged position it that currently plagues our economy. According to this USDA Rural Development PDF this program "allows lenders to make loans above their legal lending limits".
Why does Brad Miller want the citizens of this nation indebted to his Big Bank Friends while protecting those same banks from all risk?
---
As an aside, a few questions have to be asked.
out
Brad Miller is at it again -- Dressing up Bank bailouts as jobs protection through an overtly friendly press.
Eastern Wake News:
Mortex owner Ed Morrell met with U.S. Rep. Brad Miller on Wednesday to explain how the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development office helped work out the details for a loan that kept his company afloat.
And this is how it was done...
Capital Bank's Triangle Region president Todd Warrick suggested the company and the bank work on an application to the USDA.
Under the terms of the deal, Capital Bank loaned Mortex $2.6 million on a 15-year note. They loaned the company another $500,000 on a 10-year note. The bank also extended a $750,000 line of credit, which Morrell says he does not plan to use. The loans are collateralized by the buildings and Morrell's personal savings.
Mortex didn't borrow any money from the government, a point Morrell made Wednesday in a meeting with employees. The deal calls for the USDA to guarantee 80 percent of the loans.
That means if Mortex defaults, the USDA would pay Capital Bank 80 percent of the loan balance.
And because the loans are fully collateralized, Capital Bank's exposure is limited.
That puts the pressure on Morrell and his family, which owns the privately-held company.
"(Morrell's wife) Kissie and I are on the hook," Ed Morrell told employees Wednesday. "If we fail, we lose everything we have."
Wouldn't you like to be Capital Bank in this transaction?
- Make a loan that is fully collateralized.
- Make interest on a no-risk loan due to an 80% back-stop on losses. In this case the loans total $3.1 million (credit lines do not qualify for the USDA 80% back-stop).
The interest rate of a loan is usually based on the risk of the loan. In this case the loan is fully backed with assets plus, in the event of default, coverage for 80% of the losses in the loan value. Where is the risk? There is none, yet the bank presumably charges interest. The interest rate is not given in the article, but business loan interest rates are generally quite a bit higher than home loans. In any event, interest charged on a risk free loan above 3% (estimated cost of loan administration and profit) is a government subsidized giveaway to the banks. The interest rate charged by Capital Bank is certainly much greater than 3%.
--This is a possible win for employees of Mortex, if Mortex doesn't fail.
--This is an absolute win/win no risk event for Capital Bank, whether Mortex survives or not.
--Supporting a weak business in a dying industry on the backs of taxpayers is a no win for America.
But how did Eastern Wake News report all this in the opening paragraph?
More than 600 people in Nash, Johnston and eastern Wake counties still have jobs thanks to provisions in a federal stimulus package that loosened underwriting rules for loans to companies in rural areas.
Brad Miller added:
"If you hear of people who say the stimulus package never saved a job, you can look at them and tell them it saved yours," Miller said.
It must be nice having friends in the press who are willing to throw reputation to the wind for the cause of your election.
Imagine the influence, though, -- Mortex beholden to government, Capital Bank beholden to government handouts, employees beholden to Brad Miller, and government under pressure of a $3.o8 million payout to keep Mortex from failing.
Now imagine weakened business across America taking advantage of such loans and the government giveaway (whether the business defaults or not) to Brad Miller's Bank friends at the expense of the productive class. Risk is for the little people not for the Miller's friends at the banks. Meanwhile Brad Miller dresses up this fleecing of citizens as a jobs saver. Immoral governance.
Are these connections likely to end in economic vitality, or or will they result in increased government influence for the ruling class and a loss of influence for the citizens of America?
Lastly, this sort of activity is what got America into the over leveraged position it that currently plagues our economy. According to this USDA Rural Development PDF this program "allows lenders to make loans above their legal lending limits".
Why does Brad Miller want the citizens of this nation indebted to his Big Bank Friends while protecting those same banks from all risk?
---
As an aside, a few questions have to be asked.
- Just how bad do the banks expect to economy to get that they require an 80% back-stop on fully collateralized loans before considering going forward?
- Just how bad does our government think things might get that they agree to this %80 back-stop?
- And finally, is inflation considered in measuring losses on these? A bout of inflation would not only increase the likely hood of default but it would run up the losses that could be counted against the %80 back-stop.
out
Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2) -- Touting Affordable Housing or Just Pushing Unaffordable Loans?...
polifrog
What is affordable housing?
Both Brad Miller (D-13) and "Who are you?" Bob Etheridge (D-2) were in Zebulon, North Carolina basking in the glow of their stimulus housing funds.
