Palestine and the Prospects for Peace
Post World War II mistake: Before I continue with this paragraph I need to make something absolutely clear: I'm 100% in the corner of the Israelis. We should/must do everything we can to help ensure their survivial. There cannot be another holocaust. They are in a horrific position - surrounded by enemies, and they (with our help) must take all actions necessary to ensure their survival.
That said, I think a mistake was made after World War 2. The Israelis should not have been allowed to create a nation state in what they considered to be their historic homeland - Israel. Reason: Someone was already living there - the Palestinians. The Middle East, and the world at large, would have been far better off if they would have been offered a home elsewhere. So many things in the world would have been so much easier if this had been the case. NOTE: The Israelis could have moved to somewhere in the United States perhaps. I'm sure that people as industrious as the Israelis would have made a great addition/contribution to our country.
,
Unacceptable condition that the Palestians are forced to live with: Many of us do get it. The Israelis kicked you out of your historic homeland, and you are forced to live - practically behind bars, and largely in squalor, in a land that isn't even officially your own. The United Nations does not even recognize the land where you currently reside to be a separate nation.
Israeli perspective on the peace/nation issue: There is no way that the Israelis will accept indefensible borders. There is no way that the Israelis will make peace with the Palestinians if they are constantly under assault (missiles being fired into their territories). There is no way the Israelis will make peace if they feel threatened. If the Palestinians truly want peace, they must provide the Israelis with the security that they need before they will be willing to make peace. Trust me on this, the Israelis DO want peace. They cannot possibly prefer the constant threat of hostilities/war, but they MUST be made to feel secure before they will negotiate with you over what you desire.
Are there moderate Muslims? I sure hope there are. The world certainly needs there to be. The silence when Muslim extremists commit their atrocites is deafening. Sometimes it seems like there are only two types of Muslims - the Muslim extremists, and those that support the Muslim extremists, but are unwilling to get involved. We are always told that there are plenty of peace loving Muslims out there, well, if that's true, it's time for the peace loving Muslims to "step up"
Time to "step up": It's time for moderate Muslims to "step up". It's time for them to squash the efforts of the Muslim extremists so that peace can be achieved. Without such action, there can be no hope for peace, and this untenable state of affairs - for the Israelis, for the Palestians, and indeed for the world, will go on and on.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Why did Barack Obama win reelection?
When you consider the sad state of our nation on November 6, it's a wonder that Barack Obama was able to win reelection:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment - 7.9% at the time of the election
GDP - growing at a feeble 2.0% at the time of the election
Obamacare - forced down the throats of the American people
Average family salary - down $4K per household during the Obama administration
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other
Considering the above, who would have voted for the President on Nov 6?
The Misinformed: The biased main stream press kept many people misinformed/uninformed. The main stream press avoided - even suppressed, news that was unfavorable to the administration. It's actually like the main stream press - in their desperation to support/protect the first black President, has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
The Uninformed: see paragraph on misinformed above
The Naive: see paragraph on misinformed above
The Unintelligent: The old Bell shaped curve. Sadly one half the populace has an IQ under 100. These folks are much more easily manipulated/mislead by the main stream press (see above) or demogogues (left or right side of the political spectrum). NOTE: Also, anyone who cannot understand the mathematics of what is happening with our snowballing deficit fits into this category.
Racists: Obama received in excess of 95% of the black vote. If the shoe fits...........
On the take/on the dole: People who are desperate for their "free stuff", and believe that they are more likely to continue receiving such if Democrats are in power. From a short term perspective, they are correct in this assessment. Democrats have become quite adept at bribing people for votes out of money that we don't even have. NOTE: This category also includes government employees or contractors doing work that many in this country would consider to be for unnecessary functions.
The Far Left (Socialists/Marxists) : Actually consider a significant number of Democrats to fall into this category.
Now, to be honest, not everyone who fits in the above categories voted for Barack Obama (or he would have won the election by far more than the 3% that he actually did), but enough did so that we're now we're in a position of having to hope (pray) that our country can survive the next four years of Barack Obama's leftist (Marxist?) agenda.
When you consider the sad state of our nation on November 6, it's a wonder that Barack Obama was able to win reelection:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment - 7.9% at the time of the election
GDP - growing at a feeble 2.0% at the time of the election
Obamacare - forced down the throats of the American people
Average family salary - down $4K per household during the Obama administration
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other
Considering the above, who would have voted for the President on Nov 6?
The Misinformed: The biased main stream press kept many people misinformed/uninformed. The main stream press avoided - even suppressed, news that was unfavorable to the administration. It's actually like the main stream press - in their desperation to support/protect the first black President, has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
The Uninformed: see paragraph on misinformed above
The Naive: see paragraph on misinformed above
The Unintelligent: The old Bell shaped curve. Sadly one half the populace has an IQ under 100. These folks are much more easily manipulated/mislead by the main stream press (see above) or demogogues (left or right side of the political spectrum). NOTE: Also, anyone who cannot understand the mathematics of what is happening with our snowballing deficit fits into this category.
Racists: Obama received in excess of 95% of the black vote. If the shoe fits...........
On the take/on the dole: People who are desperate for their "free stuff", and believe that they are more likely to continue receiving such if Democrats are in power. From a short term perspective, they are correct in this assessment. Democrats have become quite adept at bribing people for votes out of money that we don't even have. NOTE: This category also includes government employees or contractors doing work that many in this country would consider to be for unnecessary functions.
The Far Left (Socialists/Marxists) : Actually consider a significant number of Democrats to fall into this category.
Now, to be honest, not everyone who fits in the above categories voted for Barack Obama (or he would have won the election by far more than the 3% that he actually did), but enough did so that we're now we're in a position of having to hope (pray) that our country can survive the next four years of Barack Obama's leftist (Marxist?) agenda.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Benghazi - now it's Clapper's fault?
Saw on the news that James Clapper has stepped up and said that his office made the change to the original intelligence report on Benghazi - changing the description from a terrorist attack to a spontaneous response to a movie trailer. Consider this to be extremely unlikely. Have trouble believing that an intelligence office would intentionally put out faulty information just to get the President reelected. However, if this is actually what happened, this would be an incredible indictment of Barack Obama, for it is the President who sets the tone of the administration - establishes the goals, the priorities, the climate, and the agenda that become the marching orders for the entire executive branch. For him to have set our nation's intelligence office's number one priority to be supporting his reelection campaign - rather than to disseminate valid intelligence information is deplorable at best.
Have been thinking about the similarities between Watergate and Benghazigate: Nixon's coverup that eventually forced him to resign, and Obama's politically expedient decision where he not only failed to provide the additional security forces needed to protect our consulate, but actually withdrew security forces that were already on hand. NOTE: A need for enhanced security forces didn't mesh with Obama's "Arab Spring", and Al qaeda is on the run - the "warm and fuzzy" picture of foreign affairs that best suited President Obama's reelection plans.
Obama's indecisiveness (or indifference?) during the seven hours when our people still might have been saved, and his cover-up of his administrations actions, seems to be far worse than anything that happened during Watergate. True, the cover-up part of both scandals is quite similar, but Benghazigate ended up leading to something far worse - the deaths of four American citizens. After all, it was the security decisions that were made based on political advantage (getting reelected) - rather than analysis of security needs that helped create the crisis situation, and it was the failure to provide military aid during the critical seven hours that inevitably sealed the fate of the four Americans.
Not one portion of the ever changing Obama Administrtion's Benghazi storyline rings true. Initial statements made by President Obama, General Petraeus, Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton all professed the"spontaneous response to a movie trailer falsehood - even though now some of them are saying that that is not what they really said (i.e., that they were misunderstood). You can ignore that "misunderstood" claim, for, if they had actually been initially "misunderstood", they would have immediately gone to the press and corrected this "miunderstanding". Since no such press statements were made until approximately two weeks after the assault on the consulate, the obvious assumption is that they wanted the original interpretation to stand.
Just a few days ago President Obama said that instead of making dispaaging comments against Ambassador Rice - “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me". While I think that the deceit/incompetence evidenced by General Petaeus, Ambassador Rice, Secreatary Clinton, and now James Clapper are all fireable offenses, agree with the President that we should really "go after him". Feel that President Obama's actions and job performance before, duing and after the attack rise to the level of being an impeachable offense.
