Steve's barking at freedom of speech in the US

We have freedom of speech in the United States, the constitution guarantees it.
Of cause the second president of the United States suspended that part of the constitution.
Of cause if your a corporation you have more freedom of speech then the average Joe and why not, they have more money then most of us poor slobs and after all were a classless society.

Unfortunately freedom of speech can only be guaranteed only so far by government. A comedian who offends a certain part of society may find it hard to find work. Same is true for television and radio personalities. What I'm trying to proclaim is that society sets it own rules and despite what the constitution states, freedom of speech in the United States maybe broad but it isn't absolute.
 The other fact, the constitution doesn't guarantee an audience as I know so well.

And so I've written an other boring, self serving piece of dreck. (garbage)

Steve's barking at I've got mine, too bad about you

I don't hear one Tea Party congress persons asking to end free health care for congress.
I don't hear from one Congressional Tea Party member giving up part of their pensions as a cost cutting measure.
I haven't heard from one congress person saying that members of congress should pay full price for their food in their cafeteria and their gym, while asking for cuts in food stamps.

And now lets get to that welfare queen Michele Bachmann.
She wants to end federal subsidies to tittle IVE represents which she was one.
What is that you might ask?
That's the federal subsidies given to foster care parents.
She had 23 foster care children and according to a conservative blog I happen to run across she received money from the State of Minnesota. What the blog didn't say the state got that money from the Federal Government part of Tittle IVE
Tittle IVE was part of the ADC program, in other words Michell  Bachmann got welfare money.
Anyway she part of the crew that demands cuts, deplores welfare.
In other word she got hers by being a good women by taking in foster children and help defray the cost, but in today's world those women shouldn't get federal money to help defer cost of caring for foster care children. 

The reason I'm picking on Ms Bachmann is she represents the hypocrisy of the new Republican Party.
Aid to dependent children was and possibly still is the largest part of what we call welfare.

One thing about the new Republican Party they don't believe in leading by example.

* I've did some research and found that congressperson do not get free health care.Cheep but not free

Steve's barking at stimulus packages that aren't talked about.

I just happened to catch Steve Forbes the other day on what is loosely called a business channel.
(I'm personally trying to figure out if he's a self made idiot or was he just plain born stupid).
He made a comment that  government stimulus packages never work ( private enterprise is what gets us out of down turns in the economy).
He sited the New Deal, then stated that World War II got us out of the depression.
World War II just so happened to be a government stimulus package, even thought we don't like to treat it as such.
President Eisenhower spent money to build highways for defense, This was a stimulus package that no one states.
Even the sainted Ronald Reagan  increased defense spending and reduced taxes to the rich, another stimulus package?
What are these facts telling me? You have to be war like to really stimulate the economy.
Not putting enough money into the stimulus is like having a botched abortion.    

Steve's barking at Stimulus, none stimulus package

Oh no. I heard another  brain dead person proclaime that the so called stimulus package was a failure.
Lets put this in prospective in reality it should be called the Dutch boy putting his finger in the dike  package. I hope one can recall the story of the brave Dutch boy who saw water coming out of a hole in the dike leaking water, he put his finger in the dike to stop the leak. The story was told that he saved the town, and the town rallied around him. That's what really happened with the so called stimulus packages except the people did't rally around them. Several packages were sent to congress trying to evert a flood of bad unemployment and the total collapse of our economic system. 
Now one can argue that unemployment is unexceptionably too high. One can even make the claim if we had spent a trillion dollars more we actually could have jumped stared the economy,  but one can not make the argument that the Bush and Obama administrations didn't help stop the flood by spending too much with the exception of illogical idiots.
 Now I do believe that I know what the formula is.
 X (the number employed) plus y (disposable income (after necessaries are paid)) = y (the number of jobs added to the economy).
The reverse is also true in the opposite .
The saving of the auto industry has saved thousand of jobs not connected to auto industry.
The giving of cash to the states saved thousand of non government jobs in the state.
The reducing  of x and y reduces the amount of jobs reducing the amount of taxes of such states. Reducing the amount of jobs. One can call this a job deflation.
I've heard how from the so called conservative economist that the Roosevelt stimulus package didn't work.
In 1938 there was more unemployment then in 1933. Of cause they didn't realize (or even worse) that those working didn't have a high disposable income there by failing to jump start the economy.
The claim is that word War Two brought us out of the depression. They are right, the greatest stimulus known to man brought us out of the great depression.

