Sooner or later, you pay

Sooner or later, you pay 

You run up your personal debt. You can stall off the day of reckoning by moving your debt around. As it gets worse, the moves become more frequent and desperate. Business runs into this when they are failing. If the fundamentals do not change, sooner or later comes a day of reckoning. One day the business is doing just fine, (At least from the outside) the next day they are out of business. Personal bankruptcies can eliminate that debt. Business can sell off whatever assets they have and the investors take the loss. (Not to mention the workers who are out of work) But governments are different.

Governments can print money. When they get into financial trouble, they just print more money. The problem is, this is just another desperate move to prevent the inevitable. (Unless the FUNDAMENTALS CHANGE) The United States has not entered this phase yet, but we are getting much closer.

I have been watching for signs of inflation for years now. The spike in the price of gold is a classic indicator. Now I am seeing reports of how car prices are going to start going up. Food prices (caused mainly by the drought) are also expected to rise. I am seeing banks beginning to charge fees for letting account balances drop below a minimum amount. These were common in the late 1970's when inflation was reaching for 20%. Remember how gas stations were charging more for use of your credit card? The new regulations that went into effect will enable ALL merchants to charge for the use of credit cards. It has not begun yet, but it just may be an early indicator.

I am watching for these signs. So maybe I am just seeing what I want to see. What is unsettling is that I know that sooner or later, no matter how well you move to put it off, when your finances are poor and you are spending more than you produce, the day of reckoning comes. Unless you implement fundamental CHANGE. President Obama is NOT doing this. In fact, he is speeding up the process. Think that the gap between the haves and havenots is large now and growing? We have not seen anything yet.   

It does matter

Secretary of State Clinton, in response to attacks about how she handled Benghazi, said that it did not matter if some people walked around and decided to attack Americans or reacted to a video. The people were still dead. Yes, Secretary, it does matter. Because it was neither and both you and President Obama knew it. In other words, you lied about it. And are still attempting to lie about it. 

No wonder she became angry. Anger is all she has left to defend herself with. I guess it was OK for her husband to lie to her about all the affairs that he had. I have always felt that was between the two of them. And I understand how much people give up to be public figures. Politics is a tough life, and I get that too. But this was an attack upon the sovereignty of our country and she lied about it.

Only three days before the attack, President Obama had proudly announced that our enemies were on the run. Their leadership had been 'decimated'. It would look badly on him if only a few days later that very same enemy launched a coordinated attack upon our sovereignty. So they lied about it to blame some obscure video. For something like two weeks they claimed that this was the source of the attack when they knew better. Our ambassador was killed and our enemy raised their flag over our sovereign territory. Well, maybe it does not matter to our Secretary of State the events that actually led up to it, but it matters to me. Maybe Hillary does not understand the meaning of this event, but I am certain that our enemy does. It mattered enough for them to plan it out and execute it on her watch. I guess it does not matter to her who these people were or where they came from. In this case, her holding that post did not matter because she was certainly no obstacle for them to overcome. It does not matter to her, but it matters to me. It matters to the United States of America when our ambassador is killed and our sovereignty is violated by an overt enemy. President Obama and his Secretary of State are not defending out country from external enemies by covering up the real threat and inventing something else for their political gain. Yes, Secretary, it does matter.    

Capability

I guess that Algeria does not mean much to President Obama. Not a peep and even the media seems to think it is 20^th page news. Well, I beg to differ. The war is going badly for the United States and it is spreading.

That 'numbers do not matter, capability matters' is not working out so well. Or would having 3 or 4 more aircraft carriers offshore from Algeria add to our capability to influence events there? How about an extra 10,000 Marines offshore from Algeria?

In the debate against Mitt Romney, President Obama scoffed at his challengers mentioning how our navy is declining in numbers. President Obama said that it is not about number of ships, but capability. Numbers can determine capability, Mr. President. They can also determine if you win or lose, losing meaning that more of your men are killed and the mission is not accomplished.

Are the Algerian troops and officers more capable than U.S. troops and officers? I think not. President Obama seems to think so. At least the Algerian government is more decisive than our President.

