Political Rants

The economy has recessed. People like to poke blame at the president, government, etc. My view may not be popular, but I see it as the truth. The simple fact of the matter is Americans are over paid.

Before the internet, we lived a secluded existence. Outsourcing was not nearly as feasible; we knew the world outside America existed, but other then that little else... Then the internet "super highway" came into existence. Files can be transferred from one side of the world to the other nearly instantly. Accounting, among other things, became much cheaper for companies that want to employ in more then one country, with the exchange rates and taxes all being automatically calculated. Money transfer more reliable then ever. That explains the how, now the why.

Unions sprung up in the early 1900's to screw employers out of money. True, there were issues they helped correct, child labor and overworking employees for example, but the fact of the matter is they misused their powers. Employers of course had to stay in America, therefore they had to employ these extortionists because of laws making it illegal to fire them when they don't show up for work (went on strike.) The employer consequently had to give in to their demands, raise their wages, and lower the profit margin for the company, allowing them to employ fewer people, and hurting the unemployment rate. Over the years, they raised the Americans wages so much that we were making staggering amounts more then the rest of the non-unionized world when compared on the gold standard. The problem though is that the cost of everything went up in America as well because, simply, they could get it. Let us take for example the price of gnomes compared to gold. If we sell a gnome here for $15, the price of such gnome in India, if compared to the controlled price of gold, would be much less. Therefore if a company pays someone in India the same value gold wise (product wise) as it would cost to pay an American, it will cost them less cash. Therefore, in summarization, unions, raising Americans wages to undeserved levels pushes up prices, causing Americans money to be worth less then elsewhere in a global economy.

Side note:
Jimmy Carter, or the ignorant fool as I like to call him, took us off the gold standard. This caused inflation shoot like a rocket, causing all the money put away (in banks) to become worth less (not worthless,) hurting mainly companies and the upper class while helping those in debt (ex: the country and irresponsible people) because a debt of $100 is worth what $150 used to be. The idea sounds good (to a communist) but it is not because:

• They owe that money to companies, which therefore take a hit.


• The wealthy whose money is now worth less own such companies and get hit again.


• The companies profit margins drop when they bring in the same amount of money, causing them to have to increase the price of products.


• These companies and wealthy who have been hurt employ middle and lower class people (many of whom are in debt) and are forced to lay off people making them unable to pay these debts.

Thusly, if taking us off the gold standard let inflation go rampant, this increases prices

Let us briefly talk about inflation, filling something with air. If the price of everything becomes inflated, i.e.: made larger then it really is; it consequently becomes necessary to raise people's wages so they can afford to live. You raise these wages falsely the true value still exists, just not here. This true value, or at least much closer to it exists in other countries where there has not been such inflation. When we we're cut off from places where the real value existed, the economy flourished, but now with the internet, and more open trade, etc, companies can buy things for their real value, and hire people for their real value, instead of paying the *inflated* price of buying and hiring from and of Americans.

Americans regularly earn and pay more then they are worth, which is why it is not economically feasible to hire Americans. Banning outsourcing as many liberals suggest is a horrible idea because it is no longer difficult for a company just to completely up and leave America, we are not as important as we used to be. So how then you ask do we fix the economy. I suggest the following:

• Abolishing unions, as their true purpose no longer exists and they just increase inflation


• Ease our way onto the global economy by taking wage hits


• Working our way back onto the gold standard


• Discouraging use of credit cards (it is the freaking late 1920's all over again)


• Imposing trade ratios, i.e.: countries can only export to us equal or more as they import from us all but eliminating increase in trade deficit, and pushing us out somewhat of the global economy until which time we do even out with them and can eliminate such ratio's

Of course none of these are an over night answer, but you can expect 100 years of bad economics to take time to fix.

Alright first Jesse . . . you always astound me with never ever looking anything up or researching jack shit, Yeltsin was not elected, he assumed power. After the coup that failed he took over simple as that. Also if you actually look at the Soviet Union they were damned long before Reagan took office. If you want to give credit where it is due, you should credit either Ike or the Pope because both of them did much more than Reagan. Also democracy has never flourished in Russia especially if you look at the Oligarchs that are now running the country in Russia and the incredible corruption in Russian politics. If you look at the recent election where Putin was elected by huge margins and where was the contender, "Um yeah I took a vacation for awhile and didn't let anyone know" in other words he defintely had an encounter with Putin's officials. Also with the propoganda thing . . . wow! As I said before Yeltsin initially took over(and Yeltsin looks a lot better in a tank than does Duhkakis), and then won the election by a land slide, why? Because the corruption in the system and not something from the USA. I don't know where you got your facts, but I would advise kicking your sources ass, cause they are just plain liars. And besides driving this country into horrible debt, ignoring aids, and his wonderful activities down south I guess you could say that Reagan wasn't the wourst president of all times.

