Our Wretched Economy - Is it Due to Character and Competence Issues?
Our Country is going Bankrupt for the following Reasons:
A) Welfare/Unemployment Benefts 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
B) The Incompetent (or Punitive?) Economic Policies of Obama:
a) The Deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
b) GNP: Growing at an anemic 2%/year. NOTE: During the Reagan recovery, the GNP grew at 7%/year.
c) 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.
d) Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", have inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments.
e) Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state.
While all of the above would have been fixed under a Romney Presidency, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece - riots and all. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Unamerican Thinking: Some 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. Consider the following:
Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep:
Reverand 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 devisive panderer or a racist. Relevant comment: I certainly would not have sat in a church headed by a "man of God" espousing white supremacy views for 20 minutes much less 20 years.
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.
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.
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.
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 clearnance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we have running our country?
Redistribution of Wealth: Obama's favorite tactic (other than demonizing Romney) was demagouging the Republicans over the issue of taxing the rich. As the self professed "champion of the middle class" he campaigned on making sure that the rich pay their "fair share". Of course, what is the "fair share"? Is the fact that the top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of the income tax bill not enough - particularly when you consider the fact that the bottom 47% of wage earners of this country pay nothing? In fact, worse yet, these days the bottom 47% are using the ballot box to vote themselves "free stuff" from funds that they country doesn't even have. NOTE: Democrats like to say that low income earners are paying taxes - the social security tax. Wrong - the social security tax is people's contribution to their own retirement program. It is not like the income tax - the tax that pays for the running of this country.
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 think's 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.
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.
Sometimes I wonder is this guy actually the "Manchurian Candidate"?
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
International Carbon and Internet Taxes
Third world countries would like nothing better than for there to be a world government. With a world government, the third world countries - via the United Nations, could vote themselves "free stuff" out of the pockets of the developed countries. A tyranny of the majority scenario would result.
Actually, this sounds a lot like what's happening within the United States these days. The non-taxpaying majority (or near majority) voting themsleves "free stuff" - at the encouragement of the Democratic Party, from the pockets of the more affluent members of our society.
Sadly, there are many from the far Left (Socialists/Marxists) in this country who are supportive of these United Nations imposed taxes. These taxes fit right into their desired worldwide redistributiion of the wealth scenario - rich nations to poor nations, that they consider to be so legitimate/righteous.
We need to ensure that Obama and his far Left allies do not sign a treaty giving the United Nations the authority to tax us, or we will shortly find that we have lost control of our own destiny. If once the United Nations ever gained this authority over us, we will find it very difficult to ever undo.
Third world countries would like nothing better than for there to be a world government. With a world government, the third world countries - via the United Nations, could vote themselves "free stuff" out of the pockets of the developed countries. A tyranny of the majority scenario would result.
Actually, this sounds a lot like what's happening within the United States these days. The non-taxpaying majority (or near majority) voting themsleves "free stuff" - at the encouragement of the Democratic Party, from the pockets of the more affluent members of our society.
Sadly, there are many from the far Left (Socialists/Marxists) in this country who are supportive of these United Nations imposed taxes. These taxes fit right into their desired worldwide redistributiion of the wealth scenario - rich nations to poor nations, that they consider to be so legitimate/righteous.
We need to ensure that Obama and his far Left allies do not sign a treaty giving the United Nations the authority to tax us, or we will shortly find that we have lost control of our own destiny. If once the United Nations ever gained this authority over us, we will find it very difficult to ever undo.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
President Obama and the Economy - "All the Wrong Moves"
The Road to Financial Ruin:
Under Obama, instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change". Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
The Deficit: Our government/the press isn't taking our 16 trillion dollar debt seriously enough. If we don't do something about this in the very near term, our country is going to go right down the tubes - just like Greece - riots and all. You would think you'd be hearing the politicans/press screaming about this from the rafters, but you hardly hear anything, and even when you do, it's seldom with any real sense of urgency.
The best comparison I can think of for this situation, is a snowball rolling down a hill - getting bigger and bigger, and rolling faster and faster. Pretty soon, it's pretty much unstoppable. Like the snowball, as our deficit gets bigger, it grows, not only by the yearly increase in the deficit, but by the ever growing interest on the deficit. Pretty soon, it's so far out of hand - that you can barely cover the interest on the debt, much less pay the deficit down any.
