travisthornton.net

Documenting history as it happens.

Archives for News

The Arrow Crests

1 Comment

First, let me apologize for being delinquent posting on this website.  It’s not that I don’t have a lot to say or that I haven’t been paying attention, it’s just difficult to convey my full thoughts and feelings properly on this forum.  I also believe my time spent typing and your time spent reading could probably be spent more effectively to other ends, particularly when I repeat myself.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do want to voice some of my concerns and apprehensions in this post, and promise more analysis as time ticks on.

I watched the debt ceiling debate that ended last week and was, in the end, disappointed with all parties involved: the President, the Republicans, the Democrats, the pundits, and the American people.  Everyone believes that certain stalwarts of America are “guaranteed,” and we collectively are “too big to fail,” when indeed, we are not.

We continue to be duped by optical games in Washington; I believe the debt ceiling debacle and “negotiations” were merely a well-choreographed sequence of events, designed to ingratiate both parties.  Suffice it to say, their efforts failed, considering our recent downgrade from AAA to AA+ by Standard&Poor’s for the first time in our nation’s history, and our continuing descent into a Double Dip Recession, which may someday be referred to as a Depression.

Looking Back

Since 1950, revenues have averaged 18% of the annual Gross Domestic Product, while spending has been 20%.  This 2% gap is the annual deficit, which, through the years, has added to a $14.6 trillion debt, the largest in the history of mankind.  This week, our public debt grew to equal 100% of annual GDP, something we have not seen since 1947.  Also this week, our government increase our debt limit by $2.2 trillion, a larger amount than the entire public debt in 1982.  While it is true both President Obama and George W. Bush are to blame, keep in mind that Obama’s monthly deficits are exceeding Dubya’s annual deficits, and that Obama’s annual deficits are exceeding Bill Clinton’s annual budgets.

Some suggest revenues are the problem.  Indeed, Obama’s only solution throughout the debt crisis was a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.  So let’s explore that.  According to IRS figures, a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.  That is roughly 10% of  the current annual budget deficit.  Revenues are, therefore, not the problem; our addiction to spending is.

If none of the above makes any sense to you, let me put it to you in layman’s terms:  assume you have a $15,000 debt. You go to the bank and get a $2,200 extension by promising to cut a mere $20 bucks a month from your planned spending spree, and promising to find $20 more a month six months down the road.  You promise to cut $3,500 from your spending over the next ten years.  The problem is, you plan to increase your spending by 7% annually for the next ten years, which means you’ll come back, begging for more in 18 short months.

This lifestyle was determined to be unsustainable by Standard&Poor’s, who wanted to see a $4,000 (or $4T in real terms) decrease in debt, by any means necessary.  We could not deliver it.  We, therefore, deserve what we are getting.

Points of Contention

The buzz word during the debate was “compromise,” a lovely idea.  On certain issues, however, there is no room for compromise.  The Left has a pro-growth agenda for government.  They regard the American economy as the supplier of government revenue, not as the supplier of American prosperity, and therefore want the economy to grow, but not more than enough to fund their government programs.  This is echoed among the Left in their calls for “shared sacrifice.”  They ask not for contributions to society – not for innovation and investment in the marketplace – but for sacrifice, for government revenue.

The Left points out repeatedly that the top 1% of wage earners control 21% of wealth.  The top 1% of wage earners also pay 40% of our nation’s taxes.  For the Left, this 2-to-1 ratio is not enough.  Class warfare is the fallback answer for the Left, who are rooted in the politics of greed and envy.  They insist on a “corporate jet tax,” rolling back the tax break that was part of Obama’s stimulus plan, to raise revenues.  Of note, it would take 5,000 years for the corporate jet tax to pay off one year of current deficit.

The psyche of the Left believes every problem this nation faces requires a government solution, which requires more spending, which requires more revenue.  In search for more revenue, they insist on ignoring facts.  There is a direct inverse correlation between federal spending and federal revenues, relative to GDP:

When spending increases, revenues decrease, due to government action in the middle of a poor economy.  This doubles down on our debt problem.  So what levels of each are prudent in cutting deficits?  A 2009 Harvard case study shows the best way to slash deficits, according to the 107 instances studied, is to CUT both spending AND taxes. What’s more, their findings suggest that tax cuts are more expansionary than spending increases in the cases of a fiscal stimulus.  The Left still refuses to believe this, insisting the government did not do enough, and is now calling for a federal “infrastructure bank,” a la Latin America, to fund the creation of jobs.