Paul - I have had this discussion with you before. Here is the arguement that I am going to make, and I already have an image of your reaction to it (it is quite funny actually), but Michael Moore is a breath of fresh air. He is asking questions that that horridly "liberal" media does not ask and that no one else does in a public manner. Sure there are inaccessible pieces of literature and so forth that say the same thing as Michael Moore but the reason that he is so liked is because people can view his ideas at widely accessible venues. Also you are going to have to give reasoning behind Micheal Moore not being a man of the people. And him being rich doesn't cut it. The reason that I am saying this is because he is defintely considered to be a man of the people so in order for you to discredit that popularly held belief we need some shred of evidence, because your word over the masses . . . well lets just say neither are very credible.

Left Win . . . Always!

Michael Moore is set to release Fahrenheit 9/11. A movie that will no doubt have a substantial impact on the way certain Americans will view the upcoming election. His movies may be full of interesting facts and raise many good questions but at the same time, all they do is raise questions and spew propaganda. For example, his last epic, bowling for columbine, was critically acclaimed for its "damming" portrayal of the reasons behind the columbine shooting. Upon watching this movie, I was dumbstruck by how well Mr. Moore manipulates people by praying on their emotions. It?s really unbelievable. He brings up situations in a way that will achieve the desired atmosphere for his films. Never mind that there might be a rational explanation for something, Michael Moore's philosophy seems to be, why answer the questions when we can let an audience sensationalized by the topic, let their imaginations run wild in the search for an explanation.

Basically I'm sick and tired of people treated Michael Moore as some kind of martyr. He is as far from the average Joe as David was from Goliath. The man is a billionaire with the unfortunate ability to unfair prejudice people by pasting together the facts however he sees fit. I?m not saying the world is one big happy family, I?m just saying the world doesn?t need Michael Moore editing down history into a propaganda speech.

-Paul

America suffered a grave loss, on my 18th birthday nonetheless. June 5th 2004 the greatest president in our nation?s history passed away at the grand old age of 93.

Using nothing but pressure the great communicator managed to bring the fall of the Berlin wall. Using Star Wars, forcing the Soviet Union to hopelessly try to keep up, he managed to collapse their economy. Then funding enormous amounts of propaganda for them managed to get Yeltsin elected and democracy flourished, therefore ending the cold war.

There is no president who did more, and I do not want any of you dumb shits saying Lincoln because I have gone into why Lincoln was a horrible president.

The story of the emoticon began long ago, when some unfortunate soul put a heart on a letter. Since then, man has been the unfortunate perpetuator of what has become known as the emoticon syndrome. This debilitating and highly contagious medical condition has plagued man for centuries. Early Symptoms include, an unusually high usage of smiley faces in chat rooms, as well as usage of complex chartroom lingo which eventually leads the subject to create pictures to facilitate easier usage. Longer fraises such as LMAOROFL (roughly translated to laugh my ass off roll on the floor laughing) are eventually translated into cute and yet endlessly annoying little pictures that will eventually rise to power.

These emoticons must be stopped. Some Emoticoners say, "I'm okay, I can stop anytime," while others say "if I was addicted, I'd know." Here in lies the true evil of emoticons, they're like the Hot Pockets' theme. In moderation they can be fun, even enjoyable you might say. But slowly they take over a person's subconscious. At first a subject might draw one or two emoticons a day, but eventually it becomes and addiction, and the subject finds they can't stop. I've heard recovering addicts say "I found myself only going to parties that I knew were going to have emoticons, it was then I realized I needed help." The problem is help is hard to come by. Few emoticon clinics exist and those that do are full to the brim.
The easiest way to stem the tide of this emerging epidemic is prevention. Now its one to say you're going to use prevention, it's quite another thing to actually use it. I've talked with Pfizer at great length and together we've been able to come up with a simple three step process.

One: wear orange dots

Two: depending on success of step one, increase size of orange dots as necessary

Three: Utilize dots of different colors

Also there is a patch available which can last as prescribed for any length of time depending on the severity of the case. These patches have the added advantage of giving the user the peace of mind of not having to wonder if they put their dot on today.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I come before you today with the intention of opening your eyes to this impending epidemic. The road will be long and hard, but I believe that if we stand united against emoticons, then good shall prevail. For all it takes for emoticons to triumph is for good men and women to remain silent.