Those who call themselves economist and don't understand this I have to call illogical fools.
I realize that this is one of the more boring blogs I have written, so be it.    

Steve's Barking at Michele Bachmann welfare queen

Michele Bachmann has taken care of 23 foster care children.
If she didn't take any money from the government she's a saint.
If she took the money from the government and used all on the children one might call her a good women.
If she took money from the government and didn't use all on the children then she's a welfare queen.

Steve's barking at the stupidity of weinergate

Now don't ask me why I writing about Anthony Weiner, except that it's just another dumb thing that this country wants to excess about.  Like OJ, Michael Jackson, the balloon boy. Come to think about they were more important then what a kinky congressman did. Of cause if he broke any laws, like making love to a sheep instead of talking, (take that back) writing dirty and posting private pictures to kinky women who are old enough to say yes or don't send me a text.
Now there are a group of bible thumpers who obviously don't believe the old adage those without sin cast the first stone. They call themselves republicans. They want Anthony to step down
Now the worst of those are the ones from  his own party who demand a person who did no wrong to step down. Now they wouldn't ask some one like barney frank to step down just because his roommate ran a call boy ring from his congressional office. They don't complain about a member of this administration who didnt' pay his social security tax.
Now this craziness around Congressman Weiner really doesn't mean anything to me except those who are complaining the most are the idiots who let the real dangers to this republic win the last election.
Am I upset about them. You betcha. How can a party loss when there's 10% unemployment and the other party wants to cut unemployment insurance?
How can a party loss when the other party wants those to cut grants to college students?
How can a party loss when the other party wants to privatize part of social security?
Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wassermann-Schultz should step down from their leadership of the Democratic Party. That wouldn't be feasible after all their the top money gathers. It's a shame they don't know how to use the money effectively.

Te current leadership of the democratic party will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Perhaps the big givers to the party are unhappy with what they see as a sexist congressman I sure don't understand it.
Beg pardon; I understand Ed Randal was DNC national committee chairman for the last democratic debacle.

Steve's barking at two years stimulus package by the Dem's and the Republicans

Every year the two major political parties give the economy a shot in the arm called local elections.
Every two years they give an even bigger shot in the arm to the economy. We call this the congressional elections. Of cause that doesn't compare to the four year cycle known far and wide as the presidential elections, Just think of all those pollsters that have to be hired. What would they be doing if they weren't annoying the populace with stupid questions that only a troll could think up.
Then you those annoying professional fundraiser who seem to call me when I'm doing something much more important then giving money to a person or group of people who at minimum 4 years for me to make the same money that the lowest payed elected person makes in a year. What could be more important then helping the politician that you kind of agree with by sending money that you can ill afford? How about watching Law and Order reruns. If you give them money then these trolls will hire more professional fundraisers making your life even more miserable. If these obnoxious people were not trying to take your money what else could they do?
Now we come to employees that would definitely couldn't work at anything else, the candidate staff.
You have the campaign manager who may or not be chief of staff.
Along with many other flunkies who need a job  with a candidate who they hope wins so they can get cushy pay checks from some so called news network.
President Obama says he expects to spend a billion dollars on 2012 election, I'm not sure if that includes congressional seats or not. If not more money spent.
Now I'm sure the Republicans will not want to be over spent, so you can imagine how much money they are going to spend.
Now they'll spend this money on travelling, renting halls, printing flyer's, helping push the economy.
This doesn't include advertisements in papers, radio and lets not forget television.
Think of all that easy extra money advertising salesman (or women) will be making.

So as you can see Republicans and the Democrats are and will be doing their part to stimulate the economy.  

Steve's barking at who owns the mortgages in default

Holy Toledo Batman banks maybe foreclosing on mortgages they don't own.
What? How is that possible?
Didn't the banks package most of their mortgages and sold them off?
Didn't we the taxpayers buy what is called toxic mortgages?
I'm guessing that the banks worked as middle and collected the mortgage payments?
If my guesswork is correct (and I'm only guessing) the real owner of the mortgages are the tax payers.
Now if if my craziness is correct the owner of the homes in default may just be the the person who is in default  because they are taxpayers, and taxpayers own the mortgages. The person who owns the mortgage is the person who took the mortgage out. I realize this may be circular logic put it fits.  

