How About AGas Tax Hike To Force People To Drive Smaller Cars? And What Can Be Done To Save America?

According to GM's (I mean government motors) CEO a gas tax hike would be a good thing because it would nudge consumers into buying smaller cars like the wonderful Chevy Volt:

General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he's confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.

'I actually think the government will be out this year — within the next 12 months, hopefully within the next six months,' Akerson said in a two-hour interview with The Detroit News last week.

He is grateful for the government's rescue of GM — 'I have nothing but good things to say about them' — but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it's wearing on GM.

'It's kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn't say a week,' Akerson said with a laugh.

And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.

A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.

I for one would be willing to pay gas tax to solve a non existent crises. As you know the American government bailed out GM and fired their old CEO, I still remember the headlines that stated a President Fired a CEO of a private company that I thought I would never hear in America-- and replaced him with one more to President's Obama's liking. This might not be surprising, but the main point of the matter is that it shows how big business colludes with government to squash competition and uses the government to create regulations that benefits the business. It is similar to the financial sector that received a bailout by the government. The people in government that bailed out the banks were once CEO's of some of these very banks and are now in the position to regulate them. Is it surprising that they would use the government regulations to benefit their former business? This is the same situation that arose when the government first started regulating businesses--this started under Theodore Roosevelt-- like the railroads: those in charge of regulating the railroads once worked in the industry and when they worked for the government they used government regulations to give the big businesses an unfair advantage over their smaller competitors by creating regulations that smaller businesses could not comply with while at the same time staying in business. Today we have GE, GOOGLE, GM, and a host of other big business that collude with the government. Looking into this subject in more depth will make one look differently at big business and realize that America is not a capitalist system. A lot of the complaints against capitalism and big business by its opponents fail to see that it is this relationship between big business and government that is the real cause of the evils that they attribute to former.

Switching the subject to unfunded liabilities, Unfunded liabilities total about 107 trillion dollars according to this news article, I have heard between 60 to close to 200 trillion dollars. All the promises made by the government to take care of us can simply not be kept:

The latest Social Security Trustees Report tells us that the program will be insolvent by the year 2037. The combined unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars. That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the national debt.

The question is will Americans react like the Greeks when the government teat runs dry or will they be able to endure hardship? According to recent developments in the debate to reform medicare, the answer is no. This is not any real news, but the author does pose an interesting question about what can be done to save America:

People ask what can be done to save our nation from decline. To ask that represents a misunderstanding of history and possibly a bit of arrogance. After all, how different are Americans from the Romans, Spaniards, French and English? These were once mighty nations standing at the top of civilization. At the height of these nations' prosperity, no one would have predicted that they'd become third-rate nations, especially England. If during Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1887 had a person suggested that England would become a third-rate nation and later challenged on the high seas by a sixth-rate nation (Argentina), he would have been declared insane. One chief causal factor for the decline of these former great nations is what has been described as 'bread and circuses,' where government spends money for the shallow and immediate wants of the population, and civic virtue all but disappears. For the past half-century, our nation has been doing precisely what brought down other great nations. We may have now reached the point of no return. If so, do we deserve it?

A record number of Americans are dependent on the government for food stamps or "bread" and more Americans are concerned with "American Idol" and pop culture or "Circuses" than the important issues of the day. Reading history and comparing it to current events makes it hard to be optimistic about America's future. America is at a crossroads. Americans need to wake up and a cultural revolution needs to occur in order for our Country to be saved.

The Shaping Of The American Minds

It is no surprise nor is it a revelation that Hollywood and pop culture is populated with liberals, but what may be new is the fact that many T.V. shows and movies have subtle hidden messages. This message being a liberal one. Pop culture is how most people's world view is formed and shaped. Is it then no surprise that most people hold a liberal world view? Is it no surprise that America elected a President with an affinity for communism and social justice?

A communist message is present in the majority of movies and T.V. shows: from Star Trek's vision of a united-galaxy--one-world-- Utopia where there is no money (start at min one and ignore the retard guy) and no greed because people have an evolved sense of reason and where its main hero is a drunkard as is the case in the most recent film; from Star Wars promotion of a new-age religion; from movies like "The Hangover" where getting drunk to the point of unconsciousness is glorified; from Avatar's promotion of a new environmental religion; from T.V. shows where family values are ridiculed to the effect of eroding the nuclear family which is at the very foundation of a free society; from movies that hold up a charismatic leader that shows up and saves the world from disaster having the effect of preparing people to follow a similar leader; from Superman renouncing his America citizenship to become a "citizen of the world"; from Sesame Street's subtle liberal messages; from the Snookies and Britanny Spears. This list could go on and on.

