Western Europe - the Seeds of their Own Destruction
Greece/Italy/Spain/Portugal: All four of these European Union countries have massive unemployment, declining GDP, and out of control deficits. If you'd like a pictorial description of their deficits - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster, as the countries race toward an economic catastrophe.
Social Welfare States, in general, over regulate, over tax, and spend more resources than the country can handle on entitlement programs, eventually bankrupting the country, and putting themselves in jeopardy of becoming a dictatorship - or a Communist dictatorship, when economic conditions become particularly dire.
The Seeds of their own Destruction and "Free Stuff": "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies, education) , exacerbate their deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces their tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements .
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to their current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, they need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: They need to ensure that people on welfare or unemployment actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment
Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run their countries, was, well, just the way it had to be.
However, after seeing what Liberals have managed to do - bribe people with money that they don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. They really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".
Final Comment: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that they can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving their economic problems.
Grim Financial Situation: The situation of Western Europe is grim. To have a chance at financial viability and survival, they need to make drastic and immediate changes to entitlement programs (see above). NOTE: Excessive taxing of the rich will most likely have the opposite effect desired. Instead of garnering additional revenue to cover debt, it will most likely drive the rich out of the country and therefore actually reduce revenue.
a. Possible Dissolution of the European Union: Would not be at all surprised to see the European Union dissolve. Can easily picture the more affluent countries - to save themselves, abandoning the poorer countries to their own inadequate means.
b. Total chaos leading to a Coup: The spectre of total economic failure and the seizing of power by a dictator (or Communist dictator) looms - particularly for the poorer Western European countries. NOTE: Social Democracies tiptoe on the edge of becoming Dictatorships, and in an economic downturn can easily slide into same............. Consider the current state of affairs in Greece. Just a little more turmoil, a few more riots, and a communistic strongman could easily declare martial law and seize total power. NOTE: If you'd like to read an article on the flaws inherent in Communism go to "onemanandhisview", title "Communism".
Side note: While all of the above also applies to the United States, we have mitigating factors that could help us stave off financial disaster:
a. Natural Resources: Recent studies have shown that the United States has the largest energy reserves on Earth. Our untapped energy reserves - oil, natural gas and coal rival none, and represent a great opportunity for this country - both for energy independence, and for job growth. We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), we have the capability to garner and utilize this energy.
b. Farmland: The United States is not dependent on foreign countries for the vast majority of our food. Being dependent on other countries for food to feed a burgeoning population is like playing a life or death struggle with one hand tied behind your back.
Final Comment: They/we stand at the precipice of the abyss. Immediate corrective actions - before the "seeds of their own destruction" - out of control entitlement spending, dooms us all.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Failed Keynesian Economic Policies
Keynesian Economics: One of the major tenets of Keynesian Economics is that you can stimulate an underperforming economy via government infrastructure spending (often called "shovel ready projects").
Obama Stimulus Plan: When Obama signed his $830B stimulus plan in January 2009, he said that unemployment would never go above 8%, and that by the end of his term, it would be back to 5.6%. Both predictions were incorrect, unemployment went as high as 10%, and his first term is ending with unemployment at nearly 8%. He also promised GDP would grow by approximately 4% a year. Instead it's been hovering at around 2% a year.
Discussion:
Shovel Ready Projects: Government investment in infrastructure - while these projects almost certainly do have at least some temporary stimulatory effect on the economy - the jobs aren't permanent, and of course, these projects expend taxpayer dollars.
Supplementing State Budgets: While supplementing state budgets does have some stimulatory effect (since people don't lose their jobs), it's only a temporary fix that delays the inevitable downsizing actions required by the states, and these efforts expend taxpayer dollars.
Green Energy Projects: Make work projects - companies like Solyndra (which almost always failed) - they add few jobs/have little value, their benefits are only temporary, and they mostly just end up wasting taxpayer dollars.
Cash for Clunkers/Other Expenditures: This form of stimulus is, at best, very short-lived. It mostly just adjusts procurement timeframes from one quarter to the next quarter - and wasting taxpayer dollars.
All of the above compound our already out of control deficit situation.
Politics: Having politicians involved involved in making decisions to stimulate the economy opens the door to "pet projects" - bright ideas by politicians who have their own agenda (which sometimes includes favors owed to campaign contributors) ................ see Green Energy Projects above.
Bottom Line: Further stimulus packages need to be nixed. With a $16T deficit, we simply cannot afford such. Things are bad enough as they are without exacerbating the problem. Even true "shovel ready" jobs can no longer be seriously considered. NOTE: With our deficit being as high as it is, additional green energy investment is practically fiscal treason.
We need to grow our economy the old-fashioned way - via private enterprise:
Capitalism "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production of goods or services for profit".
Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".
For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.
Investment: We need to maximize investment. For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:
Obamacare: A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.
Tax hikes: Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.
Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.
Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment - it needs to be removed from the equation.
Loans: For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Free Stuff versus the Deficit: "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made 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 - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment 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.
Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well, just the way it had to be.
However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".
Final Comment on "free stuff"/voting patterns: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.
Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth.
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.
Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - 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 mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need 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. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
Summary on Capitalism: To optimize GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).
Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society. Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.
Keynesian Economics: One of the major tenets of Keynesian Economics is that you can stimulate an underperforming economy via government infrastructure spending (often called "shovel ready projects").
Obama Stimulus Plan: When Obama signed his $830B stimulus plan in January 2009, he said that unemployment would never go above 8%, and that by the end of his term, it would be back to 5.6%. Both predictions were incorrect, unemployment went as high as 10%, and his first term is ending with unemployment at nearly 8%. He also promised GDP would grow by approximately 4% a year. Instead it's been hovering at around 2% a year.
Discussion:
Shovel Ready Projects: Government investment in infrastructure - while these projects almost certainly do have at least some temporary stimulatory effect on the economy - the jobs aren't permanent, and of course, these projects expend taxpayer dollars.
Supplementing State Budgets: While supplementing state budgets does have some stimulatory effect (since people don't lose their jobs), it's only a temporary fix that delays the inevitable downsizing actions required by the states, and these efforts expend taxpayer dollars.
Green Energy Projects: Make work projects - companies like Solyndra (which almost always failed) - they add few jobs/have little value, their benefits are only temporary, and they mostly just end up wasting taxpayer dollars.
Cash for Clunkers/Other Expenditures: This form of stimulus is, at best, very short-lived. It mostly just adjusts procurement timeframes from one quarter to the next quarter - and wasting taxpayer dollars.
All of the above compound our already out of control deficit situation.
Politics: Having politicians involved involved in making decisions to stimulate the economy opens the door to "pet projects" - bright ideas by politicians who have their own agenda (which sometimes includes favors owed to campaign contributors) ................ see Green Energy Projects above.
Bottom Line: Further stimulus packages need to be nixed. With a $16T deficit, we simply cannot afford such. Things are bad enough as they are without exacerbating the problem. Even true "shovel ready" jobs can no longer be seriously considered. NOTE: With our deficit being as high as it is, additional green energy investment is practically fiscal treason.
We need to grow our economy the old-fashioned way - via private enterprise:
Capitalism "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production of goods or services for profit".
Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".
For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.
Investment: We need to maximize investment. For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:
Obamacare: A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.
Tax hikes: Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.
Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.
Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment - it needs to be removed from the equation.
Loans: For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Free Stuff versus the Deficit: "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made 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 - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment 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.
Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well, just the way it had to be.
However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".
Final Comment on "free stuff"/voting patterns: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.
Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth.
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.
Started thinking about the above. You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.
Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - 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 mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need 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. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
Summary on Capitalism: To optimize GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).
Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society. Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
MainStream Press's Betrayal of America
Biased main stream media: The main stream media - whose primary responsibility should be in keeping the public educated on the issues of the day, has done just the opposite, they have kept many people misinformed/uninformed - avoiding, even suppressing, news that is 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".
2008 Presidential Campaign: In 2008 Obama ran as the "hope and change" candidate - the "great uniter" - the "not red states and blue states", but the United States" candidate. For the average American who was working a nine to five job, it's understandable that they didn't know the full story about Barack Obama. However, the mainstream press, totally ignored - actually suppressed, highly relevant information that would have been invaluable in judging the character of the man who wanted to be President - Barack Hussein Obama:
Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep. The mainstream press never fully revealed the following:
Reverend Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on Youtube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a divisive panderer or a racist.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who sat for 20 years in the church of a white supremest minister - and who also considered that minister to be his mentor.
His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose wife said that practically her entire life that she was not proud of this country. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose first campaign meeting was at the house of a right wing terrorist who had been involved in criminal activities. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who was mentored by a Hitler style Fascist in their teenage years. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who thinks that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of 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.
Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we voted to run our country?
2008 Presidential Candidacy: Based on Barack Obama's associations (above), his 2008 Presidential campaign should have been a non-starter. Only the mainstream press's deliberate suppression of highly pertinent information allowed Barack Obama to capture the Democratic nomination and win the Presidency.
2012 Presidential Campaign: When you consider the state of our economy at the time of the election, Obama winning reelection would normally have been considered impossible:
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
Obama's Energy Policy: Cancelling the Keystone Pipeline, and using his EPA henchman to slow/stop energy utilization within the United States
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.
Mainstream press in the 2012 campaign: Instead of focusing on the above, the mainstream press glossed over - or suppressed, the very significant flaws of Obama's first term and focused instead on issues more helpful toward getting Obama reelected: redistribution of wealth, the demonizing of Romney, "free stuff , abortion, and other peripheral issues.
Unamerican Thinking: If you consider Obama's background/past associations, many would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears.
Whether the mismanagement of this country is intentional, or not, thank you mainstream press for the betrayal of America and helping get a guy reelected who - with his socialist (perhaps Marxist) policies/agenda may actually be the "Manchurian Candidate".
Biased main stream media: The main stream media - whose primary responsibility should be in keeping the public educated on the issues of the day, has done just the opposite, they have kept many people misinformed/uninformed - avoiding, even suppressing, news that is 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".
2008 Presidential Campaign: In 2008 Obama ran as the "hope and change" candidate - the "great uniter" - the "not red states and blue states", but the United States" candidate. For the average American who was working a nine to five job, it's understandable that they didn't know the full story about Barack Obama. However, the mainstream press, totally ignored - actually suppressed, highly relevant information that would have been invaluable in judging the character of the man who wanted to be President - Barack Hussein Obama:
Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep. The mainstream press never fully revealed the following:
Reverend Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on Youtube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a divisive panderer or a racist.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who sat for 20 years in the church of a white supremest minister - and who also considered that minister to be his mentor.
His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose wife said that practically her entire life that she was not proud of this country. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose first campaign meeting was at the house of a right wing terrorist who had been involved in criminal activities. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.
Right-wing comparison: Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who was mentored by a Hitler style Fascist in their teenage years. His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.
Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who thinks that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of 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.
Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we voted to run our country?
2008 Presidential Candidacy: Based on Barack Obama's associations (above), his 2008 Presidential campaign should have been a non-starter. Only the mainstream press's deliberate suppression of highly pertinent information allowed Barack Obama to capture the Democratic nomination and win the Presidency.
2012 Presidential Campaign: When you consider the state of our economy at the time of the election, Obama winning reelection would normally have been considered impossible:
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
Obama's Energy Policy: Cancelling the Keystone Pipeline, and using his EPA henchman to slow/stop energy utilization within the United States
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.
Mainstream press in the 2012 campaign: Instead of focusing on the above, the mainstream press glossed over - or suppressed, the very significant flaws of Obama's first term and focused instead on issues more helpful toward getting Obama reelected: redistribution of wealth, the demonizing of Romney, "free stuff , abortion, and other peripheral issues.
Unamerican Thinking: If you consider Obama's background/past associations, many would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears.
Whether the mismanagement of this country is intentional, or not, thank you mainstream press for the betrayal of America and helping get a guy reelected who - with his socialist (perhaps Marxist) policies/agenda may actually be the "Manchurian Candidate".
The Hypocritical Left and their Adherence to the Constitution
Obama/the Left and the Constitution: The Left chooses to adhere to the Constitution only when such suits their purposes. This policy follows the Left's primary modus operandi - "the end justifies the means".
"End Justifies the Means": This is a behavior where an individual rationalizes any action necessary to accomplish the goal (s) they deem appropriate. Under this rationale, since the individual feels that they know what is best for everyone, they feel justified in taking any action necessary to accomplish their goal (s). Doing "any action necessary" could include misleading, lying, cheating, or even outright criminal behavior (such as dictatorial behavior).
Constitutional adherence: The following are issues in which the Left pushes for strict adherence to the Constitution because in these instances it suits their purposes - even though these issue are diametrically opposed to what the majority of Americans desire:
Muslim Community Center: The Left was "all in" regarding the idea of building a Muslim Community Center right beside the spot where the Twin Towers was destroyed by Muslim terrorists. Most Americans thought that such an action was insensitive to the n'th degree, but the Left argued that under the Constitution, Muslims should be able to build a Community Center anywhere they wanted.
Religion: The Left has been pushing to prevent any displays (to include prayers) of religion in any areas that might also be frequented by non religious individuals - citing the constitution and separation of church and state.
Obamacare: The Left rammed this program through - calling it a constitutional tax, even though the majority of Americans don't approve of this program.
Constitutional Indifference/Aversion: The following are issues in which the Left enthusiastically ignores the Constitution and the Laws of this country because they aren't in accord with their goals/agenda:
Gay Marriage: There are federal laws (Defense of Marriage Act) on the books banning gay marriage. The left doesn't like this law so they choose not to enforce it.
Marijuana Law: There is a federal law banning marijuana use (except for medical purposes). The Left has choosen not to enforce this law in any state where the state has created a state law that is contrary to the federal law. NOTE: Federal laws supersede state laws.
Illegal Immigration: There are federal laws on illegal immigration that the Left chooses not to enforce. In fact, the Left sues states (such as Arizona) that try to enforce the laws of the land themselves in order to fill the void left by the federal government's failing to do so.
Voter intimidation: In the 2008 election, Black Panthers carrying nightsticks intimidated whites at a polling location in Philadelphia. The Obama administration chose not to press charges............ Can you imagine what the Left's response would have been if white skinheads had been intimidating blacks at a polling location?!