According to Eastern Wake News Brad Miller had this to say:
What is affordable housing?
Historically (past 10-15 years) housing was made more affordable by reducing the down payments required to qualify for a loan. This is otherwise known as less skin in the game. It worked! People were able to get loans (homes in Brad Miller's parlance) they would not have otherwise been able to afford. This is an affordable home to Brad Miller.
But to someone living outside the political class, to a real American, Brad Miller's vision is better known as an unaffordable loan. These unaffordable loans were scattered across the US and they caused an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression.
Still, Brad Miller keeps coaxing people into his unaffordable loans through bills like H.R. 5409, The Residential Construction Lending Act which he introduced this year, while simultaneously laying blame for his similar past failed policies on a loan industry intimately regulated by Washington Bureaucrats and back stopped by Washington through Fannie and Freddie.
For real Americans Brad Miller's vision has resulted in the "Miller Homes" below; truly affordable homes made possible through Brad Miller's unaffordable loans:
Bessemer City, NC
$16,200
Find it here.
Durham, NC.
$15,300
Find it here.
Gastonia, NC.
$18,000
Find it here.
Winston Salem, NC.
$19,800
Find it here.
out
What is affordable housing?
Both Brad Miller (D-13) and "Who are you?" Bob Etheridge (D-2) were in Zebulon, North Carolina basking in the glow of their stimulus housing funds.
According to Eastern Wake News Brad Miller had this to say:
Miller said affordable housing is an important goal in troubling times for the industry. He said “old-fashioned greed” and banking lending practices caused the downward spiral that has led to record numbers of foreclosures.[emphasis added]
...“If you find yourself in a foreclosure, you’ve lost your membership in the middle class and for many of those families, they’ll never get it back,” said Miller.
“We have to reinvent our financial system,” he said.
Miller noted that it wasn’t affordable housing that got the country in trouble and that it still needs to be a priority.
What is affordable housing?
Historically (past 10-15 years) housing was made more affordable by reducing the down payments required to qualify for a loan. This is otherwise known as less skin in the game. It worked! People were able to get loans (homes in Brad Miller's parlance) they would not have otherwise been able to afford. This is an affordable home to Brad Miller.
But to someone living outside the political class, to a real American, Brad Miller's vision is better known as an unaffordable loan. These unaffordable loans were scattered across the US and they caused an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression.
Still, Brad Miller keeps coaxing people into his unaffordable loans through bills like H.R. 5409, The Residential Construction Lending Act which he introduced this year, while simultaneously laying blame for his similar past failed policies on a loan industry intimately regulated by Washington Bureaucrats and back stopped by Washington through Fannie and Freddie.
For real Americans Brad Miller's vision has resulted in the "Miller Homes" below; truly affordable homes made possible through Brad Miller's unaffordable loans:
Bessemer City, NC$16,200
Find it here.
Durham, NC.
$15,300
Find it here.
Gastonia, NC.$18,000
Find it here.
Stantonsburg, NC.
$8,000
$8,000
Winston Salem, NC.$19,800
Find it here.
out
Rep. David Price (NC-4) Has a Self Serving Vision for Health-Care...
polifrog
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
David Price's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Imagine our need, imagine Brad Miller's influence, imagine our lack of recourse...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to David Price, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
David Price's vision for health-care increases David Price's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under David Price's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
David Price's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million.
Patients could find it harder to get into hospital under plans from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on drugs and procedures to be funded.David Price's vision for Health-Care in the US is to fully break the bond between health-care customer and health-care provider, so that he, governance embodied, will be the one the infirmed come to when in need. He has no medical degree, has taken no Hippocratic oath, yet his governance will be the source of our health-care.
Imagine our need, imagine Brad Miller's influence, imagine our lack of recourse...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to David Price, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
David Price's vision for health-care increases David Price's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under David Price's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
BJ Lawson vs. Rep. David Price on Illegal Immigration ...
polifrog
David Price, born in 1940, is part of the leading edge of the Boomer generation and has chosen to identify himself with the portion of his generation that turned its back on the success and sacrifice of the greatest generation. To that end David Price has governed America toward lost liberty, poverty, dependency, moral decay, and has strained the common bonds that bind us together as a nation.
BJ Lawson and David Price spoke to the issue if illegal immigration last month.
BJ Lawson recognizes the importance of the common bonds that made America great.