Spreading ideals and shaping opinion through media is nothing new, but what is significant is the fact that it is so widespread and the fact that a liberal message is almost the only message. Is it no wonder that Americans hold and spout liberal and communist thought without them even being aware that it is such or being aware of where these ideals came from and what these ideals lead to? Our current President is the outcome of the ideals that pop culture spreads. To change the direction America is headed will require that pop culture spread the ideals of freedom and capitalism which will lead to a cultural revolution. The problem in the political arena is merely a symptom of this pop culture disease. Until our culture starts to reflect the ideas of freedom, prepare for the end of America and freedom as you know it. Or sit back and get the pop corn, and prop the legs up and watch a movie that will ease the pain of reality.

The End of NATO? Visegrad Group Forms

With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, many predicted that NATO's relevence would disappear too, as the post-WWII threat to Europe's security had disappeared.  NATO did react to the 9/11 attacks on a member state (USA) by assisting America in Afghanistan.  NATO did not follow the US into Iraq, but it was a war of choice by the US and therefore, it could be rationalized that it was not a war requiring NATO assistance.  Many NATO countries (chiefly the UK as usual) did assist us regardless. 

Many Americans wonder why we have bases in Europe when there is no threat there, or when a perceived threat (such as a nuclear Iran or a resurgent-but-greatly reduced Russia) should be handled by Europeans themselves.  My own opinion at this point is that we should have Air Force and Navy agreements with European countries for bases to use as trans-shipment points, and to serve as a tripwire for US involvement should a really big attack happen, but that all major Army bases and most of the AF and Navy bases should be vacated.  It's time Europeans were responsible for their own defense.

Now NATO has initiated a war of choice with Libya.  I support the effort, but it certainly is not  a war that NATO was ever intended to fight.  This is even more a war of choice than Iraq was.  NATO is officially participating, but one of its main members, Germany, is not participating.  The US, after bearing the brunt of the early work has backed off to a support role, and it is now mainly a British, French, and Italian effort.  What exactly the point is, is not entirely clear, as has been pointed out in a previous RTP&GG post. 

Clearly, the original rationale for NATO, to protect European democracies from external threat, has all but disappeared and NATO is looking for a reason for being.  Even strong pro-military, pro-western democracy guys like me are wondering why it's still there.

A new development that has occurred under the media radar is showing that some NATO member nations still take NATO's original (and only) reason for being seriously, but that they don't trust NATO to serve that role.  Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have formed a cooperative military group, focused on repelling a Russian invasion...the very thing NATO is intended for.  I'm pretty sure all these countries are recent joiners of NATO.  Doubtlessly, they read the tea leaves after Russia's bullying adventure in NATO-wannabee country, Georgia, saw NATO's ineffectual response, and are acting accordingly.  These countries, long-suffering under the Soviet boot in the Cold War, now worry very much about the Russians, and don't believe they can count on NATO to do the job it was expressly created to do.  As the article points out, they are worried that Germany is now focused economically on Russia and may not be greatly motivated to help out the smaller Eastern European countries,

The Germans obviously are struggling to shore up the European Union and questioning precisely how far they are prepared to go in doing so. There are strong political forces in Germany questioning the value of the EU to Germany, and with every new wave of financial crises requiring German money, that sentiment becomes stronger. In the meantime, German relations with Russia have become more important to Germany. Apart from German dependence on Russian energy, Germany has investment opportunities in Russia. The relationship with Russia is becoming more attractive to Germany at the same time that the relationship to NATO and the EU has become more problematic.

The formation of the Visegrad group is, in a way, heartening, as it shows individual countries forming alliances to meet specific threats, and not having to depend on the US to save them. For this old Cold Warrior, it's sad to see NATO coming to an end, but it's now an alliance without an enemy. Hard to justify. The US needs to approach things more like the Visegrad group, forming alliances with good friends for good reasons.