Which brings us to yet another fallacy: the Left believes the government can create jobs, truly the a product of a creative imagination.  In answering the question, “What can government do to create jobs?” the Left give one of two answers:  1) create federally funded stimulus projects; or 2) give companies incentives to invest in Research & Development.  According to a recent White House report, every 2009 Stimulus job cost taxpayers $278,000 a piece.  This added cost is actually causing the private sector to shed jobs.  So stimulus is rendered a useless waste of taxpayer funds.

Secondly, giving companies “incentives” to create jobs is often achieved with “loopholes,” that often go to promising “millionaires and billionaires,” something Obama and the Left just spent the better part of our Summer crying about.  The Left, therefore, proposes closing loopholes in order to open others, to reward their friends.  It should be noted the Right is guilty of this as well.

In the past, I have supported incentive-based infrastructure spending, albeit on a smaller scale, for natural gas development and the like.  At this point, we simply cannot afford anything of the sort.  The culmination of these types of demand-side programs have distorted the marketplace long enough, and have created a crisis of confidence in the American economy, which is precisely why our federal government was downgraded.

The solutions are two-fold.  First, and most obviously, we need to slash spending: Medicare/Medicaid comprise the largest portion of federal spending, at 23%; Social Security and Defense spending are tied for second at 20% of federal spending a piece.  Among these programs, nothing is safe.

Secondly, we need to normalize the tax code to restore economic reality to the marketplace.  Call it corporatism, crony capitalism, or a social market: the stock market should not depend on public policy nearly as much as it does.  We need to roll back Leviathan’s tentacles by closing the loopholes, lowering the corporate tax, and setting a flat income tax rate.  Such actions would restore confidence in the marketplace by instilling some predictability in the public environment, and inevitably, raise revenues.

Looking Ahead

I feel at this moment I am living life in slow-motion, reading the news like I’m sifting through a history book.  What does the end of our fiscal illusion mean for the future of our country?  I want to see the next page; I want to see what happens next, and I can’t turn the page fast enough.

I have this sickening feeling that I’m watching my country that, not long ago, faced a crossroads, and decided to start down a road it no longer has the capacity to turn away from.  Instead of dealing with our simultaneous economic, fiscal, and leadership crises, our nation diverts attention.  That is why I am disappointed with the American people; we are collectively ruining this country’s global standing, and, eventually, our heightened standard of living.

I believe, at best, we may be entering our own “Lost Decade.”  Obama and I agree on that point, although we disagree on solutions.  For the immediate future, our AAA credit rating is gone; based on the five countries that have faced the same fate, it will take anywhere from 9 to 18 years to gain the AAA rating back.  What generations before us have enjoyed, generations to come may not.  The prospect that our nation’s best years are behind us, that our arrow has crested, is frightening to say the least.  The poor choices we make now leave our children picking up the pieces of a broken economy.

Our cultural outlook is equally bleak.  Like Greece, a statist, entitlement mindset has settled over our sardonic nation, and while this is easily associated with the Left and their party, the Right has stood idly by, allowing it to happen. I therefore associate myself less with a political party now that I ever have, and instead associate with ideas and philosophies.  You can call it libertarianism, or austerity, or whatever:  it’s time to starve the beast.  Although that would directly impact my current income, I’d rather protect my country and my children from inevitable collapse.  Cutting government to its rightful size will take immense courage; sitting by and watching a train run off the tracks does not.

I believe, ultimately, our nation’s individual rights are at stake.  As Ronald Reagan said in his 1961 gubernatorial inauguration, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”  To quote the philosopher Jim Morrison, “The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”

It doesn’t matter anymore if I agree with what people do with their liberty.  As long as freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of another, in accordance with the oft-cited-herein Harm Principle, a positive step for individual rights of any sort is one I will celebrate.