In contrast, David Price, like his increasingly doddering generation, continues to reject the ingredients of American strength that he enjoyed the fruits of.
out
David Price, born in 1940, is part of the leading edge of the Boomer generation and has chosen to identify himself with the portion of his generation that turned its back on the success and sacrifice of the greatest generation. To that end David Price has governed America toward lost liberty, poverty, dependency, moral decay, and has strained the common bonds that bind us together as a nation.
- Where once we had a melting pot we now have cultural balkanization.
- Where once churches and community helped the down trodden we now funnel that help through a soulless government.
- Where we once had the crisp suit of moral certitude we now have the tie-dye of moral relativism.
BJ Lawson and David Price spoke to the issue if illegal immigration last month.
BJ Lawson recognizes the importance of the common bonds that made America great.
In contrast, David Price, like his increasingly doddering generation, continues to reject the ingredients of American strength that he enjoyed the fruits of.
out
Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12) - Diving beyond Debt and Morality...
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Mel Watt and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Mel Watt does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Mel Watt's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Mel Watt finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Mel Watt to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Mel Watt, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Mel Watt and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Mel Watt does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Mel Watt's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Mel Watt finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Mel Watt to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Mel Watt, a grade school economist.
out
David Price (NC-4) - A Grade School Economist...
polifrog
From Fabius Maximus:
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on David Price, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) supported bills like H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
David Price's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
David Price, Grade School Economist.
out
From Fabius Maximus:
[emphasis added]
After three years neither the public nor many of our leaders see the driver of the housing crisis: we built too many homes. In some places (e.g., Las Vegas, California’s central valley) far in excess of any real demand. Out migration from mismanaged and dying urban areas (e.g., Detroit) caused more over-capacity. Supercharging the bubble was the purchase of homes by people who could not afford the prices paid. But overcapacity was the primary driver.
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on David Price, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) supported bills like H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
David Price's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
David Price, Grade School Economist.
out
Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2) On Cap and Tax (Trade)
polifrog
Bob Etheridge supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank Bob Etheridge.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive Bob Etheridge mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case Bob Etheridge's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what Bob Etheridge wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like Bob Etheridge believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
Bob Etheridge a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
Bob Etheridge supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank Bob Etheridge.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive Bob Etheridge mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case Bob Etheridge's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what Bob Etheridge wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like Bob Etheridge believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
Bob Etheridge a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
David Price (NC-4) Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Bob Etheridge and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Bob Etheridge and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
David Price (NC-4) Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
Rep. Brad Miller, Bob Etheridg, David Price, GK Butterfield, and Mel Watt -- Breaking the Common Bonds Through ObamaCare...
polifrog
---I wrote this in reply to a comment and thought it would make a good post on a slow news day.---
I was at a roadside watermelon stand earlier this summer. A third fellow by the name of Obama strolled up as I was about to buy a peach of a watermelon from the vendor. He said, "Hold on, let me take that $5 and buy that melon for you."
"OK. what could be the harm?" I said, and let the money slide into his left hand which he had oddly nicknamed "The Insurance Industry". He immediately took off and he dashed from one milling customer to the other attempting to influence them with his new stash. During all the scurrying he managed to flick three dollars into a nearby creek for what he deemed to be "future investment". This seemed slushy to me, but whatever.
Eventually he returned to the watermelon vendor and gave him a $1.50. Fifty cents had disappeared beyond the $3 of "future investment".
At this point Obama forced the watermelon vendor to hand me and another fellow, who had yet to spend a dime, each a watermelon off the vendor's table of week old melons that were normally half price. With that, he then had the audacity to claim he had created one free watermelon.
End result....
Breaking the bonds of economic transaction yields hate between citizens and is the result of immoral governance.
out
---I wrote this in reply to a comment and thought it would make a good post on a slow news day.---
I was at a roadside watermelon stand earlier this summer. A third fellow by the name of Obama strolled up as I was about to buy a peach of a watermelon from the vendor. He said, "Hold on, let me take that $5 and buy that melon for you."
"OK. what could be the harm?" I said, and let the money slide into his left hand which he had oddly nicknamed "The Insurance Industry". He immediately took off and he dashed from one milling customer to the other attempting to influence them with his new stash. During all the scurrying he managed to flick three dollars into a nearby creek for what he deemed to be "future investment". This seemed slushy to me, but whatever.
Eventually he returned to the watermelon vendor and gave him a $1.50. Fifty cents had disappeared beyond the $3 of "future investment".
