Friday, 23 December 2011
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
"Damn The Poor!", Demands Inflation
Congratulations savers, you just lost 3% on your cash holdings! Don't have savings? Struggling to make it by? Tough luck, the money you do manage to acquire is worth 3% less then a year ago.
Here's a major problem. Inflation destroys the value of our currency. Cheap borrowing costs directly contributes to more lending and increased debt. Since growth in the economy does not keep up to pace with the increase of debt, the printing of new money is the means by which we keep the game going...and inflation becomes our inevitable nemesis.
Here's what we can do to curb inflation:
1. don't live a wild life of 'consumer consumption' based on consumer debt
2. pay off credit cards on time
3. pay off all other debts and live within our means
4. demand government stops insane amounts of spending (less borrowing = less debt = less printing of money = less dilution of currency = increased value of our dollar)
5. Take money from previously consumed items and invest in hard assets of real value
If done, our consumerism apatite won't be as 'fat and marry', but our money will be worth more, and we will have more of it.
This is simply 1 tool to help those struggling to make ends meet...this year, the help would have been to the tune of 3%.
I am passionately concerned with people who lack. I try my best to help others (as I have been helped) to advance and move forward. Because I believe government does a lousy job on something that is not their business, does not mean I am heartless and do not care. It means I care differently then some. Sometimes it's easy to look at a 600 word entry and generalise my points and take what I say out of context (i.e: every single entry I have done on poverty or minimum wage). I look forward to being more clear and concise in my future entries; like all of us, I too am striving to improve.
Here's a major problem. Inflation destroys the value of our currency. Cheap borrowing costs directly contributes to more lending and increased debt. Since growth in the economy does not keep up to pace with the increase of debt, the printing of new money is the means by which we keep the game going...and inflation becomes our inevitable nemesis.
Here's what we can do to curb inflation:
1. don't live a wild life of 'consumer consumption' based on consumer debt
2. pay off credit cards on time
3. pay off all other debts and live within our means
4. demand government stops insane amounts of spending (less borrowing = less debt = less printing of money = less dilution of currency = increased value of our dollar)
5. Take money from previously consumed items and invest in hard assets of real value
If done, our consumerism apatite won't be as 'fat and marry', but our money will be worth more, and we will have more of it.
This is simply 1 tool to help those struggling to make ends meet...this year, the help would have been to the tune of 3%.
I am passionately concerned with people who lack. I try my best to help others (as I have been helped) to advance and move forward. Because I believe government does a lousy job on something that is not their business, does not mean I am heartless and do not care. It means I care differently then some. Sometimes it's easy to look at a 600 word entry and generalise my points and take what I say out of context (i.e: every single entry I have done on poverty or minimum wage). I look forward to being more clear and concise in my future entries; like all of us, I too am striving to improve.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Told You He Was A Genius...
I am going to presume any talking dog is smart and reasonable.
So I was whammy-blammied with a truth bomb. Well, sorta. Okay, not at all. Just whammy-blammied;
I dont' see luck as logic will do me quite fine:
So here is my (simple) logic:
I don't think Ron Paul is my hero
You can have a value AND believe it is not within government jurisdiction operate within. If one says, "I think x is important and I do not think x should be government paid" they are not 'mean' or 'cruel', necessarily.
Replace x with parenting.
Replace x with enjoying the chewing of bubble gum.
Use your imagination.
In order to make a point about being mean and cruel, you have to explain why x ought to be paid for by government...which this article clearly does not attempt to do. Paul is not outlawing the care for others that previously would have fallen into the government jurisdiction...he is saying private sector does it better. We logically can't say, "the government is mean and cruel for not paying parents 1 million dollars per year to parent." We have to explain why the government should pony up, then by not doing so, they are then mean and cruel.
Logically, canadiancynic, make a point on why certain functions should be within the government arena, explain how he is cutting the services in the said area...then perhaps your reference would have a valid point on being mean and cruel.