No child Left Behind Law: The Obama administration chooses not to enforce this law because enforcement would lead to charter schools, and hurt one of the Left's biggest supporters - teacher's unions.
Overseas Voter Empowerment Act: The Obama administration choose not to enforce this law presumably because the majority of the military typically vote Republican, and suppressing Republican votes was in the best interests of getting Obama reelected.
Impeachable Offense? The typical response of the Obama Administration as to why they don't enforce federal laws that they don't like/approve of is because it's "not a priority" considering the limited resources available. While this excuse could be accepted upon occasion - everyone understands workload problems and priorities, the fact that it happens with such frequency in relation to Laws that deviate from Left wing agenda, should convince any reasonable person that Obama is failing to fullfill the oath he took to "uphold the Constitution". If you think about it, and take all of Obama's failures to "uphold the Constitution" together - in their entirety, doesn't this rise to the level of being an impeachable offense?
Obama/the Left and the Constitution: The Left chooses to adhere to the Constitution only when such suits their purposes. This policy follows the Left's primary modus operandi - "the end justifies the means".
"End Justifies the Means": This is a behavior where an individual rationalizes any action necessary to accomplish the goal (s) they deem appropriate. Under this rationale, since the individual feels that they know what is best for everyone, they feel justified in taking any action necessary to accomplish their goal (s). Doing "any action necessary" could include misleading, lying, cheating, or even outright criminal behavior (such as dictatorial behavior).
Constitutional adherence: The following are issues in which the Left pushes for strict adherence to the Constitution because in these instances it suits their purposes - even though these issue are diametrically opposed to what the majority of Americans desire:
Muslim Community Center: The Left was "all in" regarding the idea of building a Muslim Community Center right beside the spot where the Twin Towers was destroyed by Muslim terrorists. Most Americans thought that such an action was insensitive to the n'th degree, but the Left argued that under the Constitution, Muslims should be able to build a Community Center anywhere they wanted.
Religion: The Left has been pushing to prevent any displays (to include prayers) of religion in any areas that might also be frequented by non religious individuals - citing the constitution and separation of church and state.
Obamacare: The Left rammed this program through - calling it a constitutional tax, even though the majority of Americans don't approve of this program.
Constitutional Indifference/Aversion: The following are issues in which the Left enthusiastically ignores the Constitution and the Laws of this country because they aren't in accord with their goals/agenda:
Gay Marriage: There are federal laws (Defense of Marriage Act) on the books banning gay marriage. The left doesn't like this law so they choose not to enforce it.
Marijuana Law: There is a federal law banning marijuana use (except for medical purposes). The Left has choosen not to enforce this law in any state where the state has created a state law that is contrary to the federal law. NOTE: Federal laws supersede state laws.
Illegal Immigration: There are federal laws on illegal immigration that the Left chooses not to enforce. In fact, the Left sues states (such as Arizona) that try to enforce the laws of the land themselves in order to fill the void left by the federal government's failing to do so.
Voter intimidation: In the 2008 election, Black Panthers carrying nightsticks intimidated whites at a polling location in Philadelphia. The Obama administration chose not to press charges............ Can you imagine what the Left's response would have been if white skinheads had been intimidating blacks at a polling location?!
No child Left Behind Law: The Obama administration chooses not to enforce this law because enforcement would lead to charter schools, and hurt one of the Left's biggest supporters - teacher's unions.
Overseas Voter Empowerment Act: The Obama administration choose not to enforce this law presumably because the majority of the military typically vote Republican, and suppressing Republican votes was in the best interests of getting Obama reelected.
Impeachable Offense? The typical response of the Obama Administration as to why they don't enforce federal laws that they don't like/approve of is because it's "not a priority" considering the limited resources available. While this excuse could be accepted upon occasion - everyone understands workload problems and priorities, the fact that it happens with such frequency in relation to Laws that deviate from Left wing agenda, should convince any reasonable person that Obama is failing to fullfill the oath he took to "uphold the Constitution". If you think about it, and take all of Obama's failures to "uphold the Constitution" together - in their entirety, doesn't this rise to the level of being an impeachable offense?
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Iran and Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East
Extreme Peril: People don't seem to be taking this situation seriously enough. Like the Tom Clancy book that was later made into a movie - this is a situation that is a "clear and present danger" to Israel, the United States, and indeed, to the entire world.
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 simply can't allow them to continue playing their delaying game - it'll only lead to Islamic extremists in control of nuclear weapons. Further negotiations will NOT work. They say they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth - see no reason not to take them at their word. NOTE: Sometimes it seems like Obama's goal is to HELP Iran run out the clock/get nuclear weapons by providng them with the cover of "negotiations".
Think it's very likely that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc will want/acquire them too. A Middle East armed with nuclear weapons is one of the worst scenarios I can imagine - not just for Israel and the Untied States, but for the ENTIRE world! Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East could lead to Armageddon.
Think it's very likely that they will use the weapons if they get them. Am doubtful that mutually assured destruction 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.?
Extreme Peril: People don't seem to be taking this situation seriously enough. Like the Tom Clancy book that was later made into a movie - this is a situation that is a "clear and present danger" to Israel, the United States, and indeed, to the entire world.
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 simply can't allow them to continue playing their delaying game - it'll only lead to Islamic extremists in control of nuclear weapons. Further negotiations will NOT work. They say they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth - see no reason not to take them at their word. NOTE: Sometimes it seems like Obama's goal is to HELP Iran run out the clock/get nuclear weapons by providng them with the cover of "negotiations".
Think it's very likely that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc will want/acquire them too. A Middle East armed with nuclear weapons is one of the worst scenarios I can imagine - not just for Israel and the Untied States, but for the ENTIRE world! Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East could lead to Armageddon.
Think it's very likely that they will use the weapons if they get them. Am doubtful that mutually assured destruction 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.?
Friday, December 21, 2012
Recipe for Disaster
Democratic Strategy: The current Democratic strategy of of offering voters "free stuff" as a bribe to get their votes has proven very successful. This strategy got Obama reelected under conditions - when you consider the state of our economy at the time, would normally have been considered impossible:
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
Free Stuff versus the Deficit: "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment
Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well, just the way it had to be.
However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem". NOTE: Also, getting Americans back into the workforce, breaks the cycle of dependency, and this benefits everyone in the long run.
Final Comment: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.
Democratic Strategy: The current Democratic strategy of of offering voters "free stuff" as a bribe to get their votes has proven very successful. This strategy got Obama reelected under conditions - when you consider the state of our economy at the time, would normally have been considered impossible:
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
Free Stuff versus the Deficit: "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment
Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well, just the way it had to be.
However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem". NOTE: Also, getting Americans back into the workforce, breaks the cycle of dependency, and this benefits everyone in the long run.
Final Comment: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Obama's "Mandate"
Democratic Assertion: Obama/the Left would like you to believe that since Obama just won a second term that he has a mandate to do all of the things he campaigned on.
Invalid Assumption: The above is totally inaccurate. Obama's "mandate", was a mere 51% of the population, and his victory was based primarily on bribing people to vote for him based on promises of "free stuff" - out of money we don't even have.
