Greece, GDP and Dr. Seuss

There have been riots in Greece but I didn't really understand why other than Greece's economy was shot. Then I read an article about Greece's debt to GDP ratio and for the first time I truly understood the impact of what they were saying. Before, I would get lost in talks of billions and trillions, it sounds like something out of a Dr. Seuss book* but this ratio made sense. It divides debt (the amount a country owes) into the Gross Domestic Product or GDP (the total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in one year). To make it easy, if a country produced $50,000 and had debts of $5,000 their debt ($5,000) as a percentage of their $50,000 GDP would be 10% ($5,000/$50,000).

Greece’s current debt to GDP is an astonishing 115%. So for every $100 produced, Greece would spend all of it plus owe another $15 giving it a deficit of 15% which it has no way of paying back since it has already spent all of the money it produced in a year. Thus they needed a loan from the UN to make up for its deficit spending. If Greece doesn’t curb their spending then economists predict that Greece’s debt to GDP ratio will top 140% by 2014 which is a 40% deficit! Something must be done but their ideas of drastic changes are ridiculous. Two of the measures they plan to implement include changing the retirement age from 61 to 63 and abolishing a two-month pay bonus which state workers receive every year. Oh my, no wonder protesters were rioting!

The truly disgusting part is that the U.S. helped pay for the bailout given to Greece. And it won’t be just Greece that is falling apart. France’s debt to GDP is 80% and expected to grow to nearly 90% by 2014. No surprise as France is another nanny nation where the retirement age is 60, the typical French worker can expect to spend 24 years in retirement and civil servants will earn 75% of their pre-retirement income, not to mention 6+ weeks vacation when they do work. Yet Sarkozy refuses to discuss cuts to these overly generous benefits. Instead, France hopes that for some reason their workers suddenly become motivated and increase production (a higher GDP would then mean a lower debt to GDP ratio).

So on one hand there are these spoiled European countries with their low retirement ages, high pensions, months off and big bonuses and on the other hand there are us, the United States taxpayers. The US worker is lucky if they gets a 3-week vacation compared to months off in France and Spain. And lately, most US employees figure they will have to work until they are at least 67 to have enough saved for when they can retire. It galls me to think that part of our hard earned money is being siphoned off to support people who riot at the thought of increasing their retirement age of 60 to 63. We thought it was bad when we were burdened with supporting deadbeats and illegal immigrants here in America but it turns out we are also supporting the lifestyle of European citizens through UN bailouts. Maybe it should be the American taxpayers who are protesting. Oh wait, hello Tea Party.

Yet in direct opposition to the Tea Party’s goals, President Obama continues to rapidly transform the United States into becoming more like Europe by spending trillions of dollars and increasing our debt. But what is our debt to GDP ratio, you ask? It will probably come as no surprise that it has grown substantially since the last election. Back in 2006, America's ratio of debt to GDP was 61.9%, and in 2007 it grew slightly to 63.1%. Then came Bush’s bailouts in 2008 which increased our debt to GDP to 70.5%.

After Obama became president, the ratio jumped in one year from 70.5% to 87% in 2009! This year it again increased dramatically to 97.5%! Thanks to Obama’s health care program, stimulus packages and bailouts, the United States is now spending $97 for every $100 we produce. If we keep on this track we are estimated to have a projected debt to GDP in 2014 of 106.7%! Like Greece, we would be spending more than we produce. We are faced with the same basic choices as Greece, France and every other country; either we produce more or we spend less. (Again this is taking a very simplistic view of the situation.)

Right now, it almost seems as if Obama and his team are crippling our ability to produce more. It is hard to increase our output when we have a 10% unemployment rate. Yet after nearly 18 months there are still no comprehensive job programs nor has he used the bulk of the stimulus money. Education is another factor since you would think that the better educated worker would produce more. Our first African American President and First Lady would be wonderful role models to minority children. Michele should be preaching about staying in school and tackling the exorbitant drop out rates in inner cities, not showing off her muscles and harassing pudgy kids.

We also need to be a leader in technology which will help workers to produce more by providing better electronics, tools and equipment. Yet Obama is destroying our 50 year old NASA program which encouraged kids to study math, science and physics, not to mention exploring planets and stars. And on the opposite scale from NASA are the small businesses which Obama is crippling with his new taxes and initiatives. Not to forget big businesses or fat cats as Obama so prejudiciously calls them. He's happy to take their money for his campaigns while blaming them for our country's woes at every opportunity.

