San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, September 4, 2015

The Returns Are In And I Lose Big Time

No, I am not talking about some sort of run for political office nor am I talking about a popularity contest.  I am not a parasite so you can rest assured that I would never run for any career political seat and I believe that popularity is a sign of error so I would hope to never be popular.  So far the being unpopular goal is working out wonderfully.  The returns that have just come in are the 2013 IRS data tables showing how much each citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika contributed to the federal budget for that year.  I have examined the data and I lose big.  Let me tell you a bit about it.
The median (half above, half below) adjusted gross income for the 147 million plus returns that were filed in 2013 was $35,000.  To be in the top 10% of the income population you need an adjusted gross income of around $150,000.  To be in the top 1% of the income population you need an adjusted gross income of about $470,000.
The top 1% of the income population paid 37% of all federal income taxes in 2013.  The top 10% of the income population paid 66.5% of all federal income taxes in 2013.  The top 50% of the income population paid 97.4% of all federal income taxes in 2013.  The lower 50% of the income population paid a grand total of 2.6% of all federal income taxes in 2013.  Those are the indisputable facts. How are we to interpret them?
I was curious about my income level so I checked to see how much was paid in taxes by the folks who made the same amount of money as I did in 2013.  I discovered that I and the other folks in my income cohort paid almost 9 times the total amount of all taxes paid by those in the entire lower 50% of the income population.  Please help me to understand.  How is that fair? I feel like I am being played for a total chump.  Half of the citizens in this stupid, ignorant and immoral country are taking a free ride on the government wealth transfer machine, compliments of me. 
We all have access to the same amount of government services, although I access them much less than most of those who populate the lower half of the income population.  Doesn't that mean I should pay less, and not more, of the government's total bills?  In what other system does someone pay more who does not use the system?   I do not use Medicare and I pay my own health insurance policies.  I have never drawn unemployment or any sort of government pension or disability payment.  I have never taken food stamps or any sort of government feeding scam.  I have never used the Earned Income Credit or any other sort of government give-back associated with tax returns.  I never took out a student loan and I have never used government loans to finance my janitorial business.  I don't have an Obama-phone and I paid for my own computer.  I pay my own utility bills without any government subsidy whatsoever.  In other words, I and my cohorts have paid 9 times the amount of taxes as the lower 50% of the population while that same lower 50% of the population sits back, rakes it in and then has the audacity to complain that I am not paying my fair share.  Who has a distorted view of reality here?
The more I think about it the more angry I become.  Where is the fairness in 50% of the citizens of the SDA getting what is essentially a free ride at the expense of the top half of the income population?  How can it possibly be considered just to force those in the top 1% to pay over one third of all federal taxes?  How can it be considered just when the top 10% pays a full two thirds of the entire federal tax bill?
I already know the answer to the questions I have asked.  It just makes me feel better to ask them.  The reason the top half of the income population pays the entire federal tax bill and the lower half of the income population gets a free ride is because the country in which we live is a socialist democracy.  As a socialist country it is the belief of most of the people living here that what other people earn should be taken away from the income earners and given to those who make the entirely rational decision to not work and sponge off of the productive people.  Socialists believe that they have a moral right to the wealth and income of those who make and have more than they do.  We are a democracy because socialists use the power of the vote to elect and retain career politicians who will do their bidding in exchange for their vote.  Therefore, as a socialist democracy it is inevitable that the politically unprotected 49% of the income population is going to be forced to pick up the entire tab for the federal government.
To make matters worse, the people living in this country are by and large a bunch of heathen reprobates.  They hate the God of the Bible and they despise the Law of God revealed in the Bible.  They hide their hatred under nice phrases like "separation of church and state" and "you can't legislate morality" but what they really mean is that the Law of God will never be permitted into the public square.  It is necessary for the citizens of the SDA to think and behave this way because of their sinful natures.  They all experience uncontrolled envy which leads to theft on a grand scale.  Envy-filled sinners who vote can easily look at people who make more money than they do and come to the conclusion that the person earning more money is evil simply because he has earned more money.  The moral thing to do at that point is to command the government to take from the rich and give to the poor.  It is the economics and morality of Robin Hood.  It is also the economics and morality of the devil.  Do not be surprised when judgement comes.  God will not be mocked.  Don't mistake His current inactivity for indifference.  The time we are currently being given is only being given to us to allow us to fill up the full measure of our iniquity.  Then judgement will come.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Kim Davis Is Right....And Wrong

