E-mail to House of Representative:
Dear Randy,
I read your September 28 Roundup Newsletter.
On the matter of "Washington’s Out-of-Control Spending Habits", congratulations on your amendment. However you are whistling in the dark when you try to do these things alone. Look to the Blue Dogs for support and be willing to do a little compromising.
On the matter of "Shining Light on President’s Czars", congratulations on introducing H.R. 3613. It's nice to tell the people about it, but we need more information on how effective it is. For example, how many other representatives do you have to support it? What are you doing to gain additional support?
I would like to also suggest that you spend less time on incidental items. For example, you have devoted as much space in your newsletter to "October Crime Prevention Month" as you have to the other two items, which are at least 10 times more important.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Blue Dog Coalition
Open letter to the Blue Dog Coalition:
I am 88 years old and have excellent long-term and short-term memory.
In my early adult years, I recognized the platform of the Republican Party as conservative, to the extent of minimizing government change, using a hands-off policy on private companies and corporations, while simultaneously embracing a few regulations, such as anti-monopoly. The platform of the Democratic Party appeared to be very similar, with less accent relating to private business, and the willingness to engage in at least minor legislative changes. For both parties, financial responsibility was the watchword.
Through the years, the party platforms have changed. The Republican platform is more like the old-time Democrats. It has become more willing to change. However, it has also sacrificed some of its original responsibility to protect private and corporate interests. It has given up much of its fiscal responsibility, but still claims average fiscal responsibility. The Democratic platform has become more socially involved. The leadership has tended toward unrealistic idealisms, which were not present in the old Democratic platform. The new platform has completely divorced itself from any fiscal responsibility.
I believe that with the present Democratic leadership in power, we are headed toward an oligarchic/dictatorial government, which will later fail through bankruptcy, similar to other world examples.
I also believe that this is not an inevitable development, and your Blue Dog Coalition can be instrumental in developing a new, yet more fiscally responsible federal government. However, your present coalition is too small in its membership to be meaningful in controlling the House agenda. You need a substantial infusion of new members, and many of these may be available from the group which now designate themselves as Republicans. Unfortunately, labels may have a significant influence on your attempting to gain new coalition members. I suggest that at an appropriate time, which would maintain continued support from your local constituencies, you might want to establish a new party known as the Blue Dog Party. When such as solidly available to you, it will go a long way to have many Republicans jump ship. This would be especially true if the newly registered party becomes a party of choice at the local level. Fiscal responsibility and debt reduction will be the most cohesive aspect of the various members.
Consider also that while the Blue Dog Party will have its initial roots in the Democratic House, it will be expanded through the Senate. I and many like me would continue to maintain allegiance to the present personalities even with party label change. For example, my Representative Neugebauer and my Senators Cornyn and Hutchison will more easily retain my vote as Blue Dogs, rather than as Republicans.
I am 88 years old and have excellent long-term and short-term memory.
In my early adult years, I recognized the platform of the Republican Party as conservative, to the extent of minimizing government change, using a hands-off policy on private companies and corporations, while simultaneously embracing a few regulations, such as anti-monopoly. The platform of the Democratic Party appeared to be very similar, with less accent relating to private business, and the willingness to engage in at least minor legislative changes. For both parties, financial responsibility was the watchword.
Through the years, the party platforms have changed. The Republican platform is more like the old-time Democrats. It has become more willing to change. However, it has also sacrificed some of its original responsibility to protect private and corporate interests. It has given up much of its fiscal responsibility, but still claims average fiscal responsibility. The Democratic platform has become more socially involved. The leadership has tended toward unrealistic idealisms, which were not present in the old Democratic platform. The new platform has completely divorced itself from any fiscal responsibility.
I believe that with the present Democratic leadership in power, we are headed toward an oligarchic/dictatorial government, which will later fail through bankruptcy, similar to other world examples.
I also believe that this is not an inevitable development, and your Blue Dog Coalition can be instrumental in developing a new, yet more fiscally responsible federal government. However, your present coalition is too small in its membership to be meaningful in controlling the House agenda. You need a substantial infusion of new members, and many of these may be available from the group which now designate themselves as Republicans. Unfortunately, labels may have a significant influence on your attempting to gain new coalition members. I suggest that at an appropriate time, which would maintain continued support from your local constituencies, you might want to establish a new party known as the Blue Dog Party. When such as solidly available to you, it will go a long way to have many Republicans jump ship. This would be especially true if the newly registered party becomes a party of choice at the local level. Fiscal responsibility and debt reduction will be the most cohesive aspect of the various members.
Consider also that while the Blue Dog Party will have its initial roots in the Democratic House, it will be expanded through the Senate. I and many like me would continue to maintain allegiance to the present personalities even with party label change. For example, my Representative Neugebauer and my Senators Cornyn and Hutchison will more easily retain my vote as Blue Dogs, rather than as Republicans.
Job Importance
E-mail to Congress:
South Carolina Candidate to Launch Campaign With Assault Rifle Giveaway
A Greenville, South Carolina man plans to launch his political campaign for adjutant general Saturday by giving away an AK-47 assault rifle. Dean Allen, 58, said he will give away the rifle in a free sweepstakes open to all. He said it's his way of celebrating the Second Amendment and showing solidarity against gun-rights opponents. (greenvilleonline.com)
If you ever wonder whether your job is important, consider this. The initial part of the French Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the French government. The initial part of the Russian Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the Russian government. In both those cases (and there are others), the next stage was violence. The French were more innovative with the development and use of the guillotine.
Americans are no more a less likely to progress to violence than other peoples. We are now in the vocal antagonism stage. Will we progress to violence? That depends on your actions in Congress. The French and Russian governments could have forestalled their violent overthrow by taking appropriate political action. You have the same opportunity.
Do you want to be remembered as a leader who "fiddled while Rome burned"?
South Carolina Candidate to Launch Campaign With Assault Rifle Giveaway
A Greenville, South Carolina man plans to launch his political campaign for adjutant general Saturday by giving away an AK-47 assault rifle. Dean Allen, 58, said he will give away the rifle in a free sweepstakes open to all. He said it's his way of celebrating the Second Amendment and showing solidarity against gun-rights opponents. (greenvilleonline.com)
If you ever wonder whether your job is important, consider this. The initial part of the French Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the French government. The initial part of the Russian Revolution was a vocal antagonism to the Russian government. In both those cases (and there are others), the next stage was violence. The French were more innovative with the development and use of the guillotine.
Americans are no more a less likely to progress to violence than other peoples. We are now in the vocal antagonism stage. Will we progress to violence? That depends on your actions in Congress. The French and Russian governments could have forestalled their violent overthrow by taking appropriate political action. You have the same opportunity.
Do you want to be remembered as a leader who "fiddled while Rome burned"?
Excessive Automotive Production
E-Mail to Congress
EIN News says, "Russian Car Giant Avtovaz to Cut Up to 27,600 Jobs. Russian car giant Avtovaz said Thursday it would slash up to 27,600 jobs as it struggles with sliding sales due to the impact of the global economic slump. "Today, 102,000 people work at Avtovaz. Such a number cannot guarantee effective and profitable production, therefore we have agreed to reduce the personnel by 27,600 people," the carmaker said in a statement. The intended cuts represent nearly one third of the workforce at the company, which is 25 percent owned by France's Renault. (google.com)".
Smart Russians! Notice that Avtovaz is pursuing a normal capitalistic philosophy. Their objective is to remain in business. There is a declining market, which they attribute to a global economic slump. My personal opinion is that the economic slump has something to do with it, but there is over-competition in the automobile industry and this has led to excessive production of automotive vehicles.
More significantly, notice that while 27,600 people (one third of the workforce) will be laid off, the Russian government has been silent up to now. I predict that they will maintain silence, because they have been through the socialist/communist experience and know its faults. In fact, with that experience, it appears Russia may now be more capitalistically inclined than is the United States.
Will it be necessary that the US fall into complete socialism, become financially bankrupt, and eventually arise from the ashes in a more capitalistic form? I believe you have the power to control what development, if you have the will to do so.
EIN News says, "Russian Car Giant Avtovaz to Cut Up to 27,600 Jobs. Russian car giant Avtovaz said Thursday it would slash up to 27,600 jobs as it struggles with sliding sales due to the impact of the global economic slump. "Today, 102,000 people work at Avtovaz. Such a number cannot guarantee effective and profitable production, therefore we have agreed to reduce the personnel by 27,600 people," the carmaker said in a statement. The intended cuts represent nearly one third of the workforce at the company, which is 25 percent owned by France's Renault. (google.com)".
Smart Russians! Notice that Avtovaz is pursuing a normal capitalistic philosophy. Their objective is to remain in business. There is a declining market, which they attribute to a global economic slump. My personal opinion is that the economic slump has something to do with it, but there is over-competition in the automobile industry and this has led to excessive production of automotive vehicles.
More significantly, notice that while 27,600 people (one third of the workforce) will be laid off, the Russian government has been silent up to now. I predict that they will maintain silence, because they have been through the socialist/communist experience and know its faults. In fact, with that experience, it appears Russia may now be more capitalistically inclined than is the United States.
Will it be necessary that the US fall into complete socialism, become financially bankrupt, and eventually arise from the ashes in a more capitalistic form? I believe you have the power to control what development, if you have the will to do so.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Pres. Obama and Pharoh
from Rudy Wood
A pastor of a predominantly black church in Virginia recently gave this sermon. Hopefully this will help each of us to decide who our real leader is. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -STIMULUS SERMON Genesis 47:13-27
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27. Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.
So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again. So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions!
But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer, if you will. Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
A pastor of a predominantly black church in Virginia recently gave this sermon. Hopefully this will help each of us to decide who our real leader is. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -STIMULUS SERMON Genesis 47:13-27
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27. Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.
So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again. So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions!
But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.
Bow with me in prayer, if you will. Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
Monday, September 21, 2009
Government Nationalization
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Venezuela Prepares to Nationalize Coffee Companies. President Hugo Chavez's government is preparing to nationalize the nation's largest coffee producers, claiming the companies have refused to comply with federal price controls. Commerce Minister Eduardo Saman said he is recommending the nationalization of coffee plants belonging to Caracas-based companies Fama de America and Cafe Madrid. He did not say when the nationalizations could take place (forbes.com)".
This is what I expect dictatorial President Obama will do to your country, unless you stop him now.
EIN News says, "Venezuela Prepares to Nationalize Coffee Companies. President Hugo Chavez's government is preparing to nationalize the nation's largest coffee producers, claiming the companies have refused to comply with federal price controls. Commerce Minister Eduardo Saman said he is recommending the nationalization of coffee plants belonging to Caracas-based companies Fama de America and Cafe Madrid. He did not say when the nationalizations could take place (forbes.com)".
This is what I expect dictatorial President Obama will do to your country, unless you stop him now.
Atomic Defense
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "President Obama Ready to Slash U.S. Nuclear Arsenal. Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. (einnews.com)".
There is no possibility of abolishing nuclear weapons. It is in the same category as abolishing hunger, prostitution, general sin, corruption, etc. These and nuclear weapons can only be controlled, never eliminated.