Comment: Actually though, do not think President Obama will ever be impeached for his handling . Reasons: a) The press is too heavily invested in the first black President to do anything but protect him at all costs. b: Democrats, who typically adhere to the old "ends justify the means" philosophy, will not vote against the President no matter how bad Benghazigate turns out to be - and it's plenty bad enough already.
Saw on the news that James Clapper has stepped up and said that his office made the change to the original intelligence report on Benghazi - changing the description from a terrorist attack to a spontaneous response to a movie trailer. Consider this to be extremely unlikely. Have trouble believing that an intelligence office would intentionally put out faulty information just to get the President reelected. However, if this is actually what happened, this would be an incredible indictment of Barack Obama, for it is the President who sets the tone of the administration - establishes the goals, the priorities, the climate, and the agenda that become the marching orders for the entire executive branch. For him to have set our nation's intelligence office's number one priority to be supporting his reelection campaign - rather than to disseminate valid intelligence information is deplorable at best.
Have been thinking about the similarities between Watergate and Benghazigate: Nixon's coverup that eventually forced him to resign, and Obama's politically expedient decision where he not only failed to provide the additional security forces needed to protect our consulate, but actually withdrew security forces that were already on hand. NOTE: A need for enhanced security forces didn't mesh with Obama's "Arab Spring", and Al qaeda is on the run - the "warm and fuzzy" picture of foreign affairs that best suited President Obama's reelection plans.
Obama's indecisiveness (or indifference?) during the seven hours when our people still might have been saved, and his cover-up of his administrations actions, seems to be far worse than anything that happened during Watergate. True, the cover-up part of both scandals is quite similar, but Benghazigate ended up leading to something far worse - the deaths of four American citizens. After all, it was the security decisions that were made based on political advantage (getting reelected) - rather than analysis of security needs that helped create the crisis situation, and it was the failure to provide military aid during the critical seven hours that inevitably sealed the fate of the four Americans.
Not one portion of the ever changing Obama Administrtion's Benghazi storyline rings true. Initial statements made by President Obama, General Petraeus, Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton all professed the"spontaneous response to a movie trailer falsehood - even though now some of them are saying that that is not what they really said (i.e., that they were misunderstood). You can ignore that "misunderstood" claim, for, if they had actually been initially "misunderstood", they would have immediately gone to the press and corrected this "miunderstanding". Since no such press statements were made until approximately two weeks after the assault on the consulate, the obvious assumption is that they wanted the original interpretation to stand.
Just a few days ago President Obama said that instead of making dispaaging comments against Ambassador Rice - “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me". While I think that the deceit/incompetence evidenced by General Petaeus, Ambassador Rice, Secreatary Clinton, and now James Clapper are all fireable offenses, agree with the President that we should really "go after him". Feel that President Obama's actions and job performance before, duing and after the attack rise to the level of being an impeachable offense.
Comment: Actually though, do not think President Obama will ever be impeached for his handling . Reasons: a) The press is too heavily invested in the first black President to do anything but protect him at all costs. b: Democrats, who typically adhere to the old "ends justify the means" philosophy, will not vote against the President no matter how bad Benghazigate turns out to be - and it's plenty bad enough already.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Egypt - Primed for Another Revolutiion?
When I heard that the winner of the Egyptian Presidency was the head of the Islamic Brotherhood, I assumed that it was a given that Egypt would end up replacing one dictator (Mubarek) with another (Morsi). However, I'm a bit surpised that Morsi showed his true colors as early in the game as he did by declaring that any/all laws/decrees of Egypt's new pharaoh were not reviewable/reversible by the courts.
Wonder if the people of Egypt will accept this, or whether the current small demonstrations will grow? Strategically speaking, Morsi probably should have handled this assumption of total power a bit more delicately/gradually.
Arab spring? - It's more like an Arab winter in the Middle East These newly elected democratic governments are seldom sympatico with the United States. Actually, just the opposite is likely - the new governments are likely to end up as religious dictatorships (one democratic vote, and then a religious dictatorship thereafter) - just like Egypt now appears to be. Sadly, a nonsecular Islamist government is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
In the case of Egypt, the new government - the Islamic Brotherhood, are proponents of Sharia Law, turning women into second class (or worse) citizens, the destruction of Israel, and the spreading (and not necessarily peacefully) of Islam wordlwide. Think back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the malevolent Islamic dictatorship that we've had to deal with ever since. NOTE: True, so far we've been able to bribe (via foreign aid) Egypt into being somewhat reasonable, but that situation could end at any time - quite possibly another Israeli/Hamas flare-up.
Overthrow of dictatorships in Muslim countries is fraught with peril as any change of governments can so easily end up as a religious dictatorship that is far worse than the dictatorship that it replaced ever was.
Comment: We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
When I heard that the winner of the Egyptian Presidency was the head of the Islamic Brotherhood, I assumed that it was a given that Egypt would end up replacing one dictator (Mubarek) with another (Morsi). However, I'm a bit surpised that Morsi showed his true colors as early in the game as he did by declaring that any/all laws/decrees of Egypt's new pharaoh were not reviewable/reversible by the courts.
Wonder if the people of Egypt will accept this, or whether the current small demonstrations will grow? Strategically speaking, Morsi probably should have handled this assumption of total power a bit more delicately/gradually.
Arab spring? - It's more like an Arab winter in the Middle East These newly elected democratic governments are seldom sympatico with the United States. Actually, just the opposite is likely - the new governments are likely to end up as religious dictatorships (one democratic vote, and then a religious dictatorship thereafter) - just like Egypt now appears to be. Sadly, a nonsecular Islamist government is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
In the case of Egypt, the new government - the Islamic Brotherhood, are proponents of Sharia Law, turning women into second class (or worse) citizens, the destruction of Israel, and the spreading (and not necessarily peacefully) of Islam wordlwide. Think back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the malevolent Islamic dictatorship that we've had to deal with ever since. NOTE: True, so far we've been able to bribe (via foreign aid) Egypt into being somewhat reasonable, but that situation could end at any time - quite possibly another Israeli/Hamas flare-up.
Overthrow of dictatorships in Muslim countries is fraught with peril as any change of governments can so easily end up as a religious dictatorship that is far worse than the dictatorship that it replaced ever was.
Comment: We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Reverand Wright and the left's "G. D." America philosopy:
There has been a tendancy for the left to view our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.
Actually, if you think about it, the Far Left's sentiments relating to the United States most closely match with Foreign Dictators. To put this bluntly, if you are thinking the way a foreign dictator is thinking, there must be something wrong with the way you are thinking.
While I like to think as the United States in a positive way - as an exceptional nation, with exceptional people who have done many positive things for the world (e.g., defeating Nazi Germany in WW2, spread of Democracy, foreign aid), I'm still forced to admit that they do have a point.
Certainly, no group of people, the United States included, has ever operated/functioned entirely out of altruism. In regard to this issue, I feel that the left is missing a very important point in their condemnation of this country, and it's related to human nature. EVERY society/all peoples since the human race climbed down out of the trees has been involved in behaviors that they considered to be in the best interests of them, their families, their tribe or their nation. ALL groups are equal offenders in committing transgressions against other human groups for their own selfish purposes. There is no such thing as a historic group of "good guys" - of long suffering individuals who have never done anything to anyone else, but have just had things done to them.
Altruism, while it does exist, and is to be aspired to, is not the norm for human behavior. The norm is our more animalistic trait - the trait involving self-interest that is inherent to all races and creeds of the human race.
All things considered, I think the United States has been far better than most countries - particularly countries with the kind of power that we've had. We always attempt to exercise restraint in our dealing with others.
There has been a tendancy for the left to view our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.
Actually, if you think about it, the Far Left's sentiments relating to the United States most closely match with Foreign Dictators. To put this bluntly, if you are thinking the way a foreign dictator is thinking, there must be something wrong with the way you are thinking.
While I like to think as the United States in a positive way - as an exceptional nation, with exceptional people who have done many positive things for the world (e.g., defeating Nazi Germany in WW2, spread of Democracy, foreign aid), I'm still forced to admit that they do have a point.
Certainly, no group of people, the United States included, has ever operated/functioned entirely out of altruism. In regard to this issue, I feel that the left is missing a very important point in their condemnation of this country, and it's related to human nature. EVERY society/all peoples since the human race climbed down out of the trees has been involved in behaviors that they considered to be in the best interests of them, their families, their tribe or their nation. ALL groups are equal offenders in committing transgressions against other human groups for their own selfish purposes. There is no such thing as a historic group of "good guys" - of long suffering individuals who have never done anything to anyone else, but have just had things done to them.
