WALL ST. STILL STANDS..

   Back in 2011 I wrote something in an older blog entitled the " The Left, The Right, and The Screwed "  I happened to revisit there and found this post that seemed to keep up with times,at least to this date. I was just wondering if some of us feel the same way today ? The post was about the Occupy Wall St. protest.

Sunday, October 09, 2011

OVERCROWDING WALL STREET

Protesting in the streets brings back the fond memories of the 1968 riots in Chicago. As it turns out it was merely the confused academic masses and some peasant followers suffering from the same inane leftist philosophy, gathering to wait for their real estate license test results.

So now, in 2011 we have the low bourgeois and indoctrinated academic unemployed,with their $50 back packs and $90 dollar cell phone bills, and probably a host of paid union help, storming the money citadel ,Wall Street, railing for the redistribution of the belongings of others who attained success through ambition or hard work, to a section of the society that has been relegated to poverty and second class citizenship by a progressive philosophy of welfare that has destroyed the will to work and instilled in them, to an injurious degree, that the value of an education is a worthless endeavor . The real goal is specific to the progressive, wealthy, ruling elite.

Once they succeed in nullifying the values of the middle class, namely ambition and the value of an education, those same wealthy and political elite, along with the academics , will then have the road to utopia well paved . I believe that the cooperation of the wealthy, hand in hand with a progressive, if not a some what socialist level of government, will turn this country into a second class nation that will effect the future of the whole world. The ascension of China and Russia, and those with rising economy's, will assure the secular progressive political structure of this country.

With only 19 percent of the world's population, China consumes 53 percent of the world's cement, 48 percent of the world's iron ore, 47 percent of the world's coal, as well as a majority of almost every major commodity. In 2010 China produced 11 times more steel than the United States. They are the beneficiary of our employment problems.

The multitudes that gathered in Wall Street would have been better served if the government had let the inefficient banks fail. The demonstrators could then direct their ire where it belongs. In front of the White House. How absurd is it to shout down Wall Street and the wealthy when the government is hand in hand with them.

At my age it makes little difference. My time is manageable. It’s our grandchildren that have to deal with the consequences of a government that cannot make the tough calls .

Posted by TedS at 11:14 AM No comments:

LEFTISM IS A DISEASE TO THE VERY END .

On Wednesday, Governor Pat Quinn dressed up the demands of a hostage-taker into a state budget address—again.

In advance of the permanently temporary personal and corporate income tax increases he imposed on Illinois in 2011, Quinn argued that without the tax increases, social service providers would suffer.

In fact, he would see to it that they did.

Quinn’s less than subtle message to the human services community was that if they wanted to avoid seeing the invoices they submitted to the state for services rendered put into the permanently permanent pay-no-mind bin in the Governor’s office they best fall in line.

Quinn did not conjure up a darling cartoon character to deliver that message. He did it himself.

This is the same Pat Quinn who sanctioned an effort by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to insert themselves between parents and their developmentally disabled children.

Adding more dues-paying beings to SEIU’s rolls was more important to Quinn than protecting as inviolate the bond between a developmentally disabled child and the primary caregivers upon whom he relies—his mom and dad. This matter is now pending before the United States Supreme Court (Harris v. Quinn).

Pat Quinn enjoys a public perception generated by the state-run media that while he is perhaps not the gold standard in competence, Quinn is generally honest and kind-hearted.

As is so often the case in Illinois politics, it is the converse that turns out to be true. The avuncular Quinn is not nearly the Chauncey Gardiner character he appears to be. His regular guy shtick and affable demeanor belies a cold, calculating propensity to exploit vulnerable people as the means to his political ends.

After publicly declaring that his word means nothing by codifying that in Illinois, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, nothing is so permanent as a temporary tax increase, Quinn has quickly moved into the enforcement phase.

Quinn communicated to hospice providers, for example, that he will eliminate the hospice benefit provided by Illinois’ Medicaid program if the temporary personal and corporate income taxes are not made permanent.

The hospice benefit in question provides for palliative care for the terminally ill. That care most often occurs in the home as opposed to an institutional setting so as to improve a person’s quality of life before he or she dies.

In effect—and this is not my opinion but rather the opinion of hospice care providers I contacted—Quinn is threatening the end-of-life care for dying children and adults.

Quinn is seizing a political opportunity to bully individuals and their loved ones when they are at their most vulnerable to satisfy his public sector union financiers who want a permanent tax increase (and more still) and thus advance his electoral interests.