Entitlements: 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 to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
GDP Growth: Under Obama, with a GDP growth rate of approximately 2%, we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. NOTE: During the Reagan years we hit a GDP growth rate of 7%.
Unemployment: Unemployment is holding at around 8%.
Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses. In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.
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 propability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare". A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time. Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class. A third uncertainty, possible 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.
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".
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.
I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.
Resource Utilization: "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/).
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):
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.
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.
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.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before). 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. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, 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 of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Consolidation should also be practived wthin the federal government to the maximum extent posible. 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 Roosevlt 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 mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
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 demans is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
All of the above was fixable, and would have been under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
The Road to Financial Ruin:
Under Obama, instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change". Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
The Deficit: Our government/the press isn't taking our 16 trillion dollar debt seriously enough. If we don't do something about this in the very near term, our country is going to go right down the tubes - just like Greece - riots and all. You would think you'd be hearing the politicans/press screaming about this from the rafters, but you hardly hear anything, and even when you do, it's seldom with any real sense of urgency.
The best comparison I can think of for this situation, is a snowball rolling down a hill - getting bigger and bigger, and rolling faster and faster. Pretty soon, it's pretty much unstoppable. Like the snowball, as our deficit gets bigger, it grows, not only by the yearly increase in the deficit, but by the ever growing interest on the deficit. Pretty soon, it's so far out of hand - that you can barely cover the interest on the debt, much less pay the deficit down any.
Entitlements: 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 to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
GDP Growth: Under Obama, with a GDP growth rate of approximately 2%, we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. NOTE: During the Reagan years we hit a GDP growth rate of 7%.
Unemployment: Unemployment is holding at around 8%.
Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses. In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.
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 propability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare". A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time. Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class. A third uncertainty, possible 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.
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".
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.
I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.
Resource Utilization: "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/).
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".
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.
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.
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.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before). 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. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, 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 of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Consolidation should also be practived wthin the federal government to the maximum extent posible. 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 Roosevlt 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 mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
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 demans is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
All of the above was fixable, and would have been under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Believe the following article by Mychal Massie is a fantastic summation of why so many Americans are dissatisfied with our President:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
Mychal Massie - Why I do not like the Obama's:
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
Mychal Massie - Why I do not like the Obama's:
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Supreme Court Activism vs Constructionism.
Most of us would like to think of the Supreme Court in very positive terms - as the ultimate impartial arbitor of important legal and moral issues.
Impartial decisions? The problem is, based on what I've seen over the years, I don't see this as really being the case. If the judges are all so impartial - if they are so brilliant - why all the 5 to 4 decisions? Shouldn't such astute judicial minds come up with the same answer nearly all the time (lots of 9 to 0 and 8 to 1 decisions)? It seems to me that the decisions - often 5 to 4, follow the political leanings of the judges (which typically traces back to the party that nominated them to the Supreme Court in the first place). NOTE: Likewise, determining which way a lower court decisions will go is typically as easy as finding out the political leaning (s) of the judge (or judges if a panel).
Some would say that it's not really about political leanings - that some judges are constructionists, and some judges are activists - that constructionism/activism is just an outlook on how one goes about interpreting and formulating decisions on the law.
Definitions:
Judicial Constructionism: The practice of strict constructionism requires a judge to apply the text of the law in a formalist way -- only as it is written. This means a judge or panel of judges must first obtain a clear meaning of the text. Once the text of a law is interpreted clearly, there is no need to draw further inferences from statutes of the law. Employing strict constructionism is one way for conservative judges to practice judicial restraint.
Judicial Activism: Describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.
Actually, ajudicating under the Judicial Activism definition (above) sounds a lot to me like the what sometimes seems to be the liberal mantra - "the ends justifies the means". - justify (force fit) whatever issue you're reviewing to reach the decision you politically want.
Comments:
1. I think that any reasonably impartial person would be forced to admit that judicial decisions made by Judicial Activists (typically liberal judges) are often politically related decisions, and are not impartial (unbiased) reviews of the applicable laws (or the constitution), and, as such, do not lend credibility to the decisions of the court involved.