Altruism, while it does exist, and is to be aspired to, is not the norm for human behavior. The norm is our more animalistic trait - the trait involving self-interest that is inherent to all races and creeds of the human race.
All things considered, I think the United States has been far better than most countries - particularly countries with the kind of power that we've had. We always attempt to exercise restraint in our dealing with others.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tragedy in the Middle East?
The Middle East is a powder keg. We have Muslim extremists in charge of Iran, the Islamic Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, a civil war going on in Syria, and possible "Arab springs" likely to break out in all other spots in the Middle East at any moment.
Insufficient Support from the United States. We also have a President whose support of Israel is shaky at best. He has said that Israel should pull back to the 67 borders (the 1967 Israeli/Arab war) - borders that were/are totally indefensible for Israel. He has failed to visit Israel even once during his first term. He also failed to accept a meeting with the President of Israel when he was visiting the United States a couple of months ago. All of the above give the perception to hostile Arab states of a United States President who is not fully in the corner of our number one ally in the region - and as they say, perception is reality.
Iran: In regard to Iran, we need to be absolutely firm with Iran on their nuclear program. Either they have to stop and dismantle, or we need to attack. We can't allow them to continue playing their delaying game - it'll only lead to Islamic extremists in contol of nuclear weapons. They say they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth - see no reason not to take them at their word.
Think it's very likely that they will use the weapons if they get them. Am doubtful that mutually assured destrution works with a religious fanatic. Think Israel is in tremendous jeopardy. Actually, think that we are too. Have heard the words "great satan" used in regard to the U.S. - do you think it would be beyond the realm of the possible that they would turn a nuclear weapon over to terrorists, and they'd then take them to NYC or Wash, D. C.?
Dark days ahead for Israel: If we fail to act against Iran, Israel almost certainly will. Enemies surround them. Formerly major allies - Egypt and Turkey, are now shaky allies at best. In fact, the United States has to bribe Egypt (foreign aid) to pretend to be our/Israel's ally. But the most immediate and important question is - if we fail to act against Iran, can they succeed on their own? If not, we face the dire prospect of not only a nuclear armed Iran (and how incredibly dangerous that is - see above) but the likelihood that other countries in the Middle East will also seek nuclear weapons - nuclear proliferation at it's very worst.
Recommendations:
1. We should take the lead in regard to Iran and nuclear weapons, and ensure that they do not obtain them.
2. We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
Summary: Think that we are at a crucial moment in history. Believe that 20 or 30 years from now they will be writing about these days. I pray that the history books show that we stood firm against Islamic extremism during the crucial hours.
The Middle East is a powder keg. We have Muslim extremists in charge of Iran, the Islamic Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, a civil war going on in Syria, and possible "Arab springs" likely to break out in all other spots in the Middle East at any moment.
Insufficient Support from the United States. We also have a President whose support of Israel is shaky at best. He has said that Israel should pull back to the 67 borders (the 1967 Israeli/Arab war) - borders that were/are totally indefensible for Israel. He has failed to visit Israel even once during his first term. He also failed to accept a meeting with the President of Israel when he was visiting the United States a couple of months ago. All of the above give the perception to hostile Arab states of a United States President who is not fully in the corner of our number one ally in the region - and as they say, perception is reality.
Iran: In regard to Iran, we need to be absolutely firm with Iran on their nuclear program. Either they have to stop and dismantle, or we need to attack. We can't allow them to continue playing their delaying game - it'll only lead to Islamic extremists in contol of nuclear weapons. They say they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth - see no reason not to take them at their word.
Think it's very likely that they will use the weapons if they get them. Am doubtful that mutually assured destrution works with a religious fanatic. Think Israel is in tremendous jeopardy. Actually, think that we are too. Have heard the words "great satan" used in regard to the U.S. - do you think it would be beyond the realm of the possible that they would turn a nuclear weapon over to terrorists, and they'd then take them to NYC or Wash, D. C.?
Dark days ahead for Israel: If we fail to act against Iran, Israel almost certainly will. Enemies surround them. Formerly major allies - Egypt and Turkey, are now shaky allies at best. In fact, the United States has to bribe Egypt (foreign aid) to pretend to be our/Israel's ally. But the most immediate and important question is - if we fail to act against Iran, can they succeed on their own? If not, we face the dire prospect of not only a nuclear armed Iran (and how incredibly dangerous that is - see above) but the likelihood that other countries in the Middle East will also seek nuclear weapons - nuclear proliferation at it's very worst.
Recommendations:
1. We should take the lead in regard to Iran and nuclear weapons, and ensure that they do not obtain them.
2. We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
Summary: Think that we are at a crucial moment in history. Believe that 20 or 30 years from now they will be writing about these days. I pray that the history books show that we stood firm against Islamic extremism during the crucial hours.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration:
The level of disillusionment/dissatisfaction among a significant portion of the population with the Obama administration is extreme. Here are some thoughts on why:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments. There is an overall sense of hopelessness for the future, that the current state of affairs is now the norm - that things will just not improve under this President. NOTE: If you're interested in hearing what Obama had in mind for the coal industry in 2008, do a google search on "Obama energy costs skyrocket".
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state. Also, backdoor support, and even enthusiasm, for the societal non contributors know as the "Occupy Wallstreeters" is a totally related sad commentary about where the Democratic party is these days.
Changing voter dynamics/effect on the economy and elections: The rapidly growing numbers of people dependent on the government for "stuff" increases the potential voting pool for Democrats. This makes it growing less and less likely that this country will be able to fix the unsupportable financial situation we are in; Reason: Since the Democratic party typically receives the support (votes) of people dependent on the government for "stuff", democrats, to maintain power, will most likely continue to provide this "stuff" (sadly, out of money that we don't even have).
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes? NOTE: We didn't even try to send in military aid during the seven hours after the attack began. Whatever happened to "no man left behind". Guess that laudable policy doesn't apply under this administration.
Totalitarianism: The response of many around the White House to the petitions to secede - a counter petition to strip the signers of the petition of their citizenship and deport them, is an example of the administration's "my way or the highway" philosophy. These totalitarian views - like with the way they have forced Obamacare down our throats, and like the way they are still trying to institute a carbon tax that will increase the cost of energy to all, make this country a far less appealing place to live in - particularly for those who share the philosphy of the founding fathers as laid out in the constitution. NOTE: Some even think (this blogger included) that the President is actually a closet communist. If that's true, our very liberty is at stake.
Biased main stream press: Avoidance - even suppression of news that is unfavorable to the administration by the main stream press is a disservice, and is contrary to why the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the first amendment to the constitution. In a worst case scenario (which s pretty close exactly where we are these days), when you turn on the TV to hear the news, what you are actually hearing is political propoganda favorable to the administration - and not the news. It's actually like the main stream press - in their desperation to support/protect the first black President, has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever. Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and change" has devolved into a situation where there is "no hope" because there will be "no change".
This is going to be a really bad four years, I just hope that this country can survive it.
The level of disillusionment/dissatisfaction among a significant portion of the population with the Obama administration is extreme. Here are some thoughts on why:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments. There is an overall sense of hopelessness for the future, that the current state of affairs is now the norm - that things will just not improve under this President. NOTE: If you're interested in hearing what Obama had in mind for the coal industry in 2008, do a google search on "Obama energy costs skyrocket".
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state. Also, backdoor support, and even enthusiasm, for the societal non contributors know as the "Occupy Wallstreeters" is a totally related sad commentary about where the Democratic party is these days.
Changing voter dynamics/effect on the economy and elections: The rapidly growing numbers of people dependent on the government for "stuff" increases the potential voting pool for Democrats. This makes it growing less and less likely that this country will be able to fix the unsupportable financial situation we are in; Reason: Since the Democratic party typically receives the support (votes) of people dependent on the government for "stuff", democrats, to maintain power, will most likely continue to provide this "stuff" (sadly, out of money that we don't even have).
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes? NOTE: We didn't even try to send in military aid during the seven hours after the attack began. Whatever happened to "no man left behind". Guess that laudable policy doesn't apply under this administration.
