24 August 2010

Forward Looking USA: Brit's Cut Fuel Payments for Retirees

One of the objectives of this blog is to get outside the normal USA absurdity that is our daily news (more coverage on absurdness later), and look at other news stories from around the world from sources that cover that news better than our own news media.  Of course, to be better than the US news media doesn't take much.

An interesting piece in my favorite news paper (London Telegraph) last week is that those on fixed income will be feeling a bit more squeeze this winter as fuel payments (read subsidies) will be cut.  The effect?  Millions.  The sub-headline on the article reads: "Older people will have to wait at least six years longer to receive winter fuel payments, under government plans to cut the welfare bill." 

I know that most of the citizens out in la-la land haven't a clue the implications for the USA, but let's think about it this way.  Social security is currently the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever known, through out the entire course of time.  Ponzi schemes must always bring in more money than is paid out to keep the scam going so since the FedGov is bringing in a continuously downward trend of money to SS, how do you balance the books?  One way is to up the retirement age and a second is to reduce the benefits paid out.  Since the second is less politically advantageous, the politicians usually raise the retirement age in a hope that more people die before they draw benefits.  (Please realize, I am not kidding).  Case in point, the UK government would rather freeze people to death than allow them to live.  Never mind that they probably could have continued to live a happy, fat, and warm life if they had never stolen money from the retirees in their working years, thus allowing them to budget for their fuel concerns in their geriatric state.  Nanny state government's epic fail, many documented times over! 

But why will we have a continuously downward trend in Western Countries from here on out?  Several things are the reason, but they all revolve around demographics.  While the double dipping recession is a big factor in lack of tax receipts, baby-boomers hitting retirement age is perhaps the biggest trend no one examines when investing or forecasting for governmental budgets.  The boomers are exiting the workforce through retirement or layoffs and thus, are forced to draw off of their retirement accounts, sucking liquidity out of equities for the remainder of the next generation.  Who will be paying into these games in the future?  Considering the government hates to loose control of their power (as is evidenced through every single corrupt government of the world's history), the 20somethings fresh out of college will be not only expected to pay a higher share of their income to their patriotic taxes, but they will be forced to.

Eighty-five will be the new retirement age for my generation.  Yep, sucks.  However, there are some alternatives.  One, reduce government craptacular spending on garbage we don't really need and we won't really see a general decline in benefits paid or a raise of the retirement age.  Creating employment through encouragement of an "investment" economy instead of a sycophantic, crackerjack, zombie economy that steals wealth through punitive taxes and tax rates is another.  Last by not least, encouraging better demographics is not only key to the survival of our country, but is our way to prosperity.  Yes, I will say it, make more babies! 

Americans produce about 2.1 children per household, which is just above the population maintenance rate.  I'm sure you're scratching your head about that one, but the more children that mainstream Americans have, the more votes against the fascists that are in power now are created.  Further, they will be tax payers for the future (provided the government doesn't suck the life out of them while they are still in the womb, not via abortions either).  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we steal from the unborn generation, just saying that their labor, their future ingenuity, and prospects of a power shift are all things that go into political and economic planning.  The bad news in this is, the fastest growing population segment in the world is that of the Muslims (you do the math). 

All of these points are truly disturbing if you stop and think critically about them.  Now, they are not catch all solutions, but we must realize that welfare programs fail, every time.  The Ponzi schemes that they are, are meant as tools for the radical left of every ilk to perpetuate a power struggle between multiple classes of people only for their political power gains.  Generations prior to mine have failed to "keep the republic" and now are being forced to reckon with the consequences of their ignorance.  This author sees the writting on the wall that I will be billed now and in the future (through my unborn or un-conceived children) for the actions / inactions of my parents and grandparents.  (Not my parents per se but their generation). 

As cold and as cruel as it is to say this, however, let the generation that decided to abscond on their duty to guard the republic die from the freezer burn that comes with it!

Rant of the Day: RNC Chairman Steele At it Again!

Good old Chairman Michael Steele is at it again!  What a reject!  HotAir Blog has the coverage of today's article in The Hill

Seems the Chairman doesn't care for the Arizona Immigration law, and is hoping to spark some "good" news for the liberal media and political establishment to gin up.  His statements have me so frustrated that it's created today's rant of the day (ROTD)!  
Chairman Steele,

Please stop speaking for the party!  We in the country class are tired of our "political leaders" gabbing their "opinions" and insulting our intelligence as for how the Constitution and our Country are supposed to work.  I am referring to your comments in today's "the Hill" article.  Sorry to say, but it is party members LIKE AZ Gov Jan Brewer that DO represent me, and reflect the notion of the country class movement far better than you and the RNC do.  Stop dumbing down the issues, and make the RNC actually stand for something like, oh I don't know freedom and national sovereignty.  You would certainly see more support from me and others like me, IF you would stop playing the inside the beltway game and forced your candidates and organization to act like citizens! 

Illegal means ILLEGAL.  It does not mean undocumented and it is a non-discriminatory offense NOT BASED on race, religion, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.  It is based upon international LAW.  LAW, you know the rules by which citizens (and even their elected representatives) are supposed to constrain themselves by.