At this point Obama forced the watermelon vendor to hand me and another fellow, who had yet to spend a dime, each a watermelon off the vendor's table of week old melons that were normally half price. With that, he then had the audacity to claim he had created one free watermelon.
End result....
- Despite the fact that the vendor had lost money, I was pissed off at him for handing me a crap melon.
- The vendor, for his part, was perplexed to the point of frustration by my anger; as far as he could tell I never paid him for the melon he gave me.
- Although the vendor continued to kiss this Obama Character's ass in an effort to retain future business, he was pissed at being forced to operate at a loss until he realized he no longer needed to keep a supply of the best watermelons to retain his market.
- For Obama's part, between visits to collect more money for my next melon, the price of which had already risen to $15, he was too busy picking lobster from his teeth to notice the dischord he had created, nor did he have the inclination to hear my complaints.
Breaking the bonds of economic transaction yields hate between citizens and is the result of immoral governance.
out
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Rep GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- On Cap and Tax (Trade)
polifrog
GK Butterfield supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank GK Butterfield.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive GK Butterfield mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case GK Butterfield's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what GK Butterfield wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like GK Butterfield believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
GK Butterfield a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
GK Butterfield supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank GK Butterfield.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive GK Butterfield mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case GK Butterfield's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what GK Butterfield wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like GK Butterfield believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
GK Butterfield a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
Rep. GK Butterfield (NC-1) Has a Self Serving Vision for Health-Care...
polifrog
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
GK Butterfield's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Imagine our need, imagine GK Butterfield's influence...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to GK Butterfield, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
GK Butterfield's vision for health-care increases GK Butterfield's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under GK Butterfield's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
GK Butterfield's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million.
Patients could find it harder to get into hospital under plans from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on drugs and procedures to be funded.GK Butterfield's vision for Health-Care in the US is to fully break the bond between health-care customer and health-care provider, so that he, governance embodied, will be the one the infirmed come to when in need. He has no medical degree, has taken no Hippocratic oath, yet his governance will be the source of our health-care.
Imagine our need, imagine GK Butterfield's influence...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to GK Butterfield, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
GK Butterfield's vision for health-care increases GK Butterfield's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under GK Butterfield's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
Rep. Brad Miller -- When Not in Silence Mode Brad Miller Gives Random Answers to Specific Questions...
polifrog
What is going on with Brad Miller? Did he read the question wrong? Did he send the wrong answer out to the wrong address? Is Brad Miller the equivalent of Stevie Wonder on a tennis court with a camera?
Carolina Journal asked the following direct questions of Brad Miller:
Brad Miller's was the longest of the elected officials who were asked the questions but his response not only answered an imagined question but highlighted the weakness of his coming campaign:
OK?...
No answer yet...
Yea "highlights".
Brad Miller's answer read more like campaign pap and if this is an example of what Brad Miller intends campaign on... He. Is. Hurting.
BTW, here is an answer to the questions posed our elected officials. In short... Yes!
Erick Erickson of RedState received a copy of the congressional schedule below:
Polifrog, answering the questions brad Miller gets lost on.
Brad Miller, Not your parent's Democrat.
out
What is going on with Brad Miller? Did he read the question wrong? Did he send the wrong answer out to the wrong address? Is Brad Miller the equivalent of Stevie Wonder on a tennis court with a camera?
Carolina Journal asked the following direct questions of Brad Miller:
Would you support the adoption of any significant legislation during a lame-duck session in 2010? Or should those measure wait until the 112th Congress takes office in January 2011?
Brad Miller's was the longest of the elected officials who were asked the questions but his response not only answered an imagined question but highlighted the weakness of his coming campaign:
President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, HR 4173 on July 21st.
OK?...
I authored several key elements in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act including a national mortgage lending reform law that I first introduced with Rep. Mel Watt in 2004. I was also the first House Member to propose the creation of an independent consumer financial protection regulator; a centerpiece of the bill.
No answer yet...
Did Brad Miller ever know the question? He concluded with a few "highlights of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act".
For too long Wall Street won every time because they always got to write the rules and keep score. Other generations of Americans have fought to reign in self-interested financial and political power, and to put government on the side of ordinary Americans. Now it’s our turn.
Yea "highlights".
Brad Miller's answer read more like campaign pap and if this is an example of what Brad Miller intends campaign on... He. Is. Hurting.
BTW, here is an answer to the questions posed our elected officials. In short... Yes!
Erick Erickson of RedState received a copy of the congressional schedule below:
In session: September 13 to October 8
Out: October 11 to November 12
In session: November 15 – 19
Out: Week of November 22 (Thanksgiving week)
In session: November 29 – ?