In the classic movie “The Agony and the Ecstasy,” which tells the story of Michelangelo’s commission from Pope Julius II to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, there is a running exchange between the impatient Pope Julius (Rex Harrison) and the perfectionist Michelangelo (Charlton Heston) wherein Pope Julius routinely asks Michelangelo, “When will you make an end?” Michelangelo’s reply is always, “When I am finished!”

In the black art of Illinois politics, I am left to wonder, when we will make an end of Pat Quinn and his thuggery?

And I am left to hope that the Illinois electorate decides to do so in November before we are finished.

SO WE REALLY THINK WE ARE TOTALLY FREE ?

Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, which states: “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.”
http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap8.html

Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83. "Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation."

When your birth certificate was recorded with the Department of Commerce, a U.S. citizen, corporate entity was created, so he could be taxed and regulated in commerce. This was the property of the federal government by usurpation. Therefore all the property of the U.S. citizen was now the property of the government! You are just the mere user of the property, by virtue of the government. The U.S. citizen was created to generate revenue. Your government is usurping your property, so it can generate revenue to pay its bankruptcy debts!

That is why you don't get a 'title' for your vehicle. You get a 'certificate' of title. That just certifies that there is a title held in the government's name, and you have permission to use this government property via the certificate of title. You must also pay a registration fee and get license plates for their property. Don't pay it and they will deny you the use of this property. When you record your real estate in the county, you are recording your turn to use the property in the corporation records. If you don't pay your usage (rental) fees (property taxes) they will take their property back via a tax sale, and sell the privilege to someone else. The value of the property is irrelevant. They are just concerned with the rent (tax) due. Your property has been usurped by the government. The same with zoning laws. If you want to build a garage on your property, you can do so only after you get permission via a building permit (another tax). If you don't get permission, they will make you tear it down.

This usurpation of your property could only be accomplished by the creation of the U.S. citizen, via your birth certificate. And now, all property is recorded in the name of the U.S. citizen, in all caps! Your sovereignty was usurped and converted to a commercial privilege. You became the co-signer for every commercial transaction the federal government became involved in, all to generate revenue. The big question is: How do you get your sovereignty back? You must reclaim your inalienable rights.

THE STAMP OF APPROVAL ?

MARCH 14, 2014

An Unnecessary Overtime Reform 

By The Editors

Last month it was the minimum wage, today it is overtime: The regulatory state is the gift that keeps on giving Barack Obama the opportunity to indulge his meddlesome tendencies. Tens of millions remain out of work, economic growth is anemic, his signature health-care law is such a dog’s breakfast of policy contradictions and wishful thinking that even he himself refuses to enforce it, and, though he has a sort of reverse Midas touch on matters economic, his adventures in micromanagement continue — this time as he seeks to overhaul overtime rules that are all of ten years past their last major overhaul.

The changes would make certain overtime-exempt employees, such as lower-level restaurant managers, eligible for overtime. Whether they would actually collect any overtime or be sent home at 39:59 each week is unknowable.

What is knowable is that there are two fundamental economic lessons that Barack Obama cannot seem to learn: One is that the federal government cannot command productive private-sector jobs into existence; the second is that the federal government cannot command higher total wages in private-sector jobs. As with the proposed minimum-wage hike — which would cost the economy 500,000 or more jobs — overtime rules beget economic tradeoffs. As the price of labor goes up, some businesses will simply hire fewer people or lay off current employees, seek ways to pass costs along to consumers or suppliers, or even eliminate certain business activities entirely if they become cost-prohibitive. The end result may or may not be higher total wages; it is as likely to be higher wages for some and unemployment for others. The president, a longtime practitioner of free-lunch economics in which the benefits are advertised and the costs ignored, has a moral duty to consider both sides of the equation. It may be that he simply cannot, but it is in any case clear that he will not.

With real economic growth under 2 percent, growth in employment and wages is difficult to achieve. In response, the president proposes to revise regulations issued under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act to make more workers eligible for overtime, apparently still operating under the Keynesian-lite hypothesis that giving a policy goose to wages will increase consumption and consequently growth. He might have consulted his own Bureau of Economic Analysis, which identifies as prominent among the causes of our slower economic growth “a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment,” meaning that investors are not putting their money into factories, equipment, and other productive assets — a critical source of economic growth and those good-paying middle-class jobs that Washington is always going on about.

Here, the president’s proposal is doubly destructive: Factories need people to run them, and the president’s overtime rules will, if they work out the way he desires, make those workers more expensive. Perhaps more significant, the lack of a stable regulatory environment discourages investment — it is difficult to forecast costs if labor regulations are going to change every time President Obama sees a discouraging poll from Gallup.