I cannot think of a single thing Obama has done that would encourage the businesses, small or big or the government to produce more. Can you? But we can’t continue like this or we will end up like Greece. So if we aren't going to increase productivity then the alternative is for Obama and Congress to decrease spending. Ok, did you have a good laugh, too, at that thought? But if Obama and Congress won’t stop spending then we have to stop them. It's that simple. Vote them all out and vote for leaders who believe in small government and individual and state's rights. And while we’re at it, maybe we should stop handing out our hard earned money to the UN, too.


* My take of Dr. Suess on Obama - Obama handed out millions, our millions, your billions, my trillions, and then he gave to the poor even more billions and trillions and gadzillions. Obama spent and he spent, every dollar and cent, bailing out cars, and houses, and banks, yet those louses never ever said thanks. Then Nancy got antsy and Harry got scary as they scurried like rats to round up their Democrats to vote the right vote or the right left vote. And now there's money for health care, money for car fare, money for stimulus plans and wars in Afghanistan.

But I do not like this, Pres, I says. I do not like Obamacare where everyone's on welfare. I do not care at all I says to Pres, I do not like banks too big to fail and so we bail and spend, and spend and bail so if you fail don't wail we'll bail and don't go pale for you'll get no jail instead give yourself a big bonus all on us. Oh my oh my I do not like this Pres, my friend, I do not like this Pres at all. The end.

Sharing the Wealth - My Way

Share the wealth. This is what Obama wants to incorporate into every aspect of America, starting with health care. If the poor can’t afford health care then make the wealthy pay for it. If you take this statement at face value it is not an outrageous suggestion. Someone who can’t afford health care because they have lost their job should be given a helping hand until he can get back on his feet again. The same is true for the elderly, no matter how much a senior has saved he would be wiped out with one major surgery. So we need to help our elderly. Besides, isn’t that what tithing is all about? Giving money which will then be used to help the poor among us?

Helping the less fortunate is at the core of every civilized nation and every modern religion. The problem, however, is that we have become too large and have lost the community feeling whereby neighbor helped neighbor and so the government must step in. Government is always unwieldy and it doesn’t help that we have a growing population of people who choose to be poor and demand government help. Combined these two problems are emptying our treasury and dividing our country.

I’ve counted five different groups of these poor people who are draining our national wealth. First there are the men and women who refuse to get a job, which includes the underqualified and the overqualified. The underqualified includes the large group of people who drop out of school, who can barely read and write, who cannot speak proper English if they speak it at all, who are in gangs or drug dealing and the mentally challenged. The overqualified are formerly employed people who lost their jobs, have not been able to find an equivalent position and prefer to take government assistance rather than take a job that they deem are beneath them.

The third group of poor who are taking advantage of our government handouts are the young, and not so young, women who pop out a kid every year or two. Most of these young women are unmarried and have no means of providing for their children. These women are typically part of the undereducated group and the jobs that they could get pay so little that after providing for day care they wouldn’t be able to pay the rest of their bills. Easier to stay home, have more kids and get more government money.

The final two groups are those who we should be helping; people who are physically or mentally unable to work and the elderly. Ironically many in these groups would like to work, even if for a few hours a week because an extra hundred dollars every month might mean putting the thermostat to a more reasonable level. But the system is set up such that if they work even for a few hours then they might lose all of their government assistance.

What is the solution? Obama wants to spread the wealth but our “poor” are so numerous that paying for the slackards will bankrupt this country. No matter what promises the President makes, he will have to take money not just from the rich but also from the middle class to pay for his health care plan. It’s no surprise that working people are outraged that they will be penalized for working. They will be forced to hand over a bigger and bigger portion of their hard earned money to sluggards who live off of the government dole because they chose not to work. It’s not fair and people are angry.

President Obama, I have a solution to this growing problem and my idea can be summed up in one sentence – With the exception of the ill and elderly, everyone else who takes government money must work. Period. And the details of my plan are equally simple. If after a year of being unemployed a person still hasn’t found a job then they must choose from one of four options; join the military, go to college (must make passing grades), join Americorp or stop taking government money. That’s it. Of course the hope is that eventually they will find a job suitable to their experience but until then they have to pick one of these options.

The key to my proposal is Americorp and something Obama should like – community organizations. I don’t know how either currently operates but I see Americorp setting up in every medium sized community and in every depressed area. Each local Americorp facility would initially set up two businesses; a cafeteria and a day care center. The cafeteria would offer healthy but inexpensive breakfasts and dinners to the poor and their families while the day care center would watch over the children when the poor start working. Of course both of these enterprises would need to hire people thus already creating work for the poor.