Our debt problem infringes upon these rights in ways other than economic.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated that, despite the debt ceiling deal, the greatest threat to our long term national security is still our public debt, the majority owner of which is China.  Their purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds enabled our reckless spending, and the illusion of a strong economy, which we no longer have.

Facing down a dire situation, individual rights are the only thing our government should protect.  Any programs not protected by Article 1, Section 8 should be immediately voted on by the Congress, and any offices in the Executive Branch outside the parameters of Article 2 should be immediately challenged by the Congress.

Albeit drastic, the numbers don’t lie.  There is no middle ground to be reached between facts and otherwise, between sanity and the alternative.  As far as I’m concerned, there is no negotiation over America’s future, and there are no guarantees.  The most likely scenario we face is a two-fold rise in interest rates, as the Federal Reserve has been the majority purchaser of America’s bad financial debts, which we gleefully passed onto China.  We therefore face a period of inflation unseen in decades.  The worst case scenario we face is China calling our debt, followed by our subsequent default, whereby America undergoes an involuntary return to anarcho-libertarianism, without capitalism, with the American people too ignorant and hubristic to believe it’s happening to us.

I hope I’m wrong, because we are better than this.  I hope we have received the wake up call necessary to change direction.  I’ll be watching to see what happens, of course.  Regarding freedom and finance, we are still the greatest country in the world.  We have faced down worse perils, and the words of Abe Lincoln in 1861 ring true today:  ”We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”  My optimism is couched in Benjamin Franklin’s earlier warning, in 1787: that we have a Republic, “If we can keep it.”

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Aug 7, 2011

Make the Milestone Count

0 Comments

Congratulations are due to our military, our intelligence services, our national security team, and our President, who showed exemplary leadership in the assassination of Bin Laden.  The operation was a gutsy move, and I tip my hat to the President directly.  Hopefully, Bin Laden’s assassination marks the beginning of healing a gaping wound in the American soul.

As for the gaping wound to Bin Laden’s head, the Navy SEALs proved, once again, that they are the standard-bearers of military might, whether overt or covert in nature.  The assault itself was a flawless operation, by all accounts, handled beautifully by SEAL Team 6, even in the face of extreme adversity.

Then, what happened?  We shoved Bin Laden’s body off the back of the USS CARL VINSON in an awkward act of grace towards the World’s Most Wanted person.  I understand why it happened, I just don’t agree with it.  In that vein, may I make a suggestion: SHOW THE PHOTOS.  As of this writing, there are none.  Again, I understand the delay, but this is something you must do; otherwise, Americans have no proof, questions linger, and sentiments broil.  It’s time to fix this.

Other than that, nicely done, Team Obama; yes, I said it.  As you might have guessed, this is by no means an endorsement in 2012.   I am especially proud of Obama’s team, though, for unparalleled bravery in bringing the War on Terror closer to its end.  You took great responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and I thank you.

Likewise, we should be equally thankful in this moment for Team G.W. Bush, who authorized the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques upon the head of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which rendered the intelligence we needed to find Bin Laden’s Kuwaiti courier, which ultimately lead to finding Bin Laden himself.  Simply put, this moment would not have happened – at this point, at least – without waterboarding KSM.

This moment makes me wish I was still in uniform.  Bin Laden’s death serves as a landmark – a milestone – in bringing this war to a close.  Otherwise, what does a milestone like this mean on a never-ending road?  If this confounds neoconservatives, I’m sorry; I don’t support a perpetual “war” on anything, whether that be poverty, drugs, or in this case, terror.

This is where I also sharply depart with the anti-war crowd.  As for methods to bringing the War on Terror to an end, I suggest a two pronged approach:  1) show no quarter; and 2) minimize damage to our assets.  Make of that what you will.  I have no special sentiments for those who would arbitrarily kill me or my children for religious means.  Whether these individuals be in Pakistan, like Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, or in Yemen, like Anwar Al-Awlaki, I care not.  Let our wrath rain down upon their heads, wherever they are on Earth, and let God determine wrath on the other side.