This also is one more step in the collapse of the vast transnational groups, and is heartening in that way too. The UN, long past its useful life, NATO past its useful life, the European Union in slow-motion collapse, etc. I don't know if the IMF is close to collapse or not, but the recent scandal involving its leader revealed to us that the head of the IMF was a Socialist. WTF?! I see approaching irrelevency there too.

Just Like a Big Boy!

Sorry for this post so long after the fact, but I think it's still relevent:

So the jokey Trump candidacy accomplished one thing: it humiliated Obama into releasing his long form birth certificate, over two years AFTER he was sworn in to be President.  The President said

"This issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the campaign," Obama said. "I have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree at which this thing just kept on going."

"We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers," the president said.

Ironic. This president calling everyone else carnival barkers. RTP&GG ourselves did an in depth analysis of the situation a while ago.  I guessed that there must be something embarrassing about the birth certificate or it would have been released ages ago, long before he became president.  But, if you go to the first link above you can see a clear pdf of the certificate and you will see nothing at all odd about it, outside of the somewhat odd situation he was born into, which was already well-documented public knowledge.

Obama was trying to make fun of the people that raised a stink about the birth certificate, and of course liberals all praised this bold move.

The problems still are a) Why wasn't it mandatory to produce the birth certificate to run for president? b) Why didn't he just produce it and quash all the rumors long ago?

I am going to renew my Oregon Drivers License in a few weeks and I will need to produce my birth certificate.  When kids sign up for Little League in 3rd grade they have to produce birth certifcates to prove they are the right age to play for the team they signed up for.  This was a simple thing that should have been mandatory.

Talk about "soft bigotry of low expectations".  This is the softest and lowest I've ever seen.  Are we going to next praise him for knowing his home address and phone number, just like a big boy?  Barack, I'm so proud of you!   You really are qualified to be president!

Does America Need Another Ronald Reagan Or Republican Leadership?

America is in massive debt and entity after entity are going bankrupt: the post office lost 2.2 billion dollars in the 2nd quarter of 2011 and might need a bailout; Social Security and Medicare will be out of money by 2036 " If you're 54 or older and plan to live the average American life expectancy of 77.9 years, then you're in good shape. But if you're planning to live past the year 2036, don't count on Social Security. And if you're relying on Medicare, don't even think about the math."; "legendary investor Jim Rogers thinks U.S. bonds will be worthless,

I will be shorting US bonds, Rogers told a conference in Edinburgh. 'I would probably be doing it today if I weren't here,' he said. Bonds in the US have been in a bull market for 30 years, Rogers said. In my view that's coming to an end...the bond bull market is coming to an end. If any of you have bonds I would urge you to go home and sell them. If any of you are bond portfolio managers I would get another job,' he said. Addressing one bond portfolio manager among conference delegates, Rogers said: If I were you I would think about becoming a farmer. You buy land and learn how to farm. In my view it’s going to be a spectacular way to make money,' he said, adding: This is where the great fortunes are going to be made in the future.[...] Longer term the US dollar is going to be a total disaster, Rogers said, urging investors to think about getting out of US dollars before it’s too late.

over in the EU Portugal has requested a bailout and Greece has not been living up to the terms of its bailout that demanded that Greece make tough budget cuts; it looks like the GOP will not be making big cuts to the 2012 budget. This little bit of economic news is just the tip of the iceberg. The world is broke and bankrupt and facing an imminent economic crisis. So does America need another Ronald Regan or Republican President? According to this view of history the answer is no.

"Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism" is a short book from the Mises Institute. Starting on page 177 is a brief overview of Ronald Reagan. It paints a rather different picture of the standard on that portrays him as an advocate of limited government,

