Bill Gross: “Nationalize Housing”

Saturday, August 21, 2010
Posted in category The Planned Economy

Almost no one can top the insane proclamations of Bill Gross, a certified nut who runs Pacific Investment Management Co (PIMCO) and consistently partners with government in order to assist with the design of government planning schemes that enrich Wall Street firms and guys like him who pull all the levers behind the black curtain.

This time, Gross, a mega-holder of US-backed mortgage debt, declared the private sector dead in terms of the secondary mortgage market. At a recent housing summit, he was quoted saying this in Bloomberg Business Week:

“To suggest that there’s a large place for private financing in the future of housing finance is unrealistic,” Gross said today at a U.S. Treasury Department conference in Washington. “Government is part of our future. We need a government balance sheet. To suggest that the private market come back in is simply impractical. It won’t work.”

By the way, a “housing summit” is translated as a bunch of arrogant, empowered government central planners and industry bigwigs gathering to discuss the best way to force out the private sector and take over slices of the housing market for the purpose of expanding government’s role in our private lives, expanding the federal work force, and enriching the cooperative power players in the corporate-government complex who will gain a pivotal role in policy decisions and accumulate immense profits for playing the game by the rules declared by their bureaucratic masters.

UPDATE: Video.

Watch the full episode. See more Nightly Business Report.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to Bill Gross: “Nationalize Housing”

  1. Iluvatar says:

    August 21st, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    OK; 2nd try (man this is frustrating!)

    More is going on here..

    Please check out these 2 sites:

    Bill Gross and his side-man El-Arian (sp?) control about $1T of bond debt – when they move the market moves.

    In the first link, we get Bill’s take on stuff from Annaly, in the second we get a take on the Fed Gov’s role in our lives.

    You will see me there making an argument for a LIMITED form of the Fed Gov – did you spot what I had to argue against????????


    People in this country (even educated ones) neither know our history nor our Constitution (which is a piece of sh*t to begin with – a really bad play to start things off!!).

    We are so stupid and uninformed that I really wonder what is the point??????????

  2. rtaylortitle says:

    August 22nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    First, there is NOT a “given” that a mortgage secondary market is absolutely necessary. Mortgage bankers (not brokers) can make direct mortgages and (1) sell them to other investors at a ‘premium’ or at a ‘discount’ based on factors such as initial equity, interest rate, credit rating, et al, or (2) hold the mortgage themselves or via a portfolio with the bank(s).
    BUT, if a consortium of lenders wish to form a huge secondary market and the market sends a signal that it would be desirable….there will be such a consortium or consortiums that evolve into existence. Business economics abhors a vaccuum as much as nature does.
    Let the market solves these issues…the govt. ALWAYS makes matters worse!!!

  3. Jeannie Queenie says:

    August 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 am

    Iluvatar, I’ve seen you make this comment before and often wonder why you believe this….can you illuminate why you think the Constitution is trash? Would we be better off with just the Quran, Bible or Toran. Why do you feel that our forefathers were morons…not sure where you are coming from, but only to willing to listen to your viewpoint.
    You said this…

    ‘People in this country (even educated ones) neither know our history nor our Constitution (which is a piece of sh*t to begin with – a really bad play to start things off!!).

    Perhaps you can point to what specific country now or in the past did such a red hot job of attempting to bring liberty to folks.

  4. Jeannie Queenie says:

    August 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Iluvator, Check out this video for a greater understanding of why
    many of us feel there is efficacy to the Constitution…Here come da judge, and he’s good, let me tell you. I challenge you to challenge what he is saying here–

  5. Iluvatar says:

    August 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 am

    @JQ: (gosh I am gonna have to learn not to hit that darned “Tab” key!!)

    Excellent question(s), I am glad you asked.

    There were basically 2 camps among our forefathers. Camp1 wanted a strong central government, camp 2 wanted a (strictly) limited form of federal government. It is unclear who won that battle (looks like camp 1 to me). Put Hamilton in Camp 1 and Jefferson/Madison in Camp 2.