The danger with the philosophy that it will be a safer world without nuclear weapons, is that it is impractical idealism based upon hope and desire, rather than an understanding of motivations and subsequent actions of individual human beings and groups. The likelihood is that Pres. Obama would like to take control of the world by peaceful means. However, there are others that recognize the weakness in such a position and would use conventional and atomic weapons wherever possible to achieve the same objective. Guess who will win.
Congress' responsibility is to establish and maintain defense of the United States and to do so in such manner as to use the best available technology and reasonable finances. Arbitrarily giving up leadership in atomic weaponry would be an act of complete folly. Only a Marxist leaning person such as Obama would consider such a ridiculous notion.
I have high confidence in the common sense of Congress to see the inappropriateness of such action. My only concern is that Congress may continue to be subservient to dictatorial programs of the Administration.
EIN News says, "President Obama Ready to Slash U.S. Nuclear Arsenal. Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. (einnews.com)".
There is no possibility of abolishing nuclear weapons. It is in the same category as abolishing hunger, prostitution, general sin, corruption, etc. These and nuclear weapons can only be controlled, never eliminated.
The danger with the philosophy that it will be a safer world without nuclear weapons, is that it is impractical idealism based upon hope and desire, rather than an understanding of motivations and subsequent actions of individual human beings and groups. The likelihood is that Pres. Obama would like to take control of the world by peaceful means. However, there are others that recognize the weakness in such a position and would use conventional and atomic weapons wherever possible to achieve the same objective. Guess who will win.
Congress' responsibility is to establish and maintain defense of the United States and to do so in such manner as to use the best available technology and reasonable finances. Arbitrarily giving up leadership in atomic weaponry would be an act of complete folly. Only a Marxist leaning person such as Obama would consider such a ridiculous notion.
I have high confidence in the common sense of Congress to see the inappropriateness of such action. My only concern is that Congress may continue to be subservient to dictatorial programs of the Administration.
Marxist Leanings
This is another episode in the ongoing e-mail conversations with Carol. My comments are in italics. Carol starts by saying,
Arthur! You are not reading my comments carefully. How in the world did you conclude that I am a Marxist? I told you that his theory has never worked in reality, so why would I support it?
I agree that such labels are a danger, in that they tend to overstate something. I suppose Karl Marx was the only true Marxist. Others, such as you and Pres. Obama have Marxist leanings. I know you say you don't support Marxism. I suspect it is because you intellectually recognize that it is a theory which has never worked. However,emotionally you adhere to many of the principles, because of your previous life experiences, as I have touched on in a previous writing. Marxism, Communism, Socialism are all minor variations of the same philosophy, which is that there should be a sharing of all assets. However, it starts to get a little uncomfortable for the group, when we bring in such matters as free love. As long as we confine our discussions to the underprivileged having the right to take over the assets of the overprivileged, the group is on safe ground intellectually and emotionally.
I told you that I have always been in management. See, this is one of the things that makes dealing with propaganda so difficult; because I am a liberal, I carry all the stereotypes you wish to place on me. It doesn't matter what I say or do, I am simply thrown into a group to which I do not and have never belonged (Marxists). If you read your first paragraph again, you will see it contains sarcasm and stereotyping.
You are technically correct about management. But from what I understand you have always been in a specific branch of management which involves government and its various manifestations. While there are similarities to management of private enterprises, which supply goods and services, there are also many significant differences. A private enterprise must make a profit in order to continue its existence. A government operation can continue its existence as long as it can maintain voter support, without any consideration for economics. At some point government management can also ignore voters indefinitely by even changing the rules of voting (see Banana Republics). Private enterprise cannot ignore its customers for very long.
I'm sorry if I showed sarcasm. I try to avoid that. However, I do engage in stereotyping primarily as an administrative technique to be able to separate right from wrong. I also recognize that there are many shades of gray.
As to the examples of persons deemed to be falsifying applications; if everyone has affordable access to health care, it becomes a moot point.
I am really sorry about your position on this one. You are saying that adherence to truth should only be a matter of convenience or importance as judged by (you?). It is difficult to know when absolute truths apply, but one should always try. Even the present state of questionable truth in the US government has allowed the Justice Department to recently hold three potential terrorists for lying to officials.
Let me also repeat that everyone now has affordable access to healthcare. The difference of opinion lies in the detail. Designate the cases where affordable health care was not available for significant health problem (eliminate hangnails). I just heard on television that 45,000 people per year die because of unavailable health care. The TV announcer merely repeated information from some study, apparently without any attempt to determine legitimacy, by looking at how the data was collected. Death is absolute and need not be questioned, except for its numbers. "Unavailable Health Care" is very iffy in its definition. Who says it was unavailable? On what basis was the judgment of unavailability made?
And, finally, I can separate opinion from fact.
I'm glad.
Arthur! You are not reading my comments carefully. How in the world did you conclude that I am a Marxist? I told you that his theory has never worked in reality, so why would I support it?
I agree that such labels are a danger, in that they tend to overstate something. I suppose Karl Marx was the only true Marxist. Others, such as you and Pres. Obama have Marxist leanings. I know you say you don't support Marxism. I suspect it is because you intellectually recognize that it is a theory which has never worked. However,emotionally you adhere to many of the principles, because of your previous life experiences, as I have touched on in a previous writing. Marxism, Communism, Socialism are all minor variations of the same philosophy, which is that there should be a sharing of all assets. However, it starts to get a little uncomfortable for the group, when we bring in such matters as free love. As long as we confine our discussions to the underprivileged having the right to take over the assets of the overprivileged, the group is on safe ground intellectually and emotionally.
I told you that I have always been in management. See, this is one of the things that makes dealing with propaganda so difficult; because I am a liberal, I carry all the stereotypes you wish to place on me. It doesn't matter what I say or do, I am simply thrown into a group to which I do not and have never belonged (Marxists). If you read your first paragraph again, you will see it contains sarcasm and stereotyping.
You are technically correct about management. But from what I understand you have always been in a specific branch of management which involves government and its various manifestations. While there are similarities to management of private enterprises, which supply goods and services, there are also many significant differences. A private enterprise must make a profit in order to continue its existence. A government operation can continue its existence as long as it can maintain voter support, without any consideration for economics. At some point government management can also ignore voters indefinitely by even changing the rules of voting (see Banana Republics). Private enterprise cannot ignore its customers for very long.
I'm sorry if I showed sarcasm. I try to avoid that. However, I do engage in stereotyping primarily as an administrative technique to be able to separate right from wrong. I also recognize that there are many shades of gray.
As to the examples of persons deemed to be falsifying applications; if everyone has affordable access to health care, it becomes a moot point.
I am really sorry about your position on this one. You are saying that adherence to truth should only be a matter of convenience or importance as judged by (you?). It is difficult to know when absolute truths apply, but one should always try. Even the present state of questionable truth in the US government has allowed the Justice Department to recently hold three potential terrorists for lying to officials.
Let me also repeat that everyone now has affordable access to healthcare. The difference of opinion lies in the detail. Designate the cases where affordable health care was not available for significant health problem (eliminate hangnails). I just heard on television that 45,000 people per year die because of unavailable health care. The TV announcer merely repeated information from some study, apparently without any attempt to determine legitimacy, by looking at how the data was collected. Death is absolute and need not be questioned, except for its numbers. "Unavailable Health Care" is very iffy in its definition. Who says it was unavailable? On what basis was the judgment of unavailability made?
And, finally, I can separate opinion from fact.
I'm glad.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Congressional Power
E-mail to Congress:
We need you, your associates, your friends, and your enemies in Congress to all vote "No" on every aspect of healthcare.
The issue is no longer whether we need healthcare reform or healthcare insurance.
We now need to show Mr. Obama that he is a President, not a Dictator.
Once we have established that Congress is not a pawn of the Administration, and actually has a power of its own, we can come back to what we need to do about health care.
We need you, your associates, your friends, and your enemies in Congress to all vote "No" on every aspect of healthcare.
The issue is no longer whether we need healthcare reform or healthcare insurance.
We now need to show Mr. Obama that he is a President, not a Dictator.
Once we have established that Congress is not a pawn of the Administration, and actually has a power of its own, we can come back to what we need to do about health care.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Missile Defense of Europe
EIN News, says "Obama Scrapping Missile Shield for Czech Republic, Poland. The Czech prime minister says President Barack Obama has told him that the U.S. is abandoning plans to put a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Czech Premier Jan Fischer told reporters in Prague on Thursday that Obama phoned him to say that Washington has decided to scrap the plan that had deeply angered Russia. Fischer says Obama confirmed that Washington no longer intends to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. (google.com)".
I agree with Pres. Obama on this one. We have for more than 60 years spent tremendous sums of money to rebuild Europe and protect it from itself. It is long past time to get out of this.
Our entering World War II was likely justified, through our fear and anticipation that the Japanese and Germans would collectively control our economic and personal liberties. Our subsequent contributions toward reconstruction of Japan and Germany have set them up as primary economic contributors and competitors in the world market, of which we are part.
The present political attitudes of government leaders in Japan and Germany do not indicate a militaristic approach for world domination in the same manner as had been previously demonstrated prior to World War II, nor do we see that with other major powers, such as Russia or China. The saber rattling of North Korea and Iran are annoying, but not significantly worrisome, except as I will explain below.
Since the Western Europeans have demonstrated their ability to establish international cooperation on their continent, through the European Union (EU), it is reasonably apparent that no US military bases are necessary to keep them from each others throats. We don't need missiles and radar in any part of Europe. If the members of the EU feel that they need such devices to protect the membership from from any unilateral actions, they have the ability to set up their own systems.
If we need medical service bases in Europe for logistical reasons to treat our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, that is another matter. We should soon be getting out of those wars and can then eliminate the medical service bases in Europe.
For our own protection we need a US-based missile shield, which we already have. The fundamental for this is retaliation in case of an atomic attack after which millions of our citizens would be destined to die. To thwart that possibility, we need both a warning and an interceptor system to pre-explode any foreign missiles for which we are the target. Simply, this is Star Wars defense. It has been proposed many times before, and we still need it. It has been said that it is also very difficult to accomplish. I don't believe it.
I suspect that there are those in our government who still consider that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is an appropriate government philosophy for atomic weaponry. The simple aspect of the philosophy is that there should be an international balance of atomic capability, such that no country will fire off an atomic missile knowing that in doing so retaliation from the target country will be such as to basically eliminate mankind in the perpetrator country. It was this philosophy and subsequent transmission of technical information that guided the Russians into rapid atomic capability right after World War II.
The MAD philosophy has been effective for more than 60 years, in spite of some obvious flaws. Those flaws remain and could be potentially destructive to mankind on a worldwide basis. One of the key flaws is a thought that there are already too many people in the world, and a foreign leader will be able to physically protect himself from a retaliatory atomic attack, and will be willing to sacrifice his own country's population. A second flaw is that a foreign country may well establish a Star Wars interceptor system, such that retaliatory atomic missiles will be neutralized.