We cannot tolerate the intolerance of those who seek to kill us.  Never forget.

“Unlimited tolerance will lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ~ Karl Popper

Share on Facebook
May 4, 2011

Election of a Daddy Party

0 Comments

America spoke last week, and even though Republicans lacked a cohesive message, Americans sent one of their own:  Stop.  Moreover, the GOP didn’t necessarily “Seize the House,” but rather, happened upon it due to liberalism’s failure. Due to the enthusiasm of the Tea Party, Nancy Pelosi was foreclosed upon, and the GOP was given a two-year lease on the House.  Why?  America had a tacit sense their rights were being violated by the volumes of legislation comprising the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda.

Americans spoke with their vote, not so much voting Yes for the “Party of No,” but No to the “Party of Yes.”  The Party of No could also called the Daddy Party:  Traditionally, Mother says, “Ask your Father.”  Father says, “No.”  Succinctly, this is the message that Americans embraced, purposefully dividing the federal government.  Of note, this is the first time our bicameral Congress has been split on party lines in 80 years.

But divided government means gridlock!  Again, I say, good.  Embrace the value of gridlock.  It is precisely what our Founders intended; passing federal legislation was not supposed to be easy.  Certain conservative circles have this notion that Republicans need to develop some bulk of policy to push through the House of Representatives; this is untrue.  Again, I say, untrue.

The most prevalent policy notion is the repeal of Obamacare.  I ask:  What is the endgame in repealing Obamacare?  Sure, vote for repeal in the House, send it to the Senate, then what?  Even if it made it to the President’s desk, do you think he would repeal his own Health Care Bill?  While it may be necessary to demonstrate “change,” Republicans should not waste a lot of time on this.  Americans get cynical when they sense political theater trumps their sentiments.  Stakes are high for the GOP; if they fail, Americans will gladly vote them back into obscurity come 2012.

Looking Ahead

So, what should the GOP do with their newfound power?  After initial posturing (by both parties), the GOP’s newfound leadership position will require negotiation behind closed doors, with some of the biggest creeps on Capitol Hill.  Now, though, conservatives have clout and sway.  This is already apparent with Obama’s willingness to compromise with Republicans on the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans.  Through all of this, though, the Daddy Party will have to stick to their principles and resist the temptations of Washington.

The GOP must hold resolute to the idea that the American economy depends not upon legislation and corporate posturing, but upon the spontaneous order that accompanies the power of the purchase.  Establishmentarians believe their “Pro-Growth” policies lead the economy, when in fact, the private sector feeds the public sector, not the other way around.  It’s our job to keep reminding the GOP of this, lest they forget: “Organized chaos” in the free market produces a deliberative order.  This requires a static public sector with a clearly defined tax code and regulatory structure.

In recent years, in attempts to stabilize the economy, our government has failed to stabilize itself.  Domestically, uncertainty is rampant due to the unknown future of taxation, causing individuals to sit on $8 trillion, and banks $2 trillion.  Abroad, uncertainty is rampant due the Federal Reserve’s “Quantitative Easing,” causing concerns over our falling dollar.  If Boehner holds true to the personal pledge he made in the Wall Street Journal last week, some amount of trust will be restored to Washington.  If he doesn’t, and if Republicans don’t become a Daddy Party, look for a viable third-party candidate in 2012.

Calculations

Finally, I made some misjudgments in my last post congratulating the President on the Republican victory.  I did not foresee Senators Harry Reid, Patty Murray, or Michael Bennet retaining their Senate seats in Nevada, Washington, or Colorado, respectively.  Moreover, it looks like Nancy Pelosi will not be retiring from the House.  In fact, and amazingly, she may attempt to become the Minority Leader.  So, with Reid retaining his status as Senate Majority Leader, and Pelosi potentially sticking around, the 2010 Election wasn’t as good as it could be for the Obama Administration: Sorry.

Reid’s victory has everybody wondering, “How did he do it?”  I would guess the White House is wondering the same thing.  Their apparent scapegoats, Pelosi and Reid, just won’t go away.  All in all, I believe a 2012 re-election will be more difficult for the President than I thought at the beginning of last week.  This leaves everyone asking whether or not Obama will triangulate.  I don’t believe he will, based on his own tone.  He doesn’t realize why Americans voted his colleagues into obsolescence; he believes he mis-marketed his policies.