So, the article needs to communicate the logic of, "Ron Paul wants to eliminate 'x'. 'X' is within the inherent jurisdiction of the government therefore Ron Paul is responsible for 'x' and any fallout thereof due to cuts." Then you can say, "By eliminating something the government is responsible for, they are being mean and cruel". This makes sense and is much easier to 'work with'. Much easier then: Ron Paul is cutting stuff (lots of stuff) therefore he is mean and cruel. I trust you can 'work with that'?
(The corollary: any area that ought not to be within government jurisdiction needs to be cut. I'm basically saying, if the government should be responsible, let them be. If they should not be, then cut it: but at least have the debate, should they or should the not be responsible and why?)
P.S, (genuine compliment :) when you don't swear, you are funny and make smart connections...congrats on your tweets.
So I was whammy-blammied with a truth bomb. Well, sorta. Okay, not at all. Just whammy-blammied;
So ... how's that Ron Paul hero worship working out for you? http://t.co/TDtVUHCN Uh oh ... http://t.co/WZO9Y1lj Good luck with that.
...would be the clearest possible sign that they want to remake this country into a much meaner and more cruelly indifferent nation than the one nearly all Americans grew up in.
ThinkProgress compiled video of just a few of Paul’s many claims that basic laws and essential programs violate the Constitution. A short list includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.
I dont' see luck as logic will do me quite fine:
So here is my (simple) logic:
I don't think Ron Paul is my hero
You can have a value AND believe it is not within government jurisdiction operate within. If one says, "I think x is important and I do not think x should be government paid" they are not 'mean' or 'cruel', necessarily.
Replace x with parenting.
Replace x with enjoying the chewing of bubble gum.
Use your imagination.
In order to make a point about being mean and cruel, you have to explain why x ought to be paid for by government...which this article clearly does not attempt to do. Paul is not outlawing the care for others that previously would have fallen into the government jurisdiction...he is saying private sector does it better. We logically can't say, "the government is mean and cruel for not paying parents 1 million dollars per year to parent." We have to explain why the government should pony up, then by not doing so, they are then mean and cruel.
Logically, canadiancynic, make a point on why certain functions should be within the government arena, explain how he is cutting the services in the said area...then perhaps your reference would have a valid point on being mean and cruel.
So, the article needs to communicate the logic of, "Ron Paul wants to eliminate 'x'. 'X' is within the inherent jurisdiction of the government therefore Ron Paul is responsible for 'x' and any fallout thereof due to cuts." Then you can say, "By eliminating something the government is responsible for, they are being mean and cruel". This makes sense and is much easier to 'work with'. Much easier then: Ron Paul is cutting stuff (lots of stuff) therefore he is mean and cruel. I trust you can 'work with that'?
(The corollary: any area that ought not to be within government jurisdiction needs to be cut. I'm basically saying, if the government should be responsible, let them be. If they should not be, then cut it: but at least have the debate, should they or should the not be responsible and why?)
P.S, (genuine compliment :) when you don't swear, you are funny and make smart connections...congrats on your tweets.
Minimun Wage Is Beyond Absurd
Minimum wage hike key to cutting poverty
“The government says the best route out of poverty is a job,” says Deena Ladd of the Workers’ Action Centre, a non-profit, worker-based organization. “But people working full time earning minimum wage are still having trouble paying the bills.”
“Increases to the minimum wage are the only pay raises people like Lilia Martinez ever get,” Ladd says. “That’s why it is important minimum wages reflect the cost of living.”
"Any initiative the government takes to alleviate poverty for low wage workers has to be backed up by enforcement,” Ladd adds.
I'm all for employers obeying laws, and not violating decent principles of fair treatment (even if we disagree with the law). I get the harsh and sad reality that people are genuinely looking to work hard and still come up short paying their bills. There are two directions we can take this legitimate issue:
1. We can encourage this lady (and others in a similar situation) to gain skills, learn English (it's noted she struggles with English) and search for an honest employer who pays an agreed upon wage for agreed upon services. This view is based on a 'free market being free', that this lady is responsible for her life and choices. It suggests that she can leverage off of relationships with family, friends and faith groups/charities to help her with 'lack'. This view does not 'lack compassion'. This view states that compassion is directed to help an individual where there is lack by teaching/partnering with them to gain the skills required to perform well in a job. To me, this view is compassionate.
