It's scary the things the Democrats are thinking of doing with the 52% majority that elected Obama. A "mandate" they call it. Michael Savage continually reminds us that it was a vote against [McCain], not a vote for Obama.

I thought it was interesting the remarks in the article about "we need to get them to retire on time", or the whole system collapses. They don't say exactly, but it seems obvious they are refering to how unemployment rates will skyrocket if people don't retire themselves out of the job market. Probably democrats are also afraid to some lose their voter base if they don't get us to retire and be dependent on their government programs.

As a contrast to retirement, it is said that Ellen G. White, famous writer from mid 1800's to early 1900's, was active in her writing work until she died in her 80's or 90's. She, and many others from her age, survived quite well in old age without Social Security programs. Why not plan on being productive until the end?

I was thinking the other day that with the limits on maximum contributions, and now this article about how the gov't has the ability to change the rules whenever they want that cover the nest egg you're trying to build in a 401K, perhaps the 401K is actually sucker bet. I am wondering if the 401K mantra is just anesthesia to keep us busy. Even if you make the max 401K contributions, the accumulation won't get you really rich and well off unless you are getting decent rates of compound interest, which hasn't been happening in the last 10+ years. And, if you were making really good money, the tax benefit of the 401K contribution would be so small in comparison to your overall income, (and possible AMT). I think rich people find more sophisticated ways that they can actually control to guarantee their future, ways better than just increasing their 401K contribution.....

I have a senior friend, who at one point was worth $40 million, but then lost it all betting on the stock to be worth even more. Now it seems he's never met a government program or government intervention that he is not in favor of. He loves to tell me from time to time how he's "getting a $100 a month raise in my entitlement" meaning the increases in Social Security. He knows I can't say anything about it, good for him he was old enough to actually get Social Security, unlike those of us who are much younger. At one point a few years ago he was supposed to be getting something like $1600 a month, who knows what it is up to now. But it's a shame he didn't do more reasonable things to ensure his retirement, he could be doing so much better.

Now he's firmly in the pro government-needs-to-give-more-handouts camp. Loves to tell me how wonderful the governments interventions were in the last depression, etc. Other economists and writers say it was only the governments involvement that made them so deep and drawn out. Previous recessions in the 1700's and 1800's sorted themselves out just fine without government interventions. He considers me naïve when I talk about government needing to be smaller, of course he doesn't want to listen to anything contrarian to the idea that the government interventions of the past were anything other than extremely wise and needed. I'm not alone in my thoughts, see "Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism", and "Capitalism the unknown virtue" by Ayn Rand. But he will have none of that, despite being registered as a Republican and having been a business man, I never hear out of him any idea that I haven't heard from the liberal news media.

Instead of letting the market decide the fates, now we have industry after industry coming to the government for billions of dollars in handouts. A government handout is an interference in the natural order of things just as surely as a corrupt zoning office, or county planning board, preventing a landowner from developing his land in the way he sees fit because the collective in this country now had greater control over property than the individual who is working, and taxed, for the property.

Why is no one talking about how these handouts are going to dwarf the money spent in Iraq? Because they are going to be spent on effemeral things like "health care", and "eradicating" poverty. And most of these government handouts may buy things that are a lot more temporary than the regime change in Iraq. Once the temporary changes dissipate, will they be leaving us back in our same position, or even worse? Was one economist saying that our national debt is nearing 50% of GDP? That's incredibly high.

While the democrats around Barack Obama pretend they are going to lower taxes on "lower" income individuals, Republicans in Name Only (RINO's) like Arnold Swarzenneger propose increasing California sales tax rates from +8% to possible 9.5% or 10%, and to start taxing services as well as tangible sales. The states are poised to step in and soak up the individuals savings from any federal tax breaks with increases of their own.

What if we live our lives as if social security and other government programs don't exist? What if it were considered shameful to accept social security and various other government programs, shameful that you hadn't taken enough personal responsibility to provide for yourself and your family? What if we plan for how we will be productive until the end? How would that change things?

When fiscal conservatives complain about the ever increasing cost of government programs to "take care" of people, they are frequently accused by liberals of wanting to let people "live under a bridge" without the safety nets that liberals have dreamed up. Many in our society are very willing to chase whichever politican offers more "goodies", not caring when the politician says he will take the money from "big corporations" or "rich people". In the past, American's were willing to bet on pursuing with hard work their own dreams to ensure their future prosperity, but today, too many people have given up and want to demand no strings support from those whose success they envy.

While care of seniors, and the cost of providing medical care for them, needs our attention, (modern society has substituted expensive government safety nets for the intergenerational family support structures of the past), one of the biggest areas of concern in our society should be for the next generation who are seeking to make their way, and will some day be depended on to pay for the expensive government programs that liberals are dreaming up.

Many of these kids are likely to be among those who don't have health insurance. They may be more drammatically affected by the rising costs of rent, or even worse, eviction from a residence whose landlord is being foreclosed upon. They are vulnerable to being fired for baseless sexual harrassment claims by customers, or to being fired when they vent their frustration about baseless complaints to an investigating supervisor. When some of these individuals feel "trapped" in their current situation, that they have no where else to turn, is that all we should consider, or should a deeper look be done?

In California juvenile court waiting rooms, there is a magazine with a title along the lines of "Your Child and The Law". It tells parents about their responsibilies to take care of their children until age 18, except in very limited circumstances when the child petitions for emancipation.

A parent sitting in that waiting room, who has been trying to do everything possible to help their child, but is helpless and yet still responsible in the situation of a 17 year old refusing to obey court orders can be very frustrated by those requirements. Even more frustrating can be the section that gives the name of "pushout" to the phenomenon of parents who have to have the child move out at 18. Many parents may have spent years trying to prepare their child with warnings about the reality that living in the home past 18 depends on the child either

• going to school,
• or working to pay rent,
• and in either case, being a non-disruptive member of the household.

To see that liberals have given a term like "pushout" to this, with the implicit shift in blaim to the parents, can be very frustrating for the caring parent. How about instead using a term like "turn away" to represent the child who has turned away from a refusal to honor their parents and give a proper response to the support that the family has offered?

The real difference is that conservatives favor personal responsibility and giving people a rope to help themselves. Many conservatives will readily admit to the ropes they were offered by others. And they used those ropes, they didn't depend on a safety net. But today, there are many resting in safety nets who could be providing services and climbing ropes out of their current situation. In some of these cases, these people are young adults who have passed up countless ropes given to help them on their way: Parents arranging for housing rentals where the child doesn't keep their rent paid Parents watching as the child has opportunities to work for their landlord in exchange for unpaid rent, but then doesn't show up for the work Employers offering training that the child chooses not to take advantage of Children taking advantage of a boss being on vacation to think they can get away with shorting the boss on hours Children pursuing illicit substances, then wondering why they lose jobs Parents willing to provide working opportunities for their children, but the children refuse to take advantage of the opportunity In these kinds of cases, often the "need" of a safety net can be traced to repeated refusal to use the ropes offered. How much responsibility should society bear for those who refuse to do what is necessary to lift themselves out of their present circumstances?

Not to pick on single moms, but the principle illustrates my point... Mothers on welfare have an implicit contract with the state that provides them between $8,000 and $15,000 in benefits: Don't work Don't marry an employed male Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism

Can we blaim the conservative who acknowledges the ropes he was given and used, and frustration at being forced to pay for safety nets for those who are too busy practicing "entitlement" and "blaim" to have time to use a rope to better themselves. Why shouldn't we all be frustrated with those who would rather use the safety nets like a hammock than to work hard and climb the ropes like their forefathers did? Why do we blaim the conservative who says "No one gave me a hammock, why should I have to pay for a safety net to be used like a hammock by others?"

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides)
Robert P. Murphy

$19.95(USD)

---

Participating in the economy is a part of everyday life, yet much of what is commonly accepted as economic fact is wrong. Keynesian schoolteachers and the liberal media have filled the world with politically correct errors that myth-busting professor Robert Murphy sets straight. Murphy explains hot topics like outsourcing (why it's good for Americans) and zoning restrictions (why they're not). Just like the other books in the P.I.G. series, The Politically Incorrect GuideT to Capitalism pulls no punches.

---

October 18, 2008:

• Southern Sheriff pulls over Obama Campaign Bus for Broken Taillight - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/southern_sheriff_pulls_over_obama
• Obama promises to stop America's shitty jobs from going overseas - http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_promises_to_stop_americas
  • "Shitty Jobs For America"
• 8 year old sells cookies to buy attack ads against John [McCain] - http://www.theonion.com/content/video/precocious_youngster_sells

Sept 26, 2008:

• Armstrong and Getty Radio show and the 6900 protocol
  • Economic collapse. Will they send in army paratroopers to take over the banks if the secretary of the treasury declares that the U.S. can no longer service our national debt?
• Would you fire this person
  • Other related articles:
    • How To Find, Fix Or Fire Your Poor Performers
    • 18 Signs You're About to Get Fired
    • 4 Cynical Strategies for Protecting Your Job During a Recession
    • [ServiceMaster] Considering Ways to Restructure Its IT Organization
    • Tech Jobs in the U.S.: The Top 10 Cities for Technology Work
    • Would You Fire This Person?
• WEP key vs. other security: http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=30694

Just saw a commercial from the AMA (American Medical Association) touting their proposal to require everyone to have health insurance. They have a website www.voicefortheuninsured.org.

I wondered if the site would have anything about the personal responsibility of healthy living and making responsible choices about the use of health care, or only be a way to generate more demand and money for the services of AMA members and pharmaceuticals.

The site is full of stories about individuals "struggling to survive" without insurance, from the 46 million people in the U.S. who they claim don't have health insurance. Those who choose to go without insurance are represented as lacking in "personal responsibility".

Not surprisingly, not a word about the personal responsibility to live in a healthy way. Nothing about discouraging the over use of emergency rooms. Didn't find anything about requiring citizenship. Only stuff on their website about personal responsibility to buy health insurance, and tax penalties for those who choose not to purchase health insurance, and new government programs to tax "rich people" to provide insurance for "poor" people.

Here is a story you won't read on the AMA website:

• I know of a family that had an income of less than $4K a month in a county where the average family income is $10K or more per month. It is one of the most expensive counties in the U.S.. The family decided to do without an expensive $700 a month Kaiser health insurance policy when they realized how few times a year they really needed to go to the doctor. When friends with government benefits like Medical would run to emergency rooms for all their needs (they had no incentive not to), this family made sure to schedule their needs with a doctor whose services they could pay directly for. They realized just one month of Kaiser premiums would pay for quite a few doctor visits, even in their county. They worked hard to exercise, eat more healthy foods, avoid meat, don't smoke, don't drink, and pursue natural remedies to improve their health. They saved tens of thousands of dollars in health care costs over several years. They used some of those savings to visit foreign countries where more comprehensive medical and dental care is available for a fee much less than in the U.S.

The AMA would like to use the force of government to take away that choice. They need the money of those who avoid health care costs through healthy living choices. The AMA proposal is to require anyone with an income of 500% or more of the federal poverty line to be required to buy insurance without any subsidy. For an individual that is $52,000 a year, and for a family of three, that amount is $88,000. Given the cost of a Kaiser family plan as an example, at about $8,000 a year, this amounts to an extra TAX of 10% on the family! Those below that income level would also be required to buy insurance, but don't worry, the government will be there to "help" them.

The website complains that it is a problem when low risk people opt out of paying for insurance because they know they are not likely to need it. The AMA claims it drives up the cost of insurance for the more needy people by at least $900 a year.

