RiverRobb's Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

I made the switch to the new @Hootsuite

leave a comment »

I made the switch to the new @Hootsuite dashboard look and it’s glorious: http://ow.ly/D7kdl


Written by Robb

October 24, 2014 at 9:19 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

I see that ‘some’ have categorized Chr

leave a comment »

I see that ‘some’ have categorized Chris Dorner as “left-wing.” This is his manifesto and it’s far from “left-wing.” It actually sounds like something I could an would support. Privatize the police and police services and expect a better result. I wonder if Jesse Jackson – who has called on Chris Dorner to stop his killing and turn himself into Jesse- actually knows what Chris Dorner is trying to do?

Written by Robb

February 12, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Obama’s SOTU just doesn’t make sense…

leave a comment »

In reading the President’s State of the Union address (SOTU) it becomes painstakingly clear that politicians have no grasp of reality and are only interested platitudes directed at an uninformed and uneducated electorate. “Hey it sounds good, so it must be true, right?” Not really.

In this series, I will pick apart his SOTU and translate it into lay-person English. At least what I can translate without laughing too hard.

By the end of the second paragraph I have to stop already. President Obama campaigned in 2008 that Bush started an unnecessary war and promised to end it within his first year in office. He obviously didn’t end the war as it’s still continuing and spreading across the middle east as we speak; or read whichever term you prefer.

There is also ample evidence that waterboarding has or is still occurring in order to obtain the information that led to not only the capture and murder of Osama Bin Ladin, but the successful destruction of Al Qaueda and the Talliban. I thought that was supposed to end when he took office as well… yet here we are, boasting about Bin Ladin no longer being a threat to the country; congratulations by the way, but hypocritical nonetheless.

The accomplishments of the men and women of the US military should always be a focus of national pride. These wonderful men and women put their lives on the line for freedom every day. Regardless of one’s position on the wars; all of which I oppose, these people command a tremendous amount of respect as they are willing to do what most Americans are not. We should immediately bring these folks home and keep them out of harms way. 

Paragraph three and I’m stopped again. Lauding the teamwork that is the US military; again right on the head with this one albeit for a contrived angle, as how Americans should work together and focus on the goal rather than our differences. Really? Here’s a man who with regularity stresses the differences among us (have vs. have-nots) and believes that he’s in favor of us working together? Please.

He alludes to being energy independent, where “our security and stability aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.” Really? The Keystone pipeline would do just that for the US. It would create several thousand jobs, provide a gateway for us to be energy independent and build a strong relationship with our northern neighbors and what… he says no, thus increasing our dependence on the very parts of the world to which he referred in his earlier sentence.

“An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.” What? He and idiot Bush 43 have crippled the economy which has been built upon a very unstable base; Federal Reserve nonsense at the forefront, and irresponsibility is rewarded with food stamps and welfare – at a greater number percentage-wise than any other time in our history. “Don’t be responsible and get a good job… we’ll take care of you!” That’s the single-most devastating facet of socialism.

This will do it for page one and the first 5 paragraphs. More later… 

Written by Robb

January 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme

leave a comment »

I heard a commentator on Fox Business’ Freedom Watch program; which I highly recommend by the way, who said “Social Security isn’t a Ponzi Scheme because it’s not intended to defraud.” Really? It’s not? Consider this…

My parents contributed to social security and never collected from it. The reason? They both passed away before collecting benefits. So what happened to the money they contributed? It stayed in the system; which happens with almost every person who passes before collecting – the exception is disability benefits, and is not returned to the family of the contributor(s). So if I put into a system and NEVER benefit from it, haven’t I been in some way defrauded?

The simple answer is yes. If I’m not made whole at the end of the day; and in this case my family, then money has been taken from me and doled out to the benefit of someone else. If I contribute to a retirement account, monies are returned to me or my family in case of my demise, and I am or my family is made whole. In this case, government is making someone else whole at my expense. While technically the intent of Social Security was geared toward a small amount of assistance for those in need, it has been bastardized by politicians on both sides of the aisle into something which is unsustainable. It wasn’t set up as a Ponzi scheme, but that’s what it is now.