Totalitarianism: The response of many around the White House to the petitions to secede - a counter petition to strip the signers of the petition of their citizenship and deport them, is an example of the administration's "my way or the highway" philosophy. These totalitarian views - like with the way they have forced Obamacare down our throats, and like the way they are still trying to institute a carbon tax that will increase the cost of energy to all, make this country a far less appealing place to live in - particularly for those who share the philosphy of the founding fathers as laid out in the constitution. NOTE: Some even think (this blogger included) that the President is actually a closet communist. If that's true, our very liberty is at stake.
Biased main stream press: Avoidance - even suppression of news that is unfavorable to the administration by the main stream press is a disservice, and is contrary to why the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the first amendment to the constitution. In a worst case scenario (which s pretty close exactly where we are these days), when you turn on the TV to hear the news, what you are actually hearing is political propoganda favorable to the administration - and not the news. It's actually like the main stream press - in their desperation to support/protect the first black President, has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever. Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and change" has devolved into a situation where there is "no hope" because there will be "no change".
This is going to be a really bad four years, I just hope that this country can survive it.
Race relations
Use of racism as a political tool: The charge of racism is often levied by the left against anyone on the right who dares challenge anything on the left's agenda............... Charges of racism (playing the "race card") are one of the most pernicious charges of all - as racism is one of the worst things that can be levied against someone. NOTE: That makes these charges quite effective at stifling the views of opponents.
Time to "get over it": Now I'm going to say something that is very controversial - Blacks need to "get over it": I agree, that what went on in the south (slavery) prior to 1865 is about as horrific a scenario as one can imagine, and even the racism exhibited by many whites toward blacks for many years thereafter was also totally unacceptable. But remember, it was white northerners who sacrifed their lifes/treasure to free blacks. Sure, the latter day white sourtherners were villians, but weren't the latter day white northerners heroes?
Black on white racism: I believe that these days, white on black racism is far less prevalent than black on white racism. Put more simply, blacks more commonly exhibit racism towards whites than vice versa. While it's true that past travesties are hard to forget, it's really time that blacks "get over it". The people that enslaved your ancestors are long gone, and their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc, have no interest in any sort of continuing/ongoing animosity, the vast majority of them would simply like to move on. For blacks, harboring resentment, even hatred, eats at one's self, is counterproductive to the soul, and is also preventing us from becoming the color blind society that we need to be to truly move forward.
Color blind: About 13 years ago, was talking to a friend in D. C., and was talking up Colin Powell for President. She said that she'd had similar conversatons with some of her black friends, and they said that "he ain't no black guy - he's an oreo". My response was - that when you see/listen to Colin Powell, you don't even think about him being a black guy - just a guy - specifically, a highly competent American hero. As far as for not noticing (or not thinking about him as being black) - isn't that what we really want - that people won't even notice a person's skin color - just see a person, not a black person (or not a brown person, or not a yellow person)?
Affirmative action: We have a black person at the highest pinnacle in the United States - isn't it time we discontinue this affirmative action? Isn't giving something to someone who doesn't truly deserve such, a disservice to that person - and really an insult?
Recommendation: Seems to me is that what we really need to do, has to do with the education of our children. We need to ensure that educational opportunaties are equal - starting at the elementary schoo level and then moving forward. We have to make sure the schools that our children attend adequately prepare them for any/all future possiblities. This is what we should be concentrating on.
Use of racism as a political tool: The charge of racism is often levied by the left against anyone on the right who dares challenge anything on the left's agenda............... Charges of racism (playing the "race card") are one of the most pernicious charges of all - as racism is one of the worst things that can be levied against someone. NOTE: That makes these charges quite effective at stifling the views of opponents.
Time to "get over it": Now I'm going to say something that is very controversial - Blacks need to "get over it": I agree, that what went on in the south (slavery) prior to 1865 is about as horrific a scenario as one can imagine, and even the racism exhibited by many whites toward blacks for many years thereafter was also totally unacceptable. But remember, it was white northerners who sacrifed their lifes/treasure to free blacks. Sure, the latter day white sourtherners were villians, but weren't the latter day white northerners heroes?
Black on white racism: I believe that these days, white on black racism is far less prevalent than black on white racism. Put more simply, blacks more commonly exhibit racism towards whites than vice versa. While it's true that past travesties are hard to forget, it's really time that blacks "get over it". The people that enslaved your ancestors are long gone, and their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc, have no interest in any sort of continuing/ongoing animosity, the vast majority of them would simply like to move on. For blacks, harboring resentment, even hatred, eats at one's self, is counterproductive to the soul, and is also preventing us from becoming the color blind society that we need to be to truly move forward.
Color blind: About 13 years ago, was talking to a friend in D. C., and was talking up Colin Powell for President. She said that she'd had similar conversatons with some of her black friends, and they said that "he ain't no black guy - he's an oreo". My response was - that when you see/listen to Colin Powell, you don't even think about him being a black guy - just a guy - specifically, a highly competent American hero. As far as for not noticing (or not thinking about him as being black) - isn't that what we really want - that people won't even notice a person's skin color - just see a person, not a black person (or not a brown person, or not a yellow person)?
Affirmative action: We have a black person at the highest pinnacle in the United States - isn't it time we discontinue this affirmative action? Isn't giving something to someone who doesn't truly deserve such, a disservice to that person - and really an insult?
Recommendation: Seems to me is that what we really need to do, has to do with the education of our children. We need to ensure that educational opportunaties are equal - starting at the elementary schoo level and then moving forward. We have to make sure the schools that our children attend adequately prepare them for any/all future possiblities. This is what we should be concentrating on.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Climate change:
Since the creation of this planet, we've always been undergoing climate change. The earth heats up, the earth cools down, over and over.
The current debate is whether the greenhouse gases that society is emitting is having an adverse affect on the climate - specifically, increasing the average temperature of our planet - melting the polar ice caps, and changing weather patterns.
Based on the science shows that I watch, there are three things that affect the temperature of our planet:
- The current energy emissions from the sun. The sun goes through cycles where it emits greater and lesser amounts of energy (heat). Believe that this is the most significant factor on our planetary temperatures.
- Planetary changes. Such planetary events as volcanoes and changes to ocean currents have a very significant effect on the temperature of our planet. Believe this is the second most important factor on planetary temperatures.
- Greenhouse gas emissions caused by people. Fossil fuel emissions that occur when humans utilize fossil fuels for energy. Believe that this is the third most important factor (least important) on planetary temperatures.
My guess, yes, our greenhouse gas emissons are probably having at least a small effect on the planet's temperatures, and therefore could indeed be affecting the polar ice caps and the weather. NOTE:
Actually, under the right circumstances, our greenhouse gas emissons can be a positive - they could help ameliorate (offset) a cooling trend (based on sun/earth cycles) if such were taking/about to take place.
The thing is, that even if we are causing the planet to gradually heat up, we can't do anything about it at this time for the following reasons:
- We can't afford to: We have a snowballing deficit, a pathetic GDP growth rate, and a possible recession in the offing. This country cannot afford doing anything that would increase energy prices either now or in the near future. Such would just exacerbate our economic problems.
- We can't control third world countries: Third world countries will increasing be using more and more fossil fuels. Although we might be williing to bankrupt ourselves into cutting back our emissions, there isn't anything we can do to decrease the energy emissions of other countries - particularly third world countries who will increasingly need more and more energy to grow their economies.
Recommendation: Provide grants to state of the art research centers/colleges, and aggresively pursue research into nuclear fusion. Prizes could be offered that even someone working out of their garage could win. NOTE: If we could figure out nuclear fusion, we could solve the world's energy problems AND curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
Side note: Providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world just throws money (money that we don't even have) down the proverbial black hole. A Solyndra is not competitive with the same sort of companies where cheap labor resides (like in China), and, even more impotantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
Since the creation of this planet, we've always been undergoing climate change. The earth heats up, the earth cools down, over and over.
The current debate is whether the greenhouse gases that society is emitting is having an adverse affect on the climate - specifically, increasing the average temperature of our planet - melting the polar ice caps, and changing weather patterns.
Based on the science shows that I watch, there are three things that affect the temperature of our planet:
- The current energy emissions from the sun. The sun goes through cycles where it emits greater and lesser amounts of energy (heat). Believe that this is the most significant factor on our planetary temperatures.
- Planetary changes. Such planetary events as volcanoes and changes to ocean currents have a very significant effect on the temperature of our planet. Believe this is the second most important factor on planetary temperatures.
