My 2 Cents Worth

"Quote of the Day"

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson

Monday, October 26, 2009

Insurance Company Obscene Profits...Really?

The Claims
"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A ad.

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Associated Press writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Global Warming?

A recent story for the BBC begins:

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. (cont.

While some may be "surprised" as stated, they should not be. The "Global Warming/Cooling/Change" debate has always been based on an agenda instead of science. There have been scientists from the very beginning that tried to say, "hold on!". But the agenda needed a movement. And "Global Warming" was the movement.

Conservatives NEVER bought into this idea. They said the science does not support the belief, and therefore, have always pointed to the agenda as the purpose. Unfortunately, until a quasi-liberal establishment provides confirmation, the conservatives are considered "whack-jobs", or "greedy money-mongers that don't care about the environment".

Well, here is a news flash - Conservatives Live on the Earth Also! Do you really think we would destroy our planet for money. The reality is that, just like "Global Cooling" in the 1970's, "Global Warming" was a farce being fed to the general public.

But let's not stop there. Please, for once, let's investigate the agenda behind "Global Warming". It's very simple - POWER and CONTROL. If somebody has power and control, they will have money.

Now I am not saying that every environmentalist out there is hungry for power, that would be a lie...but, liberal politicians crave Power and Control!

The end goal for liberal politicians was/is, and always will be, about Cap-and-Trade. There is money to be made, and influence to be peddled in Cap-and-Trade legislation. With this legislation, you control the power industry, which allows them to control everything else.

Many companies (like GE) have positioned themselves to cash in on a Green Economy. Why are people so easily convinced that Halliburton wants war to feed their machine, but refuse to consider that other companies can have an agenda as well.

So the message going forward is to be aware of hidden agendas. Regardless of Conservative or Liberal political leanings, there can be hidden agendas. you want to talk about Obama's Health Care legislation?.......

Monday, September 28, 2009

Quote from Economist Walter Williams

"Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so. Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play. Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism that made us a great country and it's socialism that will be our undoing." --economist Walter Williams

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Democrats block GOP demand for more time
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill............follow link to see more -


During President Obama’s Sunday Morning Talk Show Tour, host George Stephanopoulos [of ABC] was questioning the Max Baucus's Senate bill (that Mr. Obama supports), where everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked when “the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. ... How is that not a tax?”

“Well, hold on a second, George,” Mr. Obama replied. “Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...”

“That may be,” Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, “but it's still a tax increase.”

But according to Mr. Obama: “No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore...”

Please read over this exchange once more, its important………….

Now, the odds are, I don’t have to say a word. The questions should be ringing in your mind.

What about those people that OBAMA says, “if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on”? How does Obama decide who can, or can’t afford to pay for insurance. Does he come and audit you to see if you have $3,600 available?

Wouldn’t you say that anybody that has earned $3,600 COULD have chosen to buy insurance with that money. But the odds are that they first chose to eat…and then to pay for lodging…and then to pay for water and power bills…and maybe then to put gas in their car…and so on. But aren’t these all simply CHOICES? I mean, doesn’t Obama make it clear that he believes that some people are choosing NOT to get insurance so that they can cheat the system?

So if Obama believes that people are making choices to NOT get Health Care, then having Health Care is a choice. And if it is a choice, then it is not a Right. If it is not a Right, then why are we arguing about it?

Let’s face a simple reality: it is a mistake to decide that people, as a result of their failure, will get something for free. This is why we live in a Free-Market Capitalist System. People get what they earn, unless it comes as a Gift or as Charity. And our government should not be involved in giving Gifts or Charity.

People LISTEN. This debate is about POWER, and whether it should be in the hands of Politicians in Washington DC, or in the hands of the consumer that gets to choose how to spend the money he or she has earned.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Obama's Transparent Corruption

Anybody other than me noticing the increased level of corruption around our new President and his administration.