Steve's Barking at what is told about reaganomics

The popular wisdom of today is thew great communicator President Reagan ended the great malaise that was happening in the United States, sometimes called stagflation.
We credit the lowering of the tax rate ( funny how my taxes went up) with creating jobs. I seem to recall that  the defense budget went up creating civil jobs that created more jobs, but of course the history books say that the lowering the tax rate created jobs.
During Reagan's presidency a tight money policy was put in place, this being credited with lowering inflation.  I seem to recall a little war was going between Iraq and Iran lowering the cost of oil.
Aren't we an oil based economy? Of Cause a tight money policy is the reason inflation went down.

Steve's Barking At Congressional Debt

All congressmen( I mean congress person) spend money to get elected to congress.
Unfortunately they all spend much more money for their seats then they get paid.
Members of the senate get paid $174,000 per year.
With Majority and minority leaders making  $193,000 and speaker of the house making $223,500.
John Boehner spent $9,876,911 his salary $223,500 x 2years=$447,000 negative balance of $9,429,911
Eric Cantor spent $5,407,656 salary $193,400 x 2=$386,800 leaving a negative balance of $5,020,856
Rand Paul spent $7,756,095,salary $174,000 x 6= $1,044,000 leaving a negative balance $6,712,095
Michele Bachmann spent $11,661,973 salary $174,000 x 2= $348,000 leaving negative balance $11,313,973.
Mitch McConnell spent $21,634,940 salary $193,400 x 6= $1,160,400 leaving a negative balance of $20,474,540.
Paul Ryan spent $1,781,673 salary $174,000 x 2= $348,000 leaving a negative balance of $1,433,673.

Gary Ackerman spent $1,771,092 salary 174000 x 2=$348,000 leaving a negative balance of $1,423,092.
Joseph Crowley spent $2,100,428 salary of $174,000 x 2 = $348,000 leaving a negative balance $1,752,428.
Charles Schumer spent $19,356,984 salary of $174,000 x 6= $1,044,000 leaving a negative balance $18,312,984.
Nancy Pelosi spent $2,762,400 salary of 193,400 x 2= $386,800 leaving a negative balance $2,375,600.

Now these are some of the people who are trying to balance the US budget.
Now if you look at the figures they can't balance their own budgets.
Of cause they can say they got money that they spent from fund raising, and have money in the bank so their not in the red like the government. The wise guy in me says that just because their on the pad doesn't mean you have balance a budget.

* Figures come from opensecrets.org and about.com. 




  

Steve's barking at who's more conservative a liberal or a Tea Partier

Liberals are more conservative then members of the Tea Party. What the? How the heck is that possible?
Liberals want to conserve social security as is currently constituted   . They want to conserve medicare the same way.  Liberals (for some reason)  want to  conserve the economy with a balance budget by having higher taxes on those who have a high moderate income and  going up to and including those who have a gigantic income.
The Tea Partiers believe in the tooth fairy.  Lowering taxes and government spending less will balance the budget. Changing Medicare and Social Security.
The old time conservatives believed in the former plus the lather.
Old Time Liberal (JFK) lowered the tax rate.
So who's more conservative, a liberal or a Tea Partier?

Steve's Barking at what will happen if there are no jobs for recent college grads

Gee by golly what will happen if the majority of the class of 2011 don't get jobs?
I just assume that there will be less money to lend to the current students in college.
I also a assume that mom and dad will have less money to spend, after all they'll be helping their adult child out.

Steve's barking at union bashing

Pensions in America are turning into a thing of the past.
Unions in America are becoming a thing of the past.
Is there any correlations between the two?
Americans don't want unions. ( Unions are generally not voted into a new work place)
Americans don't want to retire with a steady income coming in?
I've been told it's better to have a 401K because it's portable and you can take it from one job to an other.
Americans don't like staying on a job for a long period of time?
Americans are nomads?

Why are government works who are unionized demonized by a large portion of the population who would take away their first amendment rights of collective bargaining. (I writing about speaking to  government officials in a uniform voice).
Governor Brown of Wisconsin must be a coward if he's afraid of talking to union officials, especially when he has all the chips.

Do you think that the United States would have full employment if companies could pay their workers but Two dollars a day?