    Now here is a short list of issues I have w/ the Big C:

    1) the loose/sloppy language surrounding the census,

    2) The (so-called dangling) “General Welfare” clause (just prior to Article I, Section 8), and,

    3) the so-called “Commerce Clause” (inside Article I, Section 8).

    The latter two are the big ones wrt legislation passed by Congress on just about anything they want to do. They have been the pathway to a sprawling power grab (that really began to take off in FDR’s day). And it has led to where we are today with a Federal Gov that is not a limited form of government (try Obama’s health care legislation) and states that are finally getting it and beginning to cite the 10th Amendment and nullification rites (origin: Jefferson & Madison in 1798 after the Sedition Acts were passed). And clearly the danger is that absolute power corrupts absolutely – hence a need for limits on power.

    And so I guess it is the poor and ambiguous wording that has loosed the demon so to speak. That is why it is so important to publish a document that is much more bullet-proof.

    Lastly, I don’t feel that our founding fathers were morons – actually just the opposite. And that includes Hamilton who was apparently as statist as they come. Those federalist papers were a sweet bit of trickery. But I have become a big fan of Jefferson & Madison in their call for liberty and a sharply focused and limited central government.

    B/c look where we are now? It’s all over, from health care to the actions by the FDA and so on. That isn’t to say that there are things the central gov should do. We do need a State Dept. We can’t have 50 ambassadors to each country. And the defense (of OUR soil) is a job a central gov is much more adequately able to do than the states. So there are things that it makes sense to have the central gov do.

    Ok, answers to some other of your questions: We would be better off with a re-written Constitution or a heavily amended one – to better clarify the boundaries of power. I clarified the forefathers aways back. I can not point to any other country since what we’ve for about the past 5,000 years are monarchial tyrannies, with maybe golden age of Greece, England at the time of Magna Carta as exceptions. You got me there!

    And now that I look at it again, I think “trash” is over the top. I was ticked at the arguments I was having with an educated MBA over on the other web site and failed to keep it separated – my bad! I apologize.

    As an other example a guy running for local (county) office came by the other day – republican. After a short conversation I asked him what he would do if he where in Congress re: health care. As he stammered out his answer, I indicated to him that nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is there anything about health care. He hastened away.

    Sorry for this long diatribe, JQ, but you ask a really important question.

    Because I believe that is the most serious debate we should be having right now – the role of the Fed Gov. And it is not happening.

    The are several good books out there that I would recommend. And as a (really) slow reader, I got them done w/in the week. Their view of history is a head turner – and you know the truth is somewhere in between:

    and this one may be my favorite, and is why I take such a narrow view of the Supreme Court and why I would replace them with the Sates’ nullification

    JQ, I hope you find this helpful, and that I answered your questions. Sorry for going a bit over the top. Please ignore all typos…

  6. Michael says:

    August 23rd, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    @Jeannie: Well it’s a dead letter anyway. The Articles of Confederation were a vastly superior document. Under the Constitution, too much power was consolidated centrally at the federal level.

    At any rate, and I know the comparison has been made many times prior but they should rename it to “PIMPCO”. Gross correctly understands that if the entire mortgage industry had to draw on private equity, then home prices would plummet. Hard core. And Gross doesn’t really care about house prices per se. What he cares about is the value of the resold paper. He’s simply a financial terrorist.

  7. Iluvatar says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 12:05 am

    @ JQ:


    I forgot to add another one of my favorites. This is a really qwik read, but is excellent:

    Hope you enjoy, it is an eye-opener – Really changed my thinking around (but I am hedging here – I was gettin’ pretty “rambunctious” in the early 90′s as I came into awareness)

    Please don’t “toast me” in anger! – digest first – then let’s discuss…

  8. Iluvatar says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 12:44 am

    @ JQ:

    Your latest post – I don’t and I gave you a link to his really great book. Hope you can digest my latest post – it awas a mouth-ful…

    I like Napolitano a lot – dude has got some puch!

    But it is also the reason why I want to see the Judicial Branch ended – HOLY COW @!@!@!@!!@!@!@

    Let the states invoke nullification rights under the 10th Amendment – and go for it dog!

