June 22, 2008

The United States Ponzi Scheme, as explained in a beautiful presentation by Ross Perot on perotcharts.com


Ross Perot is back, with his beautiful new website perotcharts.com. Nice to see someone speak up on the debt, deficit and entitlement bomb, after George Bush and a corrupt and incompetent Democratic Congress did nothing, and I mean NOTHING, these past seven years.

Watch the preso, the whole thing, and have at it.

Or, be like 99% of Americans, and continue to not give a sh*t.


I love charts. A picture is worth a thousand declining dollars they say. Or a thousand dishonest politicians. And it'd be nice if Perot would run again, just to get his voice into the debate.


After reviewing his presentation, for starters and off the top of my head, here's a Top 10 economic to-do list for America. Have at it...

  1. Raise the retirement age - dramatically and soon. Start at 70 and go from there
  2. Mandatory high-deductible health insurance and subsidized grocery and drug store walk-in clinics
  3. Pull the US military out of every foreign country within eight years
  4. 5% across the board reduction in government spending and jobs
  5. Make savings accounts tax free. Double or triple retirement account maximums.
  6. Lower the US corporate tax rate to 20%
  7. Sell off US government assets (not the Grand Canyon, but buildings and land for starters)
  8. Line-item veto, no ear-marks, and balanced budget amendment
  9. Vote every incumbent out of office, blow up the two-party system, and start over
  10. Eliminate the income tax and switch to a consumption-based tax

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Keith, hey. For as much as I like Perot and Paul, I wish they would both realize that a gov for and by the people is going to need buildings and quite a number of employees secure enough in their position to work for the people rather than 'the money'.

That's to say, the way I see it is that we have/had awesome people in state and the military and we'd loose them all by buying into the 'sell it all' thing -- for the simple reason that there'd be no counter pole to private greed.

Case in point is that much of the rhetoric against public management of the commons is slanted to sound as if only private people should administer them. That's just wrong and I suspect that the point of the crisis we're heading into is largely to insure that 'the money' can grab ownership of 'the commons'. But hey, noone in america seems to give a damn about 'the commons' or 'the common good', so lets just get back to the heart-less libertarian money rant :-)

Anonymous said...

Great job on bringing Perot's website to our attention.

I love Perot, voted for the guy and cannot wait to spend some time on the site.

W.C. Varones said...

I am an angry right/libertarian, and I sense that Keith and many HPers are angry left/libertarians.

I was pleasantly surprised at how much we have in common. I could support just about the whole 10-point platform.

The foundation for a new center of gravity in American politics?

Yoski said...

Just like the American people, their government likes spending money. They own the printing press for $$, so what can go wrong?
You know that nobody will do anything until the feces hits the fan. At that point the only option left is to print money and then shift the blame for rising prices on speculators, rebels, liberals, greedy "fill in the blank", hurricanes, evil dictators, etc.
The truth is not particularly popular with most folks; certainly won't get you elected. Besides, it's still 8 years until ss/medicare expenses exceed ss tax revenues. So that for the next administration to worry about.
Another option I see besides printing money is to confiscate IRA & 401K accounts, ie. to steal from the fiscally prudent to give to the imprudent. They wouldn't do that, would they?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perot left out the Social Security Trust Fund. How convenient for his position in favor of destroying Social Security. Bottom line, rich guys got lower taxes due to the government's spending the Social Security trust fund (built off middle class taxation). Now rich guys like Perot don't want to pay up. It's more of the same class warfare being waged by the wealthy.

kilgore said...

Great list!

I'll add 3 more:

1.) Remove the cap on social security and medicare taxes for all earners over $102,500 (but keep cap for the employers, so employers don't have to match after $102,500).

2.) Increase the federal gas tax by $0.25 per gallon per year for the next 8 years. Maybe then an average dinner wouldn't have to travel 1,700 miles to get to you.

3.) Require state and municipal governments to disclose the value of all of their employees' retirement benefits. Most states oppose this becuase they're already technically bankrupt (but still able to get AAA ratings on their bonds????). And make it DAMN CLEAR that if a state like California was to go bankrupt, the federal government would do NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

Perot should endorse Obama if he wants change.

Gabor said...

These things never get fixed, they end in total collapse of the country. Just sit back and wait for it. Then we can start over.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha

First you support the crackpot Ron Paul. Now you are shilling for another crackpot, Ross Perot.

Kinda odd how they both have the same initials, are both from Texas and most importantly are both certifiably insane.

SeattleMoose said...

You forgot the most important one....abolish the FED, the WTO, and all other "bankers wanna rule the world" organizations which are unelected and unaccountable...to anyone.

The very "root of all evil"....

Anonymous said...

1.) Remove the cap on social security and medicare taxes for all earners over $102,500 (but keep cap for the employers, so employers don't have to match after $102,500).

===========

Obviously you have never run a business. If an employer has to pay an extra 6.2% in payroll taxes, guess what, that means you as an employee will earn 6.2% less. Won't happen overnight but in the long run it will.

Employers have a budget for their employees. Say it's $100 per employee. From that $100 they pay salaries, bonuses, payroll taxes, health isnurance, etc. If you increase the payroll tax by 6.2% on an employer, the employer will still only spend $100. He will take that additional $6.20 out of either salary or bonus or health insurance, or other perks.

Point is that you as the employee will end up paying the incrase. Your naive thinking is like when people say we should tax corporations more. Well guess what, corporations don't pay taxes, never have, never will. Consumers pay 100% of corporate taxes, always have and always will.

Anonymous said...

Perot should endorse Obama if he wants change.

LOL

keyser soze said...

Until a presidential candidate starts talking about the deficit, impending entitlement disaster, out of f*cking control government spending, I will focus my energies on watching and analysing 'Meerkat Manor'. I'm not quite out of my depression since the death of 'Flower' by that mean ole cobra...but I hope to, somehow, survive. Oh, I miss Hannibal too....as I sort of related to that ugly old bastard.

hac's biggest fan said...

i want to say and contribute something, but all i can do lately on here is nod my head in agreement

devestment said...

Sell off US government assets (not the Grand Canyon, but buildings and land for starters)

I for one would be first in line at The Smithsonian garage sale.

Anonymous said...

"Eliminate the income tax and switch to a consumption based tax."

I have read and heard this idea of a sales tax replacing income tax, but I have never read what I thought was a reasonable explanation of how it makes sense. It seems to me the less wealthy people would pay a disproportionately large percentage of their income on the tax on necessities, or is that the intent?

Are there other countries that have tried this, and if so, what was the result?

Please explain why you think this would be a good idea?

Anonymous said...

Means test Social Security. Stop spending a million dollars for each dying senior citizen. Most of the medicare dollars are spent in the last 6 months of life. It's costing us trillions to extend lives a few months and a majority of those it's spent on have no cognitive awareness. We'll spend $80k a year to keep a 90 year old in a nursing home and anoher $40k or $50k a year to hospitalize them two or three times. People die. Let them instead of bankrupting the nation.
Also medicare is the new welfare. No more SSI for kids with ADHD or their deadbeat parents bogus claims.

k.w. - Southern Ca. said...

Couldn't be said better.

I'm not impressed by charts, but was does impress me is *positive* action being taken on behalf of the citizens of this country - primarily the middle-class, since they're the ones (continually) getting screwed the most.

Let's see what Obama or McCain will actually do - talk is cheap.


Anonymous said...
Mr. Perot left out the Social Security Trust Fund. How convenient for his position in favor of destroying Social Security. Bottom line, rich guys got lower taxes due to the government's spending the Social Security trust fund (built off middle class taxation). Now rich guys like Perot don't want to pay up. It's more of the same class warfare being waged by the wealthy.

Anonymous said...

If you sell off government buildings, then the government ends up having to lease them back at extortionate rates from the people who bought them---surely at corrupt insider low prices.

This is exactly like "privatizing" a road or bridge built using taxpayer money.

Yoski said...

What should be done versus what will be done.
What should be done to deal with the financial, entitlement and energy crisis is debateable. All solutions will require a fair measure of pain and radical change from the status quo. That means none of them will be implemented.
How will government solve the entile ment crisis once it hits full force?
- printing more money
- raising taxes
- reducing benefits
- lifetime cap on medicare benefits
- confiscating/taxing IRAs
- means testing, ie. no benefits if you still have a dollar to your name
How about the energy crisis?
Rationing and price controls come to mind. Sadly that seems to be preferably (by government) to alternatives and abandoning the hydro-carbon economy.

kilgore said...

Anonymous,

first of all, it's hard to respond to you unless you have a name, but whatever.

I do happen to run a business and I think if you reread my post, you'll see that my idea to cap what an employer pays in matching (the 6.2% match of the 6.2% payroll deduction for ss and 2.7% of medicare) at what it is currently capped at: $102,500. The only person who would pay more would be the employee. The company would not be out a single extra penny.

Anonymous said...

I want Greg Swann's sincere and heart felt apology to all HPers and I want it NOW!!!

Mark in San Diego said...

As harsh as it sounds, I agree with the "let them die" ANON. . .as one of the oldest bloggers here, I say let people die in confort (all the drugs they want), but why extend the life of a 90 year old at the public expense. . .if they have the money, then it is up to them - it has ALWAYS been that way - I am sure kings and queens lived a hell of a lot longer in 1500 than the serfs. . .

Against "means tested" Social Security - if you do that, then it turns into a welfare system, not a retirement system. . .it doesn't bother me that Warren Buffet or Donald Trump get SS if they paid into it. If SS turns into Welfare for the poor, then it will eventually be ended as "welfare reform."

Anonymous said...

Maybe we could turn Social Security over to Wall Street and entrust the crooks with many American's only source of retirement. Maybe they could invest the money the same way they handled the housing dough.

Would that make you happy Keefer?

Stick with housing and stay out of politics!

How come you quit shilling for gold?

Paul E. Math said...

I would favour the 10-point program. I may not have full faith in every point on the program but, as a whole, it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

Blissex said...

«It seems to me the less wealthy people would pay a disproportionately large percentage of their income on the tax on necessities, or is that the intent?»

That's the intent -- the top 10% of USA taxpayers are fully fed-up with helping losers and parasitical exploiters like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/nyregion/22food.html


Note also that as usual this stealing thief is dark skinned -- many well off white folks would not mind helping other white folks going through a difficult time, but are really offended by the thought that some of their money may be stolen by dark skinned thieves.

(BTW I am here representing what I perceive to be a common attitude by some other people, that's not *my* attitude).

FormerBitterRenterTurnedExpat said...

5% across the board reduction in spending and jobs - are you nuts? Try 50% at least. I lived and worked in DC for several years and left sickened by the massive corruption and waste that make up our federal government.

George L said...

sounds good,let's do it...

Anonymous said...

Um, if the people who supposedly control this federal government have lost all sense of responsibility and citizenship, who exactly is going to force these changes? Dmityi Orlov has written an excellent book, Reinventing Collapse, that describes changes he witnessed as the Soviet Union came tumbling down, and he offers some advice for Americans as their country heads towards the same fate.

The sheeple who inhabit this once great republic are not going to lift a finger as Obama and the Dems run rampant and try their wealth redistribution schemes. As with the former Soviet Union, it won't work and the results will be the same.

michael said...

"Please explain why you think this would be a good idea?"

cuz that's what europe does. and we all know how fracking great europeans are.

Anonymous said...

Raising the eligibility age and/or debasing the currency (ie inflating and lying about it), is an attempt to rein in the Social Security problem by taking money from the very ones who have spent their - entire - lives and savings putting into the plan. It'd be like going to your bank and discovering you're only going to be given 60% of your deposits on the very day you need it simply because that's the only way the bank could balance its books. Only, you're old and you have no other option but to take your 60%.

Removing the cap so that even MORE money gets flushed down this toilet in no way fixes the problem. Remember - once before, Reagan/Greenspan managed to increase the SS tax to build a surplus to take care of the baby boomer bulge - which was promptly spent by our corrupt government. They're going to spend whatever they can force you to put in.

Now that SS is broke, we have a "visionary" (William Glynn) pushing to have 10% of all 401Ks, pensions "and the like" forcibly invested in government debt to get us out of this debt crisis.

The bottom line is, the government will seek to feed off any funds it can find and rationalize it after the fact. The Social Security plan initially started out just like the current IRAs - but in the '80s Congress changed the law to state we no longer had any legal claim to SS funds. It's only a matter of time (or crisis) before they start to do something similar with retirement plans and tell us where we should invest our IRAs - for our own safety, or because Goldman Sachs can do it better than we can, or because it's only a temporary emergency, or because it's the patriotic thing to do, or...just fill in the blank.

We need to stop the rot at the root, not move the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic.

And instead of pushing for a line-item veto, which would give even more power to the executive branch, why not instead require bills to focus on a single issue and forbid the tacking on of extraneous special interest provisions.

In addition, why not require a certain amount of time per word for review of bills before they are eligible for a vote. No more rushing through telephone-book-sized bills that are not in the public interest with no time for proper Congressional review. Like the Patriot Act. It's time these guys started doing their jobs and started representing US.

And do something like Instant Runoff Voting http://www.democracy-nc.org/nc/IRVfact.pdf to get rid of the two-party (in reality one-party) system. And although I'm opposed to the death penalty, I'd make an exception for anybody who tries to steal an election by falsifying ballots.

Anonymous said...

Means testing for SS payments is merely yet another attempt to take more money from one group for the benefit of others. SS was not supposed to be a tax redistributed by the government. It was supposed to be a savings plan - you put money in, you take money out. How would you like it if someone decided your bank account was more than you needed and should instead be given to those deemed more needy. Welcome to socialism. Considering the government has already spent this money, people suggesting means-testing are merely saying, "Take the money, but not from me." Instead, maybe we should stop looking to the government for support and solutions to our problems. Look at the mess they've made of EVERYTHING. Maybe we should ALL stop thinking of ways to TAKE from others to GIVE to others (and ourselves) and instead stop the marches of folly, build savings (in a sound and protected from Fed corruption currency) and begin to repair the damage. But it won't get started without honest representative government.

Anonymous said...

KEITH!!

I am so incensed by the unraveling Dodd legislation that is dangerously close to getting passed!!

Can you PLEASE help to get this story out there?? This is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!!

Did CW and BofA WRITE the Dodd Bailout Bill- SURE looks like it....


None of us really believed that Dodd could come up with anything close to this. Just go through transcripts or videos and look at the language and terminology he used just a few months back when referring to the subprime and credit meltdown. Think back to the left-field, irrelevent questions he asked at hearings when he could have made a difference by asking the right questions and getting information out. I have always wondered who was behind it all. Now we know what $70k in contributions, which is what BofA has given Dodd in the past 18-months, will buy. Only Hillary and Obama have received more from BofA.

This $300 billion Dodd-Shelby bailout is an absolute crime. It bails out the banks by limiting their loss to 10%; a joke since many of the problem areas like CA are down as much as 30% already on the median in the past 12-months and the rate of acceleration of the price declines are picking up steam. The subprime crisis is nearly over and now Prime, Alt-A, Pay Option ARMs and Home Equity Lines/Loans are failing. If they get this $300 billion passed, another $1 trillion+ will have to come on its heels for all of the other bailouts.

This needs to be fought and/or vetoed or it’s potentially $300 billion of taxpayer money down the toilet. Bernanke already cost global citizens enough by ratcheting down rates the most in the shortest amount of time in history, sparking a massive inflation wave in order to save the very investment banks who started all of this in the first place. Now, unless we all do something and get this story out there, another $300 billion will go up in smoke.

The National Review Online has obtained an internal 64 page document on Bank of America letterhead dated March 11th that matches the Dodd-Shelby Bill almost identically (see below).

First, we find out that Dodd is a Countrywide “insider” who claimed ignorance over being given special considerations saving him $75k over the life of his loan and is so ignorant he didn’t read his loan papers. Now, we find out that BofA, who is supposed to be closing on their Countrywide purchase in the next few months, wrote the Bill for him.

If this Bill passes, BofA’s Countrywide buyout is much more palatable and the $60+ billion in toxic loans are mostly covered by the taxpayers. This stinks to high-heaven. its no wonder why BofA is so comfortable closing the CFC deal, which with will cost them at least $40 billion when considering the value of theie toxic assets (loans) vs massive debt. I actually did a post on it, if you are so inclined.

Even more disturbing, in the BofA draft it proposes than Ginnie Mae gives an explicit guaranty on the loans. I wonder if you read the fine print of the Dodd-Shelby Bill if it is in there somewhere but has just has not been publicized?

This just in, found by a TickerForum memeber… www.FreedomWorks.org says that “Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and all Credit Card companies to Report Transactions to the Government”.

“Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd’s 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill’s managers without debate this week, would require the nation’s payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: “This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay’s PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America’s small businesses are breathtaking.”

National Review Online story and link to document below. -Best Mr Mortgage

NRO Doc Drop: BofA-Scripted Bank Bailout Looks Awfully Similar to Dodd-Drafted Housing Bill [Stephen Spruiell]

National Review Onlinehas obtained an internal Bank of America “discussion document” (pdf here) on the subject of the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008, a.k.a. the Dodd-Shelby mortgage-lender bailout bill.

Yesterday, Tim Carney reportedthat the prevailing sentiment on Capitol Hill is that the Dodd-Shelby bill “is exactly what Bank of America and Countrywide wanted.” BofA is in the process of acquiring Countrywide. Countrywide is currently embroiled in a scandal over its V.I.P. program, under which several powerful politicians, including Sen. Chris Dodd, got preferential loan rates.

This discussion document (dated March 11, 2008) would appear to support the contention that BofA essentially wrote the bailout section of the bill. Almost all of BofA’s preferences are mirrored in the Dodd-Shelby legislation. The BofA document even offers PR tips, such as “We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bail-out of the bond market.”

The president has threatened to veto Dodd-Shelby because it would “unfairly benefit lenders who made bad loans.” The Senate will resume debating the bill on Monday.

The BofA doc is worth posting here for a couple of reasons: First, the similarities between BofA’s ideal bill and the bill before the Senate are obvious even to the layperson — read the document, then read David C. John’s analysis of the bailout and see for yourself.

Second, we’d invite our readers with some expertise in this area to look over the document for things we might have missed. Opponents of the bailout are lucky that a few tenacious Republicans (Kit Bond, DeMint et al) were able to hold up the bill and keep it from passing as quickly as expected. The fight resumes next week, so take a look at this document and keep digging.

I eat bush said...

Is ross perot still alive?

Anonymous said...

Regarding a consumption tax ,verses income tax.

A sales tax of that nature would tax the poor and allow the rich to amass a greater amount of wealth . The poor are never going to be able to pay very much in the way of taxes except for the current sales and car and gas tax.The middle class are pretty tapped out ,so any additional tax increases would have to hit the upper levels and corporations .

I know that doesn't sound fair. ,Somehow they have to make the tax structure where the rich can't get away with some of the tax write-offs any more .

Not paying taxes on savings earned ,would only benefit the rich . The only incentive to make people save is by making the yield higher .

I think the government is going to have to raise the SS age to 70 ,no question .Medicare needs a overhaul
to trim costs that are wasteful.The medical industry just gets rich off of spending a fortune on a terminal patient in the last 6 months of life.

And how about taxing Corporations for every job they out-source. The jobs being out-sourced take jobs ,taxes ,and money out of America .

Also cut down on welfare costs regarding able- bodied people (even if the government has to provide jobs for them ) , and do away with the incentive of getting welfare by having more children .

Need to make any one living in the country show proof that they have a min. Health insurance coverage ,just like with car insurance .

Mark said...

After reviewing his presentation, for starters and off the top of my head, here's a Top 10 economic to-do list for America. Have at it...

Obama would oppose every one of your proposals - to the death. But you are going to vote for Obama anyways...

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

Phase out social security and medicare entirely.

Don't mandate anything, but strongly encourage people to have high-deductible health insurance combined with an HSA.

Consumption tax is the best idea on that list but I'd expand it to also eliminate the corporate tax too. That alone would make the USA the world's #1 business tax haven and jobs would start moving here from other countries instead of moving out.

People who complain about American jobs being outsourced overseas usually don't know that eliminating the corporate tax and implementing the FairTax would have the rest of the world outsourcing their jobs to us!!!

Anonymous said...

THIS IS SUCH A JOKE!
I hate these discussions about Medicare and Medicaid and how to "fix" them, and there is zero discussion about the true fix...which is the preventative measures, improving the way people live their lives so they don't have to become slaves to the medical machine. Where is the government discretionary spending on that? Its probably just a rounding error.
Someone can eat horribly, drink excessively, smoke and then run off to the doctor at horribly high rates imposed upon the public. Those who live clean responsible lives subsidize those who live irresponsibly.
This society is ruled by a medical field which receives nearly the MAJORITY of our government's annual spending. Answer me this, what incentive is there for the medical field to actually CURE diseases when they make their fortunes off medicines and surgeries that merely manage symptoms? The eradication of disease would be very bad for business...

Anonymous said...

this sounds more like a plan for a 3rd world South American country.

How about look to Europe for ideas. They have higher standards of living, more leisure time, universal healthcare, currencies that whoop the a$$ off the dollar, etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

>> 5% across the board reduction in spending and jobs - are you nuts? Try 50% at least. I lived and worked in DC for several years and left sickened by the massive corruption and waste that make up our federal government.

Agreed. I want to see fed layoffs numbering in the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million.

Anonymous said...

Vote every incumbent out of office, blow up the two-party system, and start over

Can't do anything else on the list. Until you do this. Vote out every incumbent. Every election. Forever. A person gets to serve ONE term. And ONE term only. Then it's back to the real world.

Andrew Hac said...

"His Judgment Cometh... And That Right Soon"

Yes, it is time to pay the piper now.
Yes, it is time the chicken are coming home to roost on the Americano ass-head.
Yes, the wicked, the greedy, the lazy, the hoity-toity will be judged fairly and truly before the Almight Snapper Turtle.

-----

The Piper-Man is coming to knock on the Americano’s door.

Yes, Sir and Madam, Senor and Senoritas, indeed it is time for retribution, for the final judgment of the day.

A mortgage broker with a 12th grade education, barely know how to do multiplication, division, or simple mathematic is making well over $200K a year.
An Apple Bee restaurant waitress becoming a real estate agent is racking in $300K a year selling over-price P.O.S chicken-coop-home to an illegal "Juan Alfonso Rodriguez" strawberry picker.
A 30K annual salary, uneducated, white-trash S.O.B is living the life of a make-believe millionaire.
A fat-ass 40-ish sagging face, ugly like a pug, stay-at-home MOM is driving a space ship Suburban to take the obese, ugly kids to soccer game.
Wall Street brokers are bringing over $1M a year to be a middle man selling worthless stock to stupid-ass investors.
Most of the Americano Autralopithecus have at least experience a divorce once if not twice or thrice in his/her lusty, salty, quarrelsome life.

So what does all of the above tell you: It tells you that this nation and its citizens, dwellers, crawlers, occupants have no solid foundation of what a good person is within his/her society. There is no morality or sense of self-honor in conducting a business transaction, dealing with people around you. Just because doing something not illegal does not equate it to be something not immoral.

Example: It is not illegal to invade the Iraq nation and causing hundred thousands of meaningless death for the Iraqui citizens. Is it also not immoral in the invader’s conscience to commit that act ???