I have not been particularly interested in the story of the Kentucky County Clerk who is refusing to issue a marriage license to several groups of perverts who desperately want the approval of their god, the civil government, in their "marriage," whatever that means.  While listening to a Christian radio station yesterday I heard a report about the woman, Kim Davis, that portrayed her as considerably more intelligent and principled than I had assumed she would be.  That got my attention so today I sat down to invest the issue more throroughly.
Kim's refusal to issue marriage licenses to perverts is not based upon her own personal belief that gays, lesbians, transgenders, queers, bisexuals and Tennesseans should not be married, although that does appear to be her own personal belief.  Okay, I made up the part about Tennesseans.  Her refusal to issue marriage licenses stems from what she perceives to be a First Amendment issue and the fact that the Supreme Court of Jokers's ruling that civil government has granted "most preferred" status to homosexuals effectively forces her to violate her conscience if she issues them.  Calling upon the words of the late Martin Luther she believes that "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."  Too bad, for her sake, that those words were not spoken by Martin Luther King.  Then they might carry some weight.  Since they were spoken by the man generally considered responsible for the start of the Protestant Reformation we are free to ignore, mock and ridicule them.  Never forget that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society.  Christian arguments do not carry any weight in this immoral land.
I did an internet search and was not surprised to find that there are those who want to drag her name through the mud for what she is doing.  Apparently her marital past is a bit checkered.  According to this report, "The defiant Kentucky clerk who will not issue gay marriage licenses has been married four times and had twins out of wedlock, court records revealed.  Kim Davis, who on Tuesday continued to refuse the licenses despite a Supreme Court ruling against her, divorced in 1994, 2006 and 2008.  Davis, 49, gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The twins' father was identified as her third husband, according to records obtained by the US News and World Report.  Davis' second husband adopted the twins after they wed.   She has been married twice to her current husband, Ed Davis.  The leader of Liberty Counsel, which is providing Davis' legal representation, said her past does not matter because her slate was wiped clean four years ago when she converted to Christianity. 'It's something that's not relevant to the issue at hand,' Mat Staver told the U.S. News and World Report. 'She was 180 degrees changed.  Davis said on Tuesday that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples would ‘violate my conscience,’ adding that to her it is ‘a Heaven or Hell decision.’  She insisted that it is not a ‘gay or lesbian issue,’ but rather a First Amendment issue concerning her religious liberty. ‘To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,’ she stated."
So there you have it.  Homosexual loving advocates believe Kim's position can be ignored because she has sinned in the past.  Her appeal to God incenses them so they dig up some dirt and spread it around, hoping that merely doing so will discredit her argument.  That is called the fallacy of ad hominem and it is very popular with idiots and assorted classes of stupid people.  Her lawyer gets it right.  Her past is irrelevant.  All that matters is her argument.  The important question is this, does her argument hold water?
Kim Davis is right about one thing...God hates homosexuals and the idea that the civil government would sanction their perverted practices is abominable.  She is also right about another thing....she should never be forced by a ruling from the Supreme Court of Bozos to violate the principles of her own conscience.  So when it comes to the two intellectual matters at hand, Kim is right.  Unfortunately Kim is wrong on one very important issue and that point of wrongness derails her entire position.
Kim is a professing Christian who has made the voluntary decision to work for the civil government in a job that requires her to do things the civil government has no authority to do.  Where in the Bible are we instructed that the civil government has the moral duty, right or responsibility to issue approval, via licenses, to people who choose to get married?  The decision to get married is a decision that is made by the family, not the state.  The state has no business interjecting itself into family decisions and issues like marriage.  If two perverts want to live together and call that state "marriage," good for them.  They are free to do whatever they want to do.  But the state is outside the scope of its biblical authority when it makes the claim to authenticate or legitimize any marriage contract.  Marriage is simply not the business of the government.
When Kim assumed her position she arrogated to herself the right to grant state permission to people to marry.  When she signs her name to a marriage license she is claiming to be authorizing and authenticating, as an agent of the state, that marriage.  Even if the marriage is a Christian marriage she has no biblical or moral right to do what she is doing.  It is the job of the state, and the Church in cases of Christian marriage, to recognize the prior decision of the family to create a new family unit via marriage, but it is not the job of either of those two institutions to claim the ability to authorize or authenticate any marriage.  I conclude that Kim Davis has taken the right position on the wrong issue.  The best thing for her to do would be to resign her position immediately and get out of the business of issuing state approval for marriages.  Then she would not be required to violate the principles of her conscience whatsoever.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

