Obamacare To Cost Twice As Much As Originally Forecasted

Looks like Obamacare is going to cost twice as much as forecasted:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

This is not surprising since there were all kinds of budget gimmicks behind the original forecast. The sad thing is that the likely Republican candidate for president implemented and steadfastly stands by the precursor to Obamacare. Romney does say that he will repeal Obamacare, but his actions and past comments make it appear that he might not do what he says. Obamacare will help to compound the looming debt crisis.

Looks like February was the highest monthly increase in the national debt:

The federal government's budget deficit grew by $222.5 billion in February, the largest one-month increase in history. Economists are forecasting the deficit for the year will be the biggest imbalance on record.

Keep this figure in mind when you hear politicians claiming that reducing the deficit by a couple hundred million or billion over ten years or even in a year is some big accomplishment. How will the government repay all of this debt? If you know history then it is not to guess.

Inflation won't be a major concern in the near future according to the Federal Reserve:

A little is all right. That’s the message Federal Reserve Chairman

Ben S. Bernanke has been giving out recently when asked about the evidence of inflation in the U.S. recovery. Sometimes Bernanke doesn’t even go that far. He simply says he doesn’t see inflation. The Fed chairman recently described the prospects for price increases across the board as “subdued.”

The laws of nature and more specifically the laws economics, human nature, and mathematics don't apply to people living today. We are special.

Just a Taste

If you have a couple minutes, read some of this. This is the crap that I have to read for my business ethics class.

http://www.natcap.org/images/other/NCchapter1.pdf

The President Commands

I have been coming across some headlines that reveals the type of country that America is rapidly becoming: "Obama fires GM CEO", "Obama Lowers Mortgage Fees for 3 Million Homeowners", "Obama: Health insurers, not churches, must provide birth control coverage(poll)". When did the president gain this authority? The amount of power that the president and the government in general have/will have makes you step back and look at how far America has moved away from the country as it was founded, and makes you look at America's future through a different prism. History has shown that when any one man or any single entity has this level of power-- whether it is led by people on your side of the political spectrum or not, freedom rapidly gives way to its opposite.

It is easy to dismiss this threat with the notion that it is being created with the best of intentions; but as Hayek pointed out his book The Road To Serfdom, the good intentions of well-meaning socialist end up creating a system that paves the way for a totalitarian political system.

I'm Feeling the Pinch

I am feeling my first direct effect of governmental internet regulation. My favorite website to check the point spreads for sports games has been seized by the federal government. Bodog.com was an internet gambling site for sports and some other cool stuff like: what kind of dog will the president get for the White House?

Check out Bodog.com and view the crackdown.

Andrew Breitbart: Murdered?

I'm gonna drop a little conspiracy theory bomb. I heard this theory on "Ground Zero".

Andrew Breitbart died on March 1st, 2012. Andrew Breitbart was a conservative journalist who organized the undercover video of ACORN and was also the lead investigative journalist who brought down Andrew Weiner in his sex scandal. Breitbart has created several independent news channells and all of them are highly critical of big government. "Three of the four major candidates in the GOP primaries expressed their sorrow upon hearing the news."-Wikipedia.
In less than 24 hours of his death, officials had declared him to have died from "natural causes". But is this true?

"Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., last month, Breitbart claimed he had damning videos of Barack Obama, and planned to relese them before the general election."- yahoo news.

Was he being silenced? Why did it take less than 24 hours for his death to be declared natural? He hadn't even had an autopsy. Potassium, if injected in to the blood stream, can cause a sudden heart attack. A lot of the time it is hard to detect (groundzero radio). It took 6 days to declare what the causes of Whitney Houston were.

This case is reminiscent of when Putin had his critics shut down:

Media-Most, Russia's only independent national media network, has been the subject of government investigations for a series of alleged offenses, ranging from breacho of privacy to embezzlement.

Today's operations was the second government action against Media-Most in three months.

In June (2000), Media-Most owner Vladimir Gusinsky was arrested on charges of defrauding the government. Though he was released four days later, international concern arose that the arrest was retaliation for Media-Most's criticism of Kremlin policies.

Today, Media-Most lawyer Pavel Astakhov told reporters police action was aimed at keeping the company quiet.

"An investigator...said he can confiscate any documents he considers necessary," Askahov said. "There is only one goal--to paralyze the activity of Media-Most and the mass meda that are part of the holding."- pbs.org

Watch out, big brother is watching.

