Raysmom's Blog

The link was sent to me by an Obama supporter today, whose teenage son lays in a coma.  Her Christianity and her Bible are important to her, and this hurt her.  I was surprised, frankly, at the lack of wisdom, at very least, that this showed.  

http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM 

 I don't think the rest of the Country realizes just how big a flood there was in Iowa.  These pictures certainly reveal some of it. 

Where are the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help
In restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?

Where's the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem?

Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?

When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in  Des Moines? 

Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?

Where are all the looters stealinghigh-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?

When will we hear Governor Chet Culver
say that he wants to rebuild a 'vanilla' Iowa ,
because that's the way God wants it?

Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?

 
Is there really  that big a difference between  the people of Iowa and the people of  New Orleans?

YOU DECIDE.

The annual July session of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council, featured the usual malicious attempts to deny UN accreditation to legitimate non-governmental organizations.

Applications for accreditation are considered by the 19-nation Committee on NGOs, which includes such NGO-friendly governments as China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and Sudan. The committee spends most of its time harassing or barring groups that speak out for individual freedom.

Amidst much controversy, the NGO Committee had recommended to deny consultative status to the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). The United States asked ECOSOC to reconsider, noting that the HRF board included such distinguished human rights activists as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel. Also noted was that HRF is chaired by Armando Valladares, recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience for his years of incarceration in Cuban prisons.

The Cubans replied that Mr. Valladares is a “terrorist” and “a clown and a member of a criminal gang.” Cuba, Egypt for the Islamic Group, Russia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Sudan, and Belarus spoke out forcefully against HRC. Ecuador said it had “carried out activities that promoted subversion,” and labeled the group a “terrorist organization.”

Chavez, Castro, Mubarak, Lukashenko, al-Bashir, Morales, and Putin-Medvedev won. ECOSOC upheld the decision to bar the the Human Rights Foundation from the UN.

In a separate controversy, in March, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council  adopted its 16th one-sided censure of Israel since the supposedly reformed body was founded in June 2006. Apart from passing mention of Burma, the Islamic-dominated council of 47 governments has criticized no other country.  Beautiful!

The final resolution was adopted by 33 votes in favor, with Canada casting the sole opposing vote, and 13 abstentions. Switzerland was the sole European country to endorse the resolution, which was introduced by the Arab and Islamic blocs.

This is what much of our $$$$$'s go for in the UN.  Kudos to Canada for being the only nation on this council with any guts!  FYI- The United States does not hold a seat.

Not the best way  to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Barack Obama is "The Man" in Europe, pundits are saying. 

European governments and politicians are not so sure.

Barack Obama visited Europe this week, only the second time in 4 years.  Obama is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the region. The newspaper Le Monde pointed out on Thursday that Obama has never asked to meet the European Union's ambassador in Washington.  Not once.

A member of the German Council on Foreign Relations said, “The Obama who spoke tonight did not put all his cards on the table.” Mr. Obama “tried to use all the symbolism of Berlin to indicate that as president he would reach out to Europe,” he said.    

A former French foreign minister said, “I don’t think Europe is a major stake for” Mr. Obama, adding, “It’s the support that Europeans can bring to his politics that matters."    Mr. Obama indulged in "some pro-German demagogy on nuclear weapons to get applause”.

When interviewed about Obama, Europeans were not entirely sure what Obama stood for. "Is he a socialist?'' they asked.  Interesting question. 

Sounds very much like the Obama we get here in America, doesn't it?  "What can I say that you want to hear?" is his mantra, and not all Europeans are falling for it, obviously, although he has his adoring fan club, again, just like in America.  The New York Times calls it "Obama Fever".   

“On the positive side, we can expect somebody who reasons the way we do in Europe,” said Pierre Rousselin, the foreign editor of Le Figaro, a French newspaper.

And that's a GOOD thing?

(This is an original editorial written by myself, with info from several public sources- The NY Times, Media Net, and CNN- edited for space, but not changed, along with my own editorial comments.  I think it is responsible to reveal that.)

There is an old joke among economists that states:

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose your job.

I'm not addressing the term depression in this blog, I just tossed that in because my son is taking Economics and thought that was funny!

In macroeconomics, a recession is generally associated with a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth. According to widespread definition, a recession occurs when real growth is negative for two or more successive quarters of a year.

The US Economy grew in the first quarter by 1%,  meaning that the US does not meet the widely accepted definition of a recession. However, some economists attempt to define the word "recession" differently, and suggest that the US is already in one.  The standard definition is unpopular with some economists for two main reasons. First, this definition does not take into consideration changes in other variables. For example, this definition ignores any changes in the unemployment rate or consumer confidence. Second, by using quarterly data this definition makes it difficult to pinpoint when a recession begins or ends. This means that a recession that lasts ten months or less may go undetected.