"We" Need More Money For Abortions

Last Sunday's Denver Post ran one of those point-counterpoint columns that are so popular these days.  The question at hand was, "Should we defund Planned Parenthood?"  You probably know where the question came from.  Recent stories about mucky-mucks at PP selling body parts of aborted infants has garnered a lot of negative press.  I don't see what all the fuss is about.  If a pre-born baby is just excess tissue, like adipose around my belly, then what possible difference could it make if a market develops for the tissue?  To be consistent those who believe it is morally good to murder unborn babies should proudly proclaim they have made a little extra beer money by selling waste-tissue.  I don't understand why they backpedal and attempt to justify an action that is, by their immoral standards, a God-honoring behavior.
Vicki Cowart is president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.  She wrote the response in favor of stealing money from me and using it to pay for my neighbor's daughter's abortions.  Her argument was predictable and boring, in addition to being horrible immoral on several fronts.  She wrote, "Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has proudly provided reproductive health care to women and their families for nearly a century.  Last year we served over 80,000 Coloradans, providing life saving cancer screenings, HIV and STD testing, and treatment, contraception and abortion care."  Vicki does not break down the 80,000 customers she "treated" last year into cohorts depending upon which "health services" they sought.  I wonder how many of those 80,000 customers obtained an abortion?  My guess is that a lot more customers conspired with a government approved doctor to murder their babies than the total number of those who received life saving cancer screenings.  Don't you think?
She continued by declaring that, "We are committed to ensuring Coloradans have access to the high quality, compassionate reproductive health care they deserve, no matter their income, ethnicity, sexual identity, or geography.   No matter what."  Well there you have it.  Vicki lacks even the most rudimentary logical skills.  She says that she will provide abortions for all Coloradans, no matter their geography.  What does that mean?  What if a person lives in Kansas? Will that person be given an abortion by her company?  I have no idea what Vicki means about "geography" being an issue in health care but the rest of her comment is crystal clear.  Vicki is a committed socialist who believes I have a moral duty to fund abortions.  She loves to steal my money and give it to government agents who kill babies.  Vicki believes that profligate women who get pregnant as a result of their profligacy have a moral claim on my money.
I have a question for Vicki.  Who is the "we" in the opening question?  Am I a a part of the "we"?  I don't want my money taken from me for any reason, much less to use it to kill other people.  So if the "we" includes me the answer is simple.  I should not be forced to fund the abortions of my neighbor's daughter's babies.  Vicki disagrees.  She believes that anyone born in a  particular geographic area (which she is not quite sure what that encompasses) has a moral right and entitlement to use some of my money to kill babies if they want to.  According to Vicki, because I am in the minority when it comes to the belief that abortion is immoral, I lose.  According to Vicki, because she is a part of the immoral majority that believes abortion is a God-honoring medical procedure designed to advance His Kingdom and help mankind, she has the right to suppress and ignore the rights of the minority to be safe from financial depredations and take their money anyway.  Vicki believes in both democracy and socialism.  Vicki advocates for both murder and theft.
What I have written about Vicki is not exactly true.  She declares she will force me to provide high quality, compassionate abortions to all people, but she leaves one class of person out.  She leaves out the people who are being killed.  How compassionate is the scalpel that slices and dices the baby while it is in the womb?  She is right about one thing....she will kill all babies, regardless of their income, their ethnicity, their gender, wherever they live. 