What if we had more troops and aircraft carriers in the area? Would this not have enhanced our capabilities? If you have zero ships and troops, you have zero capability. Or are not not familiar with the United States Army in World War II? Against Germany, our Sherman tanks outnumbered Germany's famous Tiger and Panther tanks. We needed numbers because our tanks were not as formidable one on one. But three or four on one? How about how the Soviet Army was so much less capable than the German Army? The Soviet Union lost nearly 5 million men in the first 6 months of the war. (June through December, 1941) Their sheer numbers allowed them to not just recover, but defeat a much more capable German Army.

No, Mr. President, numbers do matter. It is clear to me that your capability to understand this is a great danger to our country.

(Please note that I do not really know if there was anything that we could have done differently in the case of the Algerian hostages. I am only pointing out how numbers can and do determine capability)  

Our Governement

SPIN METER: Obama and his Social Security warning

By CALVIN WOODWARD Associated Press The Associated Press

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:29 AM EST

“If Washington can't keep borrowing to ensure all its bills are paid, it will need to decide which expenses to cover and which might have to slide until a deal comes together.”

You mean that our government just may have to prioritize like we do? Our government just may have to make some tough choices on what to spend money on and what to cut out? Like real people? Or business when it slows? You mean that our government may just have to 'Live within it's means''? OMG!

Until they are able to borrow more money, that is. Then it will be spending as usual. Or do you believe that Washington will become fiscally responsible at that point?

What surprised me is that President Obama is saying that by refusing to raise the debt limit, Republicans are 'holding a gun to the head of the American people.” Nice use of the gun issue. Of course, it was OK for Senator Obama to 'Hold a gun to the head of the American people” when he was Senator. So it is OK when Senator Obama holds the gun, but not when someone else holds it? Kind of like protecting his children in school. OK for people to hold guns to protect him and his kids, but not OK for someone else. In fact, the guns protecting HIS kids are fully automatic. (Machine guns) I am not trying to compare Joe Citizen to the President of the US, but I do ask that at least MY children obtain some other type of protection than a “GUN FREE ZONE”. This is what that theater was supposed to be, as that school. Would President Obama want his children protected this way? No way in hell. Hypocritical jerk. What makes it worse for Joe Citizen is that this gun issue is a political winner for President Obama, just like the debt limit.

Republicans will lose either way on the debt limit fight. The past few times, it has been shown that to fight the raising of the debt limit is a political loser. To fight the raising of the debt limit is to risk political defeat. But Republicans believe (As do I) that the massive debt will ruin our country. So if you are going to lose, you might as well lose fighting for what you believe is right. Is this not what President Obama is constantly reminding us? We need to pass this because “It is the right thing to do” Well, if you are going to lose, might as well fight. And if you are going to fight, might as well fight FOR our country. BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, 

President Obama's surprise press conference

I like how he blames Congress for ‘racking up the bills’. As if He, President Obama, is not the spendthrift and Congress and the Republicans are. I thought that President Obama stated that we, meaning the United States, do not have a spending problem? If we do not have a spending problem and taxes on “The RICH” are making them pay “Their fair share”, then why do we need to borrow more money by raising the debt limit?

I thought that having the wealthy Americans “Pay their fair share” would settle the issue. No need to raise taxes on the Middle Class, let alone the less fortunate. And where did this 'gun to the head of the American people' come from? Back in 2009, I thought President Obama had saved us. Remember how he went outside the day after the stimulus was passed and 'it was a nice day'? Disaster averted, or at least this was how President Obama described it. I guess we need to be saved again.

I thought that the U.S. Constitution required a budget. I don't recall seeing or hearing about one passed during President Obama's first term. Historically, Presidents do not seem to do well in 2^nd terms and President Obama does not look like he handles criticism well. This press conference shows me that President Obama is going to be called out more this time around. The question about how President Obama had voted against raising the debt limit back when he was a Senator is a good indicator. Certainly a far cry from being asked what he liked most about being President. Maybe he should avoid press conferences. OH, he already does. Well, maybe he should just not hold them and just do speeches. Then at least he can think about the stuff he wants to make up a little better. I am just your average Joe and I can see through this. Surely, President Obama can do better. 