Like most Republican politicians since the early 1930s, Reagan always portrayed himself throughout his political career as a champion of limited government, individual rights, and free enterprise—the classical liberal values which, of course, he absurdly described as 'conservative.' But, like almost all Republican politicians since the early 1930s, he seemed to forget all about these values once he got into office and assumed the reins of power. Consider, as a case in point, Reagan’s eight years (1966-
1974) as governor of California. As Murray Rothbard noted in 1980, 'Despite his bravado about having stopped the growth of state government, the actual story is that the California budget grew by 122 percent during his eight years as governor, not much of an improvement on the growth rate of 130 percent during the preceding two terms of free-spending liberal Pat Brown. The state bureaucracy increased during Reagan’s administration from 158,000 to 192,000, a rise of nearly 22 percent—hardly squaring with Reagan’s boast of having “stopped the bureaucracy cold.'[...]According to Rothbard, Reagan 'created seventy-three new state government councils and commissions, with a total budget, in his last year alone, of $12 million. Included was the California Energy Commission, which put the state hip-deep into the energy business' and created a regulatory climate under which a three-year review process was required before any new power plant could be constructed in the state.[...] As James Ostrowski noted in 2002, 'Over the last one hundred years, of the five presidents who presided over the largest domestic spending increases, four were Republicans. Include regulations and foreign policy, as well as budgets approved by a Republican Congress, and a picture begins to emerge of the Republican Party as a reliable engine of government growth.'

The whole section is about seven pages. I know it was the democrats that was the reason for the increase in the national deficit during Reagan's Presidency, but I don't have any good arguments against the points made against Reagan by this short book. But the fact is that Republicans are just as bad when it comes to increasing the size of government and the national debt: look at Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 43. And it was Bush 41 who started talking about this new world order.

The point of the post is that the world is bankrupt and this massive global economic ponzi scheme is about to end and no Republican President or Congress is able or willing to stop the of massive tsunami of debt that is about to hit the world. Given the history of the leadership of Republican Presidents, America doesn't need one at the crucial time.

Its Prius time

How is that Prius sounding now? I never calculated this rate of inflation. I think that we have definitelly seen the last of price per gal < $3.00. Maybe even $4.00. We are entering the world of Europia.

In a political attempt to appease the voters, dems summoned up all the oil execs. This is a fake facade to appear hardline against rising prices. The dems know that the tax cuts will not be voted down. Of course it will appear like they tried but the evil republicans are to blame.

"Exxon paid $11 billion in taxes last year. Adding another $1 billion to the ticket would probably mean more pain at the pump. But the plan won’t pass, especially since Democrats themselves don’t agree on it. Not only would it be bad for oil producing states, but the tax revenues would be spent, not used to reduce the deficit."-Foxnews

I'm pretty much regurgitating the article from foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/lots-hot-air-gas-end-high-prices/). Forgive me for my lack of originality. I just wanted to get the ball moving.

Picture front: Lcpl Goekler and Cpl Dean

Picture back: Cpl Hassinger and Cpl Edwards

Photographer: Lcpl Robinson

Osama Bin Laden Killed by US Forces near the capital of Pakistan

Some guy we haven't talked about in ages killed by US forces outside of the capital of Pakistan.

First off:  This is definitely fantastic news!  The goat fucker deserved to die and that it comes at the hands of US forces, bullet to the head form, is a great thing.  Kudos to President Obama for having the balls to authorize the operation, for this must have been a delicate operation, deep inside Pakistan, not a drone strike near the border.

However, as everyone notes: this won't end the war on terror.  It may be a temporary body blow to the terrorists, but, that's it.  It'll be interesting to hear in the next few days, to what extent bin Laden was still involved in Al Qaeda operations.  I've said many times that, living or dead, he's been irrelevent to the war for many years, offering no moral support to the people that would look to him for inspiration.  I don't think he ever was too involved at the tactical level.  Hopefully we'll learn soon to what extent he was still involved with things. 

But, there are some things that make you say "hmmm":

• A covert operation deep inside Pakistan, close to the capital.  This is where Osama's been hiding?  How did the ISI not know about his whereabouts all this time?  Is it remotely conceivable that they didn't know?
• Assuming they did know where he was, did they just recently give up the whereabouts to US intelligence, or is this something US intelligence figured out themselves?
• Obama authorized what, on the surface, would be a very risky mission.  He just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do that.

Bud-D's conspiracy theory:  The ISI gave him up in exchange for cancellation or a great reduction in drone strikes.  Pakistan gave tacit permission for the US to go in and snatch him.  Obama will use this -undeniably great event- to justify pulling out of Afghanistan this summer.

And maybe it's time?  What does the RTP&GG community think?

It'll be interesting what we learn in the near future about what really went down.  What if the Pakistanis didn't know anything or didn't give him up?  Then I've got to say that Obama and our Special Forces really kicked ass.  And what about Pakistan?