If the MAD philosophy continues to exist here in the US, portions of the government will continue to resist Star Wars missile neutralization, on the basis that it does not trust its own leadership, which may decide to be an international aggressor. I will grant that possibility, but if I must trust between our own US leadership and potential foreign aggressors, I trust ourselves more.
Let's get on with the Star Wars program of intercepting foreign incoming missiles.
I agree with Pres. Obama on this one. We have for more than 60 years spent tremendous sums of money to rebuild Europe and protect it from itself. It is long past time to get out of this.
Our entering World War II was likely justified, through our fear and anticipation that the Japanese and Germans would collectively control our economic and personal liberties. Our subsequent contributions toward reconstruction of Japan and Germany have set them up as primary economic contributors and competitors in the world market, of which we are part.
The present political attitudes of government leaders in Japan and Germany do not indicate a militaristic approach for world domination in the same manner as had been previously demonstrated prior to World War II, nor do we see that with other major powers, such as Russia or China. The saber rattling of North Korea and Iran are annoying, but not significantly worrisome, except as I will explain below.
Since the Western Europeans have demonstrated their ability to establish international cooperation on their continent, through the European Union (EU), it is reasonably apparent that no US military bases are necessary to keep them from each others throats. We don't need missiles and radar in any part of Europe. If the members of the EU feel that they need such devices to protect the membership from from any unilateral actions, they have the ability to set up their own systems.
If we need medical service bases in Europe for logistical reasons to treat our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, that is another matter. We should soon be getting out of those wars and can then eliminate the medical service bases in Europe.
For our own protection we need a US-based missile shield, which we already have. The fundamental for this is retaliation in case of an atomic attack after which millions of our citizens would be destined to die. To thwart that possibility, we need both a warning and an interceptor system to pre-explode any foreign missiles for which we are the target. Simply, this is Star Wars defense. It has been proposed many times before, and we still need it. It has been said that it is also very difficult to accomplish. I don't believe it.
I suspect that there are those in our government who still consider that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is an appropriate government philosophy for atomic weaponry. The simple aspect of the philosophy is that there should be an international balance of atomic capability, such that no country will fire off an atomic missile knowing that in doing so retaliation from the target country will be such as to basically eliminate mankind in the perpetrator country. It was this philosophy and subsequent transmission of technical information that guided the Russians into rapid atomic capability right after World War II.
The MAD philosophy has been effective for more than 60 years, in spite of some obvious flaws. Those flaws remain and could be potentially destructive to mankind on a worldwide basis. One of the key flaws is a thought that there are already too many people in the world, and a foreign leader will be able to physically protect himself from a retaliatory atomic attack, and will be willing to sacrifice his own country's population. A second flaw is that a foreign country may well establish a Star Wars interceptor system, such that retaliatory atomic missiles will be neutralized.
If the MAD philosophy continues to exist here in the US, portions of the government will continue to resist Star Wars missile neutralization, on the basis that it does not trust its own leadership, which may decide to be an international aggressor. I will grant that possibility, but if I must trust between our own US leadership and potential foreign aggressors, I trust ourselves more.
Let's get on with the Star Wars program of intercepting foreign incoming missiles.
Government Grants for Battery Research
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. House Clears $3 Billion for Auto Technology Research. The House of Representatives approved a $3 billion proposal on Wednesday to further spur research into advanced batteries and other technologies to power electric cars and other vehicles. The bill, proposed by Michigan Representative Gary Peters, would also establish a technology program for commercial trucks, transit vehicles and heavy duty machinery. (reuters.com)".
As I have said repeatedly, I am normally opposed to government grants. However, there can be exceptions. I am somewhat ambivalent on this one.
OPEC has for many years had a world monopoly on petroleum production to control price and availability. More recently other major petroleum producers have appeared and do not operate within the OPEC framework. However, collectively they arbitrarily control petroleum price and availability. Therefore, they are part of the world wide petroleum monopoly. This monopoly has a stranglehold on all of our US consumed automotive fuel.
We have allowed that monopoly to control our automotive fuel supply, even though we have had an opportunity to minimize its importance through our own accelerated petroleum production. We have arbitrarily decided not to pursue that route, through unreasonable pressure by extreme environmentalists. One could say these extreme environmentalists have been working for OPEC and its associates.
Conversion of automotive energy requirements from petroleum to electricity, would be another way to minimize the effect of the worldwide petroleum monopoly, and would also improve our balance of payments. An effective means to do this may be conversion to electric vehicles. It appears that the technology is not yet competitive to petroleum usage in an internal combustion engine, but there is reasonable anticipation that could be made so.
Although we still have an opportunity to improve our internal petroleum production, I give lukewarm support to government grants to industry for improved battery research. It really should take a combination of both these actions, to break the back of the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
We need to also anticipate subsequent requirements, if electric cars can become reasonably competitive with petroleum using automotive vehicles. In effect, we would be shifting energy requirements from petroleum to electricity. That would require expansion of current electricity capacity. Most electricity is produced now from coal-fired power plants. Atomic energy power plants now contribute a small portion, but new designs and applications have been applied for and government has seen fit to expedite approval. Wind and solar production of electricity will still remain a relatively small portion of the total requirement, in spite of major construction in these areas.
However, expansion of existing coal-fired power plants will likely be necessary. This creates a problem with the present governmental attitude on carbon dioxide, which is always an emission of a coal-fired power plant. I have said repeatedly that there is no significant evidence that carbon dioxide has any effect on global warming and any attempts to control its concentration in the atmosphere are unnecessary. Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants costs significant money both in capital equipment and operating costs. Continued consideration of capturing carbon dioxide increases costs of electricity production, such as to minimize the possibility of effectively combating the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
I ask Congress to continually resist Administration attempts to control climate through control of carbon dioxide emissions, such as Cap and Trade.
EIN News says, "U.S. House Clears $3 Billion for Auto Technology Research. The House of Representatives approved a $3 billion proposal on Wednesday to further spur research into advanced batteries and other technologies to power electric cars and other vehicles. The bill, proposed by Michigan Representative Gary Peters, would also establish a technology program for commercial trucks, transit vehicles and heavy duty machinery. (reuters.com)".
As I have said repeatedly, I am normally opposed to government grants. However, there can be exceptions. I am somewhat ambivalent on this one.
OPEC has for many years had a world monopoly on petroleum production to control price and availability. More recently other major petroleum producers have appeared and do not operate within the OPEC framework. However, collectively they arbitrarily control petroleum price and availability. Therefore, they are part of the world wide petroleum monopoly. This monopoly has a stranglehold on all of our US consumed automotive fuel.
We have allowed that monopoly to control our automotive fuel supply, even though we have had an opportunity to minimize its importance through our own accelerated petroleum production. We have arbitrarily decided not to pursue that route, through unreasonable pressure by extreme environmentalists. One could say these extreme environmentalists have been working for OPEC and its associates.
Conversion of automotive energy requirements from petroleum to electricity, would be another way to minimize the effect of the worldwide petroleum monopoly, and would also improve our balance of payments. An effective means to do this may be conversion to electric vehicles. It appears that the technology is not yet competitive to petroleum usage in an internal combustion engine, but there is reasonable anticipation that could be made so.
Although we still have an opportunity to improve our internal petroleum production, I give lukewarm support to government grants to industry for improved battery research. It really should take a combination of both these actions, to break the back of the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
We need to also anticipate subsequent requirements, if electric cars can become reasonably competitive with petroleum using automotive vehicles. In effect, we would be shifting energy requirements from petroleum to electricity. That would require expansion of current electricity capacity. Most electricity is produced now from coal-fired power plants. Atomic energy power plants now contribute a small portion, but new designs and applications have been applied for and government has seen fit to expedite approval. Wind and solar production of electricity will still remain a relatively small portion of the total requirement, in spite of major construction in these areas.
However, expansion of existing coal-fired power plants will likely be necessary. This creates a problem with the present governmental attitude on carbon dioxide, which is always an emission of a coal-fired power plant. I have said repeatedly that there is no significant evidence that carbon dioxide has any effect on global warming and any attempts to control its concentration in the atmosphere are unnecessary. Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants costs significant money both in capital equipment and operating costs. Continued consideration of capturing carbon dioxide increases costs of electricity production, such as to minimize the possibility of effectively combating the worldwide petroleum monopoly.
I ask Congress to continually resist Administration attempts to control climate through control of carbon dioxide emissions, such as Cap and Trade.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Carol Says But
This is the ongoing conversation with [liberal] Carol. My comments are in italics. Carol says,
Emergency room treatment doesn't restore people to health. It is the
inaccessibility of health care that causes many of the problems the
uninsured face. I doubt if you worked in a children's cancer center, you
would not get somewhat emotional about those unable to get
treatment...unless you are very cold, which I doubt. Personally, I am
passionate towards helping people survive.
Emergency treatment does restore health. Health is the absence of death. When we avoid death, we create health. Perhaps you think health is an absolute state. It is not. All people walk around or exist with a degree of health. Many have a lower degree of health because they abuse their bodies by excessive eating, drinking, insufficient sleep, not paying attention to symptomatic changes, wherein they could take corrective action, etc.. Am I supposed to feel sorry for those people, because they make no effort towards self-control and attention to their own responsibilities? I already support their health in that they can go to the emergency room to maintain their life at my expense. Contrary to what you say, health care is available to all either through personal treatments or professional attention at hospitals and clinics. Those needing healthcare need only to treat themselves or when that is not possible, ask for help.
I have not worked in a children's cancer center nor do I intend to. I do not like to be around the poor and unfortunate, although I see a need for others to do so, and I respect their compassion and ability to work in that area. I spend my time with growth possibilities in education and to a degree with persons like you in an effort to preserve a workable system within the country. I help people survive on a larger scale, but I do also work with individuals.
No, personal liberties don't have anything to do with emergency health care. We all know what people
can to their health all by themselves. You can only help those that
seek help. However, in life-threatening situations, personal liberties
don't enter the picture. Anyone available must do what he/she
can...rights don't enter into it. Have you ever worked in an emergency room? The context I am using the words public opinion in means that the people expressing unsubstantiated opinions often haven't done their homework.
This is our responsibility in a government, which requires its citizens
to be informed in order to make judgments on what is best for the
country. For example, to elect judges, whom most of the voters have
never heard of, one must spend hours studying their backgrounds, et al.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions, like voting, our form
of government fails.
Too much emotion in this paragraph. Personal liberties do have everything to do with healthcare. The recipient has the liberty to decide to accept it. The basic giver should have the decision to decide to grant it, but he does not in a socialistic society. One can help those who want help as those persons usually do in a life-threatening situation. This is the reason why we have medical emergency units, who don't ask political or financial questions in life-threatening situations. They merely apply technology to sustain life. I've never worked in an emergency room but I have been there. My first visit was when I had a leg wound which was bleeding profusely. There was a waiting line. One person had a headache. Another person needed a second opinion on a medical procedure. There are plenty of hypochondriacs in the United States. Any more convenient medical care will increase that number, at substantial unnecessary cost to the economy. Most people have a basis on which they have an opinion, as I am sure you do. It is usually a function of basic personality characteristics concerning compassion etc,.previous training and subsequent influences, such as desire for personal profit, jealousy with respect to others who appear to have more financial assets, and a number of other things. You are a product of this background, just as I am with mine.