President Obama is already really squirming and his 2^nd term has not even begun yet. His 2^nd term is going to become really, really ugly.

Real CHANGE

President Obama is successful in implementing real CHANGE.

I know of two people, both of whom I have known most of my life, who have purchased multiple firearms in the past 3 weeks. Neither have ever owned firearms in their lives. One is doing extensive training in safety, cleaning, and repair of the weapons he has purchased. (I do not know how much the other is embarking on, yet) I agree and want to do the same. The only thing holding me back is my wife. She has flatly refused to allow any firearms in the house. This is a national trend right now. Not exactly what gun control advocates want. Frankly, I don't care what they want. I am beginning to feel that I need firearms for my own safety and for that of my family. Now I have an additional problem.

I am hearing about our government forming a national data base that will list the owners of firearms on a type of map quest. This will make my family a target. Just last night I was at a meeting (Of families with autistic children) where the organizer described being pick pocketed. Her wallet was stolen out of her purse in a location where it was known that surveillance is really weak. The police have told her that this area is the highest crime location for this type of theft because it is known to NOT have good surveillance. So this proposed data base can be used by criminals to target houses and locations like my own home. At least if I had firearms (Which I have never owned in my life, not even a BB gun) I would have some protection. It can be argued that owners may be targeted by those seeking firearms, but if that is the case, they had better be prepared for overcoming active defense, which requires additional resources and planning. I believe the risk is worth it. Anything that makes someone with hostile intent toward me and my family work harder.

Last night I got a phone call from a conservative organization that wants to impeach and then have President Obama removed from office. I was against removing President Clinton from office, but I agree with the concept of removing President Obama from office.

All of this is REAL CHANGE. President Obama is doing exactly what he said that he would do: “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE America”.  

Fiscal cliff

It sounds like a broken record. Kick the can back a couple of months. The 'deal' reached in the early hours of the new year puts off the massive cuts for about two months so our political leaders can come up with something else. The timing here is important because this is about how much time we have to stall a vote on raising the debt limit. Again. We reached the limit already, but by accounting methods, out political leaders can hold off the vote for about 6 to 8 weeks.

Another political fight looms in just two months. Our economy is in constant 'crisis' as our political leaders can't seem to get a grip on how to solve these issues. Well, actually one side does know how to do it, but enough Americans (Like Greeks) don't want do it, so the fighting goes on. The problem is that the end is in sight now. These 'crisis' can't keep coming up every month to so. By natural selection, the very idea of 'crisis' should be only every once in a while. Financial 'crisis' (Like depressions) used to crop up every few decades or even a little more often. Now we are seeing them every month or so. A REAL solution with real CHANGE is needed, but it is obvious that this is not happening. Otherwise, we would see this financial 'crisis' go away for at least for a decade or two.     

Al Gore sells his TV station to Al Jazeera

Nice move, makes a capital gain just prior to the tax rates going up. I can understand, I did the same thing except that I did not make anything like the kind of money that he did. Good for him. One difference between us is that I do not go around telling everyone that 'rich' people like him should be paying more taxes and at the same time dodging them. Well, I am not nearly as 'rich' as he is, but I have and would do just what he did. EXCEPT, who he sold it to.

One argument about selling the TV station to al Jazeera is that they will not be broadcasting the same stuff that they do in the Middle East. This is understandable because much of what they do is so hostile to the United States. At the same time, the argument that their point of view is valid and should be seen by U.S. Viewers and this would be good. After all, there are usually two sides to just about everything and understanding the other side is an important way of building understanding. My reply to this is that Paul Joseph Goebbels had a point of view as well. He presented Hitler better than anyone and did it brilliantly. Would we want this B.S. Being broadcast in our country in 1935? How about 1942? Sorry, but I could give a damn what that guy thought or said, other than that he was the enemy. You do want to listen to your enemy because they just might make a mistake and give away some important information. But they are still the enemy. Al Jazeera is no friend of the United States, our way of thinking or our way of life. They may package it to make it less apparent, but the message will still be that of the enemy of my country. Al Gore made money buy dong business with them and avoided paying more than what he believed to be 'his fair share'. Maybe this why I am not as 'rich' as he is. I would not have helped an enemy of my country for personal gain.