Polifrog, answering the questions brad Miller gets lost on.
Brad Miller, Not your parent's Democrat.
out
Federal judge ruled in favor of the state Republican party over Crappy voting machines...
polifrog
News14:
News14:
Saturday afternoon a federal judge ruled in favor of the state Republican party over the lawsuit filed in complaint of touchscreen voting machines.The GOP complained touchscreen voting systems were not working properly during early voting. Thirty-five counties across North Carolina use touchscreen voting. Attorneys for the the state argued there aren't problems with the machines and multiple precautions are in place to prevent errors within the voting system.
On Election day, all precincts that use touchscreen voting machines will be required to post a “Voter Alert” notice that notifies voters: of the following:
• Touchscreen voting machines are sensitive
• A summary page will appear at the end of your ballot
• Carefully review your ballot to make sure your vote is accurately cast
• If you have any problems, please ask for help from a poll worker
out
(NC-13) Brad Miller's ObamaCare Continuing to Reveal its Awfulness...
polifrog
Brad Miller of NC happily voted in support of ObamaCare and with that vote laid just as much claim to it as Pelosi, Obama and Reid. Unfortunately for Brad Miller its awfulness continues to reveal itself. Pelosi claimed we would have to pass ObamaCare (in the rush of all rushes) to see what was in it. In that she was correct, as for those congress folks who lent their support to the little read and even less understood bill it continues to do just that.
According to CNN Money:
The new regulations, which kick in at the start of 2012, require any taxpayer with business income to issue 1099 forms to all vendors from whom they purchased more than $600 of goods and services that year. That promises to launch a fusillade of new paperwork: An estimated 40 million taxpayers will be subject to the requirement, including 26 million who run sole proprietorships, according to a report released this week by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson.Olson's office, which operates independently within the IRS, flagged the new reporting requirements as one of its priority issues for the next year. Like many who have delved into the details of the new rules, Olson is concerned about their far-reaching scope and potential unintended consequences.
"The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance," the Taxpayer Advocate Service wrote in a report released this week.
The new rules are aimed at reducing the "tax gap" between what individuals and businesses owe and what they actually pay. The federal government misses out on estimated $300 billion each year from tax underpayment. The expanded reporting requirements, which Congressslipped into the landmark health care reform bill passed in March, are an attempt to create a paper trail of 1099s exposing business-to-business payments that might otherwise stay off the radar.
But the cost of that paper trail could swamp the small companies, sole proprietors freelancers forced to generate it. Pennsylvania business networking organization SMC Business Councils surveyed its members and found that they currently average 10 filings a year of 1099 forms. The new rules would push that average to more than 200 filings per year for a typical small business, the industry group estimates.
Bad for business, bad for you, bad for Brad Miller.
out
Democrat Congresses = Budget Deficits - Fire Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Bob Etheridge, Rep. GK Butterfield, Rep David Price, Rep Mel Watt...
polifrog
With the fact that we are going to the polls this Tuesday and all house seats are up for grabs it is wise to understand that it is the house that controls the nation's budget.
There are not "Clinton Surpluses"; Newt's congress forced the surpluses on him, neither are there "Bush Deficits" as Pelosi forced the majority of deficits on him during his final two years. Presidents do not control the nation's purse, congress does. Allowing this meme, that presidents have surpluses and deficits, only decreases accountability.
There are, in fact, Republican Congressional Surpluses and Perpetual Democrat Congressional deficits.
It is in this nation's interest to know which party is the party of fiscal responsibility and which party does not understand that Keynesian Theory is a failure.
[Graph via gatewaypundit, but altered]
out
With the fact that we are going to the polls this Tuesday and all house seats are up for grabs it is wise to understand that it is the house that controls the nation's budget.
There are not "Clinton Surpluses"; Newt's congress forced the surpluses on him, neither are there "Bush Deficits" as Pelosi forced the majority of deficits on him during his final two years. Presidents do not control the nation's purse, congress does. Allowing this meme, that presidents have surpluses and deficits, only decreases accountability.
There are, in fact, Republican Congressional Surpluses and Perpetual Democrat Congressional deficits.
It is in this nation's interest to know which party is the party of fiscal responsibility and which party does not understand that Keynesian Theory is a failure.