I agree that voters should be informed on the ideologies and previous records of candidates for public office.
The insurance system as it exists leaves out 45,000,000 or so of our
citizens, has ever-increasing rates, drops people seriously ill or
denies coverage due to pre-existing conditions, doesn't always pay for
services covered by contract...it needs fixing.
I'm rather tired of seeing this 45 million number batted about, in spite of the fact that on analysis it is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we agree on 45 million, and even if those 45 million people are denied health insurance, they are not denied health care, as I have explained several times previously. Insurance companies are also not allowed to drop seriously ill people from an accepted insurance program, PROVIDING the applicants have been truthful in their initial applications. Even those who may be subsequently dropped from insurance because of initial untruthfulness in their applications can always receive emergency room treatment to sustain their lives. How many of the 45 million do not want health insurance, because they feel it is an unnecessary expense? How many also feel they do not want it because of ideological opposition? The rights of all these people should be respected, even though you may disagree. You should not have the power to force them into accepting a program which they feel they have the personal right to reject.
I don't see anything in health care reform that will destroy the private insurance companies.
There is plenty of speculation that it will because of a deep-seated
distrust of our government to get things right. President Obama is too
new on the scene to predict that his plan will destroy the private
insurance industry.
Let me explain it to you again. If you establish a government insurance company and offer me exceptionally good benefits at extremely low costs, I will accept a government insurance program for my personal needs. Millions of other people will the same. Those millions who have jumped to government insurance are no longer customers or private insurance companies. Without customers, private insurance companies can no longer exist.
There is a deep-seated distrust of government or any institution that has unmodulated power. If you may claim that the government insurance company will not offer better benefits and lower premiums, you may be initially correct. However, history shows that government does not operate in this stable, consistent manner. They change things based upon an initial program which will institute modifications in easy stages, or government regulators may change their minds in operation of a particular program.
Please elucidate on monopolistic control of the banking and automotive
industries. Several banks have paid back their bail-outs. The automotive
industry is operating in the private sector. The king-pin of the banking
industry, the Federal Reserve, is a private corporation.
Government does not now have monopolistic control of the banking and automotive industries. However, government has now an increasing stake in both these industries. One obtains control of a corporation through seats on the board of directors, which direct from the the operations of the company, including the appointment of Administrative Officers. While government does not now have monopolistic control, it does have substantially more control now and than it did before Mr. Obama became President.
It is a laugh to even think that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. With that line of thought, you could also add Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae as private corporations. Why not add the Department of Energy?
Carol
Emergency room treatment doesn't restore people to health. It is the
inaccessibility of health care that causes many of the problems the
uninsured face. I doubt if you worked in a children's cancer center, you
would not get somewhat emotional about those unable to get
treatment...unless you are very cold, which I doubt. Personally, I am
passionate towards helping people survive.
Emergency treatment does restore health. Health is the absence of death. When we avoid death, we create health. Perhaps you think health is an absolute state. It is not. All people walk around or exist with a degree of health. Many have a lower degree of health because they abuse their bodies by excessive eating, drinking, insufficient sleep, not paying attention to symptomatic changes, wherein they could take corrective action, etc.. Am I supposed to feel sorry for those people, because they make no effort towards self-control and attention to their own responsibilities? I already support their health in that they can go to the emergency room to maintain their life at my expense. Contrary to what you say, health care is available to all either through personal treatments or professional attention at hospitals and clinics. Those needing healthcare need only to treat themselves or when that is not possible, ask for help.
I have not worked in a children's cancer center nor do I intend to. I do not like to be around the poor and unfortunate, although I see a need for others to do so, and I respect their compassion and ability to work in that area. I spend my time with growth possibilities in education and to a degree with persons like you in an effort to preserve a workable system within the country. I help people survive on a larger scale, but I do also work with individuals.
No, personal liberties don't have anything to do with emergency health care. We all know what people
can to their health all by themselves. You can only help those that
seek help. However, in life-threatening situations, personal liberties
don't enter the picture. Anyone available must do what he/she
can...rights don't enter into it. Have you ever worked in an emergency room? The context I am using the words public opinion in means that the people expressing unsubstantiated opinions often haven't done their homework.
This is our responsibility in a government, which requires its citizens
to be informed in order to make judgments on what is best for the
country. For example, to elect judges, whom most of the voters have
never heard of, one must spend hours studying their backgrounds, et al.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions, like voting, our form
of government fails.
Too much emotion in this paragraph. Personal liberties do have everything to do with healthcare. The recipient has the liberty to decide to accept it. The basic giver should have the decision to decide to grant it, but he does not in a socialistic society. One can help those who want help as those persons usually do in a life-threatening situation. This is the reason why we have medical emergency units, who don't ask political or financial questions in life-threatening situations. They merely apply technology to sustain life. I've never worked in an emergency room but I have been there. My first visit was when I had a leg wound which was bleeding profusely. There was a waiting line. One person had a headache. Another person needed a second opinion on a medical procedure. There are plenty of hypochondriacs in the United States. Any more convenient medical care will increase that number, at substantial unnecessary cost to the economy. Most people have a basis on which they have an opinion, as I am sure you do. It is usually a function of basic personality characteristics concerning compassion etc,.previous training and subsequent influences, such as desire for personal profit, jealousy with respect to others who appear to have more financial assets, and a number of other things. You are a product of this background, just as I am with mine.
I agree that voters should be informed on the ideologies and previous records of candidates for public office.
The insurance system as it exists leaves out 45,000,000 or so of our
citizens, has ever-increasing rates, drops people seriously ill or
denies coverage due to pre-existing conditions, doesn't always pay for
services covered by contract...it needs fixing.
I'm rather tired of seeing this 45 million number batted about, in spite of the fact that on analysis it is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we agree on 45 million, and even if those 45 million people are denied health insurance, they are not denied health care, as I have explained several times previously. Insurance companies are also not allowed to drop seriously ill people from an accepted insurance program, PROVIDING the applicants have been truthful in their initial applications. Even those who may be subsequently dropped from insurance because of initial untruthfulness in their applications can always receive emergency room treatment to sustain their lives. How many of the 45 million do not want health insurance, because they feel it is an unnecessary expense? How many also feel they do not want it because of ideological opposition? The rights of all these people should be respected, even though you may disagree. You should not have the power to force them into accepting a program which they feel they have the personal right to reject.
I don't see anything in health care reform that will destroy the private insurance companies.
There is plenty of speculation that it will because of a deep-seated
distrust of our government to get things right. President Obama is too
new on the scene to predict that his plan will destroy the private
insurance industry.
Let me explain it to you again. If you establish a government insurance company and offer me exceptionally good benefits at extremely low costs, I will accept a government insurance program for my personal needs. Millions of other people will the same. Those millions who have jumped to government insurance are no longer customers or private insurance companies. Without customers, private insurance companies can no longer exist.
There is a deep-seated distrust of government or any institution that has unmodulated power. If you may claim that the government insurance company will not offer better benefits and lower premiums, you may be initially correct. However, history shows that government does not operate in this stable, consistent manner. They change things based upon an initial program which will institute modifications in easy stages, or government regulators may change their minds in operation of a particular program.
Please elucidate on monopolistic control of the banking and automotive
industries. Several banks have paid back their bail-outs. The automotive
industry is operating in the private sector. The king-pin of the banking
industry, the Federal Reserve, is a private corporation.
Government does not now have monopolistic control of the banking and automotive industries. However, government has now an increasing stake in both these industries. One obtains control of a corporation through seats on the board of directors, which direct from the the operations of the company, including the appointment of Administrative Officers. While government does not now have monopolistic control, it does have substantially more control now and than it did before Mr. Obama became President.
It is a laugh to even think that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. With that line of thought, you could also add Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae as private corporations. Why not add the Department of Energy?
Carol
More From Carol
This is a continuation of an e-mail conversation with [liberal] Carol. My comments are in italics.
Carol says, "Why am I writing to the Internet?"
You have some strong opinions, which are interesting. I thought you would like a wider audience.
Are you not located in Bob's office,
where you saw my email?
No.
Nope! As a presidential advisor, it was very clear I wouldn't keep my
job unless scientific submissions were fully backed by research or other
types of "proof" as to their veracity. The word, advisor, was a misnomer.
What you have submitted to the President was advice. He had control of whether to use your information or not. You did not have that control.
Correction...carefully examine the backgrounds of both radio talk show
hosts. Then get back to me. I don't think you really want to play in
that puddle!
Radio talkshow posts do not hide their backgrounds. I am generally familiar with them and the errors that they have made in the past and which they have mostly admitted. They have ideas which are both progressive and conservative, and which in my estimation are more favorable to the development of our country than are yours.
Please define "bail-out" and the reasons for same.
Wikipedia says, "A bailout is an act of giving capital to a company in danger of failing in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing company to fail gracefully without spreading contagion. A bailout is a matter of circumstance, so the possible motives behind one are unlimited, though typically the bail-er demands some influence over the company he bailed out."
Point taken with GM; however, go back and read the history of how they
got to that point where the company was crashing and check on the
leadership of GM.
GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt. It had proven its inability to perform with its present structure. The bankruptcy would have allowed a complete restructuring without government intervention. Ford was still able to operate, which proved its competitive competency. The GM bailout indirectly penalized for its proficiency.
There were some very solid reasons for the exit strategy.
Instead of trust, I read the document on health care reform. BTW, the
version I read was 1,036 pages long.
I'm not sure what this is about. Wikipedia sheds no light on "BTW". Any healthcare document of 1036 pages is 10 times longer than it has to be, and is likely intended to hide a lot of information.
The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. Everyone with working
ears listens to the speeches; if the (certainly recorded) proposals
result in increased taxes, the legalization of "aliens" (cool word, bad
application), etc. then the word, leadership, is destroyed. I think
President Obama has more intelligence than to step in that rabbit hole.
Right now he is being accused by the far right of being a "witch
doctor." Very subtle. Extraordinarily believable? Oh, really.
I think you are rambling here. It is difficult to make specific responses.
No, it does not mean that you can't pay your Federal Income Tax; you
must pay the minimum amount due as per your professional accountant.
I had only asked whether I had the option to pay, because you had implied that the government generally gave me these options. You now agree that my requiring to pay federal income tax is a government mandate.
Again, the application of declared Marxism has resulted in
dictatorships, not what Marx intended. You have to read, if you haven't
already, what led up to Karl Marx's writings about worker control in the
historical context he was writing in.
Nice support of Marxism here.
President Obama has shown no
inclination to turn this county into a worker-run society any more than
he has shown evidence of being a dictator. Leadership is for the common
good. A dictator is for the good of the dictator. We had enough of that
in the last administration.
The Automotive Workers Union is on the Board at the new GM. Last month, President Obama issued an executive order that allows government agencies to limit large federal construction projects to unionized contractors. Most will agree that Castro is a dictator. We don't know what his motivations were to become a dictator. It may have been for the "common good", just as yours are.