I have contributed somewhere in the neighborhood of $34000 to Social Security in my life according to the yearly statement and my benefit at retirement will be around $1100 per month. I calculate that I will contribute a total of about $55000 by the time I retire. It will take four years and two months for me to draw out what I’ve contributed. So who is paying for me after that? Someone else is, that’s who!

I have always wanted Social Security to be privatized. My neighbor scoffs at that and points to wall street and the current economic crisis and says, “Where would your money be if that happened?” Where’s my money now? It’s gone. There is no money in Social Security, but the government uses it’s printing presses to put the money in my account… which devalues the money and makes my “account” worth less. And I would be worse off if I had my money in the stock market?

If my money was in the stock market or in bonds etc. there would be a money manager who’s sole job would be to keep me from losing my money, right? If my accounts lose value, I would be free to shop around for a manager who would keep me ahead of the game. That keeps them on their toes. It would also keep the markets from fluctuating as much. There would be a vested interest in growth and enough checks and balances in place to keep the markets from the huge roller coaster ride on which it’s currently embroiled.

In reality, Ponzi type schemes are destined to fail. Originally the retirement age was set at 62 when most people only lived to be 61. That should tell you that the creators of this program, did so knowing full well that there would be people who contribute and never benefit. I would also have no  problem with Social Security if I could opt out. If I could invest my money in whatever funds I chose and keep all of it, then problem solved. I can’t though. If I could and everyone else could… Social Security would end tomorrow.

Written by Robb

September 16, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Posted in Politics

The reason Republicans will continue to lose

with one comment

Wolf Blitzer asked a question of the republicans at the Tea Party debate. He asked “if the 30 year old guy who is healthy and decides he doesn’t want to buy insurance because he doesn’t think he needs it, and he goes into a coma for 6 months, who’s going to pay for it?” It’s not really the question that is the problem, as much as the premise of the question.

In reality Mr. Blitzer asked “since this guy wants to do whatever he wants with his money and not take appropriate action to protect himself in an emergency, are you willing to force his neighbors to pay for his health care expenses?”  Mr. Blitzer believes that people should be forced to do the right thing; according to his morality. Heaven forbid someone prohibit abortions from happening, right? “You can’t force your morality on me!” But of course it’s okay for him to force his morality on us.

No one believes that people will be left to die in the streets. Although according to President Obama, “maybe he could take a pill instead of having the surgery?” I think it’s peculiar that liberal can decide that a person is too old for a life-saving heart surgery because of the cost; even though they have private insurance to cover it, but let someone decide they don’t want coverage because they’re “healthy” and “it costs too much” and all of the sudden all of his neighbors are forced at gunpoint, to take care of the bill. After all, if you don’t pay your taxes, you’ll see the guns of the government at your front door to collect them.

How is the state the best when it comes to meting out benefits? I mean, they can’t deliver the mail as well as UPS or FedEx. They can’t distribute charity better than the Red Cross or Salvation Army. They can’t educate kids better than the private schools. The FDA and USDA regularly approve foods and drugs that are tainted or have worse side-effects than many of the ailments for which they are prescribed. Look at the number of “If you’ve taken ‘Drug X’ and have had unwanted side-effects, call 1-800-SUE-THEM” ads on television. These drugs have the stamp of approval of the Federal Government and yet there are some very nasty repercussions. And the state is the best place to turn for health care?

The people do a much better job on their own of taking care of themselves and their neighbors. When someone is down and needs help, family and friends are a much better avenue down which we can turn for assistance. Agents of the government are slow to respond and are less likely to have to connections to the affected person or persons and the overall quality and quantity of help will be less. They will also be less likely to help the “meth-head” who can work and chooses to tweak instead so a more effective use of resources will dominate.

I was in a store yesterday and watched two women and their 5 kids, shuffle through the store picking up soda, chips, candy and gum. How did they pay for it? Their food stamp card! Really? You can buy junk food and candy with food stamps? That is a state sponsored program into which I have to pay and from which I will never benefit, and people get to use it for junk food? And you think the state is the best place for charity?

