B.O. has done it again addressing EFFECT rather than CAUSE. It is ironic that the burgeoning costs of Health Care that he wishes to address was CAUSED by the Government and his plan would compound the EFFECT previously CAUSED. In 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson's leadership legislation was passed to establish Medicare which has become financially untenable.. According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes that year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.

 

The enactment of Medicare essentially usurped the function of the market place in setting prices for health care services. This was not necessarily without the collaboration of the medical practitioners who were not necessarily averse to price fixing.  Nor where the Insurers who simply adjusted their pricing accordingly.  The pricing established by Medicare was reflected in the pricing of health care in general.  Rather than let the market place determine the cost of health care the Government, despite being well intentioned as it is supposedly always is, was as is usually prevalent the CAUSE of what has ensued over these 40 plus years since the inception of Medicare.

MORE

---

PRESIDENT ADDRESSES EFFECT INSTEAD OF CAUSE
This exacerbates our economic problems

June 17th, 2009: This morning I listened to our president present a program to implement extensive government financial and economic regulations. This to address the EFFECTS of the economic tsunami in which we find our country, Unfortunately, he was disingenuous in his oratorically impressive presentation because he along with many in his administration are not addressing that which CAUSED what his mis-guided actions are attempting to correct.

 

The CAUSE of our economic tsunami is the same as that which caused the 1929 Stock Market Crash and Great Depression and subsequently every recession, stock market bubble, housing bubble etc. It is what caused President Nixon to take the country off the Gold Standard in 1971 and the subsequent hyper inflationary period. The CAUSE which our government has never really addressed and which continues to disingenuously ignore is the Federal Reserve Board's mis-management of the money supply. 

  

Economics, by definition, the study of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, must by its nature also involve the study of money. As the substitution for barter, money provides the means for all that the study of economics involves to occur. In fact, where barter is not used it is the basic required ingredient (catalyst, if you will) for all else that occurs. Milton Friedman, best known for his monetary theory, sent to me in correspondence I had with him in the 1990's graphs providing empirical evidence that there was an approximate two year delay between a change in the money supply and its attendant affect on the economy. He also has stated: 

MORE

---

DEFICIT SPENDING AND THE FED ARE TO BLAME

Unfortunately that which has actually caused our present economic crisis is not even being given lip service by anyone. It is hoped that which is contained herein will help fill that void for the reader..

As every family knows, when it spends more than it earns it can only make up the difference by borrowing or increasing income. It is the same for the government except they also have the power to essentially print money. Let's look at how government appears to get away with running continuing deficits while any of us who did the same thing would eventually be forced into bankruptcy. When the government spends more money than it receives, the Treasury Department has the power to borrow the difference by offering bonds for sale at market interest rates. Ready buyers of these bonds are those foreign countries who sell more of their products and services to U.S. entities then is purchased from them. The dollar difference (trade deficit) must eventually return to the U.S. and is predominantly used to buy this debt.

When the amount of funds required to satisfy the deficit exceed the amount of trade deficit dollars available to buy our bonds, the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) buys the bonds. The FED presently owns around 40% of the national debt and this means the government essentially owns this portion of its own debt. They buy these bonds by crediting the attendant purchase amount to the bank accounts of the dealers that sell them. Since banks are required to only maintain 10% of their deposits in reserve they can lend 10 times that amount. This 10 to 1 leverage is then further increased when money is moved by transactions to other banks.

Why should this be of concern? Because this created money is just like any other commodity and its purchasing power decreases when the amount of it available increases . When there is more supply than demand of a commodity the value of that commodity decreases.. Hence, the devaluation of the dollar and resultant eventual inflation.

Our present economic condition has been brewing for many years. Its beginning can be traced back to what ensued after it was agreed by 29 nations at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 that the U.S. would guarantee to sell gold at $35 an ounce effectively pegging the value of world currencies to the U.S. dollar. Subsequent continued deficit spending that exacerbated in the 1960's coupled with an increasing trade deficit resulted in marked devaluation of the dollar relative to gold. This led to the issuance of what were called “special drawing rights (sdr's)”, that were in essence iou's, to offset the difference between the market price of gold and $35 an oz.

>In 1971 the continuing increased national debt and ensuing pressure from speculators and central banks forced President Nixon to abandon the gold standard. Thus the dollar became a fiat currency whose value was to float in relation to other world currencies. Without the restraint of the gold standard, deficit spending accelerated and rose from under $500 Billion in 1971 to $9 Trillion in 2008. During this period the FED continued to manipulate the money supply resulting in an inordinate increase in the price of homes followed by a marked decrease in these prices circa 1985 to 1998.. What then transpired brought us to our present economic predicament described as follows..

MORE

---

BO's speech at Notre Dame completely ignored the role of the Doctor in abortions, as did Notre Dame's administration

BO's speech to the 2009 Notre Dame graduating class amplified the sounds of those on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion issue. No one seems to view this issue as having what can be viewed as another position based on who are those who are committing the abortions. The Doctor performing the act is getting away with what some would call murder. If reason was used it could be held that the expectant mother is asking someone to commit this act and the very acceptance of a Doctor to do so could be considered an illegal act under the Constitution. Hence if it is the Doctor who is committing an illegal act that should be prosecutable.

 

The following article I wrote a few years ago addresses the personal responsibility issue and the fact that the expectant mother does have a choice but that it does not include a third person to commit the act. It would not mean that a Doctor should not be able to administer to her after she has opted to find a way to induce the abortion herself, including possibly taking a pill prescribed by a Doctor. The point being morally and ethically shouldn't she be responsible for performing the physical action of inducing the abortion? Having to make such a decision in which she is physically initiating the act makes it more likely that she would more seriously examine her options. Those being to keep the child or to offer it up for adoption. Being more personally responsible could cause those thinking of practicing unprotected sex to think twice about it and possibly consider a degree of abstinence. Of greater possible importance would be that a third person, the  Doctor, would not be taking a life and violating moral and ethical tenets..

 

In regard to BO's position on stem cell research, he has authorized use of our tax dollars similar to those provided for foreign abortion clinics, to fund embryonic stem cell research. The government should not be in the business of funding these programs on which our society is divided. However, the private sector is free to spend their research dollars as they wish. In fact, positive results of adult stem cell research has recently shown that that embryo's need not be destroyed at all.

click to read
DOES THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH STILL APPLY TO ABORTION & EUTHANASIA?

---

The President of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt recently said the following in a letter to stockholders. This should scare the hell out of freedom loving Americans everywhere. But will it?  

     "We are in a recession and, at times like these, it is difficult to predict how bad and for how long. We are running GE to 'weather the cycle'. However, I believe we are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be reset in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner."

      Corporate America appears to be on its way to becoming hung on the government narcotics being offered to them. Those duped by these words will rue the day they passively accepted them as a path to Utopia. Think about it, Public-Corporate partnerships cannot be partnerships because the government by its very nature will be in control. The shareholders interest will become subservient to the government. Socialism will take over. Goodbye American freedom!