- Greenhouse gas emissions caused by people. Fossil fuel emissions that occur when humans utilize fossil fuels for energy. Believe that this is the third most important factor (least important) on planetary temperatures.
My guess, yes, our greenhouse gas emissons are probably having at least a small effect on the planet's temperatures, and therefore could indeed be affecting the polar ice caps and the weather. NOTE:
Actually, under the right circumstances, our greenhouse gas emissons can be a positive - they could help ameliorate (offset) a cooling trend (based on sun/earth cycles) if such were taking/about to take place.
The thing is, that even if we are causing the planet to gradually heat up, we can't do anything about it at this time for the following reasons:
- We can't afford to: We have a snowballing deficit, a pathetic GDP growth rate, and a possible recession in the offing. This country cannot afford doing anything that would increase energy prices either now or in the near future. Such would just exacerbate our economic problems.
- We can't control third world countries: Third world countries will increasing be using more and more fossil fuels. Although we might be williing to bankrupt ourselves into cutting back our emissions, there isn't anything we can do to decrease the energy emissions of other countries - particularly third world countries who will increasingly need more and more energy to grow their economies.
Recommendation: Provide grants to state of the art research centers/colleges, and aggresively pursue research into nuclear fusion. Prizes could be offered that even someone working out of their garage could win. NOTE: If we could figure out nuclear fusion, we could solve the world's energy problems AND curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
Side note: Providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world just throws money (money that we don't even have) down the proverbial black hole. A Solyndra is not competitive with the same sort of companies where cheap labor resides (like in China), and, even more impotantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
General Petraeus:
From a man that many considered a national hero, this is all kind of shocking. Not only is he an adulterer, but more importantly, a liar who lead America astray for political purposes - with that purpose being the reelection of the President.
Saw on the news yesterday that he finally admitted that he knew within 24 hrs that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack (vice a spontaneous response to a movie trailer), and that there was actually a CIA report that said same.
The problem is, he is now saying that he said on 14 Sep (behind closed doors in Congress) that it was a terrorist attack, and not what he actually said at that time - that it was a spontaneous response to a movie trailer. Since they apparently don't tape these behind closed door hearings (nor have a stenographer) it's all a he said/she said kind of scenario.
Of course it isn't - not really. Reason: From 14 Sep on - Congressmen/the press said that Gen. Petraeus told Congressmen at the hearing that it was a spontaneous response (and not a terrorist attack). If anyone had misinterpreted what Petraeus said at the 14 Sep hearing - Petraeus would have certainly corrected their incorrect interpretation of his comments from that day.
Lets's state this bluntly - the 14 Sep hearing was not under oath, so he couldn't be held liable for failing to tell the truth, however, since 16 Nov hearing was under oath, he could be held liable for failing to tell the truth. Since he did indeed know on 14 Sep that it was a terrorist attack, he had to admit this on 16 Nov. However, since the 14 Sep hearing was not recorded, he could pretend that he always said it was a terrorist attack, and not be liable for perjury - as you can't prove what he said on 14 Sep.
Comment: While lying about exactly what he said on 14 Sep is not perjury (since there's no official record to prove what he said), have to wonder, if General Petreus (pronounce as Betray - us) believes in God. Why? Because if he does, what he said on Friday, while not provable as act of perjury in the eyes of the law, is an act of perjury in the eyes of God.
From a man that many considered a national hero, this is all kind of shocking. Not only is he an adulterer, but more importantly, a liar who lead America astray for political purposes - with that purpose being the reelection of the President.
Saw on the news yesterday that he finally admitted that he knew within 24 hrs that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack (vice a spontaneous response to a movie trailer), and that there was actually a CIA report that said same.
The problem is, he is now saying that he said on 14 Sep (behind closed doors in Congress) that it was a terrorist attack, and not what he actually said at that time - that it was a spontaneous response to a movie trailer. Since they apparently don't tape these behind closed door hearings (nor have a stenographer) it's all a he said/she said kind of scenario.
Of course it isn't - not really. Reason: From 14 Sep on - Congressmen/the press said that Gen. Petraeus told Congressmen at the hearing that it was a spontaneous response (and not a terrorist attack). If anyone had misinterpreted what Petraeus said at the 14 Sep hearing - Petraeus would have certainly corrected their incorrect interpretation of his comments from that day.
Lets's state this bluntly - the 14 Sep hearing was not under oath, so he couldn't be held liable for failing to tell the truth, however, since 16 Nov hearing was under oath, he could be held liable for failing to tell the truth. Since he did indeed know on 14 Sep that it was a terrorist attack, he had to admit this on 16 Nov. However, since the 14 Sep hearing was not recorded, he could pretend that he always said it was a terrorist attack, and not be liable for perjury - as you can't prove what he said on 14 Sep.
Comment: While lying about exactly what he said on 14 Sep is not perjury (since there's no official record to prove what he said), have to wonder, if General Petreus (pronounce as Betray - us) believes in God. Why? Because if he does, what he said on Friday, while not provable as act of perjury in the eyes of the law, is an act of perjury in the eyes of God.
Respect for Authority?
In regard to the President of the United States - I respect the position, but not the man.
Have always believed that you have to earn respect, and there really isn't anything from the last four years that would convince me that our President has earned our respect. Why?
Obama ran on "hope and change" - when you consider our debt level, our unemployment level, and our standing in the world, "hope and change" has turned into "despair and decline".
Obama ran as the "great uniter" - you remember," not red states, and blue states, but the United States". Obama has been the most devisive President of my lifetime (I'm 58) - constantly pitting one segment of the population against another for political gain. The "great uniter" has functioned as the "great divider"
Obama ran probably the most negative campaign in Presidential history. Everything was about attacking (negative ads) the character and integrity of his opponent. The only achievements of his Presidency that were cited was killing Bin Laden and saving GM. However, any President would have given a kill order on Bin Laden. In regard to bailing out GM, they ended up going into bankruptcy proceedings after the bailout anyway - and bankruptcy proceedings are exactly what would have happened to GM if they hadn't been bailed out. Both these assumptions of undue credit were, of course, conveniently ignored in Obama's self aggrandizing campaign pitches/ads.
Everytime I see the extreme deference shown the President by the main stream press, it reminds me that one of the main reasons we are in this mess is that he is not being held accountable for his numerous failures by the very people who are supposed to be performing this function.
In regard to the President of the United States - I respect the position, but not the man.
Have always believed that you have to earn respect, and there really isn't anything from the last four years that would convince me that our President has earned our respect. Why?
Obama ran on "hope and change" - when you consider our debt level, our unemployment level, and our standing in the world, "hope and change" has turned into "despair and decline".
Obama ran as the "great uniter" - you remember," not red states, and blue states, but the United States". Obama has been the most devisive President of my lifetime (I'm 58) - constantly pitting one segment of the population against another for political gain. The "great uniter" has functioned as the "great divider"
Obama ran probably the most negative campaign in Presidential history. Everything was about attacking (negative ads) the character and integrity of his opponent. The only achievements of his Presidency that were cited was killing Bin Laden and saving GM. However, any President would have given a kill order on Bin Laden. In regard to bailing out GM, they ended up going into bankruptcy proceedings after the bailout anyway - and bankruptcy proceedings are exactly what would have happened to GM if they hadn't been bailed out. Both these assumptions of undue credit were, of course, conveniently ignored in Obama's self aggrandizing campaign pitches/ads.
Everytime I see the extreme deference shown the President by the main stream press, it reminds me that one of the main reasons we are in this mess is that he is not being held accountable for his numerous failures by the very people who are supposed to be performing this function.
Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics
History: Have always looked upon unions both positively and negatively. From the perspective of the late 1800's, and early 1900's, unions were one of the best things that ever happened to this country. In those days, people worked extremely long hours, under atrocious working conditions, and for pitiful wages. Unions formed, and helped fix a lot of these problems for many people in this country.
Greed: However, as time went on, human nature being what it is, unions got greedy, and struck/bargained their way into better and better wage/benefit packages - packages that the companies/industries they worked for could often not afford. In so doing, they often wrecked those companies/industries by making them uncompetitive. Companies - and whole industries, went out of business due to the excessive demands of unions, and the people who the unions were supposed to be representing the best interests of, ended up losing their jobs. NOTE: Recently heard on the news that Hostess bakeries is going out of business - a perfect example of the above.