In regard to the vast Array of Actual Policy Issues that Obama claims he has a "mandate" on, that assertion is misguided at best. Consider the following issues:
Guantanamo Bay: The majority of Americans are not in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay.
Trying terrorists in Civilian Courts: The majority of Americans are not in favor of trying terrorists in American courts - or in America for that matter.
Energy Reserves: The majority of Americans want to utilize our Energy Reserves to create new jobs, grow the economy, and they want less expensive energy for their own use. Likewise, the majority of Americans are in favor of the Keystone pipeline.
Obamacare: The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and didn't appreciate having it rammed down their throats.
The Deficit: The majority of Americans do want action to be take in regard to our deficit before it is too late.
Socialist Outlook: The majority of American's don't share Obama's sentiment of "you didn't build that" in regard to entrepreneurs starting their own businesses.
Occupy Wall Street: The majority of Americans do not think that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good for this country.
Gay Marriage: The majority of Americans are not in favor of Gay marriage.
Photo Ids: The majority of Americans are in favor of requiring voters to show photo IDs.
Muslim Community Center: The majority of Americans do not want a Muslim Community Center built beside the World Trade Center.
Felons Voting: The majority of Americans do not think that felons should have the right to vote.
Discussion:
Tyranny of the Majority: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
Tyranny of the Minority: "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority. Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).
Dominant Minority Rule: The Undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" is a situation in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.
Evaluation: Obama would like to choose the optimal mix of the above - Tyranny of the Majority - for issues in which he has the support of the American people, Dominant Minority rule - for issues in which he does not have the support of the American people, and Tyranny of the Minority - well, when you consider that Democrats recently proposed to do away with the Senate filibuster - Obama has no interest in governing via that method at all.
Comment: Since Obama's dominant political style seems to be - "my way or the highway", perhaps we should consider an amendent to the constiution making him dictator for life................... Or maybe he thinks he doesn't even need an amendment.
Democratic Assertion: Obama/the Left would like you to believe that since Obama just won a second term that he has a mandate to do all of the things he campaigned on.
Invalid Assumption: The above is totally inaccurate. Obama's "mandate", was a mere 51% of the population, and his victory was based primarily on bribing people to vote for him based on promises of "free stuff" - out of money we don't even have.
In regard to the vast Array of Actual Policy Issues that Obama claims he has a "mandate" on, that assertion is misguided at best. Consider the following issues:
Guantanamo Bay: The majority of Americans are not in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay.
Trying terrorists in Civilian Courts: The majority of Americans are not in favor of trying terrorists in American courts - or in America for that matter.
Energy Reserves: The majority of Americans want to utilize our Energy Reserves to create new jobs, grow the economy, and they want less expensive energy for their own use. Likewise, the majority of Americans are in favor of the Keystone pipeline.
Obamacare: The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and didn't appreciate having it rammed down their throats.
The Deficit: The majority of Americans do want action to be take in regard to our deficit before it is too late.
Socialist Outlook: The majority of American's don't share Obama's sentiment of "you didn't build that" in regard to entrepreneurs starting their own businesses.
Occupy Wall Street: The majority of Americans do not think that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good for this country.
Gay Marriage: The majority of Americans are not in favor of Gay marriage.
Photo Ids: The majority of Americans are in favor of requiring voters to show photo IDs.
Muslim Community Center: The majority of Americans do not want a Muslim Community Center built beside the World Trade Center.
Felons Voting: The majority of Americans do not think that felons should have the right to vote.
Discussion:
Tyranny of the Majority: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
Tyranny of the Minority: "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority. Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).
Dominant Minority Rule: The Undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" is a situation in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.
Evaluation: Obama would like to choose the optimal mix of the above - Tyranny of the Majority - for issues in which he has the support of the American people, Dominant Minority rule - for issues in which he does not have the support of the American people, and Tyranny of the Minority - well, when you consider that Democrats recently proposed to do away with the Senate filibuster - Obama has no interest in governing via that method at all.
Comment: Since Obama's dominant political style seems to be - "my way or the highway", perhaps we should consider an amendent to the constiution making him dictator for life................... Or maybe he thinks he doesn't even need an amendment.
Dark Days Ahead
Debt Ceiling Negotiations: Even if they eventually come to an agreement, we will still be in deep financial peril:
The deficit: The proposals being bandied about represent only insignificant reductions to our burgeoning 16 trillion dollar deficit and have no real effect in solving our nightmarish fiscal problem - slowing (if not reducing) the deficit. The significant cuts to our discretionary/entitlement programs that are necessary to keep us from becoming the next Greece - riots and all, aren't even being put on the table.
Energy Reserves: Our unutilized energy reserves, which could go a long ways toward generating enough jobs - and therefore tax revenue, to help slow the growth rate of our deficit, may go unrealized, as harvesting our energy resources is constantly under attack by Obama and his EPA henchmen. NOTE: The fact that it has been recently revealed that the United States has the largest energy reserves on the planet - and the technology necessary to garner these resources, may end up being largely irrelevant due to Obama's Far Left Green agenda.
Market Forces: It's hard to imagine that our burgeoning deficit won't eventually slow our economy, and then drive us into another recession. This will even further excacerbate our deficit problem due to increased entitlement outlays/a reduced tax base. The preceeding is bad enough, but additional factors threaten to make our situation worse yet:
The impact of Western Europe's anemic economy will have a significant negative effect on us as one of our biggest customers will reduce demand for our products.
The effects (oil price spike? ........ war?) almost bound to occur when Israel makes their inevitable attack on Iran in an attempt to irradicate Iran's nuclear program.
An economic downturn will almost certainly cause a huge stock market dip, which will lower consumer confidence, reduce investment, and even further reduce our GDP growth rate.
Look for the rate of growth of our deficit to accelerate - as our one trillion dollar deficits actually start looking like the "good old days"..................... For those that have a problem understanding the mathematial implications of our deficit situation, picture this - a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - that is our deficit.
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama.
Debt Ceiling Negotiations: Even if they eventually come to an agreement, we will still be in deep financial peril:
The deficit: The proposals being bandied about represent only insignificant reductions to our burgeoning 16 trillion dollar deficit and have no real effect in solving our nightmarish fiscal problem - slowing (if not reducing) the deficit. The significant cuts to our discretionary/entitlement programs that are necessary to keep us from becoming the next Greece - riots and all, aren't even being put on the table.
Energy Reserves: Our unutilized energy reserves, which could go a long ways toward generating enough jobs - and therefore tax revenue, to help slow the growth rate of our deficit, may go unrealized, as harvesting our energy resources is constantly under attack by Obama and his EPA henchmen. NOTE: The fact that it has been recently revealed that the United States has the largest energy reserves on the planet - and the technology necessary to garner these resources, may end up being largely irrelevant due to Obama's Far Left Green agenda.
Market Forces: It's hard to imagine that our burgeoning deficit won't eventually slow our economy, and then drive us into another recession. This will even further excacerbate our deficit problem due to increased entitlement outlays/a reduced tax base. The preceeding is bad enough, but additional factors threaten to make our situation worse yet:
The impact of Western Europe's anemic economy will have a significant negative effect on us as one of our biggest customers will reduce demand for our products.