Implicit in the president’s reasoning here is his familiar zero-sum class-warfare analysis. The financial markets have been doing well, and corporate profits are very strong, but employment and wages are stagnant or declining. If your thinking is sufficiently shallow, then using overtime rules to move a little bit out of the profits column and into the wages column seems like a practical solution, and possibly a moral one. But it ignores important economic realities: The people who are doing the worst and placing the largest drag on total wages are not full-time workers exempt from overtime rules — a relatively small population — but people who have no jobs or only part-time jobs. The president’s proposed overtime changes would probably make that situation worse rather than better, adding another disincentive to full-time employment on top of the very strong one created by his health-care law.

Regulations beget regulatory disputes, and there has been substantial litigation over the rules as they stand, fighting out such questions as who counts as a manager and what counts as work. The fear of being sued for back wages has caused employers to impose highly regimented and occasionally draconian rules on their workers, for instance by making it a mandatory firing offense to work on one’s lunchtime or another scheduled break. It should go without saying that a regulatory innovation that makes employer-employee relationships less flexible rather than more flexible is undesirable from both parties’ points of view. President Obama proposes to raise the bar of inflexibility, which means that prospective employees will have to prove to their employers that they are worth not only the wage but the hassle — and the latter is becoming a more important consideration every year. 

President Obama’s overtime proposal will almost certainly raise the wages of some of his law-school buddies, but to the typical worker it offers a coin-toss between a possible pay bump and possible unemployment.

THE LEFT VERSUS MINORITIES

By: Thomas Sowell

3/11/2014 06:00 AM

If anyone wanted to pick a time and place where the political left’s avowed concern for minorities was definitively exposed as a fraud, it would be now — and the place would be New York City, where far left Mayor Bill de Blasio has launched an attack on charter schools, cutting their funding, among other things.

These schools have given thousands of low income minority children their only shot at a decent education, which often means their only shot at a decent life. Last year 82 percent of the students at a charter school called Success Academy passed city-wide mathematics exams, compared to 30 percent of the students in the city as a whole.

Why would anybody who has any concern at all about minority young people — or even common decency — want to destroy what progress has already been made?

One big reason, of course, is the teachers’ union, one of Mayor de Blasio’s biggest supporters. But it may be more than that. For many of the true believers on the left, their ideology overrides any concern about the actual fate of flesh-and-blood human beings.

Something similar happened on the west coast last year. The American Indian Model Schools in Oakland have been ranked among the top schools in the nation, based on their students’ test scores. This is, again, a special achievement for minority students who need all the help they can get.

But, last spring, the California State Board of Education announced plans to shut this school down!

Why? The excuse given was that there had been suspicious financial dealings by the former — repeat, former — head of the institution. If this was the real reason, then all they had to do was indict the former head and let a court decide if he was guilty or innocent.

There was no reason to make anyone else suffer, much less the students. But the education establishment’s decision was to refuse to let the school open last fall. Fortunately a court stopped this hasty shut-down.

These are not just isolated local incidents. The Obama administration has cut spending for charter schools in the District of Columbia and its Justice Department has intervened to try to stop the state of Louisiana from expanding its charter schools.

Why such hostility to schools that have succeeded in educating minority students, where so many others have failed?

Some of the opposition to charter schools has been sheer crass politics. The teachers’ unions see charter schools as a threat to their members’ jobs, and politicians respond to the money and the votes that teachers’ unions can provide.

The net result is that public schools are often run as if their main function is to provide jobs to teachers. Whether the children get a decent education is secondary, at best.

In various parts of the country, educators who have succeeded in raising the educational level of minority children to the national average — or above — have faced hostility, harassment or have even been driven out of their schools.

Not all charter schools are successful, of course, but the ones that are completely undermine the excuses for failure in the public school system as a whole. That is why teachers’ unions hate them, as a threat not only to their members’ jobs but a threat to the whole range of frauds and fetishes in the educational system.

The autonomy of charter schools is also a threat to the powers that be, who want to impose their own vision on the schools, regardless of what the parents want. Attorney General Eric Holder wants to impose his own notion of racial balance in the schools, while many black parents want their children to learn, regardless of whether they are seated next to a white child or a black child. There have been all-black schools whose students met or exceeded national norms in education, whether in Louisiana, California or other places around the country. But Eric Holder, like Bill de Blasio, put his ideology above the education — and the future life — of minority students.

Charter schools take power from politicians and bureaucrats, letting parents decide where their children will go to school. That is obviously offensive to those on the left, who think that our betters should be making our decisions for us.