Dependence on foreign oil is something we have been trying to figure out since before I was even born.  I saw an interesting video from comedian John Daily

Click here to watch the videoAfter watching this I thought to myself.  Is it really that hard to become LESS dependent on oil?  Are there really no other solutions?

Here are a few solutions I have thought of in the last 30 seconds:

Wind power – we have lots of wind, turbines can be built…

Solar Power – half of my state has plenty of sunshine all year round…

Nuclear Power – sure it is a bit scary sounding, but really I am pretty sure we have some new technology out there and available since Chernobyl blew up close to 30 years ago.  Its cheap power…

If we were to use electricity, have plug in cars and find renewable energy sources we could reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on oil.  Maybe if oil companies became energy companies they would look into the future and decide to spend some of the extra billions they have laying around on some alternative sources.  I am sure they do, but maybe a nice little tax break on profits could be given for spending and research on alternative fuels.

Lets stop talking about it and really start doing it.  Anyone have a good windmill kit provider I can take a look at?  I would love to power my house for the environmental impact of a simple spinning object in my yard.

Recently in his February 10, 2010 testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke prepared a report about the current economic policies of the Federal Reserve. The goal was to explain the exit strategy the Reserve has for removing the extremely risky lending habits it has been using to try and provide economic stability for our nation. You can see the entire report at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20100210a.htm#fn9.

Of particular interest to me is his statement near the end of his prepared statments in section 9.
“The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system.”

WHOA! Did you read that? Do you know what they are suggesting? THIS IS THE LAST STRAW THAT WILL CAUSE THE CAMELS BACK TO EXPLODE INTO THE STONEAGE!

If you are not aware, recent history has caused us to move off of the gold standard, spend ourselves into oblivion as a country and now we are talking about removing the requirement for banks to hold funds in reserve.

The current money supply is made by bank a lending to bank b. Then bank b can lend out 90% of the money it has to bank c. Bank c can then lend to bank d who can then lend out 90% and so on and so forth. The 10% held is called the reserve. Actual HARD ASSETS (if you can call fake paper money hard assets) will no longer be required to be held by a bank.

So what does all this craziness mean? Your bank will no longer be required to hold any cash, they can lend out more and continue to make risky loans etc. at an even greater amount than they can today. It also means your money is going to be worth less as it will increase the money supply and INFLATION occurs when there is more money in the money supply.

Welcome to the $10 gallon of gas and the $5 value menu at your local McDonalds. Prices are going up my friends and your savings will take the hit. (Cash in the bank earning 1.45% interest doesnt cut it when inflation is 10%, you just lost 8.55% of your money).

Please contact your local representatives and ask them to support a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and bring to light the criminal activity that would have caused you or I to go to prison. Its not too late if we act.

Bravo… Clap Clap Clap!

Trillions (yes you read that right, the bailout didnt stop at 8 billion, that was just the begining) of dollars WASTED to save jobs has done nothing. Some may argue, it helped save a few hundred thousand jobs. I argue it caused more problems than it helped.

When the market started to crash and panic ensued, there were a few banks, car makers and large corporations that were going to fail. WE SHOULD HAVE LET THEM. However, to help stabalize the economy we let the government put an idea into our head that they can fix the problems by spending BILLIONS of dollars (your tax dollars which WILL go up from all the spending). Well my personal feelings on the matter? When the person in charge starts to panic at any business, the employees start looking for new jobs and stop spending money. The same goes for when the government PUBLICLY freaks out, the citizens do too. I contend that all the panic, hoopla, pomp and heroic legislation that created our bailout actually made things worse. Personally I would rather have seen a few big companies go belly up, people would have to suck up and hurt for a bit, but the rest of the world could continue on and work through the pain.

Yes it would have still hurt and shockwaves would have been felt in every other industry. But, did the bailout really slow that down? I think it sped up the panic, made EVERY industry cinch up the belt, made consumers freak out, stop spending and it has caused a chain reaction of frugalness slowing down every market and every industry.

The great plan of giving away my future and that of my children has failed. Any business who acts the way our government does would have a number of executives going to prison for fraud. Will we prosecute our leaders? I wish we could. We should. They should at a minimum be fired for their incompetence. But nothing will happen. Its all just the same old thing. Have the buddies at the Federal Reserve print more money, spend spend spend…

Could we please have someone who is NOT in debt voted into office so they can show some fiscal responsibility? Is anyone left out there that has rational thought? Please… Someone hear our cry for help. Someone figure out that we are on an unsustainable path of borrowing money that DOES NOT EXIST. I dont want your dollars… I want hard goods, something tangible that will still be there when dollar bills are worth less than the paper they are printed on. Anyone selling any silver/gold or other hard assets out there? I have a bunch of monopoly money I would gladly trade you for it.