The effects (oil price spike? ........ war?) almost bound to occur when Israel makes their inevitable attack on Iran in an attempt to irradicate Iran's nuclear program.
An economic downturn will almost certainly cause a huge stock market dip, which will lower consumer confidence, reduce investment, and even further reduce our GDP growth rate.
Look for the rate of growth of our deficit to accelerate - as our one trillion dollar deficits actually start looking like the "good old days"..................... For those that have a problem understanding the mathematial implications of our deficit situation, picture this - a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - that is our deficit.
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tyranny of the Minority versus Tyranny of the Majority
Tyranny of the Minority: "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority. Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).
Tyranny of the Majority: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
Discussion of "Tyranny of the Minority: The majority of a country cannot get laws enacted/constitution amended because the minority has enough votes under the rules of the government to block legislation. A good example of "Tyranny of the Minority" is in the United States senate where the minority party can filibuster (stop) a law from being enacted if they have 41 out of the 100 senators. NOTE: "Tyranny of the Minority is to be distinguished from the undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.
Discussion of "Tyranny of the Majority: The majority institute laws/a constitution favorable only to the majority. Potential abuse of the rights of the minority by the majority. The rights, and sometimes even the very lives, of minorities become largely irrelevant. A good example of "tyranny of the majority" would be Middle East countries ruled by Muslim majorities that often oppress non-Muslim minorities.
Recommendations:
a.) In countries with "Tyranny of the Majority", where the majority may enact legislation potentially pernicious to the minority, the country absolutely needs to institute an iron clad constitution to protect the minorities. As mentioned above, the Middle East applies.
b.) In countries with "Tyranny of the Minority", believe that supermajority and separation of powers makes the most sense. REASON: A good example is the United States, where a majority could vote in legislation that might actually be unconstitutional, but the legislation would be implemented anyway. The legislation would often take as long as two years to reach, and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Think that supermajority rules/separation of powers best protects the rights of the minorities. Besides, there is something to be said for compromise.
Tyranny of the Minority: "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority. Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).
Tyranny of the Majority: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
Discussion of "Tyranny of the Minority: The majority of a country cannot get laws enacted/constitution amended because the minority has enough votes under the rules of the government to block legislation. A good example of "Tyranny of the Minority" is in the United States senate where the minority party can filibuster (stop) a law from being enacted if they have 41 out of the 100 senators. NOTE: "Tyranny of the Minority is to be distinguished from the undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.
Discussion of "Tyranny of the Majority: The majority institute laws/a constitution favorable only to the majority. Potential abuse of the rights of the minority by the majority. The rights, and sometimes even the very lives, of minorities become largely irrelevant. A good example of "tyranny of the majority" would be Middle East countries ruled by Muslim majorities that often oppress non-Muslim minorities.
Recommendations:
a.) In countries with "Tyranny of the Majority", where the majority may enact legislation potentially pernicious to the minority, the country absolutely needs to institute an iron clad constitution to protect the minorities. As mentioned above, the Middle East applies.
b.) In countries with "Tyranny of the Minority", believe that supermajority and separation of powers makes the most sense. REASON: A good example is the United States, where a majority could vote in legislation that might actually be unconstitutional, but the legislation would be implemented anyway. The legislation would often take as long as two years to reach, and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Think that supermajority rules/separation of powers best protects the rights of the minorities. Besides, there is something to be said for compromise.
Capitalist Manifesto
Capitalism versus Marxism:
Marxism (often called Communism) is a Flawed Economic/Political System that always begins with oppression, and ends with anemic GDP performance. Marxism, and it's close cousin Socialism, have the following shortfalls:
Lack of Incentive: With government owning the means of production, and redistributing the wealth, there is no incentivize for people to work hard - to be as productive as possible - causing people to do just the minimum necessary to get by. From a societal point of view, millions of people being just productive enough to "get by", results in a dramatically reduced gross national product., and therefore a lowered standard of living for all.
Centralized Planning: The Soviet Union was famous for it's failed Five Year Plans. Government has never been particularly successful at running either businesses or economies.
Dictatorships: Communist states inevitably end up as Dictatorships - typically from day one. Since humans don't have "altruism" as a built in part of our genetic code, people need to be controlled if you're going to start seizing property/wealth, and telling people what they need to do in the new society. Social Democracies tiptoe on the edge of becoming Dictatorships, and in an economic downturn can easily slide into same............. Consider the current state of affairs in Greece. Just a little more turmoil, a few more riots, and a communistic strongman could easily declare martial law and seize total power.
Summary on Marxism/Socialism:
Communist Countries: 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 the individual incentive necessary to optimize the economic growth of the society. Remember the constant failures of the Russian five year plans, and the fact that Chinese leaders eventually felt compelled (due to constant economic failures) to allow individuals to be involved in quasi-capitalistic endeavors to garner reasonable GDP growth levels. You just can't get optimum growth and production without allowing for individuals to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
Socialist Countries : Socialist countries - which the United States is now becoming, over regulate, over tax, and spend more resources than the country can handle on entitlement programs, eventually bankrupting the country, and putting themselves in jeopardy of becoming a Communist dictatorship when economic conditions become particularly dire.
Capitalism "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production of goods or services for profit".
Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".
For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.
Investment: We need to maximize investment. For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:
Obamacare: A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.
Tax hikes: Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.
Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.
Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.
Loans: For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
c) Supplement low wage earners by removing tax burden: As an inducement to work (vice draw entitlement dollars), set a dollar amount, below which no taxes of any amount are deducted from the pay of a wage earner.
Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made 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 - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment 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.
Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth. Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious:
Started thinking about the above. You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.
Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - 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 mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need 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. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
Summary on Capitalism: To optimize GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).
Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society. Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.
Capitalism versus Marxism:
Marxism (often called Communism) is a Flawed Economic/Political System that always begins with oppression, and ends with anemic GDP performance. Marxism, and it's close cousin Socialism, have the following shortfalls:
Lack of Incentive: With government owning the means of production, and redistributing the wealth, there is no incentivize for people to work hard - to be as productive as possible - causing people to do just the minimum necessary to get by. From a societal point of view, millions of people being just productive enough to "get by", results in a dramatically reduced gross national product., and therefore a lowered standard of living for all.
Centralized Planning: The Soviet Union was famous for it's failed Five Year Plans. Government has never been particularly successful at running either businesses or economies.
Dictatorships: Communist states inevitably end up as Dictatorships - typically from day one. Since humans don't have "altruism" as a built in part of our genetic code, people need to be controlled if you're going to start seizing property/wealth, and telling people what they need to do in the new society. Social Democracies tiptoe on the edge of becoming Dictatorships, and in an economic downturn can easily slide into same............. Consider the current state of affairs in Greece. Just a little more turmoil, a few more riots, and a communistic strongman could easily declare martial law and seize total power.