This ignorance, whether legitimate or feigned, is toxic to Obama’s Presidency.  By refusing to recognize a rebuke of his policies, the so-called “Agent of Change” is unwilling to change course.  After 2010, House Democrats are concentrated even more to the Left, albeit in smaller numbers.  These are the true believers, and the enablers of statism.   Obama is certainly the leader of these believers, the losing Left.  To recover, Obama must choose to represent America, and not just the Left.  This will require a Cabinet shake-up; we’ll have to wait and see which path the President will ultimately take.

Who will the Republicans nominate to challenge Obama in 2012?  A tea-partier?  An establishmentarian?  Frankly, I don’t trust anyone “running” for President in 2012; this is counter to the decentralized libertarian sentiment that swept more seated House members out of office since Herbert Hoover.  Personally, I like Senator Tom Coburn, a medical doctor that had to be asked to serve a second term in the Senate, and has vowed not to serve another.  Dr. Coburn has all of the competence and none of the ambition to be President; now, that’s my idea of a wonderful candidate.

Share on Facebook
Filed under News
Nov 10, 2010

Congratulations, Mr. President

0 Comments

The best thing that could happen for President Obama in tomorrow’s midterm election is for a large Republican Majority to take the House of Representatives.  By all accounts, that’s exactly what is going to happen.  So, congratulations are indeed in store for Mr. Obama.

That may surprise you, but a Democratic defeat will, eventually, be really, really good for Obama in 2012.  This year, Americans from Tea Partiers to moderates will issue a referendum, to send a “message“ regarding big government liberalism and Obama himself.  After the election, however, Obama will remain, with roughly 60 less Democratic Representatives in the House.

Nancy Pelosi is mulling retirement after she loses Speakership tomorrow.  Harry Reid will likely lose his Senate seat to Sharron Angle.  Both of these losses are great for Obama, because, as of tomorrow, Obama’s top two henchmen from 2008 to 2010 will be scapegoats for the White House.  Obama was visibly, and precisely, removed from the Democratic Congress as they pushed his legislation for him.  Now it will be up to a revamped Administration and new Congressional leadership (and the Supreme Court, in some cases) to sort out the broken pieces of legislation and make sense of it all.

By all accounts, it looks like John Boehner will be Speaker of the House, and Chuck Schumer will be Senate Majority Leader.  At first glance, it seems like this will be a highly dysfunctional Congress.  To which, I say, good.  The President, if he were prudent, would agree with me.

Leading up to the 2008 Presidential election, all you heard from both parties was, “Government is broken.”  Since then, Obama and the Democrats proved that government that works is actually very bad government.  Our Founders knew this:  Divided government is good government, because legislation that makes it through a divided government passes a consensus.  Stimuli and Health Care reform did not gain a consensus, and both are highly toxic for congressional mid-term elections.  That is why the so-called conservative Democrats that were elected to office in 2006, and again in 2008, who voted according to Nancy Pelosi’s will and not their own, are cannon fodder in 2010.

A newly divided Congress will present the President with two paths to take.  Obama now has a chance to do some of the things Americans actually want to happen; that is, the harder choices.  He can work with Boehner in this regard, the way Bill Clinton eventually did with Newt Gengrich, to “fix Pelosi’s mess.”  If he doesn’t want to do that, the President can easily place blame with regards to the poor economy from here on out on the new House Leader, impugning him for stalling reform.  Either way, 2012 will be harder for Republicans than they may interpret in the wake of their victory tomorrow.  As Scott Rasmussen reports, “Voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.”  For conservatives, there is no time to celebrate, to rest on laurels, for a bigger battle lies ahead.

So, Congratulations, Mr. Obama.  You’ve earned it.

Share on Facebook
Filed under News
Nov 1, 2010

Why You Should (Always) Vote

1 Comment

America votes next week for a variety of reasons.  There is an ideological battle at hand for the direction of the country, stronger now than anyone alive today can recall.  I encourage everyone to vote, with the realization of what’s at stake.