    Jefferson you rock!!!!!!!!

    (you too Madison)

    Until we see things go upside down the other way…

    (Not hoilding my breath, here…)

    But the debate of the central Gov must go on!!

  9. Iluvatar says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 1:17 am

    Ok; here is another try – MSWord style

    Oh dear, another mishap w/ the website – so I will do it in MSWord instead. At least a spell-checker is invoked!@

    I am so tired of getting it wrong and getting it “fragged”

    But the reason why I want to see the Judicial Branch ended is from reading Napolitano’s book!!

    I wrote a short paper awhile ago entitled “If I Were A King For A Day”, citing all the fixes I would proceed to do if I had the chances and the power. I sent an initial version to Karen who politely refused to read it as she gets paid to read articles, – DOH!!!

    I am unable to send it to you now (& everyone else) as I do not have an e-mail address to send to, but it addresses my concerns about the Constitution and most importantly the division of power.

    The most important division of power that we IGNORED was between the central Gov and the states.

    The checks & balances of the central Gov ignore this (thanks Hamilton!!!!).

    Where the power balance needs to be is between the states and theh Fed Gov.

    That was the ppoint I was trying to make in my paper.

    Unfortunately, neither Lew Rockwell (.com) nor the 10th Amendment Center picked up on the paper –

    Even though, my thoughts on removal of the Judicial Branch is NOTHING that I have seen in the available literature.


    I can still crank it!@


  10. Iluvatar says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Man! I just can’t write w/o typos can I?


    Gettin’ tired of this – makes me look like an idiot…

  11. Iluvatar says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Ok, I am getting inventive here – here is my try @ trying to cut & paste the paper in (minus all the coolio “BOLDS” & “ITALS” from the MSWord doc I wrote). Hope this works and givs some answers on the issues I have w/ the “Big C” (I am closing my eyes doing this – here goes…)

    If I Were King For A Day
    By Iluvatar

    On those rare days when I entertain delusions of grandeur whilst simultaneously experiencing total frustration over the enormously impactive laws that our good friends in Congress continue to pass, I think fondly of what I might do if: I were King for a day. I actually think about what it would take to solve this problem and prevent the erosion of freedoms to which our society is subject.

    One of those thought trajectories has to do with the Constitution, herein after termed the “Big C” (it is so much easier to spell, after all). It causes me great and grave concern when I hear folks say: “it’s unconstitutional!”, as if one could just look it up on the internet and there it would be black & white, for all to see. If only things were that easy.

    Even more disturbing is the phrase “but that was not the intent of our forefathers!” Lest we forget, our forefathers were a mixed breed (pun entirely intended) that included folks like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton (who was as statist as they come). But again, that phrase is typically encountered when a constitutional argument is brewing, and it exposes the weakness of the Big C. Why was it necessary to understand their intent? Why can’t I just check out the Big C and read what their intent was? The answer? Because you can’t, that’s why.

    For the simple reasons explored below, that is why if I were King for a day, I would undergo the painful exercise and have a re-ratification of the Big C. Oh, and a slight restructuring as well, but we’ll cover that momentarily.

    I guess the first criticism that I have with the Big C is its readability. Our language has evolved since the 1700’s and the Big C needs to step up to the current times. The Big C must be able to be a capable communication vehicle to the average citizen. You shouldn’t need the secret decoder ring to understand what the document is saying; it simply can’t be an obfuscated piece of literature. If you want that, go read Joyce or Sartre.

    Here is an example, Article I section 6 (see?, it did not take me long): “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    I don’t think even Joyce wrote sentences that long. Now, I don’t think it would take me very long to put that into simple English. So we are doing well so far. On to the next issue.

    The second criticism is what I shall call “back doors” or vague phrases and clauses that have caused tremendous trouble for us. For a complete background I would refer the interested reader to Thomas Woods’ “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”. But let’s take a couple just for fun shall we?