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Bill O'Reilly Believes In Democracy.....Sometimes

Regular readers of this blog know that I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly.  He is economically ignorant and committed to the neo-conservative vision of a permanent warfare state.  He believes the SDA should be feared around the world and that the SDA military is the proper instrument to create that fear.  He is also a believer in democracy despite the fact the Constitution of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika was supposed to establish a republican form of government.  One thing the founding fathers of the SDA desperately attempted to avoid was the tyranny of democracy.  They knew that the only way to protect the rights of political minorities was to avoid democracy like the plague.  What a quaint idea that all was.  Under the terms of the socialist democracy under which we live the majority always rules and the rights of the minority are trampled underfoot.  What does this have to do with Bill?  Let me tell you.
Last week Bill was interviewing a Mexican-American fellow who was in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens and a policy of open borders.  Bill, as most of you probably are aware, believes that Donald Trump is correct and all illegal aliens should be rounded up and deported.  Any person once deported who attempts to return to the SDA would serve a healthy jail sentence if caught.  In addition, Bill wants to build a wall along the entirely length of the Mexico-SDA border and staff it with machine gun toting servicemen with attack dogs all operating under the principle of shoot first and ask questions later.  The "interview" was typical of Bill's style as he badgered his guest and attempted to force him to agree with him.  When he did not he treated him like an idiot.  At one point the guest said that he believed the current laws on immigration were immoral and needed to be changed.  When he said that Bill went on the offensive.
Bill's retort was that the laws may sometimes be immoral but they are the laws and they are to be followed until they are changed.  Bill went on to say that the only way to change a law in the SDA is to get a majority of the citizens of the country to agree that a law should be changed and until most SDA citizens come to want open borders it will never happen.  I wonder what the career politicians who populate Congress thought about Bill's political theory?  Bill informed his brow-beaten guest that a majority of the citizens in this country would never agree with open borders so the issue was essentially closed.  The will of the majority was to be enforced.  Borders are to be closed forever and those who are here illegally need to be deported.  Bill's profession of faith in the principles of democracy could not have been any more clear.  The voice of the people is the voice of God and it must be obeyed.
The voice of the people was clearly heard and understood in Washington and Colorado a year or so ago.  The will of the people was clearly stated that marijuana should be decriminalized.  As a firm believer in the principles of democracy you would expect Bill to applaud the decriminalization of marijuana.  But this is where Bill gets a bit confused.  Although he has made several statements saying he is "fine" with decriminalizing marijuana and it would not bother him if somebody were to smoke some in the privacy of his own home he has also gone on record saying the police should prosecute "dealers."  I have one question for you Bill.  Where is that honest, law-abiding citizen who is smoking some marijuana in his home going to get it if there is no one to sell it to him because all of the "dealers" are in jail?  Logical consistency has never been Bill's strong point.  He is driven by his emotions and he really does not care when the end result of his emotional pathway brings him to a place of logical contradiction. 
When it comes to prosecuting the people who grow and sell marijuana Bill suddenly becomes a federalist who believes the federal government has the right and the responsibility to overrule the majority opinions in Washington and Colorado about marijuana production, distribution and use.  Bill would like to see marijuana declared illegal nationwide, with total disregard to the will of the people in the individual states.  When democracy clashes with Bill's hatred for marijuana it is democracy that loses.  From that I conclude that Bill O'Reilly believes in democracy....when it is convenient for him to do so.