I mean, first there is William Ayers, Reverend Wright and the rest of his entourage during the campaign. Oh, and let's not forget the dozen, or so, voter fraud cases brought against Obama's ACORN buddies. But, I'm sure that Obama is not very close to this ACORN group....or is he (see this - )

From his first days in office, we find out that The Apollo Alliance wrote the Stimulus Bill that ultimately feeds millions of dollars to...that's right, The Apollo Alliance. [For anybody unaware, the Apollo Alliance includes ACORN, SEIU, and other George Soros funded "charities"] Don't believe they wrote it, check with Apollo, they are proud of their role according to their website. Want to continue learning about this allied group of radicals listen to Beck here - .

More recently, we have the ACORN scandal of wanting to help the pimp and prostitue set up their Brothel with illegal underage girls from Central America (see the 1 of the 5videos here - ).

But we also have the NEA scandal where they planned to push Obama's agenda, even though laws don't allow them to do that. (see more here - )

And fresh news today from Rueters, "U.S. charges Obama fund-raiser in $290 million fraud". This story begins, "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday." (see the rest of the story here - )

The interesting thing is that we should already know how this latest story from Rueters will end - he is a rogue individual with no close association with Obama or the Clintons. Nobody ever seems to notice the continuous culture of corruption that surrounds our nation's capital, and that has gotten worse since Obama has arrived.

I guess the moral of this story goes - when you elect a Chicago Politician, you get what you pay for (and that can be taken literally).

Monday, September 21, 2009

The Problem With Big Government

I argued with several conservatives regarding the Cash-4-Clunkers program. They thought this was an example of providing incentive at the consumer level.

I am willing to acknowledge that this program at least has a foundation in Capitalism. Unfortunately, it is not a natural driven occurrence.

My problem is that you need to give money back to consumers and allow them to spend it however they choose. Don't force them into the automobile market. All Cash-4-Clunkers accomplished was: #1 to persuade people to buy something that they were already strongly considering, or #2 persuade people to purchase something they can't really afford. Neither of these events is what should be happening in a FREE-MARKET CAPITALIST ECONOMY.

You will here me repeat this theme over-and-over. Let the free-market work and it will generally sort things out. Other than unlawful practices, Government involvement typically makes matters worse.

We got into this recession because of government meddling in the housing market.

So below is the news now telling us that automobile showrooms are now quiet. DUH! When the government forces an unnatural rally, it will not be good.

I'll give this a couple more months to play out, but what I see developing is this. The government artificially drove sales up, retailers responded by purchasing more vehicles to be sold, manufacturers responded by ramping up production (possibly even hiring back a few people) - this all sounds good, right? But now the sales are gone...retailers were tricked into over-responding...manufacturers made vehicles that weren't needed...soon there will be oversurplus and people will be laid off...and the downward spiral starts again.

Everybody agreed that the recession was near the bottom. Just allow it to run its cycle and it will improve. Now we have to suffer the emotional turmoil of another downward slope to our economy (i.e. consumer confidence goes down).

Nobody is evil in their intentions, in fact, they were probably noble. Its just the reality of economics. People buy and sale as individuals when they become convinced that their economic standing supports a move. Unnatural spurring in a certain direction, particularly when it is only short-term, only confuses the issue. It disrupts the natural course of the decision making process and causes people buy on impulse...and bad things happen.

This brings us to the big newspapers that are crumbling. They are producing something that is no longer needed, and in many cases, no longer wanted.

Many of these are so slanted towards one party or the other that they are irrelevent.

Now, there is news emerging that Obama is willing to consider bills that provide newspapers a "tax break" if they restructure as "non-profit" organizations. (Gee, that has worked really well with ACORN).

I find it hard to believe that companies structured for profit can suddenly become non-profit. These companies have failed to keep up with the modern day technology, and they should be allowed to fail.

The natural cycle will take care of getting rid of poor performing companies, and it will reward those that produce the goods and services that consumers want. It just takes the courage to let it happen and stop trying to force an economically unnatural event.

Ronald Reagan once explained, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, if it stops moving, subsidize it."

The reality is as Reagan also said, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem".