If this isn't pointing to the end times, I don't know that we'll ever be convinced that it's coming, and coming soon.
China calls for new reserve currency
Most of Europe has already consolidated its currency into the Euro. If the other major currencies are folded in, we'll have a one world currency in no time.
What is really scary about this is we are currently indebted to China in the amount of $2 trillion and China is getting really nervous about the inflationary effect on its investment. With trillions being thrown around like monopoly money right now with no real plan to generate revenue sufficient to cover those debts, it is a real possibility that China would have enough leverage to move us in the direction of consolidating our currency with the rest of the world just to pay off our debts.
The Bible doesn't refer specifically to a one world currency, but Revelation 13:16-17 refers to the "mark of the beast" that will be required during the end times to buy and sell necessities for living. How easy would it be to replace all currency with this "mark" once all currencies have been consolidated into one?
I personally believe the church will be raptured prior to Antichrist taking over, and that current believers will not have to worry about making a choice between taking the mark of the beast and survival, but the purpose of this post is to point out that the Biblical prophecies concerning the end times are quickly becoming reality.
As always, comments are appreciated. Let me know what you think about this.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
What Does One Trillion Dollars Look Like?
For all of you who, like me, can't wrap your minds around the concept of how much $1 trillion truly is, take a look at this website (click on the title). This is absolutely amazing and should be very, very scary considering how many trillions our government is throwing at our problems right now with only "hope" that it will correct things.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Gigantic Idiot Just Keeps Talking
Tim Geithner seriously needs to shut his mouth. Every time he opens his trap, the Dow falls 200-300 points. It would probably help matters if he had ANY idea what the heck he was talking about. Here's the latest:
US Treasury secretary attacks oil, gas tax breaks
First, he says oil and gas companies shouldn't get tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming. Why is global warming still being touted as fact? Why is dissent to this crazy concept totally ignored? But, for the sake of argument, let's roll with the assumption. Are oil and gas companies the only ones contributing to global warming? How about their contributions of jobs and an enormous amount of taxes to our economy? I guess that doesn't really matter when we're fighting a phantom enemy.
Second, he makes the following statement:
"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.
Let's examine just how exactly this stance is good for the economy. I've talked about this in a previous post, but we'll take the quiz again. When oil companies are forced to pay higher taxes, who ends up paying for that? WE DO! Everyone who goes to fill up their car with gas, turn on their AC, or even turn on their lights or plug in their refrigerators will have to pay this tax. Not Exxonmobil, not Chevron, not Shell. We do. Does Geithner really not understand this concept? Is fighting "global warming" really more important right now than helping the American people out of this recession?
Finally, we get this unbelievable lack of economic and business logic from our fearless economic leader:
Geithner said the additional taxes "can be absorbed" by the oil and gas companies, given the billions of dollars they have earned from high energy prices.
"The impact of these subsidies are very small relative to revenues produced by U.S. oil and gas producers," he said.
To address this, let me explain this like Oscar explained a surplus to Michael on The Office: assume your mommy gives you $10 to start a lemonade stand. You spend all $10 on lemons, sugar, and cups. With all your supplies, you're able to sell 10 cups of lemonade at $1 per cup. What is your revenue? $10. Now, what is your profit? $0.
See how that works Mr. Geithner? Revenue does not equal profit. But let's not ignore the fact that Exxonmobil keeps setting profit records every quarter. What is the largest profit Exxonmobil has made? Approximately 10%. Why is a 10% profit so exorbitant?
But, that is neither here nor there because Exxonmobil will not be paying this tax. It will not be absorbing anything. This tax, just like every other cost, will be passed on to the consumer. So, yes Tim, you get your extra billions in tax revenue. But it provides no disincentive for oil and gas production and further taxes the consumer into the ground. I don't know where you got your economics degree, but that institution needs to be shut down immediately.
US Treasury secretary attacks oil, gas tax breaks
First, he says oil and gas companies shouldn't get tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming. Why is global warming still being touted as fact? Why is dissent to this crazy concept totally ignored? But, for the sake of argument, let's roll with the assumption. Are oil and gas companies the only ones contributing to global warming? How about their contributions of jobs and an enormous amount of taxes to our economy? I guess that doesn't really matter when we're fighting a phantom enemy.
Second, he makes the following statement:
"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.
Let's examine just how exactly this stance is good for the economy. I've talked about this in a previous post, but we'll take the quiz again. When oil companies are forced to pay higher taxes, who ends up paying for that? WE DO! Everyone who goes to fill up their car with gas, turn on their AC, or even turn on their lights or plug in their refrigerators will have to pay this tax. Not Exxonmobil, not Chevron, not Shell. We do. Does Geithner really not understand this concept? Is fighting "global warming" really more important right now than helping the American people out of this recession?