2. I wait with bated breath for a technological breakthrough that gives us a lie detector test that no one can beat. This device would come in extremely handy worldwide for judges, politicans, and criminals (people accused of being criminals).
Most of us would like to think of the Supreme Court in very positive terms - as the ultimate impartial arbitor of important legal and moral issues.
Impartial decisions? The problem is, based on what I've seen over the years, I don't see this as really being the case. If the judges are all so impartial - if they are so brilliant - why all the 5 to 4 decisions? Shouldn't such astute judicial minds come up with the same answer nearly all the time (lots of 9 to 0 and 8 to 1 decisions)? It seems to me that the decisions - often 5 to 4, follow the political leanings of the judges (which typically traces back to the party that nominated them to the Supreme Court in the first place). NOTE: Likewise, determining which way a lower court decisions will go is typically as easy as finding out the political leaning (s) of the judge (or judges if a panel).
Some would say that it's not really about political leanings - that some judges are constructionists, and some judges are activists - that constructionism/activism is just an outlook on how one goes about interpreting and formulating decisions on the law.
Definitions:
Judicial Constructionism: The practice of strict constructionism requires a judge to apply the text of the law in a formalist way -- only as it is written. This means a judge or panel of judges must first obtain a clear meaning of the text. Once the text of a law is interpreted clearly, there is no need to draw further inferences from statutes of the law. Employing strict constructionism is one way for conservative judges to practice judicial restraint.
Judicial Activism: Describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.
Actually, ajudicating under the Judicial Activism definition (above) sounds a lot to me like the what sometimes seems to be the liberal mantra - "the ends justifies the means". - justify (force fit) whatever issue you're reviewing to reach the decision you politically want.
Comments:
1. I think that any reasonably impartial person would be forced to admit that judicial decisions made by Judicial Activists (typically liberal judges) are often politically related decisions, and are not impartial (unbiased) reviews of the applicable laws (or the constitution), and, as such, do not lend credibility to the decisions of the court involved.
2. I wait with bated breath for a technological breakthrough that gives us a lie detector test that no one can beat. This device would come in extremely handy worldwide for judges, politicans, and criminals (people accused of being criminals).
Freedom of the Press/Loss of Democracy
One of the first things to go in a democracy is freedom of the press, and the ability of a nation's people to freely speak their minds. Am concerned that we are in the early stages of a revocation of the freedom of speech/freedom of the press in the United States. The Obama administration's attempt to marginalize Fox News - the only news agency that will typically present information disadvantageous to the Obama administration - to keep them out of the loop, and therefore quash dissenting opinions/views, is scary at best. The Obama administration's first attempt at such occured in the fall of 2009 ( see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-w7-G8PLyc), and more recent attempts at such (see http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/01/palin-van-susteren-rip-media-for-reluctance-to-take-on-white-house-on-benghazi-video/#ixzz2Dv6lQchm).
Control and suppression of news/information is dangerous to the liberty of a nation.
Great Uniter or Great Divider?
Voting is the best revenge: In a campaign speech immediately before the election, the "great uniter" said that "voting is the best revenge". For those of you who were enthralled by the concept of the first black President - does this even remotely sound like the man you pulled for in 2008 who said "not red states and blue states, but the United States"?
Punish your enemies: Before the 2010 elections, Obama urged Latinos to "punish your enemies". Does this sound like a man who is trying to pull the country together - or someone who cynically plays the Class Warfare card? NOTE: For his 2012 campaign, his campaign was based almost entirely on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other.
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".
Comment: This man is not the "great uniter" that he pretended to be in 2008 and he is not the champion of the middle class that he campaigned as in 2012. I think it strongly behooves all freedom loving Americans to keep a very close and watchful eye on this man, or we may be horrified to find that a second term is followed by a third term, and then a fourth term, etc., etc.