The bottom line is that unless and until Republicans argue against the premise that the state is a better place to turn for help than each other they are doomed to continued losses. The liberal argument is “don’t impose morality on me,” but since “I am more pure” I have the right to set standards for you. Republicans have to first accept that the premise is flawed; which is why we get “Big Government” Republicans like Dimwit 43, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. When it’s understood that we have no right to impose morality on each other and force each of us to “do the right thing” by some arbitrary standard, there will be more compassion and passion for our fellow man. The fire of the human spirit is hot and deep. We won’t let each other fail and suffer if at all possible. Until however, republicans show that the premise of state sponsored charity is flawed, we’re doomed to repeat our mistakes.

Written by Robb

September 14, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

The Death Tax and other Government Ponzi Schemes

leave a comment »

Death to the Death Tax! It should die and die quickly. The real problem with this is that the law has become immoral in it’s purpose, and the taxes collected have become part of the greater Government Ponzi scheme.

So we’re on the same page a Ponzi Scheme is defined by Wikipedia as “a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned… The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.” Is that not EXACTLY how Social Security operates? Both of my parents passed away prior to collecting Social Security. Were their contributions doled out to my brother or me? No. In this case the government wins. They are allowed to keep money and give it out to someone else. It is also the best case to be made for privatizing Social Security.

The Death Tax is perhaps the most immoral transgression in which this or any government could engage. Money is earned, taxed and the profits of monies left over are subsequently taxed. If an estate accumulates enough money, investments are made either in property or stocks and the profits of those investments are taxed. So when someone has accumulated significant wealth, how then should they be penalized? How should the government be allowed to steal money that is earned honestly and legitimately from the heirs of that estate? Should the government encourage or discourage the accumulation of wealth?

In reality, government should encourage the accumulation of wealth. Why? Money in private hands in any form stimulates economic activity. Someone with wealth will buy things… cars, houses, boats, motorcycles, trips , vacations etc. If they don’t buy things and become “greedy” and choose to hold on to their money, they leave their funds in the bank to earn interest. The interest rate is so low though, the return on that money is very slight. However, bankers use that money as collateral to loan to other bank customers to buy houses, cars, refrigerators or just about any thing for which someone would need to borrow money. Home equity loans, lines of credit and credit cards are all backed by money on deposit in their banks.

The loony left or as I call them the “caricatures of stupidity,” deride the rich for buying their yachts and airplanes as being greedy. Are they right? Of course not. How? There are long lines of manufacturers of parts for expensive cars or expensive yachts. The people who build them stay employed. The manufacturers of the parts for both stay employed. The parts houses that stock replacement parts for both stay employed. Paint manufactures and painters stay employed and so on… Get it now? Purchases stimulate economic activity regardless of what it is. Penalize the wealth to the point they stop buying yachts and cars, the manufacturers lose employees and go out of business. All those employed supplying parts and labor for these purchases stay employed thus encouraging more economic activity. The definition of trickle down and you can see that it has the potential to work and work well.

Do I want poor people to have more money? Yes, absolutely! Do I want the wealthiest Americans to have less? Absolutely not! Why? Those are the folks who invest money, creating jobs for everyone. Most small businesses who create most if not all local jobs, are in the top 1% of income earners; those who make $250,000 or more. Realize that there are only 310,000 people in the entire country who make that much and are responsible for creating the majority of jobs in the country. Do you really believe those people should be punished for being wealthy? Not if you’re smart.

Democrats have decided to purport that the rich are taking money from your kids and grand kids. That the rich wanting to keep their money is taking away from someone else. They don’t understand economics 101 at all. The economy is not a zero sum game, in that someone does not have to lose for someone else to win. We can all win and do win when the economy grows. The only way for the economy to grow is for money to stay in the hands of the people and out of the hands of government. Why did the economy fail under Dimwit 43? Because it stayed in the government and not as much in the hands of the people. It’s exactly why Obama has failed so far. He doesn’t understand anything economic; except the Stalinist/Marxist/Socialist mantra of social equality through punitive taxation. It’s working in China at present, but can anyone say they want to live that way? If I’m allowed and anyone else is allowed to opt out, then I’m all for it.

