Get an overpriced degree from a diploma factory. (Plus two free movie tickets! Now that’s higher education.)

Now before any dreamy eyed Obama voters get offended by the timing of this, I’m in no way calling our nascent President a failure. I’m still hopeful. But as an American, I want answers, which is what good reporting should be seeking anyway. So why haven’t these questions been asked (or maybe I missed them)?

1. How did you decide on $800 billion as the stimulus amount? Seems like a precise number for such economic uncertainty.
2. Why give more tax payer money, borrowed I might add, to troubled companies, seeing how the first $750 billion bailout (which you voted for as a senator) provided little to no economic relief?
3. Why do we still have bankruptcy in this country? The federal government’s recent behavior suggests this is no longer a remedy for those unable to repay creditors.
4. At what point must debtors, either home owners or businesses, pay for bad debt? The federal government’s recent behavior suggests it’s better for the economy to artificially prolong said reconciliation or let tax payers absorb the cost.
5. You’re following the most liberal spending president of all time, who had a dismal showing and was on duty when the recession hit, and yet you’re spending at a rate faster than him. How do you respond to that?

DISCLOSURE: I’m a registered independent, and I’m concerned with the amount of spending going on, because I favor limited government and greater state power. As the Associated Press reported on Sunday, Obama’s economic spending “is unnerving.”

I interviewed Chris Anderson (Wired editor, Long Tail author) for a story I’m working on about the future of beta as it pertains to the web. While talking, I digressed to the subject of business models, to which he said, “I think launching without a business model is fine, if your costs are low enough.”

A year ago, I would have no problem agreeing with Anderson, especially given the low overhead qualifier. Google launched without a business model — why not? But in an depressed economy where credit is tight, consumers aren’t spending, and job security is threatened, I’m not so sure.

Convince me, dear reader: Is it ever okay to launch a company without a business model?

Lindsey and I gave few gifts for Christmas this year — virtually none to friends and family (gulp). I justified the stinginess given the imminent economic apocalypse.

Now, as the wee hours of Christmas are upon me, I feel like a grinch. Only I have no sleigh full of toys to return to double the size of my heart. Happy Holidays?

At least my three year-old is getting something.

[Thanks, Connor]

The following metaphor is reputedly written by David Kamerschen, a professor of economics at the University of Georgia. In it, Kamerschen makes a convincing case for equal taxation, one that I generally agree with.

But those substantial tax credits (read: the distribution of wealth) that I receive every year just for having kids are really, really nice. So consider me undecided on the matter (wink, wink).

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.  The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.  But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.  But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20′, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right’, exclaimed the fifth man.  ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Sent via email by my lovely, politically conservative mother]

[Via email. Thanks, Tim.]

Answer: They all support $700 billion bailouts for reckless Wall Street investment banks. And they don’t care if taxpayers absorb the mistake, because taxpayers pay said officials’ mortgages.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but if that’s not proof that Wall Street has its hand in the pockets of big politicians, more so than normal, I don’t know what is.

And you’re kidding yourself if you think this country still runs a two-party system. There is no such thing as “Decision 2008.” McBama (aka big government) is going to win.

Nevertheless, make your voice be heard and write-in Ron Paul for president. If he siphons even just one or two states from The Nationalist Party next month, the publicity will further propel his message of the Constitution, free markets, greater state power, and responsible spending necessary to save the dollar.

As harsh as it sounds, natural consequences (i.e. bankruptcy, foreclosures, loss of jobs) is the only way to atone for our country’s overly optimistic and unchecked enthusiasm of recent years. This includes irresponsible land developers, loan officers, politicians, investment bankers, and home owners who bit off more than they could chew — all of whom ignored the basic principles of supply and demand.

Dude, where’s my country? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

See also:

• This is how you get out of debt
• Fiscal conservatism is the most important issue