Well folks, if you haven't been watching the news since last Saturday, (or, again, if you're Amish), then you probably have no idea where this is coming from, and I would suggest going to check out the news. This story from Politico gives a pretty good idea about what is up, even if it is a bit biased...

Basically the idea is that the Dems are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Republican party. However, to say the least, this is completely false on a number of levels. First, Rush has never claimed to belong to Washington's party politics; he has always shown himself to be a conservative first and last. Last year, Rush spoke out many times against the policies of McCain, choosing to stick to his conservatism instead of bowing to political favors. In case you haven't heard me so far, let me put this to you even more clearly: RUSH LIMBAUGH ISN'T A REPUBLICAN, HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. Rush would probably view the republican label with disgust, especially in the wake of the recent Specter vote for the "Stimulus"...

Ok, so now I know what you're thinking: Why does this matter? Well, in one sense, you're probably right; the media is blowing this way out of proportion. However, on another front, it matters a great deal. Why? Well, I'm going to tell you.

Emboldened by their recent victories in the oval office and the legislature, Liberals are starting to come out of the woodwork to show their true positions. The Democrats know that Rush paints everything very black and white, and so they want to play to the moderate sides of the American public. If they can smear the name of "Rush Limbaugh" all over the Republican party, they will be able to depict the GOP as a party full of "hate-mongers" and "intolerant bigots". Basically, when all the fluff boils down, the only thing left is another smear campaign from the liberal left.

The irony is that despite all their jabbering about tolerance and diversity, Liberals are really some of the most bigoted people out there. In their world of relative truth where they don't believe in such mundane concepts as "right" and "wrong", they believe everybody else is "wrong" and only their idea that there is no "right" is the right view. Confusing? Sure is. This is why they can tout their slogans for "hope" and "change" and "freedom", and at the same time be placing economic shackles around the US. Back in the day before we had "hate speech" this would be considering having a forked-tongue. No, I'm not a racist... At least, not when compared to Barack Obama.

Thus, I challenge the Democratic Party. Give up your post-modernistic niceties and actually talk like men. I'm sure that if you asked the American people, they would all chip in so that you people could go buy a spine. I am not in any way condoning the practices of the Republican party or Rush Limbaugh, but if you seriously desire a "change" in American politics, how about you start it? Just pushing the same big-government liberalism we've seen in the past isn't going to help you at all. Please, take off your masks, and look the American public in the eye.

Read more!

What is the world is happening to the economy? Production is down in many sectors, and with the recession it is going to be very difficult for these businesses to recover back to their original output. President Obama has about as much idea of what he's doing as a two-year-old in a supercomputer. Nobody is holding their breath for real stimulus from the government end. Obama continues to blame Bush for the entire mess, and conservatives then blame Clinton, who blames Bush Sr, etc. It seems the only thing that we as Americans have learned from this economic orgy is the ability to blame others for our mistakes. However, when this nation begins to pull out of the recessional hole, there is a major problem that will be staring us right in the face.

An interesting study to consider is the demographics behind the economy. Many economists will grant that the economic sector is heavily influenced by the social realm. In fact, if we consider that society is just a large section of people, we can say that economics are completely influenced by society. Without people, the dismal science wouldn't exist.

So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, let's look at what was going on in the demographics before this "recession" hit us. Looking strictly from a productive standpoint, the best years of a human's life are roughly between 40 and 55 years old. This is the time when workers are old enough to have enough experience to be knowledgeable about their jobs, but not too old that their backs and knees are blowing out. If we take the median of this age range, we get a number roughly around 48 years old.

Right now, much of the work force is still from the baby boom era. The acknowledged peak of the fertility rates of the boomers, at least from what I could find, was 1961. Now, here's the interesting stuff. If you add those 48 years onto the peak year of the boomer generation, you get the year 2009. This means that roughly around 2009 will be the most productive year for the boomer generation.

Since 1950, fertility rates have been cut in half. This means that there are half as many children per woman today as there were in 1950. The rise of contraceptives has helped to further this end along with the 50 million US children that have been killed through abortion. Along with the social image that children are unwanted nuisances, society has successfully burdened its older generation by not providing a younger one. China also has this problem due to their one-child rule. The irony is they are laughing as they fund our stimulus, completely unaware that they suffer from the same disease.
So, economically, how does this affect us? Well, the disaster we call social security is probably the greatest problem that is born out of the demographic degradation. However, apart from the SS monster, we also have the problem of the production sector of America gathering dust after the boomer generation checks out to hop on the welfare train before it de-rails. If a business has to let 10 boomers go, yet it can only hire 5 more workers, the output of that company will decrease unless labor-reducing technology is found. Thus, for many small-businesses in America, this demographic shift is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Now, I know that the fertility rates did not cause the recession. This came about because the blindness of our own legislature in dealing with the housing market (the often stupidity of our lawmakers never ceases to surprise). However, within 50 years our population is expected to begin decreasing instead of growing. This is a problem. No wonder Social Security is expected to exceed the entire current federal budget within 50-75 years. When you don't have enough youngsters to pay for the geezers, problems happen. Within 20-50 years, things are going to get mighty interesting in the economic world. Malthus wasn't correct, but, ironically, his conclusions had the same effect-- even if indirectly.


-Cheers

Read more!