Written by Robb

December 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Posted in Politics

Anthony Weiner is at it again!

leave a comment »

This morning, I watched a news clip of Anthony Weiner being interviewed about the Estate Tax. His contention is that the money in the estates of over $1 million or at least a good portion of it, belong to the Federal Government. Of course this is double, triple or quadruple taxation as the monies have been taxed when they were earned and presumably there will be property or properties that have paid taxes on a yearly basis that will again be taxed by the Feds. It’s clear that Mr. Weiner is the poster child for the “caricature of stupidity” that has a stronghold on politicians; especially the Liberal Democrat variety.

The incredulity that Mr. Weiner displayed as he was asked about the double taxation aspect should be a sign to folks that the end of the US Empire is near and none too soon. The presumption that politicians have the right to steal from the people to satisfy their own compassion or their own morality is quite remarkable. “How dare you question me and my morality here!” was the gist of his response. He rolled his eyes and turned away from the camera in a most arrogant manner and retorted “are you ready now? Are you ready to hear the answer?” He then proceeded to restate the question that was no where related to the original question with the premise that his moral standing in congress allowed him to steal outright to give to the less fortunate.

He answered the question he asked himself and that was “at what rate should it be taxed?” By then I had to turn the channel as my brain cells were being assaulted and I tend to guard my brain cells much like a mother grizzly guards her cubs. It is clear that this particular politician and many more just like him have no clear concept of right and wrong.

Ayn Rand defines morality as “the judgment to distinguish right from wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good and the integrity to stand by it at any cost.” I’m certain that Mr. Weiner will see his actions as good or he wouldn’t be doing them. I don’t think he’s an intentionally evil person, his actions however connote something entirely different.

I believe that everyone on the planet can distinguish right from wrong. If someone were to walk up to you and ask for money, you could ask for what they need the money. If they told you it was for drugs, you would presumably say no. If they  said they needed the money for food, you may acquiesce. It would be entirely your choice. I nor anyone else should have a problem with voluntary charity. If you have it available and wish to give it to aid someone in need, that should be your choice and yours alone.

If you needed that money for food for your own family however, you may say no; after all your survival would come before someone else’s. If however someone comes up to you with a gun and takes that money from you for whatever reason, they would be a thief. If they gave that money to a homeless person or someone else in need, would they be any less a thief? I would think no. The government in this case, is the thief with a gun. Even though an individual isn’t pulling the trigger, they are using the agents of government as a surrogate for theft.

You own yourself outright. No one has a claim on your life but you if you are free. You own your heart, mind and soul completely and without restrictions or reservations. You own everything you have done, are doing and will do. If Mr. Weiner decides that you have too much and should be separated from that which you have done in your life, he is stealing from you and is doing so with his eyes wide open, period. His actions are then immoral and the recipients of his “benevolence” are in effect receiving stolen property; your essence is being taken away for someone else’s benefit.

This country has become a paradise for parasites like Mr. Weiner and his ilk. They suck the life blood from honest people like the leeches they are. What is beginning to happen is the host organism is fighting back. That is usually what happens. Dogs and cats always scratch their fleas. Animals in the wild most assuredly pick off their ticks, right? The host in this case is the hard working public who do nothing but get up every day, go to work to earn as much as they can for themselves and their family. There is nothing inherently evil about someone who wants to earn millions of dollars in their life. That should be encouraged and rewarded by governments as their descendants should never be in need of government services. They will spend money on their lives and create jobs accordingly and proportionally. Right?

Today’s government have become the entity from which governments should protect the people. Codified theft is evil and those who use it, condone it or encourage it are those from which we need protection. There is nothing good about stealing even if the reason seems right.

Written by Robb

December 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Posted in Politics