Next, my new Americorp would target every farm, factory and other business which hires illegal immigrants. Americorp would now be able to fill these jobs. Some kind of benefits and rewards would be given to both companies who hire Americorp workers and also for the Americorp workers doing this acknowledged hard, manual labor. Thus in one stroke we would deter companies from hiring illegal immigrants while also providing jobs to our own poor.

If an able bodied poor person continuously refuses these job offers then their government handouts will be taken away. It's that cut and dried. Yes I can hear liberals shouting that we would be penalizing the poor children. First, their logic is faulty, it is the lazy parent who is at fault and second, I could see Americorp allowing these families to eat at the cafeteria thereby making sure the children still get healthy meals. And don't even dare try the argument that we would be separating babies from their mothers since this is exactly what working mothers must do every day.

Finally, for the college educated, I would create a fast track to get them teaching at our schools. Now that I think about it, the local Americorp should start a third business; hiring the educated unemployed men and women to act as tutors and mentors for the children of the poor. The ultimate goal is to stop the cycle of poor and the first step is to educate the children. Actually, the educated poor could also mentor and help the undereducated poor adults, too. They could teach these adults not just in school subjects but in everything from cooking healthy to managing a budget to proper etiquette when applying for a job. If there are no other jobs available and yet someone getting unemployment money refuses to take one of these Americorp jobs then they, too, would lose their government handouts. Or they could simply not apply for government money if they know they won't take a government Americorp job.

This leaves just those who truly deserve government assistance; the disabled, the elderly and the mentally ill. If anyone in these three groups is able to work for an hour or two a week then they should be allowed to do this without losing their government benefits. But if they are physically or mentally unable to work then they should receive full government assistance without feeling any shame or guilt. They are the only “poor” who everyone would agree actually deserve help. Everyone else should go to work, go to college, join the military or get off the government dole. I think this is a way to share the wealth that most working people would support. And even Obama should be happy as my plan uses community organizers so that he will have a job waiting for him in two years!

Nashville Heroes

There was a lot of news breaking over the past week and yet I think Fox News got some of it wrong. A few other news divisions are now following their lead, but Fox was the first to incorrectly link the oil spill and Obama’s handling of this disaster with the way Bush’s team handled Katrina. The main point of contention was that Bush was denounced in the news for not visiting New Orleans until four days after the disaster whereas Obama didn’t show up to view the oil spill for nine days. The comparison must have struck a chord at the White House for now everyone has the same talking point in which they start any conversation about the oil spill with the phrase “day one” – as in “we were on top of this day one”. Nonetheless I think Fox used the wrong comparison.

In the midst of reporting about the oil spill, Arizona and immigration, the Times Square bomber, the stock market plunge and back again, there was another story of near epic proportions – the Nashville flooding. Now this disaster was on par with the flooding of New Orleans after Katrina. And yet the way the folks in Nashville are being treated in comparison to those in New Orleans is downright insulting.

Thirty one people have died, a vital Southern city is underwater, there is an estimated $1.5 billion in damage plus an important part of American history and our musical heritage, The Grand Ol’ Oprey was badly damaged along with millions of dollars worth of Country Music artifacts and instruments. Yet no one seems to care or even know about it. Hell, I got the above information from a BBC article as there are so few in this country reporting on it.

Gee, it took Bush four days to visit New Orleans and Obama nine days to view the oil spill yet why hasn’t any reporter accused the President of avoiding Nashville, another southern city completely underwater? Instead, nearly a week later, Janet Napolitano showed up. I still don’t quite understand why she is the spokesperson for the oil spill cleanup and now this. Regardless, the President or even the Vice President should have been in Nashville to view the damage and to maybe give a few comforting hugs to the flooded out residents.

In fact, in Obama’s acceptance speech of the Democrat ticket a few years ago he said "We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes."

Ironic, isn’t it? Someone needs to remind him of this for he sure as hell has been sitting on his hands while Nashville has epic flooding and struggles to overcome what some say is the worst disaster for them since the damage from the Civil War.

Obama also discussed something that has been annoying me recently. In his speech he mentions homeless veterans and families in poverty. Yet during the past year I have wondered about the lack of articles about the homeless. Where are the reports about filled shelters and families living in cars? I haven’t seen any, have you? And yet we are in the midst of a major recession with 10% unemployment. Can you imagine all the sob stories we would be inundated with if a Republican was president?