The big idea was to help jumpstart car sales in America. The dems had a great proposal. Lets go ahead and do Cash for Clunkers, get a ton of gas hogs off the road and sell a bunch of new cars.

Great program, we the citizens just gave the car companies a few billion dollars (yes, you and I get to pay for that out of our tax dollars) they make a ton of money, the people who ALREADY CAN AFFORD A CAR i.e. they just bought a BRAND NEW CAR get a great deal on cars – well what about the little guy? You, me and all the others out there who dont purchase NEW cars, but may like a nice used vehical = screwed.

What do I mean by that? Well, take a look at used car prices. All those cash for clunker vehicals worked and were drivable (it was required for the trade in). The law requires them to be junked so nobody continues to use those horrible pollution mobiles (how much pollution does it cost to scrap them, and how many resources/pollutants were used to create the new cars). Now what we have is a very low inventory of drivable used cars that MOST people can actually afford to purchase. That has caused a 16% increase in used car prices. What does this mean to you and me? Well, not only are we going to pay for the auto industry bailout and the cash for clunkers program, but we are also going to pay an additional 16% for any used cars we purchase this year.

Great job Congressmen, Senators and President Obama. Give a great deal to those with enough money/credit to buy a new car and stick it to those of us who buy within our means.

The new energy bill that was passed today is going to cause major problems for Americans who are already suffering from a major world recession.  The cap and trade system will cause the Utility Rates for Americans to skyrocket.  The words came from President Barack Obama himself while he was on the campaign trail.  A quick video can be seen at:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14163769&ch=4226716&src=news

By increasing costs for American companies to produce goods here in the USA, the government just said goodbye to a large number of jobs.  Companies will now be moving out of the country to produce goods where environmental constraints are not as limiting and expensive.

Good job again government.  Another policy that = FAIL.

For months, people chanted, “We want change! End the war in Iraq, bring the troops home! Bush is a baby killer.” Now that the man they elected is in power all of those rantings and ravings are over, gone, swept under the carpet.

Yet…. Its still just business in Washington as normal. When Bush asked for funds to support our troops there were long drawn out arguments, press covering every second of it etc. Now that Obama is going to step up the war and increase troop levels… Silence.  I am not saying Bush was any different/better/worse than Obama.  Im just saying that nothing has changed other than what the media tries to portray and make into a story.

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 10, 7:30 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants Congress to act quickly on his $83.4 billion request for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appeal that’s disappointing the most liberal, anti-war wing of his party.

But with the president promising to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, his Democratic allies in control of Congress are sure to pass his request without the type of tortuous battle that characterized their dealings with former President George W. Bush.

Obama’s request Thursday, which included money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the cost of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

“Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Obama also requested $350 million in new Pentagon funding for counternarcotics and other security activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.

In a statement, Pelosi said Congress would carefully review Obama’s request and “engage in a dialogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments.”

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations; all told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the 2009 budget year ending Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy passage despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama’s plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now in Iraq — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel, and conduct anti-terror operations.

It also would finance Obama’s initiative to boost U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 38,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon’s plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

“This funding will do two things: It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely,” said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided that congressional Democrats don’t seek to “micromanage” the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, “The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea.” He said, “The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops.”

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party’s liberal base and helped him secure his party’s nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid.

Obama also warned lawmakers not to succumb to the temptation to use the must-pass war funding bill as a vehicle for other spending. And he said they should act quickly on the request.

“I also urge the Congress to focus on the needs of our troops and our national security, and not to use the supplemental to pursue unnecessary spending,” Obama wrote. “I want the Congress to send me a focused bill and to do so quickly.”

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.

Timeout! Hold on just a second here. Are you kidding me? Lets Nationalize banks? What? Hello Hugo Chavez, do you have any more room in your country so I can ship some congressmen and senators your way? Read the following article about how people are wanting this to happen. Why cant we just let bad business die and learn from our mistakes. If anyone thinks the GOVERNMENT can run a bank better than the private sector they need some serious help. Look at how great any government entity is run and tell me your really want to put a bunch of clowns in charge of the banking system. The government imposed lending regulations is what caused the economic meltdown. Lets slap their hand, put them back in their place and move along.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090218/pl_ynews/ynews_pl246

A touchy word has entered the public debate about the future of America’s economy. It’s a word that would shock the nation in normal times, but as even Republicans begin to whisper it, temporary “nationalization” of troubled banks is increasingly seen as our last best hope for fixing our financial system.