[Graph via gatewaypundit, but altered]
out
Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
Rep. David Price (NC-4) - On Cap and Tax (Trade)
polifrog
David Price supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank David Price.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive David Price mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case David Price's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what David Price wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like David Price believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
David Price a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
David Price supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank David Price.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive David Price mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case David Price's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what David Price wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like David Price believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
David Price a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) - A Child Dabbling in Economics...
polifrog
From Fabius Maximus:
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on Bob Etheridge, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) campaigned with Brad Miller and touted H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
Bob Etheridge's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
Bob Etheridge, Grade School Economist.
out
From Fabius Maximus:
[emphasis added]
After three years neither the public nor many of our leaders see the driver of the housing crisis: we built too many homes. In some places (e.g., Las Vegas, California’s central valley) far in excess of any real demand. Outmigration from mismanaged and dying urban areas (e.g., Detroit) caused more over-capacity. Supercharging the bubble was the purchase of homes by people who could not afford the prices paid. But overcapacity was the primary driver.
The obvious nature of this statement is lost on Bob Etheridge, who in an act of comedic brilliance (were it not so tragic) campaigned with Brad Miller and touted H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act this summer.
Bob Etheridge's solution to excess capacity?... more supply!!
Bob Etheridge, Grade School Economist.
out
GK Butterfield - Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.
out
Rep. Brad Miller -- When Not in Silence Mode Brad Miller Gives Random Answers to Specific Questions...
polifrog
What is going on with Brad Miller? Did he read the question wrong? Did he send the wrong answer out to the wrong address? Is Brad Miller the equivalent of Stevie Wonder on a tennis court with a camera?
Carolina Journal asked the following direct questions of Brad Miller:
Brad Miller's was the longest of the elected officials who were asked the questions but his response not only answered an imagined question but highlighted the weakness of his coming campaign:
OK?...
No answer yet...
Yea "highlights".
Brad Miller's answer read more like campaign pap and if this is an example of what Brad Miller intends campaign on... He. Is. Hurting.
BTW, here is an answer to the questions posed our elected officials. In short... Yes!
Erick Erickson of RedState received a copy of the congressional schedule below:
Polifrog, answering the questions brad Miller gets lost on.
Brad Miller, Not your parent's Democrat.
out
What is going on with Brad Miller? Did he read the question wrong? Did he send the wrong answer out to the wrong address? Is Brad Miller the equivalent of Stevie Wonder on a tennis court with a camera?
Carolina Journal asked the following direct questions of Brad Miller:
Would you support the adoption of any significant legislation during a lame-duck session in 2010? Or should those measure wait until the 112th Congress takes office in January 2011?
Brad Miller's was the longest of the elected officials who were asked the questions but his response not only answered an imagined question but highlighted the weakness of his coming campaign:
President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, HR 4173 on July 21st.
OK?...
I authored several key elements in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act including a national mortgage lending reform law that I first introduced with Rep. Mel Watt in 2004. I was also the first House Member to propose the creation of an independent consumer financial protection regulator; a centerpiece of the bill.
No answer yet...
Did Brad Miller ever know the question? He concluded with a few "highlights of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act".
For too long Wall Street won every time because they always got to write the rules and keep score. Other generations of Americans have fought to reign in self-interested financial and political power, and to put government on the side of ordinary Americans. Now it’s our turn.
Yea "highlights".
Brad Miller's answer read more like campaign pap and if this is an example of what Brad Miller intends campaign on... He. Is. Hurting.
BTW, here is an answer to the questions posed our elected officials. In short... Yes!
Erick Erickson of RedState received a copy of the congressional schedule below:
In session: September 13 to October 8
Out: October 11 to November 12
In session: November 15 – 19
Out: Week of November 22 (Thanksgiving week)
In session: November 29 – ?
Polifrog, answering the questions brad Miller gets lost on.
Brad Miller, Not your parent's Democrat.
out
Rep. Brad Miller (NC- 13) - A Vote for a Bill Miller Does Not Support...
polifrog
Brad Miller is now on record of being in favor of repealing a portion of ObamaCare he previously supported when he voted in favor of the usurpation of state and individual liberty through ObamaCare.
The question is ... did he know he was supporting the 1099 burden lost within the breathlessly passed leviathan of ObamaCare when he previously voted in favor of its enactment?
Did Brad Miller know what he was voting for?
Did Brad Miller read the bill?
Does it matter when Democrats didn't want the 1099 correction to pass anyway?
Via TaxProf Blog:
Lost in this is the Democrat's new found PayGo chastity, a chastity so great for this one bill only that they have to pay for the supposed loss in revenue from the 1099 tax which has not generated a dime with new taxes. This bill also required a supermajority to pass which in tandem with the new taxes guaranteed the bill's failure.