To win the election, President Obama could
not represent "more of the same."
I agree. Too many voters disagreed with the actions of Pres. Bush. They assume that any change would be for the better, which is why candidate Obama chose the "change" platform. Unfortunately, the voting public did not consider what that "change" might be.
I agree on the reasons for the "crash" but have no information on the
application of stimulus money, percentage wise; nor do I have any
available statistics on the economic recovery that are reliable.
The mere fact that you have no information on the application of stimulus money or statistics on the economic recovery is consistent with an oligarchic government, which decides what information should be released to the public. Wouldn't it be better if our government were open and forthright about what it is doing?
There must be thousands of articles, by now, on Halliburton. Google Dick
Chaney to start. Secondly, Google, Saudi Arabia.
Billions, not trillions, in grant money. I have searched the grants
continuously and have found nothing in the trillions category. Believe
it or not, try checking the expense of the Iraq war and compare it to
the stimulus package money.
Whether it's billions or trillions, I've said previously that I am opposed to grants using public money. I am not a supporter of the Iraq war nor the stimulus package. An analogy is, wasn't it better that I lost my right arm after I lost my left arm?
There is no public funding for the Public
Option; you are speculating.
You can say I am speculating, but I prefer to say I am anticipating. The Healthcare Public Option would be a good government health insurance company. Like all insurance companies, it would have employees, and reserve assets from which to pay claims. Both of these involve significant money. Where would those funds come from in the Public Option? The obvious answer is from Public Funding.
The difference between the confiscation of money in Egypt and the
confiscation of money in the US, is you control how your money is spent
before you give your tax information to your accountant.
Yes, there is a subtle difference. There is also a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or through legal means. It's still robbery.
Also, alternative energy does benefit you and everyone else, unless you see
the worth of supporting companies like Halliburton. Talk about
disgusting analogies!
I'm not sure what my analogy was, but I don't believe in supporting companies like Halliburton. I believe they should be able to stand on their own feet, without government persecution. Alternative energy does not benefit me nor most people. It is more expensive than using fossil fuels and the increased costs for alternative energy will be paid by the public.
And, no, I don't have particularly "tender"
emotions in the scientific world. However, I do elsewhere.
I am also close to the court system; do you know nothing of the back
room deals among courts, lawyers, and judges? How do you obtain justice
from wards of the court? You are quoting a party line again without
realizing how many people in this country are in jail for petty things.
You realize that the government makes money off prisoners, right? It is
NOT a pretty system, especially if you don't happen to have quite a bit
of money going in. On the other side, some judges and attorneys are fair
and just and so are some decisions. Across the board, it is not the
norm, however. Beginning the end of torture is a start.
Man has evolved somewhat beyond the survival level because we can
verbally teach history to our offspring.
This is emotional rambling and difficult to respond to. I'm sure our court system is not perfect, nor is anything else. There have been and always will be some miscarriages of justice, but we do our best to be fair as jurors. Unfortunately, some members of the court and jurors are so confused in emotional ideology that they find it difficult or impossible to apply the logic of the law. Do not underestimate the value of torture. There are some instances where it should be used for the protection of humanity. Think of it in compassionate terms. It is a necessary evil, which sometimes has its place.
The amount of double taxation applies depending on how you allocate your
money during the year.
We were not talking about the amount of double taxation, we were considering whether double taxation is justified.
Well, if that's true, there is little historic evidence to back up the
largess of insurance companies.
I don't think we were ever talking about the largess (generosity) of insurance companies. Companies are in in business to make a profit, not handout free gifts. The only ostensible difference here is with a Public Option, where the government may be claiming to give a free gift, but in fact is charging customers through a different mechanism.
It goes back to Wall Street, the banking
industry, etc. "policing" themselves. When it doesn't work, regulations
come into play. Are you a student of history? Would we like less
regulation? Of course, but you need to convince the greedier of our
fellow planeteers.
Take it easy on the emotion. We cannot expect any industry to police itself. We have used the fox/chicken coop analogy before. Regulations are necessary but can be overdone. I heard ex-Federal Reserve Chief Greenspan say yesterday that we have developed a superior standard of living and national power in the international arena through a minimum of government regulation. Piles and piles of new regulation will inhibit subsequent development. The alternative of eliminating as much regulation as possible will allow loopholes for abuse, which will be the cost of doing business for the betterment of all. My own opinion is that we should use regulation in each case where we see a potential problem of abuse. At the same time, we should be careful that our new regulations will not do more harm than good.
Carol says, "Why am I writing to the Internet?"
You have some strong opinions, which are interesting. I thought you would like a wider audience.
Are you not located in Bob's office,
where you saw my email?
No.
Nope! As a presidential advisor, it was very clear I wouldn't keep my
job unless scientific submissions were fully backed by research or other
types of "proof" as to their veracity. The word, advisor, was a misnomer.
What you have submitted to the President was advice. He had control of whether to use your information or not. You did not have that control.
Correction...carefully examine the backgrounds of both radio talk show
hosts. Then get back to me. I don't think you really want to play in
that puddle!
Radio talkshow posts do not hide their backgrounds. I am generally familiar with them and the errors that they have made in the past and which they have mostly admitted. They have ideas which are both progressive and conservative, and which in my estimation are more favorable to the development of our country than are yours.
Please define "bail-out" and the reasons for same.
Wikipedia says, "A bailout is an act of giving capital to a company in danger of failing in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing company to fail gracefully without spreading contagion. A bailout is a matter of circumstance, so the possible motives behind one are unlimited, though typically the bail-er demands some influence over the company he bailed out."
Point taken with GM; however, go back and read the history of how they
got to that point where the company was crashing and check on the
leadership of GM.
GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt. It had proven its inability to perform with its present structure. The bankruptcy would have allowed a complete restructuring without government intervention. Ford was still able to operate, which proved its competitive competency. The GM bailout indirectly penalized for its proficiency.
There were some very solid reasons for the exit strategy.
Instead of trust, I read the document on health care reform. BTW, the
version I read was 1,036 pages long.
I'm not sure what this is about. Wikipedia sheds no light on "BTW". Any healthcare document of 1036 pages is 10 times longer than it has to be, and is likely intended to hide a lot of information.
The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. Everyone with working
ears listens to the speeches; if the (certainly recorded) proposals
result in increased taxes, the legalization of "aliens" (cool word, bad
application), etc. then the word, leadership, is destroyed. I think
President Obama has more intelligence than to step in that rabbit hole.
Right now he is being accused by the far right of being a "witch
doctor." Very subtle. Extraordinarily believable? Oh, really.
I think you are rambling here. It is difficult to make specific responses.
No, it does not mean that you can't pay your Federal Income Tax; you
must pay the minimum amount due as per your professional accountant.
I had only asked whether I had the option to pay, because you had implied that the government generally gave me these options. You now agree that my requiring to pay federal income tax is a government mandate.
Again, the application of declared Marxism has resulted in
dictatorships, not what Marx intended. You have to read, if you haven't
already, what led up to Karl Marx's writings about worker control in the
historical context he was writing in.
Nice support of Marxism here.
President Obama has shown no
inclination to turn this county into a worker-run society any more than
he has shown evidence of being a dictator. Leadership is for the common
good. A dictator is for the good of the dictator. We had enough of that
in the last administration.
The Automotive Workers Union is on the Board at the new GM. Last month, President Obama issued an executive order that allows government agencies to limit large federal construction projects to unionized contractors. Most will agree that Castro is a dictator. We don't know what his motivations were to become a dictator. It may have been for the "common good", just as yours are.
To win the election, President Obama could
not represent "more of the same."
I agree. Too many voters disagreed with the actions of Pres. Bush. They assume that any change would be for the better, which is why candidate Obama chose the "change" platform. Unfortunately, the voting public did not consider what that "change" might be.
I agree on the reasons for the "crash" but have no information on the
application of stimulus money, percentage wise; nor do I have any
available statistics on the economic recovery that are reliable.
The mere fact that you have no information on the application of stimulus money or statistics on the economic recovery is consistent with an oligarchic government, which decides what information should be released to the public. Wouldn't it be better if our government were open and forthright about what it is doing?
There must be thousands of articles, by now, on Halliburton. Google Dick
Chaney to start. Secondly, Google, Saudi Arabia.
Billions, not trillions, in grant money. I have searched the grants
continuously and have found nothing in the trillions category. Believe
it or not, try checking the expense of the Iraq war and compare it to
the stimulus package money.
Whether it's billions or trillions, I've said previously that I am opposed to grants using public money. I am not a supporter of the Iraq war nor the stimulus package. An analogy is, wasn't it better that I lost my right arm after I lost my left arm?
There is no public funding for the Public
Option; you are speculating.
You can say I am speculating, but I prefer to say I am anticipating. The Healthcare Public Option would be a good government health insurance company. Like all insurance companies, it would have employees, and reserve assets from which to pay claims. Both of these involve significant money. Where would those funds come from in the Public Option? The obvious answer is from Public Funding.
The difference between the confiscation of money in Egypt and the
confiscation of money in the US, is you control how your money is spent
before you give your tax information to your accountant.
Yes, there is a subtle difference. There is also a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or through legal means. It's still robbery.
Also, alternative energy does benefit you and everyone else, unless you see
the worth of supporting companies like Halliburton. Talk about
disgusting analogies!
I'm not sure what my analogy was, but I don't believe in supporting companies like Halliburton. I believe they should be able to stand on their own feet, without government persecution. Alternative energy does not benefit me nor most people. It is more expensive than using fossil fuels and the increased costs for alternative energy will be paid by the public.
And, no, I don't have particularly "tender"
emotions in the scientific world. However, I do elsewhere.
I am also close to the court system; do you know nothing of the back
room deals among courts, lawyers, and judges? How do you obtain justice
from wards of the court? You are quoting a party line again without
realizing how many people in this country are in jail for petty things.
You realize that the government makes money off prisoners, right? It is
NOT a pretty system, especially if you don't happen to have quite a bit
of money going in. On the other side, some judges and attorneys are fair
and just and so are some decisions. Across the board, it is not the
norm, however. Beginning the end of torture is a start.
Man has evolved somewhat beyond the survival level because we can
verbally teach history to our offspring.
This is emotional rambling and difficult to respond to. I'm sure our court system is not perfect, nor is anything else. There have been and always will be some miscarriages of justice, but we do our best to be fair as jurors. Unfortunately, some members of the court and jurors are so confused in emotional ideology that they find it difficult or impossible to apply the logic of the law. Do not underestimate the value of torture. There are some instances where it should be used for the protection of humanity. Think of it in compassionate terms. It is a necessary evil, which sometimes has its place.
The amount of double taxation applies depending on how you allocate your
money during the year.
We were not talking about the amount of double taxation, we were considering whether double taxation is justified.
Well, if that's true, there is little historic evidence to back up the
largess of insurance companies.
I don't think we were ever talking about the largess (generosity) of insurance companies. Companies are in in business to make a profit, not handout free gifts. The only ostensible difference here is with a Public Option, where the government may be claiming to give a free gift, but in fact is charging customers through a different mechanism.
