Steve's barking at imaginary runaway news

Wire service URW reported today that Transylvania's PM was stabbed in the heart today by assailant unknown.
Picking up the wire service report stations 1234 - 2341 and 4321 put their own spin on it.
Station 1234 stated that the Prime Minister of Transylvania had killed a steak through the heart by a disgruntle citizen because there wasn't enough blood to keep everybody undead.
Station 2341 had two story spinners debate the stabbing.
Harry stated that it served the Prime Minister right after all he was a blood sucking parasite.
Tonto took the side that he had reliable sources that the Prime Minister didn't like to suck blood and in fact was a vegetarian.
Station 4321 reported that the Prime Minister had a steak through his heart and the cows of the world were going to protest by releasing methane gas into the atmosphere.

I apologize to the people of Transylvania and all the bovines in the world for being so silly.

Steve's barking at chasing Unicorns

The unicorn is a mythical animal, yet men claim that it actually exist and they are forever starting expeditions to find and capture this animal.
There is a group of people that actually believe that reducing and eliminating the public is the course to go and that the elimination or at least greatly reduce it will save all mankind for future generations to come.
The problem is no one alive has seen a debt free country and the only time in the the history of the United States that we had no debt is when the first economic panic in America and at that time we were a largely agricultural nation then as compared with a largely manufacturing nation that was true during the latter part of the twentieth century.(Today were largely a service and intellectually property nation).
I'm making a claim right now that the monetary debt and the reduction of it is as foolish as chasing after Unicorns.


The way we perceive to be the national debt is like putting part of our pay check in a checking account and part in a savings account and then borrowing mostly from our savings account and then claim that  what we take from our savings account is putting us in a hole for the money all the money that we borrowed from out side sources and ourselves.

For those who don't understand what I've just written take a good course in logic.

Steve's barking saving in America or not

Now everybody knows that the saving rate for people of the United Stated is very low.
As they say when doing the Limbo, how low can you go.? But of cause that's been the story in America since the late 60s. The government has tried to increase the saving rate by creating this thing call an IRA with deferred taxation until a person reaches the ripe old age of 59.5 rears of age.
Of cause this didn't help that much with savings because they also included in the program investments. Those of us who bought mutuasl thought we were saving for our old age but some government economist still say we're not saving enough. I've been told that this is very bad because there are a lot counties that the saving rate of there citizens is so much higher and we'll be forced to borrow from them. Our corporation would then be holding to foreign banks, kind of like how our railroads came into existence in the early 18 hundreds. Now I'm not sure how this is a bad thing but I'm sure some economist can tell me.
Now it would seem to me that if banks needed more money to lend out they would raise their dividends. May be this this country doesn't need anymore money for borrowing? Remember in the 70s dividends were going through the roof. Now I believe that when a thing called a certificate of deposit was created, with it's double digit interest rates. Now again I thinking that this saying instrument was invented out of necessity, the banks needing the money to make more money, then some altruistic part on the banks. So after all is said and done the saving rate of none investments *
would go up.

*Many a person who puts money into stocks and bonds believe that this is a form of saving.
 There are people out there who believe the only way to save is by putting money under the mattress.
Putting money under the mattress must make some lumpy mattresses.

As I said before good ideas are some times bad, deferred comp such as a 401k is a great idea as long as it doesn't take the place of a pension.  If I was starting out to day I would want a pension in the form of an annuity for it would force the employer to put into it a portion of my pay, and I'd have that in my contract. For the honest employer it's a good idea for the cost is fixed and it's a good way of retaining good people.

Steve's barking oops there is. no superman

The statement I'm sure there is no supermen should state I'm 99.99999 sure there is no superman, good thing I'm not a rocket scientist, the rockets would never get off the ground.

Steve's barking; there is no superman ( obscure reasoning)

There is no superman, that I'm 100% sure of because of all the empirical evidence.
The fact of the mater because I like to think I'm an intelligent guy therefore I'm really not 100% positive there is no superman just 99.0000001% positive there is no superman but because my reasoning shows that I'm that I'm almost positive to the  .0000001% I can claim that I'm 100% sure there is no superman. Only a truly closed minded individual can claim an absolute 100%, no room for doubt that something truly doesn't exist.

Steve's barking working in retirement

I’ve been asked how life is like after retirement. My answer is I didn’t retire from work; I just retired from getting paid for work. Now that I don’t have a nine to five I can devote more time to my real jobs. I’m a chauffeur, a low grade handy man, a wife’s secretary, a male escort, a date calendar and reminder for my wife, an ATM machine (honey I left my wallet at home) a dishwasher, a porter, my wife’s administrated assistant,physiologist, A dying cat (family says where’s the dying cat when I sing to the tunes on the radio), and last but not least comedian.