The Democrats did not want this correction to Obamacare to pass.... but they wanted it to appear that they supported it. Purely foul politics in practice.
These are the very same people who overlooked paygo when they poisoned a bill to help 9/11 responders with an onerously high and unfunded price tag of $7.4 billion and again requiring a super-majority for the bill's passage.
The Democrats did not want this bill that helped 9/11 responders to pass, but they wanted it to appear that they supported it. Purely foul politics in practice.
This is not governance ... this is political deception. This is Brad Miller lying to North Carolina through political manipulation of our government.
Brad Miller: Not your parent's Democrat.
out
Brad Miller is now on record of being in favor of repealing a portion of ObamaCare he previously supported when he voted in favor of the usurpation of state and individual liberty through ObamaCare.
The question is ... did he know he was supporting the 1099 burden lost within the breathlessly passed leviathan of ObamaCare when he previously voted in favor of its enactment?
Did Brad Miller know what he was voting for?
Did Brad Miller read the bill?
Does it matter when Democrats didn't want the 1099 correction to pass anyway?
Via TaxProf Blog:
House Democrats proposed repealing a piece of the health care overhaul Friday, a move designed to thwart Republican efforts to do the same thing and declare an early victory in their efforts to repeal the whole law.
Democrats proposed repealing new IRS reporting requirements that small business has warned would be overly burdensome. But they attached a new tax on Americans conducting business overseas— essentially a poison pill for Republicans who are unlikely to support a new tax.
The Democrats hold the majority in the house, but it was brought up on a procedural rule requiring two-thirds support. It failed, 241-154, largely on party lines with Republicans in opposition.
Lost in this is the Democrat's new found PayGo chastity, a chastity so great for this one bill only that they have to pay for the supposed loss in revenue from the 1099 tax which has not generated a dime with new taxes. This bill also required a supermajority to pass which in tandem with the new taxes guaranteed the bill's failure.
The Democrats did not want this correction to Obamacare to pass.... but they wanted it to appear that they supported it. Purely foul politics in practice.
These are the very same people who overlooked paygo when they poisoned a bill to help 9/11 responders with an onerously high and unfunded price tag of $7.4 billion and again requiring a super-majority for the bill's passage.
The Democrats did not want this bill that helped 9/11 responders to pass, but they wanted it to appear that they supported it. Purely foul politics in practice.
This is not governance ... this is political deception. This is Brad Miller lying to North Carolina through political manipulation of our government.
Brad Miller: Not your parent's Democrat.
out
Rep. Bob Etheridge's (NC-2) Self Serving Vision for Health-Care...
polifrog
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
Bob Etheridge's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Imagine our need, imagine Bob Etheridge's influence, imagine our lack of recourse...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to Bob Etheridge, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
Bob Etheridge's vision for health-care increases Bob Etheridge's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under Bob Etheridge's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
Bob Etheridge's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million.
Patients could find it harder to get into hospital under plans from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on drugs and procedures to be funded.Bob Etheridges vision for Health-Care in the US is to fully break the bond between health-care customer and health-care provider, so that he, governance embodied, will be the one the infirmed come to when in need. He has no medical degree, has taken no Hippocratic oath, yet his governance will be the source of our health-care.
Imagine our need, imagine Bob Etheridge's influence, imagine our lack of recourse...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to Bob Etheridge, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
Bob Etheridge's vision for health-care increases Bob Etheridge's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under Bob Etheridge's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
Brad Miller 13 NC -- On Cap and Tax (Trade)
polifrog
Brad Miller supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank Brad Miller.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive Brad Miller mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case Brad Miller's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what Brad Miller wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like Brad Miller believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
Brad Miller a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
Brad Miller supports and has voted in favor of Cap and Tax (Trade).
Aside from decimating American industry in a false effort to avert Global Warming....
Yea, that Global Warming....How does this bill directly effect the individual?
Within the endless pages of legal ease of the bill is a little ditty that has a detrimental effect on home owners. It, of course, would not only impact home owners but everyone who rents as well, as the owners of the units would pass the increased costs on to the renter. Ok, by that reasoning, it effects anyone who chooses to live in a shelter of any kind.
It does this by requiring property owners to upgrade their homes to meet predetermined efficiency standards. Replacing all windows, upgraded insulation, new furnaces , new water heaters, and new appliances would be required before a home owner would be allowed to sell their home. Least you think this would be a one shot upgrade, remember that advances in efficiency would keep the inspectors returning prior to every sale.