Marginal Employees: The practice of unions protecting and preserving the jobs of marginal employees is a disservice to not just the entire business (through decreased production) but puts added pressure on coworkers who try and cover for the underperforming employees. In particular, unions protecting marginal teachers is an extreme disservice to our children and one of the main reasons why this country is falling behind other countries in education.
Intimidation Tactics: While intimidation tactics (some call this "union thuggery") may sometimes help to achieve short-term union goals, they are borderline illegal (at best), and often serve to engender negative sentiments from what would have otherwise been potentially sympathetic third parties. Images of union employees involved in inappropriate activities are not conducive to the garnering of public support.
Comments:
1. Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, needs to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. Simply put, market place forces of supply and demand - factors which determine whether business are going to be competitive both domestically and internationally, should be the key factors in the determination of wages and benefits.
2. Kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
3. With all of the labor laws currently on the books relating to employee safety, working conditions and hiring/firing practices, it leads one to wonder whether we really need unions at all these days.
4. If you'd like to read my article on "Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization States", at "onemanandhisview"
History: Have always looked upon unions both positively and negatively. From the perspective of the late 1800's, and early 1900's, unions were one of the best things that ever happened to this country. In those days, people worked extremely long hours, under atrocious working conditions, and for pitiful wages. Unions formed, and helped fix a lot of these problems for many people in this country.
Greed: However, as time went on, human nature being what it is, unions got greedy, and struck/bargained their way into better and better wage/benefit packages - packages that the companies/industries they worked for could often not afford. In so doing, they often wrecked those companies/industries by making them uncompetitive. Companies - and whole industries, went out of business due to the excessive demands of unions, and the people who the unions were supposed to be representing the best interests of, ended up losing their jobs. NOTE: Recently heard on the news that Hostess bakeries is going out of business - a perfect example of the above.
Marginal Employees: The practice of unions protecting and preserving the jobs of marginal employees is a disservice to not just the entire business (through decreased production) but puts added pressure on coworkers who try and cover for the underperforming employees. In particular, unions protecting marginal teachers is an extreme disservice to our children and one of the main reasons why this country is falling behind other countries in education.
Intimidation Tactics: While intimidation tactics (some call this "union thuggery") may sometimes help to achieve short-term union goals, they are borderline illegal (at best), and often serve to engender negative sentiments from what would have otherwise been potentially sympathetic third parties. Images of union employees involved in inappropriate activities are not conducive to the garnering of public support.
Comments:
1. Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, needs to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. Simply put, market place forces of supply and demand - factors which determine whether business are going to be competitive both domestically and internationally, should be the key factors in the determination of wages and benefits.
2. Kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
3. With all of the labor laws currently on the books relating to employee safety, working conditions and hiring/firing practices, it leads one to wonder whether we really need unions at all these days.
4. If you'd like to read my article on "Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization States", at "onemanandhisview"
Friday, November 16, 2012
Arab Spring?
Arab spring - it's more like an Arab winter. Obama would prefer we believe that the overthrow of dictators - such as Mubarek in Egypt, and then democratic elections, is one of the most positive things that could happen in the Muslim world. That these newly elected democratic governments will be sympatico with the United States. Actually, just the opposite is likely - the new governments are likely to end up as religious dictatorships (one democratic vote, and then a religious dictatorship thereafter). Sadly, a nonsecular Islamist government is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
In the case of Egypt, the new government - the Islamic Brotherhood, are proponents of Sharia Law, turning women into second class (or worse) citizens, the destruction of Israel, and the spreading (and not necessarily peacefully) of Islam wordlwide. Think back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the malevolent Islamic dictatorship that we've had to deal with ever since. NOTE: True, so far we've been able to bribe (via foreign aid) Egypt into being somewhat reasonable, but that situation could end at any time - quite possibly immediately due to the recent Israeli/Hamas flare-up.
Assuming that overthrown dictators will result in an "Arab spring" is incredible naive, on a par with the statement that Jimmy Carter made immediately after Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 - "the last 24 hours have taught me more about the true motives of the Soviet Union than the previous 3.5 years". The naivete involved with that statement still astounds me.
Overthrow of dictatorships in Muslim countires is fraught with peril as any change of governments can so easily end up as a religious dictatorship that is far worse than the dictatorship that it replaced ever was. NOTE: A Middle East comprised of Muslim countries exercising a "tyranny of the majority" modus operandi, trampling over the rights, and sometimes the very lifes, of minorities is a nightmare scenario of persecution and never-ending misery.
Comment: We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
Arab spring - it's more like an Arab winter. Obama would prefer we believe that the overthrow of dictators - such as Mubarek in Egypt, and then democratic elections, is one of the most positive things that could happen in the Muslim world. That these newly elected democratic governments will be sympatico with the United States. Actually, just the opposite is likely - the new governments are likely to end up as religious dictatorships (one democratic vote, and then a religious dictatorship thereafter). Sadly, a nonsecular Islamist government is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
In the case of Egypt, the new government - the Islamic Brotherhood, are proponents of Sharia Law, turning women into second class (or worse) citizens, the destruction of Israel, and the spreading (and not necessarily peacefully) of Islam wordlwide. Think back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the malevolent Islamic dictatorship that we've had to deal with ever since. NOTE: True, so far we've been able to bribe (via foreign aid) Egypt into being somewhat reasonable, but that situation could end at any time - quite possibly immediately due to the recent Israeli/Hamas flare-up.
Assuming that overthrown dictators will result in an "Arab spring" is incredible naive, on a par with the statement that Jimmy Carter made immediately after Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 - "the last 24 hours have taught me more about the true motives of the Soviet Union than the previous 3.5 years". The naivete involved with that statement still astounds me.
Overthrow of dictatorships in Muslim countires is fraught with peril as any change of governments can so easily end up as a religious dictatorship that is far worse than the dictatorship that it replaced ever was. NOTE: A Middle East comprised of Muslim countries exercising a "tyranny of the majority" modus operandi, trampling over the rights, and sometimes the very lifes, of minorities is a nightmare scenario of persecution and never-ending misery.
Comment: We need to be ever vigiliant to opportunities to work with truly democratic forces within Muslim countries in an attempt to guide and support these individuals so that a true democracy, rather than another form of dictatorship, results. Nonsecular governments are not only inimical/hostile to the United States, but they are typically pernicious to a significant portion of their own citizens. Backing the overthrow of friendly dictators (like Mubarek), without having democratic forces identified/supported by this country in place that have a real chance of success in forming a new democratic government, is a recipe for disaster.
Marxist tendancies?
Something that has really frightened me since day one of the Obama administraton is that I'm deathly afraid that our President might be a Marxist at heart. Not that he would ever admit to this of course - he certainly could never have run as a Marxist and been elected. NOTE: His recent "you didn't build that", talk of redistribution of wealth, and "social justice" statements are all classic Marxist philosphy.
But if true, our nation is in great jeopardy. All (I seldom use the word "all" in any of my blog articles) Marxists believe in the old phrase "the ends justifies the means". At its core, this is a very scary philosophy, because it means that the proponents of such will do anything to accomplish the goals that they feel are best.
By anything, I mean seizing power (creating a dictatorship) - and all that that entails. Am worried that Obama might use an incident (or even create an incident) as a pretext (excuse) to declare martial law, and then seize total power.
Now such an act is fraught with peril for any would-be dictator, enough peril that I'm desperately hoping that he won't have the guts to try it........ even though I think that that is exactly what he would like to try and do.
Something that has really frightened me since day one of the Obama administraton is that I'm deathly afraid that our President might be a Marxist at heart. Not that he would ever admit to this of course - he certainly could never have run as a Marxist and been elected. NOTE: His recent "you didn't build that", talk of redistribution of wealth, and "social justice" statements are all classic Marxist philosphy.
But if true, our nation is in great jeopardy. All (I seldom use the word "all" in any of my blog articles) Marxists believe in the old phrase "the ends justifies the means". At its core, this is a very scary philosophy, because it means that the proponents of such will do anything to accomplish the goals that they feel are best.
By anything, I mean seizing power (creating a dictatorship) - and all that that entails. Am worried that Obama might use an incident (or even create an incident) as a pretext (excuse) to declare martial law, and then seize total power.
Now such an act is fraught with peril for any would-be dictator, enough peril that I'm desperately hoping that he won't have the guts to try it........ even though I think that that is exactly what he would like to try and do.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Impeach Obama?
