pleonast.com [login]
david
entry list
galleries
links
MacNerdAlert
Survey 10-08-08 05:40pm CST
Just a simple poll:
Please read and answer carefully-


Which Presidential Candidate do you place a GREAT deal of confidence in?

a) McCain
b) Obama
c) Neither one--I'm either supporting the "lesser of two evils" or a third party candidate, or I am at a complete loss.

Thanks

**Please note- this is not whom you are voting for. It is whom you support with GREAT confidence.
(7 older comments)
davidKristie's vote would be in the "C" category. 
sparkerC/A my levels of confidence waver; there are days I believe he'll do good things, but then I think not 
nillabarr
sweet
upintheairI'll reiterate....A (I may not agree with the man 100% but I do have a GREAT deal of confidence in him, certainly more than I do in Ron Paul or Obama or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin) 
mapgray
chumbletteI suppose I'll answer C...but I must say that I wish there was a forth option...d)God is my leader and I'm just along for the ride 
bparker1000
sweet_texan_meganI agree 
nomesA...I agree with them
nomesIt seems like you should have broken C up into more options. 
spimman
michelle
yellowroseC, sadly 
nanap
ward
yellowrosecheck this out for a good laugh. funny how true to life too! 
mellymc
jess
chris_milton74C all the way, go Chuck Baldwin! www.constitutionparty.com 
coulter
bobthetomatowhen was the last time you checked out accountability 
bigbarr
yellowrosecraig got some great shots of you today! HA HA HA 
kasa_momA - this shows the fallacy of polls. You only get to choose from the answers the pollsters put forth. There are no other options. This helps pollsters promote their agenda. 
login to comment
hide comments

Hey- 10-06-08 09:02am CST
How do you defend yourself against a mob of clowns?





...







Go for the Juggler!!!
kaceyatthebatBAHAHAHA 
michelleJoke stealer! I'm telling! 
nillabarr:) 
kerriganooooooooooooooooh no. 
upintheairI'm gonna steal that one. 
the_ynhaha...hahaha...that was good =] 
waynezworld007haha 
mropololol 
davidHe told me I could steal it!! 
pokeyI'm thirsty. 
mindershaha! 
never_trust_a_gnome2I know how to juggle! 
nikit does sound like a michelle joke! 
login to comment
hide comments

Bailouts 10-03-08 09:21am CST
If there is one thing everyone needs to understand about a $700 Billion bailout it's this:

At some point we have to pay for what we buy. By "we" I don't mean the government or the president--I mean the taxpayers.

One dollar spent by the government represents one dollar from the American people. $700 Billion are no different.
(6 older comments)
davidBUT- the government can help BIG time by reigning in spending--starting with bringing troops home, and they can investigate the fed and make them accountable for actions. All of this would soften the blow in the short run, and make the longer run WAY better.

One of the worst parts of the debate last night was when Palin, on one hand was wanting to stimulate the economy by "creating more jobs" (something that doesn't actually stimulate the economy when forced by the gov't), and on the other hand wanted to win in Iraq so that we could continue to Afghanistan! How much are we spending to do these things?? 
6threadsI would rather help make arrows and secure rum makers get a fair chance at our markets. 
david^Not sure I understand what you're saying... 
6threads^that is part of the bail out plan - it will help those people. 
david^Got it- it was just a hard sentence to read :) 
nillabarrI can't say I disagree with you David. Unfortunately, America needs to learn how to control their spending. How do you teach 300 million people to STOP SPENDING MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE!!! 
never_trust_a_gnome2communism 
never_trust_a_gnome2which I am stringently against, mind you. 
norriejHmmm. I like Palin. I don't think we should pull out of Iraq. I think it's dangerous to not finish. I don't agree with the bailouts. America absolutely needs to learn from this and stop the "keeping up with the Joneses" junk. Me included. I'd like to think that I've learned my lesson though. But the Gov't didn't have to go thru with the bailout for me to learn it. Say "no" to communism!! I second staci!! Dave's the man!! 
davidwe can't continue wars and hope for less government spending--especially when the motive for this war is simply to lead to the next one in Afghanistan. 
davidand Palin's a goon. 
upintheairI agree with you David on the bailout. The rest, I think you're wrong. As far as hoping for less government spending and continue a war...Yes, you can hope for that. Let's start with the big one, SS and Medicare and Medicaid. 
upintheairCutting those expenses will be the largest dent in all this since SS/Medicare/caid account for 54% of CURRENT spending while all of defense spending (including supplementals) only accounts to 20% 
billiamBut don't we print the dollars? And by "we", I mean our smart leaders? 
norriejI think there are better ways to cut spending than quitting the war, for sure. Palin is the best thing that's happened to the Republican party in this election!! Come on, David! You're starting to make me question your judgement!! 
davidStape- I think we agree overall- which is we have to find ways to cut spending.