Thought experiment...You've lost your job and have been having difficulty with the mortgage. You need to sell your home...fast. The government efficiency inspector, though, reports in their leisurely way that you need $20,000 in upgrades before you can sell your home and get out from under the mortgage. Your already broke and unlikely able to get a loan for $20,000. You default on your loan. Thank Brad Miller.
Thought experiment...You own a rental property you wish to sell and are forced to make one of two decisions. Whether it is a duplex or an apartment complex does not matter. You are considering selling, but selling would mean raising the rents on your tenants to make the expensive Brad Miller mandated upgrades to your rental. Your other option is to sit on the property in which case Brad Miller's efficiency mandates force you to add to the locking up of the real estate market. Bad for renters, bad for owners, bad for real estate, bad for America.
This is just a tiny facet of Cap and Trade and it is what Brad Miller wishes to impose on all Americans.
Politicians like Brad Miller believe that their party having been falsely defined as protectors of the poor will shield them from the wrath of the poor and middle class who will shoulder the burden of Cap and Trade. And remember Cap and Trade it is argued will protect us from the hoax that is global warming. This is government intrusion and nothing more.
Brad Miller a grade school economist who is truly bad for NC and America.
out
(NC-13) Brad Miller's Self-Serving Vision for Health-Care...
polifrog
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
Brad Miller's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Imagine our need, imagine Brad Miller's influence...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to Brad Miller, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
Brad Miller's vision for health-care increases Brad Miller's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under Brad Miller's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
It is a vision in which the recipients of health-care become a cost and government becomes the customer, a system in which the health-care industry grovels at the feet of the source of its funding - bureaucrats, while the infirmed wait in line for the chance to beg for the health-care they paid recalcitrant bureaucrats for.
Brad Miller's vision of better health-care inserts himself between my doctor and myself through insurance companies.
Eventually, though, the nation will question the existence of the insurance companies and the end result will be the NHS, England's government health-care. Via dailymail.com:
Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million.
Patients could find it harder to get into hospital under plans from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on drugs and procedures to be funded.Brad Miller's vision for Health-Care in the US is to fully break the bond between health-care customer and health-care provider, so that he, governance embodied, will be the one the infirmed come to when in need. He has no medical degree, has taken no Hippocratic oath, yet his governance will be the source of our health-care.
Imagine our need, imagine Brad Miller's influence...
Health-care has to be paid for out of our pockets. Either it goes directly from our pockets to the health-care industry, or it goes in to the hands of governance then to the health-care industry. The question is...is it more efficient for us to give our dollars directly to those who wish to provide us with a service and retain the power we have as a customer over a provider, than to give those dollars and influence to Brad Miller, and be left groveling at his feet when we fear services may be cut.
Brad Miller's vision for health-care increases Brad Miller's influence while decreasing ours, it strengthens government while weakening America. Under Brad Miller's vision Europe's socialist failure will be ours.
out
Rep David Price (NC-4) -- Wrong on Net Neutrality...
polifrog
(h/t redstate)
Why regulate the internet? Why?
I have yet to hear a compelling reason from David Price or anyone else for regulating theinternet which has no apparent problems.
Now the push is again on after "a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC'sauthority over broadband lines".
The internet is works fine. It has been a wondrous source of vitality in the United States that reminds me of the United States of 100 years ago. It does not need to be smothered with needless regulation.
Until there is a compelling reason talk of regulation should be dropped. David Price should step back from his support for net neutrality and put his trust in the American people. That is, admittedly, difficult for David Price.
We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish only to control that which is free.
Fire David Price in November.
out
(h/t redstate)
Why regulate the internet? Why?
I have yet to hear a compelling reason from David Price or anyone else for regulating theinternet which has no apparent problems.
[Mr. Genachowski] wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.Have you had this issue? I haven't.
Now the push is again on after "a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC'sauthority over broadband lines".
The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.Well, apparently, like Nancy Pelosi in her quest to control our health, no hurdle is too high for theFCC's quest for control.
In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.
The internet is works fine. It has been a wondrous source of vitality in the United States that reminds me of the United States of 100 years ago. It does not need to be smothered with needless regulation.
Until there is a compelling reason talk of regulation should be dropped. David Price should step back from his support for net neutrality and put his trust in the American people. That is, admittedly, difficult for David Price.
We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish only to control that which is free.
Fire David Price in November.
out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