Why does it take a husband and wife to screw in a light bulb? The husband to screw in the light bulb and the wife to criticize.

Steve's barking our founding fathers in no new slaves

My research has shown that just about all the important founding fathers have written extensively against slavery in their time. None of the southern important founding father with the exception of George Washington ( his slaves were freed after his death as decreed in his will) freed their slaves.
It is hard for me to believe their statements how appalled they were at slavery in this country. Those who justify certain reading of the Constitution by proclaiming this is what the founding fathers of America meant when the Constitution was written and justify their interpretation by quoting some obscure document of a particular founding father. Those who make these interpolations have some explaining to do, as too how trust worthy these interpolations are when most of our southern founding fathers wrote how appalled they were at slavery and most claimed they wanted to end it, yet still kept their slaves.

Steve's barking is the economy like a lungs?

Is the economy like lungs takeing in money and spitting  out jobs?
Do people really believe that urban myth that government borrowing money takes money out of the private sector?  Let's just say my unlearned friends, that government borrowing can and usually does increase the money supply. For you who believe that the money supply is finite I have a bridge that spans the East River that I want to sell you.
What happens to the money that government borrows?A good portion is placed in banks untill actually needed. The money in the banks is then turned around and lent to the private sector, who then puts part of that money that isn't needed into the bank who then lends that money out again, presto the money supply increases, proving once again that public sector borrowing doesn't always squeeze out the private sector.


Warning! This blog hasn't been proof read.

Steve's barking don't complain with the presidents vacation.

Those who didn't like the Bush presidency would complain that the president was always on his ranch.
Those who don't like the Obama presidency complain about his vacations and his golf game.
Hay if the president isn't in Washington how much trouble can they get the country into?

Steve's barking is 5 times a charm (boring) or does a bear (blank) were he sleeps?

If in economics you do A and B happens, and you do if at least 5 times does that mean every time you do A, B happens is that a true course and effect? What happens that you unwittingly do Z all the five times?
What  if looking at cause and effect you missed a time when doing A, B doesn't happen?
What if government had not done A and B happens, does that really mean A be is going to happen?


In the past one can see that on certain occasion when government pumped money into the ecomoy there was inflation, that doesn't mean that by pumping money into the economy is a cause of inflation, one has to look at all factors to determine the exact causes of inflation when the money was pumped into the ecomomy.

Steve's barking it's probably wurst

A month ago I thought that Germany loved Merkel, today I'm not so sure. I had no idea that the Christian Democrats had a partner in crime and that partner was rejected by the citizens of Germany.It only goes to show that this foolish American doesn't know that much about our European friends(?). I under the foolish notion that Europe would be the greater beneficiary of a new trade pack, when the leader of the European Union (that being Germany) is saying that because of American ease dropping on her phone calls that means sanctions on America. Now I'm thinking if you have sanctions on a country that you want to have a new trade agreement, that would defeat the purpose. The irony of this situation is those in America who are afraid of a new European trade pact wins. Those in Europe who need the trade pack lose. I do believe that's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Doesn't all counties, even allies spy on each other?

Steve's barking 17 trillion in present day debt equates to 30 or 40 trillion dollars in future debt, How?

I heard some financial genius on the boob tube the other day stating the nations nearly 17 trillion dollar deficit is really 30 to 40 trillion dollar deficit, of cause this genius some how equated the deficit to Enron. This being the a financial network no in dept explanation was given. After I heard this financial wizard it was on to the next segment like any late night variety talk show would do.
Now I might not be Mensa but I'm not that dumb. Like I've stated in prior blogs we really don't have less  a 16.8 trillion dollar debt (The allocation of funds that aren't, etc), so as I see it debt talk starts out on the wrong foot. Now unfortunately in 15 to 20 years no money will be owed to the Social Security trust.
2.4 Trillion no longer on the books. Now we come to the Feds Quantitative Easing, I guess one believes that the Federal Reserve is going to keep buying bonds after it hits three trillion dollars. The Feds are going to sells their bonds or demand higher interest rates? I haven't looked at other monies that the government owes itself, they might be disappearing too, vanishing in to payments.


*The government show no willingness to shore up Social Security, it does show a willingness to rob the recipients in some fantasy that it reduces the debt.