2. The second view is that an individual is not responsible for their life. The view suggests that government is responsible for 'enforcing' laws to ensure an individuals needs are met. By teaching this lady (and others) that their source in a time of need is not personal responsibility, family, friends or faith groups/charities...but rather government, we are communicating a devaluing message to this person. Here is how:
"You don't have and/or need the skills, relationships to make it on your own. You do not need to take personal responsibility for your life. Do not depend on family, friends or charities/faith groups. They are not your answer. You need the government to make and enforce laws so you can 'make it' (regardless if the free market agrees with your value/wage). A person being 'entitled' to more then what they deserve devalues them. It makes them a needless victim and produces the opposite affect inside the person then what the government intends with their forced policy. By the government being their answer, people will typically continue in that pattern/cycle of dependency to have their needs met. I argue, people are too valuable and loved to be reduced to pawns by a government administration. I argue that people are so valuable that they are owed the opportunity to take personal responsibility, make connections with friends/family/faith groups that pick them up, dust them off and send them forward. We need people helping us, not government agencies. People don't like feeling like a leach or drag (this lady cites refusing welfare! Congratulations to her!) and therefore naturally recognise the pitfalls of government taxing one group to hand out to another. This messes up the free market and the very companies that pay the taxes become further strained and will simply leave or become less competitive (perpetuating our continual innovation crisis).
I'm all for compassion to others, as like nearly every Canadian. I happen to think someone struggling is ripped off when you lower their value to 'that of needing free handouts enforced by rule of law'. I happen to think that is far more powerful and beneficial when a family, friend or faith groups (of their free will and spirit of generosity) invests in others by building skills and relationships: this is lasting, loving and there is encouragement, accountability and a connection of love and commitment that no government will ever think of providing with money or support groups.
I congratulate this women on her bravery, determination and willingness to work. I would gladly take a serious look at her resume.
Monday, 19 December 2011
Shhhh....GeniusDog @ Work....
A scavenger who goes by @canadiancynic prowls Blogging Tories looking to poke fun where possible. If he did not swear so much, I would say he is funny and witty.
Back in October, when Ron Paul was polling between 6-8%, I made a call, "Ron Paul Will Surge In The Polls And Win" Sure, it was bold...however, I figured the US and European Economies would continue to falter and Americans would get fed up with the status quo of being the boss of the Universe (and going broke doing it).
@canadiancynic did not like my bold prediction:
Hmmm, seems like Ron Paul now leading in Iowa takes the bite out of that Christmas quip.
Perhaps an accurate tweak on Mr. @canadiancynic frequent analysis:
"It's like watching the top dogs in high-school who screw, party and fail class, knowing, it's not going to end well...at least for the taxpayer"
Regardless if Paul wins, many blew the call, that he is a contender and should be taken seriously. As more people think and reflect, they arrive at the same conclusions that Paul shares and this blog has been ranting for months on: big government is damaging to our lives.
Back in October, when Ron Paul was polling between 6-8%, I made a call, "Ron Paul Will Surge In The Polls And Win" Sure, it was bold...however, I figured the US and European Economies would continue to falter and Americans would get fed up with the status quo of being the boss of the Universe (and going broke doing it).
@canadiancynic did not like my bold prediction:
It's like watching a child who still believes in Santa Claus, knowing it's not going to end well,inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/10/ron-pa…
Hmmm, seems like Ron Paul now leading in Iowa takes the bite out of that Christmas quip.
Perhaps an accurate tweak on Mr. @canadiancynic frequent analysis:
"It's like watching the top dogs in high-school who screw, party and fail class, knowing, it's not going to end well...at least for the taxpayer"
Regardless if Paul wins, many blew the call, that he is a contender and should be taken seriously. As more people think and reflect, they arrive at the same conclusions that Paul shares and this blog has been ranting for months on: big government is damaging to our lives.
Ron Paul Simply Makes Sense
"We just don't plain mind our own business...that's our problem."
Finally a Republican President-hopeful who does not want to boss the world around. Let's end the useless, unjustified wars. End the nation building.
I get there are evil tyrants...we therefore need strong internal economies and military to protect us from them...not set up hundreds of bases to meddle in their affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)