Economic Euphemist Package

A visitor to the department where I work casually asked if anybody on my team had received his or her “stimulus” check. She said she had not as of yet, in spite of being promised she would have it in her account by May 9.

I briefly wondered what would have happened to her had she not met her requirement to pay the government by the agreed upon date, but before I could ponder the answer she further asked how much each of us would (did) receive, and if everybody would receive a check. When I informed her that even some non-taxpayers would receive checks she reacted in disbelief, but not with great surprise.

It was her final comment on the matter, however, that set my pulse racing, “Isn’t it nice to receive a little unexpected bonus?”

With every ounce of civility in my body I responded in the best way I could, “It would be nicer if they hadn’t taken this and more from us in the first place.”

She nodded agreeably, emptily, until a woman from my team added, “You’ll have to pay it back.”

This surprised her, “What do you mean?”

“The money isn’t for you to keep, you’ll have to pay it back,” said my teammate.

“Oh, that’s terrible,” the visitor replied, largely unfazed.

Hoping to finally have her react strongly I added, “These aren’t even tax dollars. This was a loan taken out by the U.S. government in your name which you’ll have to pay back with interest.”

In spite of all of these facts tumbling down on her, her demeanor never changed. Her temper never rose. The anger never burned. I shouldn’t be alarmed; she is, after all, an American.

--M.A. Hargett

Are "Big Oil" and other Energy Industries Engaging in "Profiteering?"

Worried? Don’t be. They're well regulated by the Federal Government, and it isn’t like the candidates who tell us every day about the evils of the Oil and Gas industries take big checks from them, right?

Oil & Gas Industry Contributions
Hillary Clinton (D) - $353,723
Barack Obama (D) - $266,097
Data courtesy OpenSecrets.org and the Center for Responsive Politics
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

Whoops!

Still, I’m sure that the majority of the money they take isn’t from big oil, though.

Oil Contributions
Hillary Clinton (D) - $276,150
Barack Obama (D) - $157,390
Data courtesy Oil Watchdog
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?topicId=8059&/The+Industry

Nope, wrong again. Darn!

Then again, I don't care that much. I don't care who gives money to political campaigns, I'm more interested in the why.

If Washington, DC couldn't assume power over issues unrelated to its existence, and those in power weren't former and future lobbyists and attorneys for the major corporations, campaign contributions wouldn't matter, and Americans would still have:

• Sound Currency - The U.S. government established the fascist banking cabal known as the Federal Reserve
• Cheap Energy - The Sherman anti-trust act wasn't passed to prevent "high" oil prices, it was passed to prevent "low" ones
• Plentiful Food - Between the USDA paying farmers not to grow crops, the "copyrighting" of seeds by Monsanto and ADM, and the grinding of food corn into the inefficient ethanol our usable land and edible food have dwindled to new lows
• Peace - Every war the U.S. has engaged in for over 100 years has been fought in order to expand its empire and tighten its stranglehold on the world

But remember, the evil isn't Dr. Frankenstein, it's the monster he created!

--M.A. Hargett

Smorgasbuffoonery

A friend emailed me asking for my thoughts on the Indiana Presidential Primary. He was somehow under the mistaken impression that there were only two canidates on the ballot. After informing him otherwise and sending him a detailed list of all five major party candidates and my choice of limited government's only friend Ron Paul I received a note saying in effect, "thanks for the data, I'm still torn between Obama and Clinton. I don't want to vote for a loser."

Taking a deep breath and pushing down that glowing rod of uranium-like rage I responded with the following:

Glad I could be of help, but let me try and educate you further.

McColdfish
Many have speculated that if Ron Paul faced off with Obama or Clinton he would win because he actually provides a contrast from what is obviously a common position shared by presumptive winner McCain and whichever Demodrone happens to be nominated. With Ron Paul in the race people might hear about real change rather than simply continue to hear the word thrown around without any specifics.

The Clinton Conundrum
Ron Paul is also further removed from Bush than any of them, particularly Hillary. The Bush and Clinton families vacation together and W takes policy advice from Bill. On the other hand, the Bushes have actively campaigned AGAINST Ron Paul for years, most notably when Shrub was governor of Texas.

The "O" Stands for "Zero"
After reviewing his positions how can anybody honestly believe that Obama is a candidate for change? He wants more of the same, and by more I mean an increase in volume. He pays lip-service to wanting to end the war in Iraq, but he doesn't know how soon this can happen. He says that Iraq was a bad idea but wants to have a repeat in Iran. There isn't a single policy in the last 8 years that he has really opposed (other than the war or when Bush hands out government money to GOP interests rather than Democrat). He simply wants to take the existing leviathan government and amplify it further.

Tweedlecain, Tweedlebama, Tweedleton
Since McCain, Obama and Clinton are all identical what does the vote matter if it's for any of them? It's like choosing your favorite shade of taupe. At least Ron Paul (or even Gravel)challenges the status quo.

Are people better off today than they were eight years ago? How about sixteen years ago? Twenty? We're on the cusp of a depression caused by wild spending and inflationary monetary policy promoted by Bush-Clinton-Bush, aided and abetted by McCain and Obama.

This ain't horse-race betting. It isn't about running the odds and putting your money on the best mare. If the major consideration you make before pulling the lever is which candidate has a better chance of "winning" then you're part of the problem. Stay home and out of the way.

Ideology is more important than electability and what's most ironic in our modern system is that if people changed their focus from the latter to the former electability would FOLLOW ideology rather than the other way around.

The lesser of two (or three) evils is still a sin.

--M.A. Hargett