The World Bank Makes Recommedations To China

I have plans to do a more in depth post on the IMF and World Bank and how they promote socialism and state-dominated economies under the guise of free market language. In the mean time I will do a short post that illustrates, to an extent, this point. I readily admit that the stated goals of the IMF and World Bank do make it sound as if their policies are promoting free markets; but when you examine more closely their recommendations you can see that they do not advocate nor promote free markets but instead promote a state-controlled economic system where the state uses the market mechanism to advance its agendas and goals. Part of this is using state control in the form of market incentives, like carbon taxes, to promote sectors of the economy that the state deems worthy to be promoted . This is opposed to a free market system where the market is the entity determining which sectors will dominate. A perfect example that illustrates this point is the recent report by the World Bank that forecasts that the China will become the world largest economy before the year 2030 and make recommendations on how the Chinese should reform their economy:

China must relax its grip on industry and move towards a free-market economy, the World Bank said on Monday in a report that forecast the country would become the world's largest economy before 2030.[...]
An executive summary of the 400-plus page report, made public by Zoellick, had six broad recommendations for Beijing: strengthen a market-based economy, foster innovation, go "green", provide social security for all, improve the fiscal system and seek mutually beneficial relations with the world.

I know that "move towards a free-market" might take our breath away and make us go out and be cheer leaders for the World Bank. Just like saving the environment makes us want to support the environmental movement. But we have to look more closely at the issue. One thing that caught my eye was the "go green" statement. The world bank has bought in to the lie of man-made climate change: "Fifth, while China’s green development strategy is driven almost entirely by domestic considerations, it will make a significant contribution to tackling global climate change." As has been noted before, the green movement is not about saving the environment but is rather about advancing communism and socialism and that there is no man- made climate change. When you take a closer look at at the specifics of the World Bank's recommendations( around page 39), it appears that the belief in man-made climate change is being used to promote a government-led economic system and not a free market system:

A key goal of using market incentives is to harness the creativity and entrepreneurial energy of China’s private sector and state enterprises to protect the environment and turn China’s green industries into an important source of growth by making them world-class innovators and competitors. Market incentives are also the best way to foster efficiency, which, in the case of green development, goes beyond financial efficiency to include resource use efficiency and the reduction of environmental externalities. [...]

Instead, the government should consider market mechanisms such as taxes, fees, tradable permits, tradable quotas, and eco-labeling. In degraded ecosystems, rehabilitation is warranted, especially through expanded payments for ecological services in poor and ecologically important rural areas (for example, upriver watershedsor downriver flood plains).

There is no better place to begin than by ensuring that market prices of goods and services reflect the true cost of production and consumption to society. For example, the price of oil, water, coal, and other natural resources should include a tax to reflect the social and environmental costs incurred with their use. Complementary actions would involve removing direct and indirect subsidies, raising pollution taxes, and canceling export tax rebates for high-pollution, high emissions, and resource-intensive industries. (Indeed, export targets for these industries should also be curtailed, if not abolished altogether.)[...]

Given the global push on climate mitigation, the most effective way for China to establish itself as a global green technology leader is by implementing stringent and effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to internalize the cost of carbon emissions in the operating costs of enterprises. Stringent emissions reduction policies, achieved through such diverse market mechanisms as carbon trading, a carbon tax on fuels, technology standards, and regional carbon partnerships, can act as a powerful mobilizing force for innovation in green technologies. This, in turn, will help lower economic costs associated with improving the quality of the environment and help drive overall growth.[...]

To mobilize collective action on environmental protection and climate change, the
government needs to launch mass education campaigns to increase public awareness of these issues and the actions that individuals and households can take to contribute
toward the national effort. China can make emissions reduction and environmental protection a desirable lifestyle, thereby increasing market demand for green products. To do so, it could mobilize nongovernmental organizations, industry associations and the, media. It can also change consumer behavior by providing better information, through energy efficiency labeling for example.

While these recommendations sound good--externalize costs, internalization cost, using market incentives, carbon tax, and etc.-- and even seem like they are promoting the free market, they do not promote the free market and they are not free market based. They instead advocate the state functioning as the mechanism which determines the economic sectors that are to be dominate and how scarce resources are to be utilized.

Communism has proven to be a failed economic system and those that advocate for the communist economic system are no longer advocating for the old version of communism with total state control over the economy, but instead are advocating for more of a fascist economic model where the state determines how scare resources are to be allocated for the purpose of advancing the goals and agenda of the state--usually social justice or environmental justice. It is yet to be seen if the Chinese government will actually listen to the advice of the World Bank, but the main point to take away from this is that the World Bank does not an advocate for free markets. The World Bank and the IMF that were created out of the Bretton Woods conference are evolving into a world central bank that will issue a single currency, just as its founder Keynes had envisioned. A world-socialist-economic system with international organizations like the IMF and World Bank functioning as a world central bank is being created before our eyes.

Update On The Direction America's Economy Is Headed

America's and the global economy is fast approaching a very transformative event. Here is a webpage with some good links that has some updates to show where America and the world is headed. I am done doing long posts on this topic. At this point, you either realize where the global economy is headed or you won't get it until events slap you and your family in the face. Now is the time to slowly prepare yourselves mentally and financially.