Have been thinking about the similarities between Watergate and Benghazigate: Nixon's coverup that eventually forced him to resign, and Obama's politically expedient decision where he not only failed to provide the additional security forces needed to protect our consulate, but actually withdrew security forces that were already on hand. NOTE: A need for enhanced security forces didn't mesh with Obama's "Arab Spring", and Al qaeda is on the run - the "warm and fuzzy" picture of foreign affairs that best suited President Obama's reelection plans.
Obama's indecisiveness (or indifference?) during the seven hours when our people still might have been saved, and his cover-up of his administrations actions, seems to be far worse than anything that happened during Watergate. True, the cover-up part of both scandals is quite similar, but Benghazigate ended up leading to something far worse - the deaths of four American citizens. After all, it was the security decisions that were made based on political advantage (getting reelected) - rather than analysis of security needs that helped create the crisis situation, and it was the failure to provide military aid during the critical seven hours that inevitably sealed the fate of the four Americans.
Actually though, do not think President Obama will ever be impeached for his handling . Reasons: a) The press is too heavily invested in the first black President to do anything but protect him at all costs. b: Democrats, who typically adhere to the old "ends justify the means" philosophy, will not vote against the President no matter how bad Benghazigate turns out to be - and it's plenty bad enough already.
Have been thinking about the similarities between Watergate and Benghazigate: Nixon's coverup that eventually forced him to resign, and Obama's politically expedient decision where he not only failed to provide the additional security forces needed to protect our consulate, but actually withdrew security forces that were already on hand. NOTE: A need for enhanced security forces didn't mesh with Obama's "Arab Spring", and Al qaeda is on the run - the "warm and fuzzy" picture of foreign affairs that best suited President Obama's reelection plans.
Obama's indecisiveness (or indifference?) during the seven hours when our people still might have been saved, and his cover-up of his administrations actions, seems to be far worse than anything that happened during Watergate. True, the cover-up part of both scandals is quite similar, but Benghazigate ended up leading to something far worse - the deaths of four American citizens. After all, it was the security decisions that were made based on political advantage (getting reelected) - rather than analysis of security needs that helped create the crisis situation, and it was the failure to provide military aid during the critical seven hours that inevitably sealed the fate of the four Americans.
Actually though, do not think President Obama will ever be impeached for his handling . Reasons: a) The press is too heavily invested in the first black President to do anything but protect him at all costs. b: Democrats, who typically adhere to the old "ends justify the means" philosophy, will not vote against the President no matter how bad Benghazigate turns out to be - and it's plenty bad enough already.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Petitions to secede?
Nobody ever passed around petitions to secede when John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were in the White House. I have to wonder about the level of disillusionment/dissatisfaction with the Obama years that would lead to something this extreme. Here are some thoughts:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments. There is an overall sense of hopelessness for the future, that the current state of affairs is now the norm - that things will just not improve under this President.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state. Also, backdoor support, and even enthusiasm, for the societal non contributors know as the "Occupy Wallstreeters" is a totally related sad commentary about where the Democratic party is these days.
Changing voter dynamics/effect on the economy and elections: The rapidly growing numbers of people dependent on the government for "stuff" increases the potential voting pool for Democrats. This makes it growingly less and less likely that this country will be able to fix the unsupportable financial situation we are in; Reason: Since the Democratic party typically receives the support (votes) of people dependent on the government for "stuff", democrats, to maintain power, will most likely continue to provide this "stuff" (sadly, out of money that we don't even have).
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about living in a nation where the administration sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes? NOTE: We didn't even try to send in military aid during the seven hours after the attack began. Whatever happened to "no man left behind". Guess that laudable policy doesn't apply under this administration.
Petitions to secede: Indeed, the response of many around the White House to the petitions to secede - a counter petition to strip the signers of the petition of their citizenship and deport them, actually lends credence to the petitioners who want to secede. These totalitarian "my way or the highway" folks from the far left make this country a far less appealing place to live in - particularly for those who share the philosphy of the founding fathers as laid out in the constitution.
Biased main stream press: Avoidance - even suppression of news that is unfavorable to the administration by the main stream press is a disservice, and is contrary to why the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the first amendment to the constitution. In a worst case scenario (which s pretty close exactly where we are these days), when you turn on the TV to hear the news, what you are actually hearing is political propoganda favorable to the administration - and not the news. It's actually like the main stream press has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever. Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and change" has devolved into a situation where there is "no hope" because there will be "no change".
Maybe I can see why many people would be signing these petitions after all.
Nobody ever passed around petitions to secede when John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were in the White House. I have to wonder about the level of disillusionment/dissatisfaction with the Obama years that would lead to something this extreme. Here are some thoughts:
The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments. There is an overall sense of hopelessness for the future, that the current state of affairs is now the norm - that things will just not improve under this President.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state. Also, backdoor support, and even enthusiasm, for the societal non contributors know as the "Occupy Wallstreeters" is a totally related sad commentary about where the Democratic party is these days.
Changing voter dynamics/effect on the economy and elections: The rapidly growing numbers of people dependent on the government for "stuff" increases the potential voting pool for Democrats. This makes it growingly less and less likely that this country will be able to fix the unsupportable financial situation we are in; Reason: Since the Democratic party typically receives the support (votes) of people dependent on the government for "stuff", democrats, to maintain power, will most likely continue to provide this "stuff" (sadly, out of money that we don't even have).
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about living in a nation where the administration sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes? NOTE: We didn't even try to send in military aid during the seven hours after the attack began. Whatever happened to "no man left behind". Guess that laudable policy doesn't apply under this administration.
Petitions to secede: Indeed, the response of many around the White House to the petitions to secede - a counter petition to strip the signers of the petition of their citizenship and deport them, actually lends credence to the petitioners who want to secede. These totalitarian "my way or the highway" folks from the far left make this country a far less appealing place to live in - particularly for those who share the philosphy of the founding fathers as laid out in the constitution.
Biased main stream press: Avoidance - even suppression of news that is unfavorable to the administration by the main stream press is a disservice, and is contrary to why the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the first amendment to the constitution. In a worst case scenario (which s pretty close exactly where we are these days), when you turn on the TV to hear the news, what you are actually hearing is political propoganda favorable to the administration - and not the news. It's actually like the main stream press has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - the ends justifies the means.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever. Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and change" has devolved into a situation where there is "no hope" because there will be "no change".
Maybe I can see why many people would be signing these petitions after all.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Communism:
I was a political science major in college. Always a conservative, and an avowed anti-communist, I decided early in my freshman year to read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto - just so I'd have more complete information on what I was always railing against.
Was actually shocked by what I read. Karl Marx's view of communism actually sounded a lot like Christianity - but a Christianity without the presence of a God. In his book, everyone worked together for the common good, and everyone participated in making decisions of what the group would do - again for the common good. It was actually quite democratic sounding.
It was actually one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard of. It showed a complete lack of understanding of human nature - people DO NOT/WILL NOT operate/work for the common good - they operate out of self interest.
That said, it became obvious what would happen when any society tried to implement communism - since people wouldn't operate for the common good, they would have to be controlled - forced to do what the leaders of the society thought best. So, instead of a cooperative quasi- democracy, you end up with a dictatorship. It's why communism has failed everywehere it has ever been implemented. Human nature just doesn't work that way. NOTE: You can't even get a society to work
that way with a God (and fear of hell to help control people) in the picture - you certainly can't achieve such in the absence of such.
Anyone seriously considering communism as the political answer for a society needs to heed the lessons of history - or, just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
Imposing communism on a society not only means that the people of that society are oppressed by an egregious dictatorship, but centralized planning/control does not allow for individual incentive necessary to optimize the economic growth of the society. Note the constant failures of the Russian five year plans, and the eventual quasi-capitalistic endeavors now allowed individuals in China. You just can't get optimum growth and production without allowing for indviduals to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
I was a political science major in college. Always a conservative, and an avowed anti-communist, I decided early in my freshman year to read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto - just so I'd have more complete information on what I was always railing against.
Was actually shocked by what I read. Karl Marx's view of communism actually sounded a lot like Christianity - but a Christianity without the presence of a God. In his book, everyone worked together for the common good, and everyone participated in making decisions of what the group would do - again for the common good. It was actually quite democratic sounding.