Monday, August 31, 2015

China Did Not Cause The Stock Market Correction

China is a dramatic example of economic success when even a tiny piece of capitalism is permitted to exist in a country.  The repudiation of communism and the adoption of a state controlled "capitalism" has catapulted China from a economically backwards third world country to an economic juggernaut in just one generation.   However, despite all the evidence that capitalism creates wealth for everyone, the control freak career politicians in China can no more keep their hands off the economy than their cousins in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika can.  There is no doubt that unfettered capitalism is best for everyone in a society but the career politicians are not about to let anything be unfettered but their own power to meddle.  So guess which form of capitalism is allowed to exist?  You guessed it.  Fettered capitalism is encouraged, provided it stays on the government leash.
Recently Chinese authorities have been directly intervening in their stock market in a vain attempt to prevent it from going down.  I guess they have some sort of "face-saving" problem when the stock market drops.  Apparently many Chinese citizens believe the career politicians who rule over them are capable of continually sustaining stock market rises and utterly eliminating stock market drops.  That set of conditions does not exist in the real world and the longer politicians try to control the stock market the worse the eventual correction will be.  China is now in the middle of a serious bear market in stocks that is the direct result of inflation  of the yuan and government interventions into the stock market.  The best thing the Chinese rulers could do would be to leave everything alone and let the market sort it out. That, of course, will never happen.  Meanwhile, stock market speculators in other markets around the world have used the Chinese bear market as an excuse to precipitate corrections in their markets as well.  Indeed, China was labeled as the prime cause for the correction in SDA stock markets during the last two weeks.
The graph below illustrates the exchange rate between the Chinese yuan and the Amerikan dollar.  It is a five year graph.  Note that in 2011 a dollar would purchase 6.8 yuan.  Note that in early 2014 a dollar would purchase 6.05 yuan.  Note that a dollar today would purchase 6.4 yuan.  The stock market correction of the past two weeks has been largely attributed to China and the manipulation of its currency by its rulers.  The precipitous drop in the stock market in the end of August began when China devalued its currency overnight.  The graph below shows that devaluation.  The yuan went from 6.2/1 dollar to 6.4/1 dollar.  That represents a devaluation of 3% and it returned the yuan to its average rate of exchange to the dollar over the past five years.  Why, I ask you, should, would or could that devaluation cause a 12%+ drop in Amerikan stock markets?  The answer doesn't. 

Chinese Yuan
If devaluing the yuan to an exchange rate of 6.4/1 dollar is such a disastrous thing to do, how is it that both the Chinese and Amerikan economies were humming along smoothly throughout 2012 when the exchange rate between the two currencies was essentially the same?  Furthermore, if devaluing the yuan against the dollar is such a horrible thing to do, why did the Amerikan stock markets not drop by 12% in the spring of 2014 when essentially the same rate of devaluation took place?  The answer to both of these questions, as you should have figured out by now, is that the exchange rate between the yuan and the dollar has nothing to do with the most recent stock market correction, despite what the economic media's best and brightest might have to say about it.
Jack Bogel, founder of the Vanguard family of mutual funds, hammered the nail on the head with his commentary on the most recent correction.  Here, in part, is what he had to say, "The stock market's wild ride over the past week has been the biggest exercise in sheer unadulterated speculation....It's just speculators not speculating on what they think is going to happen but what they think other speculators think is going to happen.  This speculative binge that we're seeing here … has nothing to do with the fundamentals behind the long-term value of equities in particular, which are created by the values of corporations, earnings and dividends, and reinvestment in the business."  I couldn't have said it better myself.
So how are economic fundamentals right now?  Let's have a look:

Here is the rate of increase in the Gross Domestic Product for the past 10 years:

Here is the rate of corporate earnings growth for the past ten years:

Here is the rate of growth in commercial and industrial loans, always a sign of economic strength:

And lest you think all of the positive information indicated above is simply the result of inflation, here is the rate of inflation over the past ten years:

I rest my case.