Our ideological battle lines have been starkly drawn on partisan grounds; thusly, both parties are becoming characatures of themselves, more diametrically opposed than ever before.  At the same time, I realize both sides are trying to do good, as they perceive it.  But the opposing views land us in entirely different living situations, and pass on entirely different legacies to our children.  My children.

In this poor economy, both conservatives and liberals want to nobly create jobs and help small businesses.  Conservatives believe this is best achieved by individuals through tax cuts and spending restraints.  The conservative way produces a wide array of prosperity: there are the rich and their spoils; there are the poor and their suffering; and there is everything in between.  Under capitalism, that is, the conservative way, the average standard of living steadily rises, as society benefits from natural economic-based achievement incentives.

Liberals, in contrast, believe central planners are better suited at sorting out supply and demand and, as consequence, picking winners and losers in an economy.  This is done with “Jobs” Bills, Stimulus, and “Small Business” Bills.  Also as consequence, the liberal way standardizes prosperity through redistribution, aiming to produce one standard of living, lifting the poor from their suffering by taking wealth from the rich.  This phenomena accounts for the coalitions that sprout in favor of redistribution, as they hope to gain money or power from the system.  This is, by the way, clearly President Obama’s goal, as he told Univision earlier this week: ”We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues we think are important to us.”

Under socialism, that is, the liberal way, the average standard of living steadily declines with little incentive for individuals to work.  Capitalism has its flaws, as unethical people will sometimes get rich.  Socialism also has its flaws, as ethical people will never get rich.  What’s worse, under socialism, unethical people in positions of power are backed with the full force of law.  Hopefully you do not find history in this regard personally offensive; it is a fact observed around the world.

Both liberals and conservatives face difficult choices in the wake of the election.  How low do conservatives think taxation and spending should go?  How much power over their lives would liberals acquiesce to government?  Stubborn tenacity on both sides will make any reconciliation on our most pressing issues, that is, our entitlement programs and our debt, quite difficult.  Just as conservatives will continue to believe in free market solutions to our economic woes, liberals will continue to believe what Vice President Biden said this week at a rally: ”Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.”  If you believe that, then vote liberal.  If you don’t, vote conservative.

It’s our choice.  America votes next week on which world view they prefer.

More than anything, though, America votes next week to send hubris home and start fresh.  America votes next week not for perfect candidates; in some situations, the conservative candidate is far from perfect.  The caveat is that no candidate is perfect.  One side realizes this, while the other does not.  Therefore, candidates who will advance to federal office in January should be aware that they are simply interim hires.

For Freedom

Lastly I’d like to comment on the different positions the parties have on freedom and democracy.  One party stresses one over the other.  Freedom is not the same as democracy.  In a civilized society, freedom guarantees democracy; the inverse is not necessarily true.  A democratic society can vote itself, even through referendum, into tyranny, usually cloaked in the disguise of safety.

The Framers understood a democracy could be wrested from the people by its own government, and indeed, by the people themselves; that is why so many individual protections were provided in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, the shortest and longest lasting of its kind.  Such protections come with costs, which I fully understand now.  This subject matter has been exhausted here, as I’ve been writing about “Freedom and Its Discontents” since before the 2008 Election and Stock Market Crash.

As we did in 2008, Americans will democratically vote next week for, or against, individual freedom.  After stimuli and bailouts, unwarranted Health Care reform, indiscernible Finance Reform, Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, trillion dollar budgets and deficits, a weakened stock market due to impending taxation, a weakened bond market due to the Federal Reserve’s actions, a weakened dollar due to the Treasury’s actions, and spotty relations with our major (Mandarin-speaking) lenders, I trust Americans will make the right choice.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Oct 27, 2010

Discovering My Perspective

All of my past posts are archived below. Feel free to comment to any post by clicking the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post.

I have no rights to the photos used herein. Most were found online through a simple Google search. If a copyright issue exists, please message me and I will eradicate the problem. Thank you!

My Twitterfeed

Follow @travisthornton on twitter.

Categories