It goes back to Wall Street, the banking
industry, etc. "policing" themselves. When it doesn't work, regulations
come into play. Are you a student of history? Would we like less
regulation? Of course, but you need to convince the greedier of our
fellow planeteers.
Take it easy on the emotion. We cannot expect any industry to police itself. We have used the fox/chicken coop analogy before. Regulations are necessary but can be overdone. I heard ex-Federal Reserve Chief Greenspan say yesterday that we have developed a superior standard of living and national power in the international arena through a minimum of government regulation. Piles and piles of new regulation will inhibit subsequent development. The alternative of eliminating as much regulation as possible will allow loopholes for abuse, which will be the cost of doing business for the betterment of all. My own opinion is that we should use regulation in each case where we see a potential problem of abuse. At the same time, we should be careful that our new regulations will not do more harm than good.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wrestling with a Leftist
My response to Carol is in italics below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:43 AM
Isn't this a private discussion? Whom else am I writing to?
No. You are writing to the Internet, but they only know you as Carol.
Scientific advisers are responsible for the results.
Not true. Advisors are only responsible to give advice. The person in charge is responsible to accept or reject the advice and is also responsible for the outcome of his decisions.
Unless we want to keep repeating the same mistakes as a country,
regulations need to be enforced, or there is no reason to have them.
Absolutely true!
Glen Beck is about the scariest person I know on talk radio, and
Huckabee is not far behind. Having studied both their backgrounds
carefully and their methods of delivery, they represent the antithesis
of a well-educated person. I have seen videos of the callousness of Mr.
Beck...to what positive end could he possibly be aiming?
Listen carefully to Glenn Beck and Huckabee on television and others on talk radio. They basically saying the same things I am saying and for the same purpose. We believe we understand the bases on which this great country developed, and we hate to see it deteriorate through some misplaced ideologies.
The only way to
improve our collective situation is to work together, use our brains,
and strive with workable plans for a better tomorrow.
Absolutely true!
Excuse me? President Obama put us in horrible debt? Take a look at the
national debt under Bush, Jr. President Obama inherited a nightmare,
that further outlay of capital tried to fix.
Congress and Pres. Bush severely overspent under the Bush Administration. Pres. Obama and Congress magnified the debt problem many fold with the Stimulus Package, TARP, Cash for Clunkers, and a multitude of grants.
I don't see any evidence of
President Obama wanting to run private industry. That is the chat line
of the extreme right, but the evidence of same is lacking. Being our
age, we know what government take-overs represent. We have seen this
especially in Communist countries. The banking and automotive industries
are private corporations...even as stockholders, the government
officials are not running the companies.
When Government puts public money into a private corporation, such as General Motors, receives stock and positions on the Board of Directors, and the President of the United States fires the GM Chief Executive Officer, I consider that running at least a portion of a private industry.
From everything I have read from a wide variety of sources, Americans
want health care reform. And, I read a lot.
Yes. Americans initially wanted health care reform. It was touted as a great program for all. Essentially free, and satisfied the generally compassionate nature of Americans to support the poor and unfortunate. 900 page bills do hide the ball, in spite of Pres. Obama's claim to the contrary. Most people would like to trust government, as you apparently do unequivocally.
As to the election of
President Obama, I honestly don't know how much his skin color entered
into it. Nor, do I think he creates fantasies in his speeches. If you
can think of examples, pitch them to me.
Nor do I on skin color. He does creates fantasies in his speeches, through his verbal flourish and lack of detail. As a youngster, don't you recall sitting around a campfire and listening spellbound to ghost stories? Can you see the similarity and the subtlety? "Taxpayers will not pay one more dime" for healthcare. Does that include no increase in income taxes for anybody? Does that obviate a flat tax on consumer items? "Public healthcare will not cover illegal immigrants". Does that mean that all presently illegal immigrants will be legal by the time the healthcare provisions kick in?
Yes, I have lived through periods where the economy was booming and
benefited accordingly; I have also lived through "busts." We are in one
of the worst "busts" right now. But, it is a combination of
irresponsible businessmen/women and government officials that led us
there. It's time to fix it and start living responsibly as a nation.
I agree wholeheartedly.
We do have a choice in how much is contributed to public money.
Does that mean I can not pay my Federal Income Tax?
It is how your money is allocated all year. If you give money to your church,
you have no control over how they spend it either.
Not true. I have a choice of whether to give my money to my church. If I decide to do so, I can usually specify what it is to be spent on.
When Government takes my money, I have no choice other than to give it. I also have no choice on how it is to be spent, other than through my Congressional Representatives who have continually showed an ability to present a deaf ear.
Socialism is defined as when the producers of goods and services possess both political
power and power over the means of production and distribution. Taken to
the Marxist extreme, which never worked in reality, the proletariat
occupies this position.
Agreed.
President Obama is not running Bank of America
nor General Motors. I think he has enough to do in his present job.
Not completely yet, but he has made a good start, as I have mentioned above. I have not claimed that we are now a complete Marxist state. I have claimed that we are now running headlong in that direction.
Public money is being dispersed through grants in the alternative energy
field, health care, etc. It is intended to be spent on advanced
technological systems that serve to return our economic independence
without damaging the environment. The bail-outs, as you know, were to
prop up the economy to keep it from crashing due to the intricacies of
intertwined businesses.
Irresponsible government recommendations on lending practices in real estate and lack of regulatory enforcement by government was a primary cause of the economic downturn. I don't believe a Stimulus Package and TARP were necessary. In fact, it is said that only 7% of the stimulus money has actually been spent, and the economy is already recovering
In reality, the money is printed out by the
Federal Reserve, against no standard. It is a reserve note. It has not
been confiscated from you. Of course, the more you print, the more the
potential devaluation of the dollar. If you don't print it, we will
probably not recover as a nation. All the money that has ever been
printed is still out there;
The term "reserve note" has no significant meaning. The Federal Reserve prints money as it sees fit, just as you described.. You are also correct in that the more money printed, the lower the value of each dollar. We are apparently not overprinting up to now, because there is actually a decline in cost-of-living items, particularly oil. However, I am concerned that the trillions of dollars of Stimulus Money and probable deficit financing of a Public Option in healthcare, has led to massive debt, for which the interest alone will require extreme taxation or inflation printing.
however, there are some very large corporations,like Haliburton, that aren't pumping their ill-begotten billions back into the economy. Remember where they relocated to! Bob,
who does a public service, is more entitled to the grant money than
most, and he should get as much as he needs to clean up our waste and
used a closed-loop system doing it. Go, Bob! Are you located in Bob's
office?
Please explain the ill begotten billions of Halliburton money, which they are still holding. I am always interested in investing in cash-rich companies. I have looked at Halliburton previously but may have missed something.
If you are a pragmatist, why are some of your comments not concerned
with cause and effect based on needs and results?
If a grant is offered that improves the environment or general health,
it is not stealing to spend it. To make the analogy that it is like
stealing the gold teeth of the dead is bizarre, at best. How you make
that connection is somewhat beyond my logical mindset. Do you write
horror movies?
Sorry that my gold teeth analogy upset your tender emotions. It is difficult for me to give you an example which would be compelling and less picturesque. The fact is that I am the bad an individual sitting here as a pawn to government, with a certain amount of cash. Government is taking my cash, without my agreement, and giving it to various organizations as grants. I don't see that any of the grants benefit me personally, and I have had no choice in whether to give or not. This is socialistic capture. I went through this in the early 60s in Egypt, when government "sequestered" private assets. People who had money before the sequestration didn't have it after the confiscation.
Try running for or keeping your political office if you propose an end
to social security payments.
I agree it would likely be impossible to obtain a public office position on the basis of anti-Social Security campaign platform. Human nature being what it is, people always like free stuff, and do not like to give it up when they have it. Even if it's not free to the recipients and very costly to the payers, the payers always have hope to eventually be recipients. This is a Ponzi scheme on a grand scale, but because it is a government program and the younger generation is always hopeful, there's little possibility for change.
If you have been to court in the past several years, you will notice
justice is not exactly being served. There are too many back-room deals
among lawyers, and judges. It's about money, not justice. Only in a
common-law court would you have a decent chance for equitable treatment.
I cannot imagine going into that foray without lots of bucks in your
pocket. And, if you had the bucks, you could force a settlement outside
of court. What you are defining is the ideal, not how the system really
runs.
I disagree. While I do not work in the court system, I am reasonably close to it. My understanding is that there is very little corruption. The main difficulties with the court system is that it is it has started to be loaded with socialistic/Marxist ideologists. Exorbitant grants for damages in some court cases are the result of juries showing emotional prejudice against government and business. I'm not sure how to correct this in order to obtain more equitably.
The U.S. is not headed for socialized medicine under the current health
reform plan. If an industry is 95% private, it is not run by the government.
The US medical system is not socialized today. It will not be tomorrow. It will not be next week. If health reform becomes law, with institution of a Public Option, most private health insurance will still exist. The question is what will the picture look like a few years down the road. I predict that only one health insurance company will exist. It will be the government Private Option.
Did you miss the part where I said I WORKED in New Zealand and
Australia? I paid the taxes just like anyone else working there. Thus,
the Australians did not pay the medical bills, without any input from
me. That statement you made about being comfortable in leading
Australian citizens to pay my bills was just pure cynicism. Best check
those thoughts at the door, as they are detrimental to yourself and
others whom you are trying to communicate with. Also, with food stamps,
there are specific items that cannot be purchased with these stamps. It
depends on your definition of "exotic" foods.
I did initially miss the part where you said you worked in New Zealand and Australia, but I corrected that in a subsequent writing. Yes. You paid the taxes like everyone else working there and were entitled to the service when you required it. This is no less than the pool operation of a private insurance company, and quite acceptable in my humble, capitalistic judgment. Having initially misjudged the situation, I cannot support my original contention that you were a leech on society by allowing Australians to pay your medical bills. Exotic foods seen purchased with food stamps are high-priced frozen meals, special desserts with guava and other tropical fruits. I buy bunch carrots and chicken on sale to save money.
Again, you are stating an ideal that businesses should be able to stand
on their own feet...yes, in a healthy economy. Not in this one! I have
never witnessed so much personal loss. If there has to be subsidies,
derived from collective premiums, etc., then there has to be.
The world runs on survival of the fittest. If you don't believe this, watch Animal Planet. Well-run businesses are fully aware of upturns and downturns in the business cycle. They prepare for this with adequate reserves. Those businesses which are unable to compete must be allowed to fail, because they have demonstrated ineptitude. Grants and supports of any kind to such businesses only result in development of a mediocrity in capability. This is one of the primary problems in a socialistic regime.
Otherwise, employees of struggling companies will be denied access to health care,
which defeats the concept of reform.