One of the first things to go in a democracy is freedom of the press, and the ability of a nation's people to freely speak their minds. Am concerned that we are in the early stages of a revocation of the freedom of speech/freedom of the press in the United States. The Obama administration's attempt to marginalize Fox News - the only news agency that will typically present information disadvantageous to the Obama administration - to keep them out of the loop, and therefore quash dissenting opinions/views, is scary at best. The Obama administration's first attempt at such occured in the fall of 2009 ( see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-w7-G8PLyc), and more recent attempts at such (see http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/01/palin-van-susteren-rip-media-for-reluctance-to-take-on-white-house-on-benghazi-video/#ixzz2Dv6lQchm).
Control and suppression of news/information is dangerous to the liberty of a nation.
Great Uniter or Great Divider?
Voting is the best revenge: In a campaign speech immediately before the election, the "great uniter" said that "voting is the best revenge". For those of you who were enthralled by the concept of the first black President - does this even remotely sound like the man you pulled for in 2008 who said "not red states and blue states, but the United States"?
Punish your enemies: Before the 2010 elections, Obama urged Latinos to "punish your enemies". Does this sound like a man who is trying to pull the country together - or someone who cynically plays the Class Warfare card? NOTE: For his 2012 campaign, his campaign was based almost entirely on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other.
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".
Comment: This man is not the "great uniter" that he pretended to be in 2008 and he is not the champion of the middle class that he campaigned as in 2012. I think it strongly behooves all freedom loving Americans to keep a very close and watchful eye on this man, or we may be horrified to find that a second term is followed by a third term, and then a fourth term, etc., etc.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
President Obama - Would Blank Check Authority be the early stages of a Dictatorship?
Heard on the news the other day that one of the things that Obama is pushing for in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is the ability to unilaterally raise the Debt Ceiling. If granted, this authority would mean that Obama wouldn't have to go to Congress for approval to raise the Debt Ceiling anymore.
This is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. To remove the constraints/leverage that Congress currently has available to try and control federal expenditures allows Obama to run up costs, and continue to snowball our national debt.
This goes far beyond anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers when they created the Constituiion. This puts entirely too much power in the hands of one individual,and pretty much does away with the separation of powers.
If passed, the deficit would continue to accumulate with no real control whatsoever - other than whatever control Obama would choose to exercise. NOTE: With the "prudence" evidenced by Obama during his first term - the deficit rising from $10T to $16T, consider it exceedingly dangerous (fiscally) to entrust him with this authority.
This authority would actually give a President the unfettered ability to spend with no real pressure/inducement to compromise. No need to even make a budget - just keep spending on whatever projects already authorized by the law that the President deems fit.
This much power resting in one man's hands can lead to a sort of fiscal tyranny of the majority, or even worse - a fiscal tyranny of the minority. NOTE: Although Obama just won reelection by 3%, strongly suspect that the public would not want the President to operate with unfettered spending ability - so, in reality, this would be a fiscal tyranny of the minority.
Republicans need to make this an absolute non-starter - to include going off the "Fiscal Cliff", if necessary.
Heard on the news the other day that one of the things that Obama is pushing for in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations is the ability to unilaterally raise the Debt Ceiling. If granted, this authority would mean that Obama wouldn't have to go to Congress for approval to raise the Debt Ceiling anymore.
This is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. To remove the constraints/leverage that Congress currently has available to try and control federal expenditures allows Obama to run up costs, and continue to snowball our national debt.
This goes far beyond anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers when they created the Constituiion. This puts entirely too much power in the hands of one individual,and pretty much does away with the separation of powers.
If passed, the deficit would continue to accumulate with no real control whatsoever - other than whatever control Obama would choose to exercise. NOTE: With the "prudence" evidenced by Obama during his first term - the deficit rising from $10T to $16T, consider it exceedingly dangerous (fiscally) to entrust him with this authority.
This authority would actually give a President the unfettered ability to spend with no real pressure/inducement to compromise. No need to even make a budget - just keep spending on whatever projects already authorized by the law that the President deems fit.
This much power resting in one man's hands can lead to a sort of fiscal tyranny of the majority, or even worse - a fiscal tyranny of the minority. NOTE: Although Obama just won reelection by 3%, strongly suspect that the public would not want the President to operate with unfettered spending ability - so, in reality, this would be a fiscal tyranny of the minority.
Republicans need to make this an absolute non-starter - to include going off the "Fiscal Cliff", if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)