Simply put: Nationalizing ailing banks means the government would tell bank execs to take a hike, and then oversee taxpayer dollars as they course through the banking sector’s veins. When all is well, perhaps after selling assets and operations to new private investors, the government then steps back and lets a newly regulated bank sector float on its way.

Arguments for bold government action range from the passionate (Michael Hirsh of Newsweek) to the elegant (Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times). In any case, the number of economists and columnists calling for an aggressive takeover of our “zombie banks” is growing.

This week, respected economists Nouriel Roubini and Matthew Richardson laid it all out in a Washington Post op-ed:

“The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s — or the United States in the 1930s — the only way to save it is to nationalize it….Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end.

One could ignore this pessimistic view if Roubini hadn’t been consistently correct in his predictions for our worsening economy. Roubini, or “Dr. Doom,” as some have called him, is one of the few who saw the housing meltdown coming and who actually voiced his concerns years before it happened.

In a recent interview with Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, argues that many of the executives and members of the banking lobby need to be fired or flushed out, though he stops just short of explicitly calling it nationalization.

Another former IMF economist, however, does not. Ken Rogoff, a Harvard professor who was at the IMF with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, thinks government receivership of insolvent banks is becoming our only option. In a roundtable discussion on “PBS NewsHour,” Rogoff predicted Geithner and his aides will come to the same conclusion once they “stress test” more Wall Street balance sheets.

Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was one of the first to note that Geithner’s new financial rescue plan does not rule out nationalization. Krugman points to Geithner’s “stress tests” as a possible first step in the temporary government takeover of crumbling banks:

“Will those public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required “stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody knows.”

Krugman notes in a following column just how quickly the idea of nationalization is picking up steam, even among conservatives:

“There’s hope that the bank rescue will eventually turn into something stronger. It has been interesting to watch the idea of temporary bank nationalization move from the fringe to mainstream acceptance, with even Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham conceding that it may be necessary.”

On “This Week” on ABC, Graham argued for nationalization, while Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer glowingly endorsed Geithner’s seemingly less-than-aggressive rescue plan.

Meawhile, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” senior White House adviser David Axelrod was asked if nationalization was off the table. Axelrod said it was not, indicating the Obama administration will do whatever it takes to right the nation’s financial ship.

However, President Obama has publicly indicated he is against nationalization, for now. When asked about Sweden and how it temporarily nationalized its banks in the early 1990s, saving its economy from an extended slump, Obama noted that Sweden is a different kettle of fish, a rather smaller and socialist one to be exact.

When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) about nationalization on “This Week,” she said she wasn’t quite ready to take that route herself. But she also pointed to the national semantics surrounding the question as the first key hurdle to clear:

“Well, George, as you know, the word “nationalization” scares the hell out of people. And so the debate has been opened up now, and that’s good. Let’s talk about it.”

- Thomas Kelley

I sent the following message to Senators, Hatch, Bennett and Congressman Chaffetz today. Please speak out or your voice will not be heard.

Please vote AGAINST any new bailouts. Our country is in a natural economic cycle that was set off by irresponsible people making poor decisions. Sometimes people need to reap what they sow or a lesson is never learned. Increasing government debt and spending at this time will only slow the pain temporarily. After a short period of time a deluge of inflation and increased economic strife will come back to haunt us if we continue on the path of irresponsibility. There is plenty of blame to go around, but you can make the right decisions now to help stop the bleeding. Please vote down any budget increases, any bailout or stimulus policy, any new government jobs etc. If a citizen ran a business in this country like the government is running he or she would be in jail by now. Lets clean up our act, pay the consequences and move forward to rebuild our great nation.

Regards,

James Grierson

Today I had the privilage of watching the 44th person take the oath of President of the United States.  This is a great day for our nation because it shows that we as a people have the power to elect our representatives.  I was thinking to myself how it is interesting that our country has federal holidays for things like celebrating our independence and presidents day etc.  However, we do not have a holiday on one of the most important days of the year – the day we vote.  The day we excercise the freedom that we are built upon.

Last night I sat with my family and we discussed the new President and our country.  My children know I was not a supporter of Barak Obama during the elections.  However, as we discussed last night, I let them know that it is our duty to support our president, to care for him and to pray for him.  That he can have the wisdom and ability to lead our nation and direct us from harms way.

America voted for change and wanted a new direction.  With change comes pain somewhere and will affect someone in a negative way.  I hope all Americans are prepared for and understand that great sacrifices will be required by many if not all in order to preserve our freedoms.