Thus to conclude this sermon:
Is the Americano toasted yet ? And if not, when do you people, Joe and Jane of the SHRUB's Ass-Head Clan, think the Americano will be toasted ? Will they be toasted lightly as a marsh mellow on a boy scout camp fire or juicely as the good old snapper turtle skewered on a green Chinese bamboo stick from head to ass lathered with that Miyamoto Musashi's burn-your-fat-ass Wasabi sauce, all sizzling nicely, fat popping, juices dripping over a bed of red hot charcoal fire ?

Anonymous said...

A mortgage broker with a 12th grade education, barely know how to do multiplication, division, or simple mathematic is making well over $200K a year.
An Apple Bee restaurant waitress becoming a real estate agent is racking in $300K a year selling over-price P.O.S chicken-coop-home to an illegal "Juan Alfonso Rodriguez" strawberry picker.
A 30K annual salary, uneducated, white-trash S.O.B is living the life of a make-believe millionaire.
A fat-ass 40-ish sagging face, ugly like a pug, stay-at-home MOM is driving a space ship Suburban to take the obese, ugly kids to soccer game.
Wall Street brokers are bringing over $1M a year to be a middle man selling worthless stock to stupid-ass investors.
Most of the Americano Autralopithecus have at least experience a divorce once if not twice or thrice in his/her lusty, salty, quarrelsome life.



Hahahaha! I dare say that Andrew Hac's comments make more sense than anyone elses on this blog. The paragraph above perfectly describes the inhabitants of The OC in California and I wouldn't be surprised if it described the inhabitants of the US as a whole.

Anonymous said...

If you destroy the political parties, how will the idiots know who to vote for? Most of them vote based on the R or D after the name of the stiff.

Anonymous said...

The retirement age doesn't have to be raised. There is no chance in hell 90% of the humanoids are going to be able to retire. That is why I have secured the cushy gov't job. I'm in for the long haul. Expected retirement...never but I do build up sick days like a desert builds sandpiles. I'm chalk full and will use those as retirement. i will get paid AND not show up. Even when I show up, I won't do anything. It's the american way.

Anonymous said...

Let's see about Perot's ideas.

I agree with jacking up the retirement age but I'd add in that means-testing (like welfare is) so millionaires don't get a cheque they don't need.

One thing I heavily disagree with the mandatory health insurance like car insurance is for drivers. Why? Easy. The working poor can't afford it as the one state that passed the same thing found out. What we need is a Canadian style healthcare system. Now, to fund it all we need to do is tax SUGAR to where it's calorie-equivalent to $10/gallon of gasoline at least. Drinkable ethanol is taxed to equivalent to $20/gallon or more. Why not sugar? Getting sugar out of the food supply would do much to reduce obesity, diabetes, etc. saving big bucks.

I also like trading in income tax on wages for a BTU tax as the consumption tax. This would do much to encourage conservation. Just tax the fuel at the wellhead, seaport, or where it gets added in. You ride in a plane, the airline pays a tax on each gallon added to the plane... and you pay the higher fare for having encouraged the use of that winged gas guzzler.

With a commute to work, it's (theoretically) easy to avoid. Just move closer and use a bicycle! But if you're one of those living 50 miles from work and driving a Ford F-150 pickup, be prepared to pay up.

A BTU tax would cause skimping on heat and A/C which would suck part of the year. I'd love winter as buildings skimp on heat but hate summer with skimping on A/C. Your comfort zone will vary.

In winter, I all too often find buildings kept hot like summer and dress for summer year-round once I remove the winter jacket. My workplace is especially egregious. The building is 85F (no exaggeration!) with so much lighting you can feel it like the sun beating down on you. If they added any more lighting, I'd end up as dark as my African American coworkers! Talk about wasting energy. In winter, the 20 minute commute is equivalent climate-wise to flying an X-15 from Chicago to Miami.

As far as Perot, I like him, but I have two words to add to his vocabulary:

Peak Oil.