Their proposal includes various credits for lower income people to pay for insurance, which they claim would be funded by penalties on those who go without insurance. They have no data to say if they expect to make enough money from this penalty to pay for the credits to lower income individuals, but its probable additional taxes would need to be levied to support the low income health insurance subsidies. So the actual cost burden for a "rich" family making $88K or more would be several percentage points higher than just the cost of their own insurance premiums. Of course Senator Biden says it is our patriotic duty to pay more taxes.

Lost in the debate, except for blog articles like mine, are the people who choose to self-insure themselves, or their families, or their groups. For example, the Amish refuse to buy health insurance, they consider it to be a form of gambling. Instead the community bands together to pay for the health care that they need from doctors outside their community. I know entrepreneurs who barter with their dentist or eye doctor in exchange for their dental and eye care. The last time Hillary had a chance to bring about universal healthcare, she wanted to make it a crime to choose to pay for your own healthcare.

The AMA site speaks in warm terms about the new mandates in Massachusettes requiring everyone to buy health insurance.

Are you willing to see your ability to choose to live healthy at a reduced cost taken away in favor of a 15% tax to give more money to AMA members and drug companies?

followup... I was just looking up information on the various ballot propositions in California, and found at the joinarnold website that one of the issues Arnold Swarzeneger wants us to join him in promoting is forcing everyone in California to buy health insurance. Not surprising, he's long been seen as a democrat in the veneer of a republican. sigh.

The other day I was tracking my diet for a couple of days, and discovered some big deficits of certain vitamins.

A friend of mine, Dr. John Elloway, is a wellness doctor. I asked him for his opinion on vitamin supplements. Does he think vitamin supplements are useful, or are they a bunch of hype?

He said he feels they are very useful. The vitamins we have the most problem not getting enough of are:

• Vitamin A
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin E
• Vitamin C

I asked him what he thinks about the U.S. RDA numbers for vitamins. I've heard that they are set just above the minimum to keep you from getting diseases like scurvy, but not high enough to give real health. He agreed.

What about vitamin B-12? Dr. John said that is very important for vegetarians and vegans to supplement.

I told him I had some trouble finding a vitamin supplement without extra iron. He asked if I cook with an iron skillet. Cooking with an iron skillet is a great way to end up with extra iron in the diet!

He takes 1000 mg. a day of Vitamin C, 1000 mg. of vitamin D. He said we have a problem with having enough vitamin D because we don't get enough sunlight.

Dr. John said he had learned about the importance of vitamin supplements from watching a friend of ours, Dr, Merton Shelton who lived into his 90's and was a big believer in taking vitamin supplements.

Hmmm... Almost a year since my last blog posting in this space. That's the problem with having too many places to post things at.....

What have I been doing in the last year?

• Learning how to make beads and glasswork, lampworking, and when they don't turn out right, melting them down into marbles!
• Doing further development on the Hivewiki software. It's now running on another server also, with a more up to do date version, Webmill.us.
• Reading books:
  • Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich - Working on cliff notes and a wiki version of it
  • Journey Round My Skull - Story of survivor of one of the earliest open brain surgeries
  • Do Cats Think? - Delightful book that answers "Of course they do!"
  • Health Power - Health By Choice, Not Chance

Think I've finished some others recently too, have to come back here and update the list.

Yesterday I encounted a foolish deputy at the Napa County jail who recoiled in horror when she saw me carrying a Libretto laptop.

"Is that thing wireless?" she demanded.

Me: "Oh no, of course not..."

Dopey Deputy: "Those wireless ones interfere with our radios!"

What a moron. The odds of that happening are about -3%, that is, less than zero!

Many ts:police departments have welcomed wifi as part of their operations, they are not pretending there is an interference risk.... Michigan prosecutes man who used free cafe wifi from his car.... New York county makes it a crime for businesses to have an unsecured wifi connection

In Japan, someone is going around selling baby lambs to celebrities by convincing them that they are miniature poodles. A celebrity was embarrassed on TV when she complained that her new puppy wouldn't eat dog food, and wouldn't bark, and was informed on the air that her new "puppy" was in fact a baby goat.

What's next:

• Muscox being mistaken for Giant Saint Bernard?