Summary on Marxism/Socialism:
Communist Countries: 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 the individual incentive necessary to optimize the economic growth of the society. Remember the constant failures of the Russian five year plans, and the fact that Chinese leaders eventually felt compelled (due to constant economic failures) to allow individuals to be involved in quasi-capitalistic endeavors to garner reasonable GDP growth levels. You just can't get optimum growth and production without allowing for individuals to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
Socialist Countries : Socialist countries - which the United States is now becoming, over regulate, over tax, and spend more resources than the country can handle on entitlement programs, eventually bankrupting the country, and putting themselves in jeopardy of becoming a Communist dictatorship when economic conditions become particularly dire.
Capitalism "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production of goods or services for profit".
Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".
For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.
Investment: We need to maximize investment. For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:
Obamacare: A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.
Tax hikes: Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.
Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.
Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.
Loans: For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
c) Supplement low wage earners by removing tax burden: As an inducement to work (vice draw entitlement dollars), set a dollar amount, below which no taxes of any amount are deducted from the pay of a wage earner.
Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made 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 - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment 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.
Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth. Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious:
"If the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad….
The energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream".
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus). We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.
Started thinking about the above. You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.
Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - 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 mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need 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. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
Summary on Capitalism: To optimize GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).
Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society. Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Utilization of United States Energy Reserves
Proven United States energy reserves:
"The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service" ( see - http://www.humanevents.com/2009/11/02/us-tops-in-energy-resources/).
Our untapped energy reserves - oil, natural gas and coal rival none, and represent a great oppurtunity for this country - both for energy independecne, and for job growth.
Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/12355-america%E2%80%99s-exploding-energy-reserves-are-also-exploding-myths):
As Mead mused on the energy revolution taking place in America, he was led to acknowledge a higher power:
The Obama Plan:
The future looks bright - as long as President Obama and his overzealous EPA henchman don't ruin this opportunity for all of us. The man who said - "under my plan, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket" ( if you want to see this 2008 Obama conversation do an internet search on - "Obama energy costs skyrocket"), and who stopped the Keystone Pipeline cold can't be trusted to do what is right for the American people on this issue.
Obama's claim that there is more drilling going on during his term than at any time in recent memory is duplicitous at best. True, there is more drilling going on now, but this is in spite of him, rather than because of him. He, and his over regulating EPA henchmen, sign fewer drilling permits than any President in recent memory. The reason drilling has increased during his term is because the drilling is being done on private (not public) lands.
Climate Change:
We understand the concern over climate change. 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 willing 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.
Recommendations:
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side beneifit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
We should 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.
We should discontinue providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world. This 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 importantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
Comment: The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil. Rather than being a "climate savior", which I suspect is how he thinks of himself, failure to garner and use our energy reserves is actually a disservice (I aliken it to planetary treason on Obama's part) to the long term viability of this planet.
onemanandhisview
utilization of united states energy reserves
coal mining states
Proven United States energy reserves:
"The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service" ( see - http://www.humanevents.com/2009/11/02/us-tops-in-energy-resources/).
Our untapped energy reserves - oil, natural gas and coal rival none, and represent a great oppurtunity for this country - both for energy independecne, and for job growth.
Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/12355-america%E2%80%99s-exploding-energy-reserves-are-also-exploding-myths):
"If the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad….
The energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.
When left alone, the American entrepreneur with access to capital will allow it to find its highest and best use. As the energy development revolution in this country continues, its impacts will be felt across the country and around the world. It is estimated that the energy boom has already generated some 600,000 new jobs, and when manufacturing and processing industries return to the United States to take advantage of low energy costs, those jobs will be multiplied by a factor of 10.As Mead mused on the energy revolution taking place in America, he was led to acknowledge a higher power:
Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States.
The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet."
The Obama Plan:
The future looks bright - as long as President Obama and his overzealous EPA henchman don't ruin this opportunity for all of us. The man who said - "under my plan, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket" ( if you want to see this 2008 Obama conversation do an internet search on - "Obama energy costs skyrocket"), and who stopped the Keystone Pipeline cold can't be trusted to do what is right for the American people on this issue.
Obama's claim that there is more drilling going on during his term than at any time in recent memory is duplicitous at best. True, there is more drilling going on now, but this is in spite of him, rather than because of him. He, and his over regulating EPA henchmen, sign fewer drilling permits than any President in recent memory. The reason drilling has increased during his term is because the drilling is being done on private (not public) lands.
Climate Change:
We understand the concern over climate change. 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 willing 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.
Recommendations:
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side beneifit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
We should 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.
We should discontinue providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world. This 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 importantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
Comment: The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil. Rather than being a "climate savior", which I suspect is how he thinks of himself, failure to garner and use our energy reserves is actually a disservice (I aliken it to planetary treason on Obama's part) to the long term viability of this planet.
onemanandhisview
utilization of united states energy reserves
coal mining states
Tyranny of the Majority and the Middle East
Definition: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppresive, and may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
The potential abuse by the majority against the rights of minorities, is why in the United States we have a constitution, a Bill of Rights, separation of powers (between the President, the House, the Senate, and the Judicial Branch) and the requirement for a supermajority (60 votes out of 100) in most Senate votes.
Middle East: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a common occurence in the Middle East. Muslim countries typically elect "democratic" non-secular Muslim leaders who then institute laws/a constitution favorable only to the majority (Muslims). Typically, the citizens get one democratic vote, and then there is a religious dictatorship thereafter. The rights, and sometimes even the very lives, of minoritites become largely irrelevant. The governments of Iran, and now Egypt, apply.
The non-secular governments 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. NOTE: A Middle East comprised of Muslim countries exercising a "tyranny of the majority" modus operandi, trampling over the rights, and sometimes the very lives, of minorities is a nightmare scenario of persecution and never-ending misery.
Relationship to the United States: Arab spring? It's more like an Arab winter. Obama would like us to 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 - a non-secular Islamist government that is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
Recommendation:
1. 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 through their intolerance, 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.
2. Push newly "democratic" Middle Eastern countries to create iron-clad Constitutions that protect the rights of minorities
Definition: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppresive, and may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.
The potential abuse by the majority against the rights of minorities, is why in the United States we have a constitution, a Bill of Rights, separation of powers (between the President, the House, the Senate, and the Judicial Branch) and the requirement for a supermajority (60 votes out of 100) in most Senate votes.
Middle East: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a common occurence in the Middle East. Muslim countries typically elect "democratic" non-secular Muslim leaders who then institute laws/a constitution favorable only to the majority (Muslims). Typically, the citizens get one democratic vote, and then there is a religious dictatorship thereafter. The rights, and sometimes even the very lives, of minoritites become largely irrelevant. The governments of Iran, and now Egypt, apply.
The non-secular governments 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. NOTE: A Middle East comprised of Muslim countries exercising a "tyranny of the majority" modus operandi, trampling over the rights, and sometimes the very lives, of minorities is a nightmare scenario of persecution and never-ending misery.
Relationship to the United States: Arab spring? It's more like an Arab winter. Obama would like us to 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 - a non-secular Islamist government that is by it's very nature inimical to the United States (and to all non-Muslims).
Recommendation:
1. 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 through their intolerance, 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.
2. Push newly "democratic" Middle Eastern countries to create iron-clad Constitutions that protect the rights of minorities
Gun Control
I don't own a gun, and have no immediate plans to acquire one. However, I do adamantly support the right of Americans to own guns as authorized by the second amendment to the Constitution.