I have voted for you in the past, but you no longer represent the average American that likes his country for the way it was founded [emphasis added].  Please, do us all a favor and go back to liking puppies. 

PS: I'm sending an email to Jan Brewer that she needs to remind you that YOU don't represent the entire Republican party either.  Seriously, stop ruining our chances to win the Nov. elections.  Or, if you'd like, get the heck out of our way! 

MD.gov's No Need for CHP vs. FBI's No. 5


Well, maybe that's not so good, but hey, we disarm the Maryland public and allow them to be unwilling victims!  That should serve for some good progressiveness, shouldn't it? 

Well, my fellow Marylanders, not exactly.  According to the Baltimore Business Journal's article, Baltimore's numbers are pretty bad.  Far worse than that of comparable sized cities and even bigger cities.  Baltimore's 238 murders in 2009 equates to a rate of 37.26 per 100,000 citizens. That's quite an ugly number.  Numbers one through four in this category standout as the quintessential who's who of crime.  New Orleans leads the way, with 51.72 murders per 100,000 residents, followed by Richmond, Calif., at 45.82 per 100,000, St. Louis at 40.26 per 100,000, and Detroit at 39.74 per 100,000.

Comparing Baltimore to bigger cities like NYC, DC, Philly and Boston, the results per 100,000 citizens are quite disturbing.  With rates like 5.61, 23.85, 19.52, and 8.01, respectfully, Baltimore lags behind by far numbers.  Worst still, is the fact that the city that breeds also makes two other top 20 crime lists for aggravated assault and robbery.  That is a title that is bequeathed to just a total of six cities.  Kudos Charm City!  

Now, I'm sure the critics are saying that three of those cities (Philly excluded) do not allowed for concealed or open carry of firearms, but let us examine the facts closer.  Baltimore is roughly 625,000 in population size, which is about the same as Washington, DC at approximately 600,000.  DC also restricts it's citizens right to bear arms outside their homes.  The caveat is that the District is the perfect social science experiment for testing what effect that legal guns, owned by law abiding citizens, have on crime rates.  Our nation's Capital has seen a decline in crime in every category (except arson where there was an 8% increase from 51 to 55 per year) from the numbers in 2008.  Now, some of that can be attributed to changes in the District's policing and enforcement, but no doubt the major social change that occurred was the finding that DC's private firearm ownership laws were unconstitutional.  Criminals aren't dumb and they know that there is the chance their victims will be armed.  Hence the reason the significant drops in every violent crime category.  

Looking at every city in the nation that has populations between 599,000 and 700,000 citizens, we find some interesting things looking at the murder rates.  Comparing cities in the states with concealed carry laws to those without, a significant trend is seen.  There are 10 cities falling into this population category, and of those ten, six cities are in jurisdictions with concealed carry laws.  Here are all the cities and their murder rates per 100,000 people. 

  • Denver, CO:  Pop 604,680; Rate of 5.13;  CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • Washington, DC:  Pop 599,657; Rate of 23.85; CCW Not allowed
  • Louisville Metro, KY:  Pop 631,260; Rate of 9.82; CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • Baltimore, MD:  Pop 638,755; Rate of 37.26; CCW Heavily Restricted, effectively not allowed
  • Boston, MA:  Population 624,222; Rate of 8.01;  CCW Heavily Restricted, effectively not allowed
  • Memphis, TN:  Population 667,421; Rate of 19.78; CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • Nashville, TN:  Population 610,176; Rate of 12.62; CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • El Paso, TX:  Population 618,812; Rate of 1.94; CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • Seattle, WA:  Population 602,531; Rate of 3.65; CCW Allowed / Shall Issue
  • Milwaukee, WI:  Population 604,673; Rate of 11.91;  CCW Not allowed, Open Carry infringed

The average of those cities that allow for CCW is a low 8.82 murders per 100,000 while those without are an astounding 20.26 murders per 100,000.  Obviously, there is some ability of the statistical evidence to skew these data, so we'll also look at the median sample for argument's sake.  For cities with CCW we get 14.95 per 100k and for those without it's 17.88 per 100k.  Keep in mind, this is only a quick and dirty example and does not take into account any time series trends or even other rates of crime for forced rape, aggravated assault, or robbery.  Our good friend John R. Lott has proven for the last decade that those categories are also dramatically affected by shall issue concealed carry laws.

Simply put, the stats don't lie.  They aren't skewed as they come directly from the FBI, a non-partial source, and the results of this quick and dirty example can be replicated by anyone who's passed 8th grade algebra.  The point of this exercise is simple, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lower crime rates.  It's been going on since the invention came into existence, and the inversely proportional trend will continue until the end of time or the firearm.  Further, as us gun nuts know, we don't need statistics on our side to win the Constitutional argument, but these facts do help us win the culture war.

I wonder how the Owe'Malley and Dougy Gansler crowd will respond to these facts in the midst of their Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit?  I'm sure they will conveniently "dispute" them.  Perhaps someone can send these stats along to our good delegate that doesn't have a clue

Source: FBI Crime Stats.  Please note that the statistics used are the "preliminary" statistics, and are subject to some change.