    Here is Article I, Section 2 on the census: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

    On the surface, this looks pretty innocent n’est-ce pas? But wait, not so fast. Because this is what I call a “back door”. They get to execute a census. And they get to execute a census in such a manner as they shall by law direct. What does that mean really? What limits of power are expressed by that phrase? Do they get to know our race? How about the number of bottles of beer sitting in the fridge? They get to execute the census as they see fit. That’s what that is telling me. No limits.

    And I would bet a Hamilton that that was not the intent (the double entendre was intended). But how can I argue with the Big C? Not very well, I imagine. Furthermore, where is it expressly stated that all that they get is a headcount? You get a number and that’s it. But isn’t that what the role of the census was supposed to be?

    Here is Article I, Section 8 (inside of the enumerated powers): “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. You guessed it; it’s the infamous “Commerce” clause.

    I think we could dispense with the Indian Tribes at this point in time (so much more the pity and shame for that nakba).

    But what does the word “regulate” mean? Yes, yes, I know, the forefathers intended the word to mean make regular. That way, states couldn’t tariff each other. But why not just say that instead? I know why. It wouldn’t sound as legal, that’s why!

    Furthermore, what real need is there for regulating (making regular) commerce anyway? Do you honestly think a lamp maker is going to make a lamp that does not plug into the wall socket in your home? Why? We’ve got a lot of standards societies doing that all by themselves thank you very much. And clearly one can argue that markets that are not free but that are really cartels (can we say Big Bank?) could use some regulating.

    But I think there is no argument that this clause needs some real work. It can’t be left to be so general that every law congress passes, including the recent massive health care law, allows them to plead to this clause as to why the law is valid. And, while we are on the topic, I don’t think I ever would equate regulate with “run”. So you can’t run health care.

    This clause is an excellent example of the need of specificity. I recommend that a list of the things you can regulate be generated, while defining precisely what limited actions your regulation can actually do. Regulation, all be itself, is too general to usefully communincate to anyone (as clearly demonstrated by the recent acts of Congress). And while we are at it, we also mention what Congress can’t do and what this clause does not mean – and give examples. I call this exercise an attempt to communicate your intent.

    Last example, Article I, Section 8 reads thusly: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Yes again, the unctuous “Welfare” clause.

    This clause is used as excuse numero uno by Congress as to why the illegal law is constitutional. First of all, there is a problem with organization as it lies outside the section that immediately follows, the specifically enumerated powers of Congress. Either delete this transparently deliberate attempt at noble loftiness entirely or modify it (heavily) and stick it where it belongs – in the section of enumerated powers. As to content, I would recommend the deletion of the words associated with “welfare”, as it was never intended for the Federal government to preserve and/or advance the welfare of this society. It was intended that it preserve certain liberties and provide for the common defense of our boundary.

    I think that the folks that wrote this document were way more concerned with ensuring that the document had every appearance of being written by very, very wise, gentille and noble aristocracy than ensuring that they were actually communicating in a straightforward way. What? Did they think that England or France were going to laugh at them? They should have had deeper concerns.

    But what has, in fact, been exposed is that there are “gaping holes” in the Big C. The Big C exhibits about the same porosity as a fishing net – neither of them hold water well.

    Now we get to the really sticky stuff. A slight modificaton to the structure of the Federal government.

    I guess I have Judge Napolitano’s book, “The Constitution in Exile”, to blame for this. But when I was done, I concluded that police policing the police has never been a successful proposition. It is an improper balance of power mechanism. So I opt for a more Machiavellian technique, wherein the stake holders are much more motivated.

    I would dismiss the 3rd branch of the Federal government, the judicial branch.

    Bye, see ya’!

    In their place, I would ask that the states evaluate every law passed by congress automatically. This formalizes and fortifies the states’ nullification rights. Some percentage (TBD) would be required in order for the law to pass or not pass their muster. And, in the instance that Congress got into a big argument with the decision by the states, perhaps an arbitrage by an independent body could be engaged. But I think that this small modification would have huge and positive ramifications in the overall balance of power. At least it wouldn’t be the joke that it is now.