That said, I can only think of three legitimate reasons why individuals would need to own a gun:
1. Hunting
2. Protection of Self/Family/Home from others. This would include not just home break-in scenarios, but natural disaster situations involving the always possible "mauranding band" that is out to wreak havoc.
3. Protection of Self/Family/Home from the government. This is the dictator seizing power scenario that could happen at any time - to any society. In such a situation, citizens need to be able to respond. Guns are absolutely required, or a response becomes pretty much impossible. Proactively speaking, an armed populace is a really big disincentive for anyone to try to become a dictator in the first place - i.e., the potential dictator may be dissuaded from his planned course of action by an armed populace.
From the perspective of a Dictator, the first thing they would want to do once assuming power is to remove the people's guns. Far easier to stay in power that way. It behooves the populace of a country not to be sheep sitting around hoping that a dictator won't come a-knocking. Citizens need to be armed so that a potential dictator will think twice before daring to try and seize power. Democracy requires never-ending vigiliance, and one way to be vigiliant, is to be prepared for the worst.
Assault Weapons: Am for the control of assault weapons. Think these sort of weapons belong in the hands of the military only. That said, realize the following:
a. If push ever came to shove in this country in regard to a dictator, the freedom fighters would be far better off if at least some of them had assault weapons.
b. Even if banned, assault weapons will still end up in the hands of/be used by terrorists, drug dealers, and hard core criminals.
Discussion on Assault Weapons: While there are some advantages to allowing assault weapons to be obtainable by the general populace, mass murder scenarios are far less likely to happen if they are not acquirable. Sort of a trade-off here - ability to combat (a) and (b) above, against the lifes of citizens in mass murder situations. I lean toward reduced access in this case.
Background Checks: Don't feel that convicted felons should be able to acquire weapons. Also don't feel that anyone with a history of mental illness should be allowed to acquire weapons.
Registration of Guns: Innocuous sounding as this may seem, it could easily turn into convenient first step in confiscation of guns by Government officials
Final thought: Some might suspect that the often vehement demands from the left for gun control might be related to more than just the safety of our citizens in mass murder situations. The Founding Father's knew that an armed populace was a real deterrant to any potential dictator.......... Put in a more historical perspective, how well do you think that the American Revolution would have went without an armed populace?
I don't own a gun, and have no immediate plans to acquire one. However, I do adamantly support the right of Americans to own guns as authorized by the second amendment to the Constitution.
That said, I can only think of three legitimate reasons why individuals would need to own a gun:
1. Hunting
2. Protection of Self/Family/Home from others. This would include not just home break-in scenarios, but natural disaster situations involving the always possible "mauranding band" that is out to wreak havoc.
3. Protection of Self/Family/Home from the government. This is the dictator seizing power scenario that could happen at any time - to any society. In such a situation, citizens need to be able to respond. Guns are absolutely required, or a response becomes pretty much impossible. Proactively speaking, an armed populace is a really big disincentive for anyone to try to become a dictator in the first place - i.e., the potential dictator may be dissuaded from his planned course of action by an armed populace.
From the perspective of a Dictator, the first thing they would want to do once assuming power is to remove the people's guns. Far easier to stay in power that way. It behooves the populace of a country not to be sheep sitting around hoping that a dictator won't come a-knocking. Citizens need to be armed so that a potential dictator will think twice before daring to try and seize power. Democracy requires never-ending vigiliance, and one way to be vigiliant, is to be prepared for the worst.
Assault Weapons: Am for the control of assault weapons. Think these sort of weapons belong in the hands of the military only. That said, realize the following:
a. If push ever came to shove in this country in regard to a dictator, the freedom fighters would be far better off if at least some of them had assault weapons.
b. Even if banned, assault weapons will still end up in the hands of/be used by terrorists, drug dealers, and hard core criminals.
Discussion on Assault Weapons: While there are some advantages to allowing assault weapons to be obtainable by the general populace, mass murder scenarios are far less likely to happen if they are not acquirable. Sort of a trade-off here - ability to combat (a) and (b) above, against the lifes of citizens in mass murder situations. I lean toward reduced access in this case.
Background Checks: Don't feel that convicted felons should be able to acquire weapons. Also don't feel that anyone with a history of mental illness should be allowed to acquire weapons.
Registration of Guns: Innocuous sounding as this may seem, it could easily turn into convenient first step in confiscation of guns by Government officials
Final thought: Some might suspect that the often vehement demands from the left for gun control might be related to more than just the safety of our citizens in mass murder situations. The Founding Father's knew that an armed populace was a real deterrant to any potential dictator.......... Put in a more historical perspective, how well do you think that the American Revolution would have went without an armed populace?
Friday, December 14, 2012
Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling Negotiations and Obama's Secret Agenda For this Country:
Moment of Truth: Obama talks a good game on many budget issues, but the old saying "action speaks louder than words" applies to the completed Fiscal Cliff negotiations, and to the upcoming Debt Ceiling increase negotiations. By the time we have struck a deal for both, we will know where the President really stands on the following:
A. DOD $500B cut: - DOD has already taken a $500B cut, and Defense Secretary Panetta says that any additional cuts - specifically, the $500K identified in the upcoming sequestration, would devastate the readiness of our nation's military. Comment: Although Obama talks a good game, and supports Sec. Panetta on-camera, it's the suspicion of many that off-camera he would actually like this additional $500B cut to occur.
B. Upper Class Tax Hike: Obviously, Obama supported this tax increase - regardless of the fact that many economists said that this/the capital gains tax hike, will cost the nation jobs and send us spiraling into another recession.
C. Capital Gains Tax Hike: Obviously, Obama supported this tax increase - regardless of the fact that many economists said that this/the upper class tax hike, will cost the nation jobs and send us spiraling into another recession.
D. Discretionary Budget Items: The budget plans that Obama has disseminated, show no real cuts to these programs areas. The only "cuts" identified by Obama to date are imaginary cuts - i.e., not spending money on things that we were never going to spend money on in the first place - and calling it a tax "cut". Example: Saying you saved $1T by not sending a mission to Mars, and calling that a $1T "savings" is a good example of an"Obama spending cut".
E. Entitlement Reform: The President occasionally acknowledges that something needs to be done to curb the rate of growth in our entitlement programs - social security, medicare and medicaid,
however, to date, he has done nothing to curb the growth rate of any of these entitlement programs.
F. Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies: Obama has taken no actions to decrease costs being accrued to these welfare related areas, in fact, policies to date - specifically alterations to Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act - that make the acquisition of these benefits easier for people, he has dramatically increased costs to the government.
G. Unemployment: Obama has taken no action (s) to decrease costs being accrued to this program. In fact, by extending unemployement benefits beyond the timeframe originally authorized (6 months) - to 2 years, he has dramatically increased program costs.
Conclusions:
1. Cost Drivers: Believe that if we get through both financial negotiations without any significant changes to our budgetary cost drivers (parag. D through H above), that it is obvious that Obama has no intention of doing anything to slow down the growth rate of our out-of-control federal deficit.