Employees of struggling companies maintain health care benefits as long as the companies still exist. True. When the companies cease to function, because of bankruptcy or other, those employees are out of a job and lose their corporate healthcare. However, consider the fact that while a company's health can be jeopardized by inappropriate management decisions, including the wrong type of business, many times the employees have a significant part in the company's failure. Employees also have an opportunity to depart from the ship early and go with a more viable company. Under extreme circumstances, they can go on to the welfare system. In any event, health care reform has no necessary part in this scenario.
There is no corporation double
taxation unless it is an elective "s" corporation, where losses/profits
pass through to your personal estate.
True. There is no corporate double taxation. There is double taxation for many individuals, who have a combined interest in two or more operations. There's an income tax on profits from their own efforts, whether salary or private business. In addition, if they own stock in a public corporation, profits of that corporation are taxed for a net lower profit availability to the stockholders.
I did not know that was your nephew. However, that $9. an hour is not a
living wage in this country. No, I don't think your nephew should be
paying the $35., which is the employee's share, but I do think he should
be encouraging those employees to get more education!
Nine dollars per hour can be a living wage for some individuals in some parts of the country, which is what I explained in an earlier writing. I'm glad you think that the employees should be paying part of the healthcare premium. This is a capitalistic decision, which I applaud. You can be assured that my nephew continually encourages his people for better education to advance themselves in greater accomplishments for their efforts. Companies hire employees in order to profit from the accomplishments of those employees. The more they can accomplish to the advancement of company profit, the more they are worth, with the justification of higher salaries and benefits. This is completely contrary to a Marxist philosophy.
Your last comment about the spiral into Socialism is an opinion. What is
your alternative to a Public Option? It is not enough to project your
thoughts on what you think must happen. It is your responsibility to
think of better options, if you disagree with the present proposal.
Yes, it is an opinion based on long-term worldwide observations, probably greater your own. There have been several proposals as alternatives to a Public Option (government health insurance). One is to allow private health insurance companies to compete across state lines. Another is to just not have a Public Option and allow private insurance companies to continue to improve their operations in efforts to better compete. Malpractice considerations are also an important factor for high healthcare costs. Doctors should perform responsibly and most do, but unreasonable court decisions have forced them to also pay very high premiums for malpractice insurance and also to protect themselves by ordering many tests, which are costly, but yet not necessary for the health of the patients. This and other things can be part of health care reform, but they should be addressed individually, not as a total package. These are all regulatory matters, which are government responsibility toward justice and fair practice. However there is no room for government in the healthcare business, whether as a supplier of healthcare or supplier of healthcare insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:43 AM
Isn't this a private discussion? Whom else am I writing to?
No. You are writing to the Internet, but they only know you as Carol.
Scientific advisers are responsible for the results.
Not true. Advisors are only responsible to give advice. The person in charge is responsible to accept or reject the advice and is also responsible for the outcome of his decisions.
Unless we want to keep repeating the same mistakes as a country,
regulations need to be enforced, or there is no reason to have them.
Absolutely true!
Glen Beck is about the scariest person I know on talk radio, and
Huckabee is not far behind. Having studied both their backgrounds
carefully and their methods of delivery, they represent the antithesis
of a well-educated person. I have seen videos of the callousness of Mr.
Beck...to what positive end could he possibly be aiming?
Listen carefully to Glenn Beck and Huckabee on television and others on talk radio. They basically saying the same things I am saying and for the same purpose. We believe we understand the bases on which this great country developed, and we hate to see it deteriorate through some misplaced ideologies.
The only way to
improve our collective situation is to work together, use our brains,
and strive with workable plans for a better tomorrow.
Absolutely true!
Excuse me? President Obama put us in horrible debt? Take a look at the
national debt under Bush, Jr. President Obama inherited a nightmare,
that further outlay of capital tried to fix.
Congress and Pres. Bush severely overspent under the Bush Administration. Pres. Obama and Congress magnified the debt problem many fold with the Stimulus Package, TARP, Cash for Clunkers, and a multitude of grants.
I don't see any evidence of
President Obama wanting to run private industry. That is the chat line
of the extreme right, but the evidence of same is lacking. Being our
age, we know what government take-overs represent. We have seen this
especially in Communist countries. The banking and automotive industries
are private corporations...even as stockholders, the government
officials are not running the companies.
When Government puts public money into a private corporation, such as General Motors, receives stock and positions on the Board of Directors, and the President of the United States fires the GM Chief Executive Officer, I consider that running at least a portion of a private industry.
From everything I have read from a wide variety of sources, Americans
want health care reform. And, I read a lot.
Yes. Americans initially wanted health care reform. It was touted as a great program for all. Essentially free, and satisfied the generally compassionate nature of Americans to support the poor and unfortunate. 900 page bills do hide the ball, in spite of Pres. Obama's claim to the contrary. Most people would like to trust government, as you apparently do unequivocally.
As to the election of
President Obama, I honestly don't know how much his skin color entered
into it. Nor, do I think he creates fantasies in his speeches. If you
can think of examples, pitch them to me.
Nor do I on skin color. He does creates fantasies in his speeches, through his verbal flourish and lack of detail. As a youngster, don't you recall sitting around a campfire and listening spellbound to ghost stories? Can you see the similarity and the subtlety? "Taxpayers will not pay one more dime" for healthcare. Does that include no increase in income taxes for anybody? Does that obviate a flat tax on consumer items? "Public healthcare will not cover illegal immigrants". Does that mean that all presently illegal immigrants will be legal by the time the healthcare provisions kick in?
Yes, I have lived through periods where the economy was booming and
benefited accordingly; I have also lived through "busts." We are in one
of the worst "busts" right now. But, it is a combination of
irresponsible businessmen/women and government officials that led us
there. It's time to fix it and start living responsibly as a nation.
I agree wholeheartedly.
We do have a choice in how much is contributed to public money.
Does that mean I can not pay my Federal Income Tax?
It is how your money is allocated all year. If you give money to your church,
you have no control over how they spend it either.
Not true. I have a choice of whether to give my money to my church. If I decide to do so, I can usually specify what it is to be spent on.
When Government takes my money, I have no choice other than to give it. I also have no choice on how it is to be spent, other than through my Congressional Representatives who have continually showed an ability to present a deaf ear.
Socialism is defined as when the producers of goods and services possess both political
power and power over the means of production and distribution. Taken to
the Marxist extreme, which never worked in reality, the proletariat
occupies this position.
Agreed.
President Obama is not running Bank of America
nor General Motors. I think he has enough to do in his present job.
Not completely yet, but he has made a good start, as I have mentioned above. I have not claimed that we are now a complete Marxist state. I have claimed that we are now running headlong in that direction.
Public money is being dispersed through grants in the alternative energy
field, health care, etc. It is intended to be spent on advanced
technological systems that serve to return our economic independence
without damaging the environment. The bail-outs, as you know, were to
prop up the economy to keep it from crashing due to the intricacies of
intertwined businesses.
Irresponsible government recommendations on lending practices in real estate and lack of regulatory enforcement by government was a primary cause of the economic downturn. I don't believe a Stimulus Package and TARP were necessary. In fact, it is said that only 7% of the stimulus money has actually been spent, and the economy is already recovering
In reality, the money is printed out by the
Federal Reserve, against no standard. It is a reserve note. It has not
been confiscated from you. Of course, the more you print, the more the
potential devaluation of the dollar. If you don't print it, we will
probably not recover as a nation. All the money that has ever been
printed is still out there;
The term "reserve note" has no significant meaning. The Federal Reserve prints money as it sees fit, just as you described.. You are also correct in that the more money printed, the lower the value of each dollar. We are apparently not overprinting up to now, because there is actually a decline in cost-of-living items, particularly oil. However, I am concerned that the trillions of dollars of Stimulus Money and probable deficit financing of a Public Option in healthcare, has led to massive debt, for which the interest alone will require extreme taxation or inflation printing.
however, there are some very large corporations,like Haliburton, that aren't pumping their ill-begotten billions back into the economy. Remember where they relocated to! Bob,
who does a public service, is more entitled to the grant money than
most, and he should get as much as he needs to clean up our waste and
used a closed-loop system doing it. Go, Bob! Are you located in Bob's
office?
Please explain the ill begotten billions of Halliburton money, which they are still holding. I am always interested in investing in cash-rich companies. I have looked at Halliburton previously but may have missed something.
If you are a pragmatist, why are some of your comments not concerned
with cause and effect based on needs and results?
If a grant is offered that improves the environment or general health,
it is not stealing to spend it. To make the analogy that it is like
stealing the gold teeth of the dead is bizarre, at best. How you make
that connection is somewhat beyond my logical mindset. Do you write
horror movies?
Sorry that my gold teeth analogy upset your tender emotions. It is difficult for me to give you an example which would be compelling and less picturesque. The fact is that I am the bad an individual sitting here as a pawn to government, with a certain amount of cash. Government is taking my cash, without my agreement, and giving it to various organizations as grants. I don't see that any of the grants benefit me personally, and I have had no choice in whether to give or not. This is socialistic capture. I went through this in the early 60s in Egypt, when government "sequestered" private assets. People who had money before the sequestration didn't have it after the confiscation.
Try running for or keeping your political office if you propose an end
to social security payments.
I agree it would likely be impossible to obtain a public office position on the basis of anti-Social Security campaign platform. Human nature being what it is, people always like free stuff, and do not like to give it up when they have it. Even if it's not free to the recipients and very costly to the payers, the payers always have hope to eventually be recipients. This is a Ponzi scheme on a grand scale, but because it is a government program and the younger generation is always hopeful, there's little possibility for change.
If you have been to court in the past several years, you will notice
justice is not exactly being served. There are too many back-room deals
among lawyers, and judges. It's about money, not justice. Only in a
common-law court would you have a decent chance for equitable treatment.
I cannot imagine going into that foray without lots of bucks in your
pocket. And, if you had the bucks, you could force a settlement outside
of court. What you are defining is the ideal, not how the system really
runs.
I disagree. While I do not work in the court system, I am reasonably close to it. My understanding is that there is very little corruption. The main difficulties with the court system is that it is it has started to be loaded with socialistic/Marxist ideologists. Exorbitant grants for damages in some court cases are the result of juries showing emotional prejudice against government and business. I'm not sure how to correct this in order to obtain more equitably.
The U.S. is not headed for socialized medicine under the current health
reform plan. If an industry is 95% private, it is not run by the government.
The US medical system is not socialized today. It will not be tomorrow. It will not be next week. If health reform becomes law, with institution of a Public Option, most private health insurance will still exist. The question is what will the picture look like a few years down the road. I predict that only one health insurance company will exist. It will be the government Private Option.
Did you miss the part where I said I WORKED in New Zealand and
Australia? I paid the taxes just like anyone else working there. Thus,
the Australians did not pay the medical bills, without any input from
me. That statement you made about being comfortable in leading
Australian citizens to pay my bills was just pure cynicism. Best check
those thoughts at the door, as they are detrimental to yourself and
others whom you are trying to communicate with. Also, with food stamps,
there are specific items that cannot be purchased with these stamps. It
depends on your definition of "exotic" foods.