Everyone else: Sarah Palin has been steadily declining in popularity over the past two weeks. She is helping the republican party lose the race. She makes comments that show a lack of experience, wisdom, and situational understanding. 
nillabarrI am trying to figure out why you are linking us to SNL's spoof rather than the real interview. 
davidwatch the entire thing- the real video is at the end. 
nillabarrAhhh, I saw it. I might suggest you link them to the actual interview rather than throwing in SNL.

I'll be honest. I am really not 100% impressed with either of the 4 people standing before us. But I would say that this election FOR ME... my decision is going to be made considering Obama's stand on abortion. And I really think that Palin has some values that I would love to see in the White House. Of course, that's what we all thought of Bush too.... 
davidWell, I definitely agree that we need morality leading our nation. 
kristyleighwhat a lot of people seem to be missing about the bailout is that, taxpayers are purchasing assets, not throwing 700 billion away, these assets have the potential to grow in value and taxpayers will over time more than likely MAKE money on the so called "bailout" 
upintheair^^ I think David and I would agree that to get 700 billion dollars, we either print it (in which case we lose in the form of inflation) or we borrow it from China (in which case the debt service will cost more than we will probably "earn" from these so-called buyouts. 
upintheairYou know David, goon is a synonym for fool 
davidI gotta go with Mike on this one, Kristy. Furthermore, we are not purchasing any old assets--we are purchasing illiquid assets. That means that they will not be a source of moneymaking for taxpayers.

I really do not see taxpayers winning at all in this scenario. 
jessorthohmm...I might type in Ron Paul's name come voting day...just saying! 
login to comment
hide comments

Biden v. Palin 10-02-08 08:19pm CST
I'm thoroughly convinced that the only thing these candidates are experts in is why the other and his/her running mate is terrible.
And they're both right.

Neither has any idea how to improve the nation.
shesheof all the political comments i've read on pleonast, i've only truly agreed with this one!! 
coulteramen 
the_ynindeed...my neighbor put out a mccain-plain sign in their yard to show their support for "their" candidate a few days ago... and i'm thinking of making my own sign reading "don't vote '08...it's not worth it" and show my support for excercizing our constitutional right to not like anyone who is running. 
cowboybrianAre you telling me cutting earmarks isn't going to prevent another major recession and pay for another rebate check? 
login to comment
hide comments

09-27-08 07:17pm CST
Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

ronsig

Ron Paul
mapgrayWe missed you tonight. 
mropoloI liked the candidates "debating who the biggest celebrity is" and that "we do not learn from history." Especially the last one since I spent two years of my life studying that particular subject. 
nillabarrWow. I totally agree with almost every word! I too liked "the only thing we learn from history, is that we do not learn from history". Thanks for sharing. 
kristiegoreI pretty much agree with everything he said. Thanks for posting that, now, at least I know where I can go to voice some of my opinions and complaints. 
6threadsSo exciting below. I spoke with the commissioner of Texas Ed. yesterday-wrote on the back of my card, "when you are ready for a revolution-call me. TG" 
kristiegoreYeah, I totally agree, I think it will get a little worse if we didn't bail some of these guys but it will be really bad later on for our kids. 
bigbarrdon't agree with everything here, but the government did allow bad debt to be issued and mass produced like crack cocaine in the financial sector 
pokeyyou are so hot. 
justcallmejoeand this is where we start chanting "gold standard"? :) 
nickomundoYay, Ron Paul! 
sodapopApple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song. 
upintheairOk, this is dangerous, but here goes...correlation does not equate to causation. It doesn't prove that fiat currency or that low interest rates were the actual cause. It may just be the other factor that Austrian Economists equate to economic problems (government intervention in the form of the CRA as RP has suggested) 
david^^I think they're probably all interrelated. 
upintheairYeah, after I read the Creature of Jekyll Island, I studied up more on fiat currency and found that gold standards had alot of problems with huge fluctuations in inflation/deflation in the short term whereas fiat allows for it to be controlled in the short. Both have goods and bads. I understand where RP is coming from just not in agreement on the matter. Especially considering the downside of gold standards with our current economy and the global economy. Gold standard didn't reign in spending in the 70s and I don't think it would currently either. But either way, I'm fed up with both sides at this point. 
michelleGood luck today!!! 
imnotblondeThank you for posting that! I agreed with a lot of it...especially the two points that everyone has mentioned...the celebrity comment and how we don't learn from history...I say the same things! 
sodapopChuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open. 
login to comment
hide comments

5 >>   25 >>   >>>