While some economists are confident about a recession, others are not as easily convinced.  Some believe that the current slowdown will at best be a mild and brief recession, and there is always an anticipation that the economy may start recovering in the later part of 2008.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said on April 6, 2008 that "There is more than a 50 percent chance the United States could go into recession." However, Anatole Kaletsky has argued that a recession is unlikely if the US economy gets through the next two months without contracting.  He is aleading economist in the UK who specializes in foreign markets, and he has this to say about Wall Street:   "The markets may simply be wrong about the economic outlook and about the value of financial assets, as they have been many times in the past. Hence the adage that “Wall Street is a great economic forecaster - it has predicted six of the last three recessions”. "  LOL!

So, I suppose we could be in a recession, or be in one and not know it yet, or maybe not, depending on your take on what a recession is!.   This is very convenient for politicians and their rhetoric, don't you think?

Strategies for moving an economy out of a recession vary depending on which economic school the policymakers follow. While Keynesian economists may advocate deficit spending by the government to spark economic growth, supply-side economists may suggest tax cuts to promote business investments.  Laissez-faire economists may simply recommend the government remain "hands off" and not interfere with natural market forces.

What do you think? 

There has been a lot of noise in Congress lately about regulating the O&G industry, and crticism of O&G executives for their profits.  Many think we should end subsidies to this industry, also.   Democrats think we should be able to control speculators, sue foreign countries that create monopolies, and limit production to save the environment.  Why just O&G?

Let's look at some numbers from the Ethanol industry.  This is the most highly subsidized  industry in the country, with the bulk of the(bi-partisan, in all fairness) 300 Billion $$$ Farm Bill going to producers of corn for ethanol production, while corn is selling at an all-time high, with no relief in sight.  Bush threatened to veto, but once again, special interests won out.

George Soros is the single largest individual investor in this ethanol  industry.  Will he be facing Congress and gov't controls any time soon?   Will subsidies to corn farmers be questioned?  Why aren't environmentalists screaming about the 750,000 acres of Brazilian rainforest being lost every 6 months due to ethanol production?  Or the world-wide food shortage attributed to using corn for fuel instead of food?  Or rising food prices in this country?

Rules for some and rules for others, I suppose, because rich executives are bad and rich land owners are good.  Right?  

THE ETHANOL REPORT  2007 v. 2008

Year Ago   This Week        Difference

Ethanol ($/gal)

Iowa $1.94           $2.73                             40.46%

Neb. $1.96             $2.67                             36.22%

S.D. $1.92              $2.65                            38.38%

 Corn ($/bu)

 Iowa $3.24        $6.30                               94.29%

 Neb. $3.59          $6.43                               79.11%

S.D. $3.30           $6.31                               91.06%

Distillers Grains ($/ton)

10% Moisture

Iowa $95.00    $197.50                     107.89%

Neb.     n/data             $195.00           
           no data

S.D.  $95.00    $187.50                       97.37%

65% Moisture

Iowa $36.88   $68.75                          86.44%

Neb.  $47.00  $71.00                        51.06%

S.D.   $30.00   $58.00                          93.33%

Source:  AMS/USDA

Obama WILL raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes- he has promised to do so. This means that Social Security taxes, which are currently paid at 12% by the self-employed and 6% by employees, up to 97K in annual earnings, would be paid on all gross earnings up to 250K, or on ALL earnings, another idea of his.  Business owners, small and large alike, also have to match their employees' contributions!  While taxing the "rich" is a popular approach,  this enormous tax hike would seriously damage the U.S. economy while doing nothing to address it's abusers.

Eliminating the cap on payroll taxes would be, by far, the biggest tax hike in U.S. history: more than $1.3 trillion in new taxes over the first 10 years alone. 

Raising the tax cap would not just hurt the super rich, as Obama argues, but would fall most heavily on the upper middle class. Some 9.2 million Americans would see their taxes increased. Small businesses would be particularly hammered: about one-third of the workers affected by raising the cap would be small business owners.  These are the people who already carry the largest tax burden, proportionately, and who contribute the most to the economy through business services, overhead to supporting industries, JOBS, insurances, and charity.   They do 80% of the business in this country, on average. 

Eliminating the cap would saddle the United States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world, higher even than countries like Sweden. It would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth over the next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 MILLION lost jobs!

Eliminating the cap would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency.  That's very little gain for so much pain.  Obama showed his ignorance of this during the debates with Hillary, and of his ignorance of how payroll taxes work in general.  Just pay more into it- that's his answer for everything.

Eliminating the cap would not address Social Security's other problems, either. It would not enable workers to decide how their money is invested. It would not allow low- and middle-income workers to accumulate a nest egg of real, inheritable wealth. It would not improve Social Security's rate of return for younger workers.  It would not ensure that people who have paid in could collect.  It would not do anything about the gross abuse of SS funds by people who it was never meant to support, such as drug addicts and illegals, who take a huge drain from Disability benefits, among other ridiculous payouts.

Obama should be confronted on this issue.  I hope McCain does.  Do Americans want a massive tax hike in exchange for propping up the current Social Security system for a few more years? Or do they want fundamental reforms that give them more ownership and control of their money?

We know what Obama wants.