    The key issue hasn’t really been about the checks and balances of power within the Federal Government. The key issue has been (and continues to be) the balance of power between the Federal Government and the sovereign states. Fortifying the states’ nullification rights addresses the issue head on, while removing an inessential branch of government who began misbehaving within 10 years of its inception.

    Finally, I would recommend an on-going review and re-ratification process for the Big C. The document needs to be an accurate take of the realities faced by the government. I would say every 50 years a re-ratification exercise be undertaken. In between, the standard use of amendments is engaged as necessary.

    What this process accomplishes is exactly the same thing good management employs in companies. You develop a plan, you execute the plan and then you monitor it to see how well the plan works. You then identify problems with the plan, and, in a closed-loop feedback way, you then modify the plan and repeat. We have an overly fancy name for this – “continuous improvement”.

    But the idea is the same. The Big C is a management tool – let’s treat it that way.

    In conclusion, I think that these techniques would serve us well in confining the powers of the Federal government while at the same time, increasing public awareness of and engagement in their government as well. As well, it would make the Big C a living document not the ignored, trampled upon dead document that it is today.

    And with that big problem resolved, our attentions could turn to our economic problems at hand.

    But I would have to be king for 2 days for that.

  12. Alex says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    “I wrote a short paper awhile ago entitled ‘If I Were A King For A Day’, citing all the fixes I would proceed to do if I had the chances and the power.”

    Ahhh, reminds me of one my favorite songs:

    “Everyone`s creeping up to the money god,
    putting tongues where they didn`t ought to be,
    on stepping stones of human hearts and souls,
    into the land of nothing for free…”

  13. Jim says:

    August 24th, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    Call it what it is… CORPORATE WELFARE!

  14. Iluvatar says:

    August 25th, 2010 at 12:49 am

    - Alex

    Sounds a bit like “Tears For Fears”. Gave up on 80′s music after the birth of Rock & Roll in the late `60s and `70′s and the “death of disco” movement. But still caught some stuff in passing.

    But your lyrics of them aren’t bad…

    Here is my “King”, King Crimson (sorry I was/still am a prog rocker):

    I can’t find live versions…RATS!!!

    & here:

    Enjoy dude…be free.

  15. Iluvatar says:

    August 25th, 2010 at 2:34 am

    @ JQ:

    As regards the excellent video you referenced?

    Please watch it from the :52 point to the end (actually all of it is really good).

    You are proving my point…

    And thanks for such an excellent catch!

    You the bomb!

  16. Alex says:

    August 25th, 2010 at 6:51 am

    I have a couple of King Crimson albums which I’ll get around to, eventually. Being a “Breakfast Club Generation” member, I’ll just say that 80s music wasn’t all bad (yes, there was more than Men Without Hats, Taco, and Kajagoogoo), and there are some good tunes for the politically independent from back then. Midnight Oil’s “Beds Are Burning” (“It belongs to them / let’s give it back”) could just as well have been written about the people of Iraq. Public Image Limited being one of my favorites (Johnny Rotten’s post-Sex Pistols group)

    “Who censors the censors? Can I do that myself?
    Make up my own mind, like anyone else?”

    Lyrically, the XTC bassist who wrote the “King” song, Colin Moulding, penned other songs that you might also want to check out

    “Making Plans for Nigel” (UK’s public education system and planned economy, one of their biggest hits)

    “Here Comes President Kill Again”
    “Generals and Majors”
    “Ball and Chain” (eminent domain and nationalized housing in England, getting back to the topic of Karen’s thread. This would have been a great theme song for the SCOTUS Kelo decision)

  17. Karen De Coster says:

    August 25th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I love 80s music! I have a _huge_ collection.

  18. Iluvatar says:

    August 25th, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Prog music historically DIED in the late `70′s, when I gave up on music – Kansas, Styx, Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd all morphed into the never-land of nothingness for about 10-20 years. That includes Rush as well (N. Peart is one of the best classically-trained percussionists in the industry!)

