Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Common Sense

For today's elections I have only one thing to say.. OK, two:
  1. Smart people don't cut off their nose to spite their face.
  2. Remember the Alamo (you know... Bush?).
Enjoy the balloting.

P.S.  Here are some rather shocking data on wage distribution in the U.S.A. from the Social Security Administration. (Data refer to 2009 during which there were a total of 150 million wage earners.)
  • The largest group of wage earners - a massive 24 million or 16% of the total - made between 1 red cent and $4,999.99.  On average they earned $2,016.
  • The average wage for everyone was $39,054, but the median was a mere $26,261.  Two thirds of all workers made less than $40,000.
  Middle class? What middle class?  Look at the data...


  1. I hear you. Unfortunately there are a lot of not so smart people voting today. Love the blog!

  2. Nobody ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American electorate.

  3. "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."
    — Thomas Jefferson

    Participate doesn't mean vote on election day (or not) and then complain until the next election. We have to participate consistently, whether it's exercise of our freedoms as in this blog, or direct communication with our elected officials.

  4. We have Bush 3 in progress. Keep the wars and the torture camps going. Add in a little Due Process free "targeted assassination" of American citizens, and mix with the obfuscation that the evil budget deficit is to blame for our problems.

    Meanwhile we have Bernanke playing with matches in the fireworks shed with Ron Paul stalking him down. This should get very interesting, in a theater macabre kind of way.

    When are those banks gonna start lending me some of that cheap money?

    See you all in a bit, gotta go buy my food stamp debit card in the "real" economy.

  5. I would participate in voting because that shows how serious I am of wanting change to happen. I don't just support the politician who I believe will change a lot.

  6. So Hellacious,

    Where's the logic here? Ben increases the amount of money so large corporations can refinance their debt, large players can stimulate growth in emerging economies via the carry trade, while commodity prices increase and hurt the most vulnerable in our society?

    In your humble opinion, is this done to stretch out low interest payments for the Federal government? Is this an attempt to stimulate emerging economies so their demand for American products will rise with cheaper dollars?

  7. I think the electorate is not as dumb as you think. I guess they were all Einstein's in 2008'. At the very least a large group understands we cannot continue to spend money in such a profligate manor and wants it to stop. Crito is correct. We do have Bush 3 in progress.He just lacks the personal warmth and has a larger vocabulary.On top of it he is an even bigger spendthrift. "Meet the new boss same as the old boss"

    I don't think Republicans were voted back into office buy just a bunch of selfish moron's earning over 100k a year wanting low taxes.It is far deeper than that. I won't hold my breath waiting for the Washington newbies to bring about some fiscal policy that could actually be sustained long term but we all can hope election after election by voting incumbents out.

    We can't afford 2 wars and a welfare state on easy credit terms. What do you suggest?

  8. "We can't afford 2 wars and a welfare state on easy credit terms. What do you suggest?"

    Replace the two current wars with wars against carbon and Permagrowth. Replace the welfare state with the education state.

    Bet these actions alone will result in a virtuous cycle worth AT LEAST a few million new high value-added jobs.

    It is laughable to think that monetary policy alone (eg QE2) will result in any real benefits.


  9. Dr John,

    The focus on government spending for the "welfare state" me thinks is another distraction.

    The military spending is a another story and I'd gladly see it cut in half.

    The silliness of the middle-class taxpayer bailing out the banks so they can borrow money at zero interest and then loan back the money back to the taxpayer at a large profit is worthy of a Monty Python skit.

    I can see John Cleese getting money from a customer in one hand, switching it to the other hand behind his back, and then giving it to the customer with the other hand, and demanding a fee for his services.

    When the customer complains about the absurdity of such an action, Cleese mocks the customer as an unsophisticated bumpkin and boots him out of the office.

    At least with welfare payments we get something for our money. A cushion for the less fortunate and jobless has value.

    The continuing bank bailout is a lot more expensive and for what?

  10. Crito and I don't think most people really have a good understanding of the problems with such a bailout and how the money has been used and you certainly do not hear many from either of the major political parties arguing against such an intervention or pointing out what you have. Maybe a few fiscal hawk Republicans like Ron Paul but very few. It is why I vote libertarian. I take issue with Hell's implication that the results of the most recent election are indicative that the voting public is just a bunch of buffoons. I know many of them and they are very unhappy about the present state of politics and the course of both parties. They are not idiots.

    I am not sure we are getting what we intend when it comes to the complex issue of welfare but that's another issue.I don't think you can look at the trillions of unfunded future liabilities the US has for such "social programs" and call them a distraction.