Anyway, back to the Nashville flood. Since Obama and most reporters are ignoring this story you may be unaware of the efforts by Nashville residents to help themselves. Country singers, many of whom, such as Kenny Chesney, had flooded homes themselves, are reaching out to help their fellow residents. Taylor Swift personally donated $500,000 to the relief efforts and a number of concerts and fund raisers are being planned to help the city. Another $400,000 came from the owner of the Nashville Titans with more expected from the NFL and individual Titan players. But, again, little of this is being reported.

One commentator from NewsBusters, a conservative website, wrote the following about the lack of coverage “The only thing that I can figure is that maybe Nashville is doing its best to handle the problem in any way they can, and they aren't whining and crying and blaming somebody or something for what is obviously a natural disaster," the commenter writes. "And also, maybe there's not much 'news' in this for the MSM, since there doesn't appear to be an agenda that they can push.”

So Nashville shouldn’t expect much, if any help from the government, nor a visit from Obama. Outside of the south, I also doubt if money will pour in or Hollywood helps out or hundreds of do-gooders flock to Nashville to help rebuild homes, all of which happened to New Orleans. Instead, for the most part, these Southerners are on their own. Rather than act as helpless victims, these stoic heroes will quietly rebuild their city and homes. In fact, a year from now I bet that Nashville will be well on its way to being restored while New Orleans, five years after Katrina, will still be damaged and parts of the city unlivable. It simply shows that government can not do everything. And yet this is the same government that is now going to take care of all of our health’s.

Two for One

This past week, two different news items caught my attention.

First, as a Floridian, I was obviously interested in what my idiot governor, Charlie Crist, did this past week. You may think you know the story but here is an interesting timeline. Two weeks ago, Governor Crist vetoed a popular Republican bill that would have tied teachers pay to student achievements (thanks Debbie for reminding me of this). If he had passed it then teachers were planning sit ins and sick outs and all kinds of disturbances to show their anger to {gasp} being held accountable but since he vetoed the bill then the happy teachers, well, just wait a moment. For the next thing Crist did was to lie to the world.

Everybody knows that he sat there and told reporters over and over and over again that he would not run as an Independent. That he was a Republican and would stay with his party. The only problem is that his party left him in droves to support Marco Rubio; with Crist as much as 20 points behind the popular newcomer. Now Charlie had two choices. He could have dropped out and thrown his support to Rubio. Then in the next two years build a base of moderates from both sides which would put him in a good position to compete for the other Senatorial seat. It might even place him in contention as a VP or perhaps Presidential candidate in 2012. But no, Charlie isn’t that farsighted or patient, for he actually announces that he is going to run as an Independent.

No apologies to Floridians for lying, no remorse for turning his back on his party. Instead he says this change is for the people of Florida. Yeah, right, the polls showing he had a chance of winning the senate seat if he ran as an Independent had nothing to do with his reversal of position. Now back to that veto… within hours of his announcement there was an ad by the teachers union backing Crist. So we know what his price was. The only problem is that Charlie has completely alienated Republicans and his boldfaced lying has even turned off Independents. He has destroyed his relationship with Republican leaders and Democrats don’t want him either. Obama may have hugged him but rumor has it that the White House won't take his calls. After what Crist has done, he will be lucky if he one day ends up as Superintendent of Schools. But Senator? I don’t think so.

The second news item that caught my attention is truly outrageous. On Thursday, Tehran’s police chief announced that they will start arresting suntanned women and even men this time in an effort, according to RadioVoice, to cleanse “social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values.” How ironic that also on Thursday Iran was appointed to the UN Commission on Women’s Rights. What does that say about the UN? And I shudder to think what will happen to women around the world now.

Unbelievably, the United States (ie. Obama) did not object to Iran becoming a part of the Commission on Women’s Rights. However the government does object to Rev. Franklin Graham’s remarks criticizing the Muslim religion for their treatment of women. You see, Graham has an issue with Muslim's doing little things like stoning women, the complete lack of basic rights or now even persecuting women with a suntan. Because of Graham’s remarks he was disinvited to a Pentagon prayer event and his invitation to speak at a May 6 National Prayer Day at Capital Hill might also be rescinded. How very wrong is this world? And why aren’t U.S. women standing with Graham in outrage of all of this?

(Hmmm. Here’s a last thought – what if we were to send Charlie Crist to visit Iran. Maybe the Tehran police would then arrest the
perpetually suntanned governor and get him out of Florida politics for good?)