    And while the lyrics of the `90′s bands were fairly coherent (e.g., Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilot, Soundgarden, etc.) (with good messages), the 80′s offered a paucity of serious music (mostly metal, revival rock, punk, and metal head-banger stuff) – we lost 2 decades of really serious exposure to the art.

    And now we have our kids listening to Hip-Hop & Rap????? Dude!@!!!

    I was so happy when my oldest son (as a kid) loved Rush’s “2012″ which is based upon Ayn Rand’s book and my younger son had as his favortes: Black Sabbath and Traffic.

    But that is when they were young. They listen to all the other stuff these days.

    RATS! But at least I grounded them in my Music 101 course!

    But as to 80′s stuff – sorry! Did not “partake” (old expression)

    What bings me great happiness is that there is a revival in Prog that took place in the `90′s and is “steady” into NOW!

    Check out Spock’s Beard (90′s). and now the bands are exploding…

    Here is Eloy (remember the movie?), now I have to find it (looking for their recent releases Oceans 2 or the other one, these guys date back into the early `70′s):

    here is the album release data:


    And here is some more fun:

    & here is some of their stuff:

    beats the headbanger stuff!:

    But as regards the `80′s, I feel that was a lost decade – so were the `90′s but less so. At least as regards Prog music. But my love for the `80′s is unfortunately ABSENT! Listening to pop & Glam-Rock? When there was so much good prog? DUH!! OVer?????

    Rock on Prog & thank god for your existence!

    But wait, there is more! Jazz fusion! Passport, Weather Report, Chic Corea & Return To Forever!

    Dude! There is a lot of serious meat out there!

    Your turn….

    But PS `80′s stuff is for Pop folks and Glam-rock guys – can’t go there… (if you got somethig there of worth – then please holler!)

    It still beats the Hip-Hop and Rap crap going down now,

  19. Jeannie Queenie says:

    August 26th, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Iluvator, No man, YOU the bomb….wow, you sure did go all out, and I am proud of you educating yourself on the big C and our previous prez’s, all of which did a helluva better job than BUSHwhacked and Obozo. Sorry I haven’t been here in a couple of days…too much other interference in my life of late. My man had his briefcase stolen from the nursing home…had big buckage in it to the tune of 40 grand…ain’t gonna see that no more, no more, no more…remember that tune? Well the part that is really getting me now..and I’m getting a life lesson in states/law and all that good stuff, is that the kid who stole said briefcase applied ten grand to post bail FROM THE MONEY HE STOLE…talk about there outta be a law! I was furious.

    But now, I’m off topic, so let’s get back on the road. Am with you on the Supreme Court….has become sort of a court of jesters as I see it. Most the time they ‘jest’ don’t know what they are doing. As for nullification, when will americans rise up in unison and demand nullification on the horrid obamacare…and nullify crap and trade and immigration before it kicks in.

    Hey, what do you think of AZ sticking to their guns (no pun intended), and last count I read 22 more states saying, “hey, we can do that too”. All the meanwhile O thinks that he will deprive the states of any power, to which I say, screw that bud! Next couple of months will prove to be quite exciting.

    Iluvatar now that I know where you are coming from on the big C, I do not think you accurately named it…basically it isn’t a pc of s t just cause there were hanging chads or threads of thought that weren’t completed. thank god that they did what they did…it sure does beat most of what has been offered to mankind, ya think? Not our fault that a bunch of morons today want to arrogantly play god or King of all and totally ignore the gems that were there for starters.

    Michael, LMAO over your PIMPCO…guess you could say the guy is basically pimping for biz…all he does is force others to lay down, do his bidding and he collects the money. You just wonder how these people can sleep at night.
    With the latest home figures yesterday we see the real estate picture looking bleaker and bleaker, weaker and weaker. This next wave of foreclosures will have us all shaking when we see our values drop bigtime.