It was actually one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard of. It showed a complete lack of understanding of human nature - people DO NOT/WILL NOT operate/work for the common good - they operate out of self interest.
That said, it became obvious what would happen when any society tried to implement communism - since people wouldn't operate for the common good, they would have to be controlled - forced to do what the leaders of the society thought best. So, instead of a cooperative quasi- democracy, you end up with a dictatorship. It's why communism has failed everywehere it has ever been implemented. Human nature just doesn't work that way. NOTE: You can't even get a society to work
that way with a God (and fear of hell to help control people) in the picture - you certainly can't achieve such in the absence of such.
Anyone seriously considering communism as the political answer for a society needs to heed the lessons of history - or, just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
Imposing communism on a society not only means that the people of that society are oppressed by an egregious dictatorship, but centralized planning/control does not allow for individual incentive necessary to optimize the economic growth of the society. Note the constant failures of the Russian five year plans, and the eventual quasi-capitalistic endeavors now allowed individuals in China. You just can't get optimum growth and production without allowing for indviduals to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
Ambassador Rice for Secretary of State?
Ambassador Rice is being talked about as a possible replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding Benghazi - mostly who knew what, when, and in regard to what happened, what are the timeframes that apply. Perhaps just as important, for what reasons (like for reasons of political gain) were these actions taken?
While much is unclear, the following seems clear:
American officials asked for additional security forces, and were not only denied, but existing security forces were withdrawn.
Calls for help on Sept 11 were not answered - we didn't even attempt to get military aid to Benghazi.
Whether Pres. Obama said that the Benghazi disaster was an act of terror or not when he gave his press conference on Sep 12 - Ambassador Rice did say on five different news networks five days later that the attacks were related to the movie trailer and not to a terrorist attack.
This we know to be untrue - the Benghzai attack was a terrorist attack. Since the President is now saying that he called the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack on Sep 12, the network interviews given by Ambassador Rice five days later were either incompetence of the highest order, or outright lies for political gain.
This incompetence or duplicity of Ambassador Rice's interviews alone should make her possible selection as Secretary of State a non starter.
As the administration likes to say, elections have consequences. Well, so do actions.
Ambassador Rice is being talked about as a possible replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding Benghazi - mostly who knew what, when, and in regard to what happened, what are the timeframes that apply. Perhaps just as important, for what reasons (like for reasons of political gain) were these actions taken?
While much is unclear, the following seems clear:
American officials asked for additional security forces, and were not only denied, but existing security forces were withdrawn.
Calls for help on Sept 11 were not answered - we didn't even attempt to get military aid to Benghazi.
Whether Pres. Obama said that the Benghazi disaster was an act of terror or not when he gave his press conference on Sep 12 - Ambassador Rice did say on five different news networks five days later that the attacks were related to the movie trailer and not to a terrorist attack.
This we know to be untrue - the Benghzai attack was a terrorist attack. Since the President is now saying that he called the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack on Sep 12, the network interviews given by Ambassador Rice five days later were either incompetence of the highest order, or outright lies for political gain.
This incompetence or duplicity of Ambassador Rice's interviews alone should make her possible selection as Secretary of State a non starter.
As the administration likes to say, elections have consequences. Well, so do actions.
Stolen Election?
If the Democrats really cast enough fraudulent votes to steal the election for a race as important as the President of the United States, then, in reality, it means that we no longer live in a Democracy.
Liberals typically like to think of themselves as holier than thou, and are often proponents of a "ends justifies the means" type of philosophy. The major problems with this philosophy is that a) it can often lead to undemocratic policies/actions, and b) the "end justifies the means" adherents assume that the actions that they are taking are the correct course (s) of action - and this does absolutely NOT have to be true.
My guess, yes, Democrats cheated. Enough to steal the election - probably. However, since we'll never really know, so we're unfortunately going to have to make the best of things - i.e., work hard for the next election, keep a very sharp eye on the ballot boxes next time around, and hope that the Republican House can stave off any policies that are too pernicious to America.
If the Democrats really cast enough fraudulent votes to steal the election for a race as important as the President of the United States, then, in reality, it means that we no longer live in a Democracy.
Liberals typically like to think of themselves as holier than thou, and are often proponents of a "ends justifies the means" type of philosophy. The major problems with this philosophy is that a) it can often lead to undemocratic policies/actions, and b) the "end justifies the means" adherents assume that the actions that they are taking are the correct course (s) of action - and this does absolutely NOT have to be true.
My guess, yes, Democrats cheated. Enough to steal the election - probably. However, since we'll never really know, so we're unfortunately going to have to make the best of things - i.e., work hard for the next election, keep a very sharp eye on the ballot boxes next time around, and hope that the Republican House can stave off any policies that are too pernicious to America.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Unchallenged Democratic Assumptions:
The Great Recession was caused by George Bush/Corporate greed: Actually, the "great recession" was caused by overvalued housing prices (a bubble) and bad mortgages. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
The Clinton Years were an economic "happy days" scenario created by Democratic policies: Actually, the economic growth and budget surpluses were caused by two things, the tech boom, and the peace dividend. The tech boom spurred investment, GDP growth, stock market increases and job gains, and the peace dividend (Reagan/Bush winning the cold war) reduced government military expenditures and helped reduce the deficit. It wasn't so much anything the Clinton Administration did, or didn't do, they were simply the beneficiaries of the situation that they found themselves in.
When fighting for votes, frankly think it's best if Republicans don't just let the above assumptions stand. Why? Because some of the policies that Republicans are backing - and therefore need to defend, don't hold up well unless the above assumptions are refuted.
The Great Recession was caused by George Bush/Corporate greed: Actually, the "great recession" was caused by overvalued housing prices (a bubble) and bad mortgages. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
The Clinton Years were an economic "happy days" scenario created by Democratic policies: Actually, the economic growth and budget surpluses were caused by two things, the tech boom, and the peace dividend. The tech boom spurred investment, GDP growth, stock market increases and job gains, and the peace dividend (Reagan/Bush winning the cold war) reduced government military expenditures and helped reduce the deficit. It wasn't so much anything the Clinton Administration did, or didn't do, they were simply the beneficiaries of the situation that they found themselves in.
When fighting for votes, frankly think it's best if Republicans don't just let the above assumptions stand. Why? Because some of the policies that Republicans are backing - and therefore need to defend, don't hold up well unless the above assumptions are refuted.
The Road to Financial Ruin:
Instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change".
Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
All of this was fixable, and would have been under a Romney Presidency. A President Romney would have:
Went all in on energy production - oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. President Obama will use his EPA henchmen to stifle the utilization of energy reserves that would have lead to energy independence - thousand of current jobs will be lost, and millions of new jobs in the energy industry will never be created.
Repealed Obamacare. Forcing businesses to provide health care will hurt hiring, cost the economy jobs, and keep millions of people in a "part time" employment status.
Repealed Dodd-Frank. Over regulation keeps start-up businesses from getting the loans they need to open or expand a business. The vast majority of new jobs are created via small business start-ups and expansions, and under this law, a lot of entrepreneurs, simply won't ever get a chance to start their new businesses.
Kept income tax rates/capital gains tax rates the same. Obama's goal of increasing the tax rates on people making over $200K (couples over $250K)/capital gains tax hikes reduces the funds available for investment/expansion of businesses.
Made changes to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs. A President Romney would have taken actions to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece - riots and all. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change".
Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
All of this was fixable, and would have been under a Romney Presidency. A President Romney would have:
Went all in on energy production - oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. President Obama will use his EPA henchmen to stifle the utilization of energy reserves that would have lead to energy independence - thousand of current jobs will be lost, and millions of new jobs in the energy industry will never be created.
Repealed Obamacare. Forcing businesses to provide health care will hurt hiring, cost the economy jobs, and keep millions of people in a "part time" employment status.
Repealed Dodd-Frank. Over regulation keeps start-up businesses from getting the loans they need to open or expand a business. The vast majority of new jobs are created via small business start-ups and expansions, and under this law, a lot of entrepreneurs, simply won't ever get a chance to start their new businesses.
Kept income tax rates/capital gains tax rates the same. Obama's goal of increasing the tax rates on people making over $200K (couples over $250K)/capital gains tax hikes reduces the funds available for investment/expansion of businesses.
Made changes to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs. A President Romney would have taken actions to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece - riots and all. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)