2. DOD Budget: Believe that if we get through both financial negotiations with DOD taking the $500K cut (parag. A above) currently identified by sequestration, it means that Obama wants to dramatically reduce our military, and therefore reduce our military/economic dominance/footprint on the world.
3. Blank Check Authority: If one of the results of the financial negotiations is that Obama is granted "Blank Check Authority" by Congress, not only are we heading down the road to financial ruin - as from that point on there will be no control over Obama's out-of-control spending, or our snowballing deficit, but we may be in the early stages of a Dictatorship.
Moment of Truth: Obama talks a good game on many budget issues, but the old saying "action speaks louder than words" applies to the completed Fiscal Cliff negotiations, and to the upcoming Debt Ceiling increase negotiations. By the time we have struck a deal for both, we will know where the President really stands on the following:
A. DOD $500B cut: - DOD has already taken a $500B cut, and Defense Secretary Panetta says that any additional cuts - specifically, the $500K identified in the upcoming sequestration, would devastate the readiness of our nation's military. Comment: Although Obama talks a good game, and supports Sec. Panetta on-camera, it's the suspicion of many that off-camera he would actually like this additional $500B cut to occur.
B. Upper Class Tax Hike: Obviously, Obama supported this tax increase - regardless of the fact that many economists said that this/the capital gains tax hike, will cost the nation jobs and send us spiraling into another recession.
C. Capital Gains Tax Hike: Obviously, Obama supported this tax increase - regardless of the fact that many economists said that this/the upper class tax hike, will cost the nation jobs and send us spiraling into another recession.
D. Discretionary Budget Items: The budget plans that Obama has disseminated, show no real cuts to these programs areas. The only "cuts" identified by Obama to date are imaginary cuts - i.e., not spending money on things that we were never going to spend money on in the first place - and calling it a tax "cut". Example: Saying you saved $1T by not sending a mission to Mars, and calling that a $1T "savings" is a good example of an"Obama spending cut".
E. Entitlement Reform: The President occasionally acknowledges that something needs to be done to curb the rate of growth in our entitlement programs - social security, medicare and medicaid,
however, to date, he has done nothing to curb the growth rate of any of these entitlement programs.
F. Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies: Obama has taken no actions to decrease costs being accrued to these welfare related areas, in fact, policies to date - specifically alterations to Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act - that make the acquisition of these benefits easier for people, he has dramatically increased costs to the government.
G. Unemployment: Obama has taken no action (s) to decrease costs being accrued to this program. In fact, by extending unemployement benefits beyond the timeframe originally authorized (6 months) - to 2 years, he has dramatically increased program costs.
Conclusions:
1. Cost Drivers: Believe that if we get through both financial negotiations without any significant changes to our budgetary cost drivers (parag. D through H above), that it is obvious that Obama has no intention of doing anything to slow down the growth rate of our out-of-control federal deficit.
2. DOD Budget: Believe that if we get through both financial negotiations with DOD taking the $500K cut (parag. A above) currently identified by sequestration, it means that Obama wants to dramatically reduce our military, and therefore reduce our military/economic dominance/footprint on the world.
3. Blank Check Authority: If one of the results of the financial negotiations is that Obama is granted "Blank Check Authority" by Congress, not only are we heading down the road to financial ruin - as from that point on there will be no control over Obama's out-of-control spending, or our snowballing deficit, but we may be in the early stages of a Dictatorship.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
North Korean Threat
North Korean Leadership: The North Koreans have a young dictator whose experience, intelligence and judgement are all are subject to question. Most importantly, his volatility in regard to day to day issues - and even more critically, in regard to potential crisis situations, is dubious at best. In paricular, his current strategy of trying to obtain free food for his starving people by blackmailing the world - free food in exchange for restraint in regard to his nuclear weapons, creates a very dangerous situation.
China: China is the key to dealing with North Korea. With North Korea being their client state, China is the only country capable of guiding North Korea in the direction best for the international community - and for the citizens of North Korea.
a) China should be made to see that it is not in their best interests to have their client state, proceed down it's current path. We should make sure China understands that Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan may all likely to pursue nuclear weapons if North Korea proceeds unchecked, and that nuclear proliferation in the Pacific Rim is not in their, or anyone's best interests.
b) We should make China understands that long term stability of the area would be best served by a reunification between Sourth and North Korea under a Democratic government.
Summary on China: We should do everyting we can to ellicit China's support in helping to push/guide it's client state - North Korea, in the direction of peace and stability as identified above.
Responsibility of citizens in countries ruled by Dictators: When the dictator from your country threatens/intimidates other country (s) - or worse yet, when they actually take punitive action against other country (s), the citizens of that country are likely to be the ones to suffer the repercussions of the dictator's actions. Therefore, it behooves the citizens of that country to ensure the behavior of that dictator are within acceptable international bounds - or, to take whatever actions are necessary to remove said dictator from office. NOTE: The same case for this - actually an even better case for this, can be made for Iranian leaders.
Recent Korean Actions: North Korea has threatened the United States with a nuclear "first strike", and they have also cancelled the 1953 ceasefire armistice.
Recommendation: Continue with the "China approach", tyring to get China to reign in N. Korea , or based on their extrememly threatening/provocative recent behavior, use this as an excuse to take out their nuclear sites/savage their military, and basically end this problem once and for all.
North Korean Leadership: The North Koreans have a young dictator whose experience, intelligence and judgement are all are subject to question. Most importantly, his volatility in regard to day to day issues - and even more critically, in regard to potential crisis situations, is dubious at best. In paricular, his current strategy of trying to obtain free food for his starving people by blackmailing the world - free food in exchange for restraint in regard to his nuclear weapons, creates a very dangerous situation.
China: China is the key to dealing with North Korea. With North Korea being their client state, China is the only country capable of guiding North Korea in the direction best for the international community - and for the citizens of North Korea.
a) China should be made to see that it is not in their best interests to have their client state, proceed down it's current path. We should make sure China understands that Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan may all likely to pursue nuclear weapons if North Korea proceeds unchecked, and that nuclear proliferation in the Pacific Rim is not in their, or anyone's best interests.
b) We should make China understands that long term stability of the area would be best served by a reunification between Sourth and North Korea under a Democratic government.
Summary on China: We should do everyting we can to ellicit China's support in helping to push/guide it's client state - North Korea, in the direction of peace and stability as identified above.
Responsibility of citizens in countries ruled by Dictators: When the dictator from your country threatens/intimidates other country (s) - or worse yet, when they actually take punitive action against other country (s), the citizens of that country are likely to be the ones to suffer the repercussions of the dictator's actions. Therefore, it behooves the citizens of that country to ensure the behavior of that dictator are within acceptable international bounds - or, to take whatever actions are necessary to remove said dictator from office. NOTE: The same case for this - actually an even better case for this, can be made for Iranian leaders.
Recent Korean Actions: North Korea has threatened the United States with a nuclear "first strike", and they have also cancelled the 1953 ceasefire armistice.
Recommendation: Continue with the "China approach", tyring to get China to reign in N. Korea , or based on their extrememly threatening/provocative recent behavior, use this as an excuse to take out their nuclear sites/savage their military, and basically end this problem once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)