    I was at our tea party patriots meeting last week making posters, and I made one that said, “HONK, if I am paying your mortgage”. Like a dummy, I wasn’t thinking that we are trying to get people to honk their support— I guess I screwed up on that one. But other poster was good………It said “Obama’s house for everybody”…then I sketched a cute lil house, and at the bottom in bold much larger letters, A POOR HOUSE. I have some more blank signs sitting near my dining room table…how about this “If you want to stop 1984, you need some 1776″. How about this one….”Grow your own dope…plant a politician” Seems to fit in with the drug theme in Mexico where bama wants to let them keep slipping and sliding over the border so we can include them in our healthcare program. Just heard today that we have a hugh loss of doctors real soon. I think that before some of the older ones leave, we let them take some of the missing brain celled politicians and do a little lobotemy. Since they have already proven they’re missing an oar in the water, what’s a little leak in the side of the boat. Time for me to hit the sack…am getting goofy now..bye.

  20. Karen De Coster says:

    August 26th, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Neil Peart is amazing. Everything you mention is great music, Iluv.

  21. Iluvatar says:

    August 27th, 2010 at 9:38 pm


    Sorry to hear about the loss of your beloved. Hope it gets resolved quickly.

    I guess I am trying to make 2 fundamental points:

    1) Yes, the Big C is a landmark document. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, were earth-shakers in the realm of governmental thought. Don’t think so? Check out the French guy who evaluated them (I oh so forget his name – doh!). But they are also ambigiously written. This has led to interpretational power grabs by the central gov far beyond original intent – a serious abuse. Who, besides Hamilton, would have supported a central gov w/ unlimited power?

    No one!

    But that, BY example, is what we got here fellas! They stomp anywhere they please.

    2) The MORE important point I am trying to make, and this is what I see NOWHERE (even vonMises!), is the (truly) appropriate balance of power. Jefferson & Madison took a step w/ Sates Nullification acts in 1798 after the passage and APPROVAL by the Supreme Court (Justice Marshall was it?). They failed to realize that the true balance of power is ALWAYS between the central gov and the sovereign states. Then the states are the force behind the approval of legislation from the congressional branch (automatically), not some conditional response from a Judicial Branch that only gets called to arms if some one brings a suit, especially if they are sitting a bench their buddy over @ Executive gave them (approved by Congress – who they are supposed to watch dog in the 1st place). I have a word for that form of power grab – “collusion”.

    That’s a poison pill fellas. Pure & simple.

    It disappoints me greatly that Tom Woods’ new book “Nullification” is getting such rave reviews. That thought should have been more in vogue 160 years ago and the Judicial should have been amended out of sight along with it.

    Take care, JQ, hope I helped in some small way…

  22. Alex says:

    August 28th, 2010 at 8:52 am

    “Neil Peart is amazing. Everything you mention is great music, Iluv.”

    Even more, Peart is an amazing human being, not just musician. His books are even better than Rush’s music!

  23. Alex says:

    August 28th, 2010 at 9:05 am

    “But wait, there is more! Jazz fusion! Passport, Weather Report, Chic Corea & Return To Forever! ”

    Wasn’t too much into Jazz Fusion, Iluvatar, being more of the “Schoolhouse Rock” age at that point. I do, however, recommend this Stanley Clarke album (“Journey to Love”), which has copious amounts of Jeck Beck inside!

    I wish I more into music back then, though. I remember how they made a big deal when my junior high school in 1977 became the first school in the city to get a synthesizer for music class. Our music teachers were a funny dichotomy. One, who taught instruments, was a Jerry Garcia/Carlos Santana hippie intellectual type. His motto for music students was, I’ll let you play whatever you want—Bach, Beethoven, Led Zeppelin, Funkadelic—as long you learn to read and write music. The vocal teacher was a flaming homosexual who always wanted us to sing selections from godawful 1970s Broadway and AM Radio, which meant a lot of “Annie,” “You Light Up My Life” and “A Chorus Line.”

    Thus, now you know the origin of the 80s music generation backlash (lol).

    If I had a magic time machine television I would love to see what we looked like as a bunch of 12-year-olds in “Bad News Bears”/”Freaky Friday” 70s clothing belting out “ONE…Singular sensation…every little step he takes…” (lol)

Leave a Reply