Finally, we get this unbelievable lack of economic and business logic from our fearless economic leader:
Geithner said the additional taxes "can be absorbed" by the oil and gas companies, given the billions of dollars they have earned from high energy prices.
"The impact of these subsidies are very small relative to revenues produced by U.S. oil and gas producers," he said.
To address this, let me explain this like Oscar explained a surplus to Michael on The Office: assume your mommy gives you $10 to start a lemonade stand. You spend all $10 on lemons, sugar, and cups. With all your supplies, you're able to sell 10 cups of lemonade at $1 per cup. What is your revenue? $10. Now, what is your profit? $0.
See how that works Mr. Geithner? Revenue does not equal profit. But let's not ignore the fact that Exxonmobil keeps setting profit records every quarter. What is the largest profit Exxonmobil has made? Approximately 10%. Why is a 10% profit so exorbitant?
But, that is neither here nor there because Exxonmobil will not be paying this tax. It will not be absorbing anything. This tax, just like every other cost, will be passed on to the consumer. So, yes Tim, you get your extra billions in tax revenue. But it provides no disincentive for oil and gas production and further taxes the consumer into the ground. I don't know where you got your economics degree, but that institution needs to be shut down immediately.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Housing Crisis Insured for the Forseeable Future
If you live in a house you can afford and make your monthly mortgage payments on time, this article should make your blood boil. The idiocy and short-sightedness of our current administration is absolutely mind-boggling.
Administration Details Its Plan to Modify Home Loans
The idea here is to bail out people who bought more house than they could afford. How are they going to do this--by federally subsidizing loan modifications--with taxpayer dollars! If you're currently living in a house in which your mortgage payment consumes more than 31% of your gross monthly income, the bank is going to give you a new deal, subsidized by the government, to reduce your monthly mortgage payment.
Here's the quote from Treasury Secretary Geithner:
“Two weeks ago, the president laid out a clear path forward to helping up to nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to a payment that is affordable,” the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said. “It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets, just as we work to stabilize our financial system, create jobs and help businesses thrive.”
WHAT!!! Housing has always been affordable...if you buy what you can afford! Surely what he meant to say was, "to help make the housing you've always wanted to own more affordable." Have we already forgotten what got us into this mess in the first place? Don't take my word for it--the NY Times saw this coming 10 years ago.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Our "consumerism" society has convinced people that if you want something, just buy it and the details will work themselves out. Our government is now telling those people they deserve to own their home and if they can't afford to pay for it, the government will step in a bail them out. Let me tell you a little secret--the government doesn't have any money to bail these people out. Every dime the government gets comes out of the pockets of Americans who pay taxes. I'm sick and tired of the wealth redistribution this administration is hell-bent on forcing upon us.
Here's a prediction you don't need a crystal ball for--these same people are going to default on their mortgages whether or not those loans are modified. The problem is not that the housing market has crashed...it's that these people couldn't afford their homes in the first place. Now, instead of these people simply losing their homes now to the foreclosure process, the government is going to throw $75 billion of our tax money at the problem only to watch the foreclosures happen anyway.
It's times like these that I'm thankful my parents taught me good, logical money management principles. I only wish Obama's and Geithner's parents had done the same for them.
Administration Details Its Plan to Modify Home Loans
The idea here is to bail out people who bought more house than they could afford. How are they going to do this--by federally subsidizing loan modifications--with taxpayer dollars! If you're currently living in a house in which your mortgage payment consumes more than 31% of your gross monthly income, the bank is going to give you a new deal, subsidized by the government, to reduce your monthly mortgage payment.
Here's the quote from Treasury Secretary Geithner:
“Two weeks ago, the president laid out a clear path forward to helping up to nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to a payment that is affordable,” the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said. “It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets, just as we work to stabilize our financial system, create jobs and help businesses thrive.”
WHAT!!! Housing has always been affordable...if you buy what you can afford! Surely what he meant to say was, "to help make the housing you've always wanted to own more affordable." Have we already forgotten what got us into this mess in the first place? Don't take my word for it--the NY Times saw this coming 10 years ago.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Our "consumerism" society has convinced people that if you want something, just buy it and the details will work themselves out. Our government is now telling those people they deserve to own their home and if they can't afford to pay for it, the government will step in a bail them out. Let me tell you a little secret--the government doesn't have any money to bail these people out. Every dime the government gets comes out of the pockets of Americans who pay taxes. I'm sick and tired of the wealth redistribution this administration is hell-bent on forcing upon us.
Here's a prediction you don't need a crystal ball for--these same people are going to default on their mortgages whether or not those loans are modified. The problem is not that the housing market has crashed...it's that these people couldn't afford their homes in the first place. Now, instead of these people simply losing their homes now to the foreclosure process, the government is going to throw $75 billion of our tax money at the problem only to watch the foreclosures happen anyway.
It's times like these that I'm thankful my parents taught me good, logical money management principles. I only wish Obama's and Geithner's parents had done the same for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