I did initially miss the part where you said you worked in New Zealand and Australia, but I corrected that in a subsequent writing. Yes. You paid the taxes like everyone else working there and were entitled to the service when you required it. This is no less than the pool operation of a private insurance company, and quite acceptable in my humble, capitalistic judgment. Having initially misjudged the situation, I cannot support my original contention that you were a leech on society by allowing Australians to pay your medical bills. Exotic foods seen purchased with food stamps are high-priced frozen meals, special desserts with guava and other tropical fruits. I buy bunch carrots and chicken on sale to save money.
Again, you are stating an ideal that businesses should be able to stand
on their own feet...yes, in a healthy economy. Not in this one! I have
never witnessed so much personal loss. If there has to be subsidies,
derived from collective premiums, etc., then there has to be.
The world runs on survival of the fittest. If you don't believe this, watch Animal Planet. Well-run businesses are fully aware of upturns and downturns in the business cycle. They prepare for this with adequate reserves. Those businesses which are unable to compete must be allowed to fail, because they have demonstrated ineptitude. Grants and supports of any kind to such businesses only result in development of a mediocrity in capability. This is one of the primary problems in a socialistic regime.
Otherwise, employees of struggling companies will be denied access to health care,
which defeats the concept of reform.
Employees of struggling companies maintain health care benefits as long as the companies still exist. True. When the companies cease to function, because of bankruptcy or other, those employees are out of a job and lose their corporate healthcare. However, consider the fact that while a company's health can be jeopardized by inappropriate management decisions, including the wrong type of business, many times the employees have a significant part in the company's failure. Employees also have an opportunity to depart from the ship early and go with a more viable company. Under extreme circumstances, they can go on to the welfare system. In any event, health care reform has no necessary part in this scenario.
There is no corporation double
taxation unless it is an elective "s" corporation, where losses/profits
pass through to your personal estate.
True. There is no corporate double taxation. There is double taxation for many individuals, who have a combined interest in two or more operations. There's an income tax on profits from their own efforts, whether salary or private business. In addition, if they own stock in a public corporation, profits of that corporation are taxed for a net lower profit availability to the stockholders.
I did not know that was your nephew. However, that $9. an hour is not a
living wage in this country. No, I don't think your nephew should be
paying the $35., which is the employee's share, but I do think he should
be encouraging those employees to get more education!
Nine dollars per hour can be a living wage for some individuals in some parts of the country, which is what I explained in an earlier writing. I'm glad you think that the employees should be paying part of the healthcare premium. This is a capitalistic decision, which I applaud. You can be assured that my nephew continually encourages his people for better education to advance themselves in greater accomplishments for their efforts. Companies hire employees in order to profit from the accomplishments of those employees. The more they can accomplish to the advancement of company profit, the more they are worth, with the justification of higher salaries and benefits. This is completely contrary to a Marxist philosophy.
Your last comment about the spiral into Socialism is an opinion. What is
your alternative to a Public Option? It is not enough to project your
thoughts on what you think must happen. It is your responsibility to
think of better options, if you disagree with the present proposal.
Yes, it is an opinion based on long-term worldwide observations, probably greater your own. There have been several proposals as alternatives to a Public Option (government health insurance). One is to allow private health insurance companies to compete across state lines. Another is to just not have a Public Option and allow private insurance companies to continue to improve their operations in efforts to better compete. Malpractice considerations are also an important factor for high healthcare costs. Doctors should perform responsibly and most do, but unreasonable court decisions have forced them to also pay very high premiums for malpractice insurance and also to protect themselves by ordering many tests, which are costly, but yet not necessary for the health of the patients. This and other things can be part of health care reform, but they should be addressed individually, not as a total package. These are all regulatory matters, which are government responsibility toward justice and fair practice. However there is no room for government in the healthcare business, whether as a supplier of healthcare or supplier of healthcare insurance.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Islamic Terrorists
Letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "Fewer Americans See Islam As Violent: Poll. The percentage of Americans who believe Islam encourages violence has declined in recent years but remains far above where it was in 2002, while very basic knowledge about the faith has shown modest increases, according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (canada.com)".
While it is said and likely true that the Koran advocates conversion of all humans to Islam, through physical means if necessary, few Muslims seem to be so inclined.
I believe we should consider the claim in the same manner we consider our First Amendment rights to free speech and writing. No one should be prosecuted on the basis of speech or writing a minor matter how antagonistic that speech or writing may seem to be. Prosecution should be based on an accomplished action. The matter of intent should only come in as consideration of the punishment after the illegal act has been performed.
Record shows that Islam has been a breeding ground for performing terrorists. On that basis, we should be scrutinizing verbal statements and writings of Muslims more closely than statements and writings of other religions. This is another way of following Pres. Reagan's admonition of "trust and [watch] verify".
EIN News says, "Fewer Americans See Islam As Violent: Poll. The percentage of Americans who believe Islam encourages violence has declined in recent years but remains far above where it was in 2002, while very basic knowledge about the faith has shown modest increases, according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (canada.com)".
While it is said and likely true that the Koran advocates conversion of all humans to Islam, through physical means if necessary, few Muslims seem to be so inclined.
I believe we should consider the claim in the same manner we consider our First Amendment rights to free speech and writing. No one should be prosecuted on the basis of speech or writing a minor matter how antagonistic that speech or writing may seem to be. Prosecution should be based on an accomplished action. The matter of intent should only come in as consideration of the punishment after the illegal act has been performed.
Record shows that Islam has been a breeding ground for performing terrorists. On that basis, we should be scrutinizing verbal statements and writings of Muslims more closely than statements and writings of other religions. This is another way of following Pres. Reagan's admonition of "trust and [watch] verify".
Monday, September 7, 2009
Religion and Government
Skeet,
From what I read and heard on the link, I don't think it was so bad.
As I read from the U.S. Constitution, government has the responsibility to allow various religions to promote themselves. Government must not take sides in aiding promotion of one religion over another.
We were founded by Christians as a Christian nation, but that is a cultural thing and cultures do change. In the ghettos of New York City, where my father grew up, each ghetto had its individual culture, including in many cases its specific religion. All of this became assimilated in the last 80 years.
It is said that the Koran requires Muslims to physically convert other human beings to Islam, but that may not be followed. Similarly, the Bible taught brotherhood but yet the Crusaders used physical means to convert other human beings to Christianity.
We should be fearful and alert to extremists, who are motivated by religion or other factors, to deprive us of our individual rights as defined by the Constitution.
However, an Islamic threat from a majority of Muslims does not appear to be of great significance at this time. Much more significant to destroy our individual rights is the present operation of the United States government. That is now the one to be most afraid of.
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: Workman Skeet [mailto:sworkman@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 4:29 PM
To: Undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Fwd: Skeet - Isam in Washington DC
Begin forwarded message:
From: Workman Skeet
Date: September 7, 2009 4:25:43 PM CDT
To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
Subject: Skeet - Isam in Washington DC
This is terrible.
Skeet
Subject: Islam in Washington
http://islamoncapitolhill.com/Home_Page.html
Did you know about this?
From what I read and heard on the link, I don't think it was so bad.
As I read from the U.S. Constitution, government has the responsibility to allow various religions to promote themselves. Government must not take sides in aiding promotion of one religion over another.
We were founded by Christians as a Christian nation, but that is a cultural thing and cultures do change. In the ghettos of New York City, where my father grew up, each ghetto had its individual culture, including in many cases its specific religion. All of this became assimilated in the last 80 years.
It is said that the Koran requires Muslims to physically convert other human beings to Islam, but that may not be followed. Similarly, the Bible taught brotherhood but yet the Crusaders used physical means to convert other human beings to Christianity.
We should be fearful and alert to extremists, who are motivated by religion or other factors, to deprive us of our individual rights as defined by the Constitution.
However, an Islamic threat from a majority of Muslims does not appear to be of great significance at this time. Much more significant to destroy our individual rights is the present operation of the United States government. That is now the one to be most afraid of.
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: Workman Skeet [mailto:sworkman@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 4:29 PM
To: Undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Fwd: Skeet - Isam in Washington DC
Begin forwarded message:
From: Workman Skeet
Date: September 7, 2009 4:25:43 PM CDT
To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
Subject: Skeet - Isam in Washington DC
This is terrible.
Skeet
Subject: Islam in Washington
http://islamoncapitolhill.com/Home_Page.html
Did you know about this?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Exorbitant Corporate Salary-Bonus Packages
EIN News says, "Gordon Brown Joins French and Germans in Call for Global Crackdown on Bank Bonuses. Gordon Brown joined his German and French counterparts today in calling for G20 leaders to impose tough global rules on bank bonuses, after holding out for days to weaken plans for caps on individual payments. (guardian.co.uk)".
In the US, we have also had similar exorbitant bonuses paid to Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and others in Corporate Administrations of industries, banks, and other services. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are particularly egregious examples of this practice within semi-government operations.
Wikipedia defines Unfair Business Practices as encompassing fraud, misrepresentation, and oppressive or unconscionable acts or practices by business, often against consumers. These are prohibited by law in many countries. For instance, in the European Union, each member state must regulate unfair business practices in accordance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, subject to transitional periods. Unfair business practices may arise in many areas, including matters involving the purchase of products and services by consumers
The US has had for many years a practice of Interlocking Corporate Directorships. Such Directorship operates on the basis that a CEO of Corporation A serves on the Board of Directors of Corporation B. The CEO of Corporation B simultaneously serves as a Director on the board of Corporation A. There has usually been a pre-agreement among two or more of the CEOs and Directors concerning salaries and bonuses. In effect, the CEO of Corporation A will have a very nice salary and bonus approved by the Board of Corporation B, which contains the CEO of Corporation B and likely the CEOs of other corporations. Conversely with one hand washing the other, the CEO of Corporation A will vote for a nice salary-bonus package for the CEO of Corporation B, when such is being discussed by his board.
The net result of this practice is that "Sales and Administrative Expenses" for each Corporation are significantly increased. In order to remain profitable, each Corporation must then increase its prices to the consuming public.
There are many federal, state, and local laws and regulations, which would easily control such abuse, the government has not seen fit to prosecute any of the practices or make changes in Corporation Law, which would not allow such practice to continue.
I encourage Congress to consider a simple change in antitrust laws to disallow an officer of any Corporation to be a Board member of any other corporation. This must also be followed by an enforcement policy, in which Congress will cooperate with the Justice Department.
In the US, we have also had similar exorbitant bonuses paid to Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and others in Corporate Administrations of industries, banks, and other services. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are particularly egregious examples of this practice within semi-government operations.
Wikipedia defines Unfair Business Practices as encompassing fraud, misrepresentation, and oppressive or unconscionable acts or practices by business, often against consumers. These are prohibited by law in many countries. For instance, in the European Union, each member state must regulate unfair business practices in accordance with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, subject to transitional periods. Unfair business practices may arise in many areas, including matters involving the purchase of products and services by consumers
The US has had for many years a practice of Interlocking Corporate Directorships. Such Directorship operates on the basis that a CEO of Corporation A serves on the Board of Directors of Corporation B. The CEO of Corporation B simultaneously serves as a Director on the board of Corporation A. There has usually been a pre-agreement among two or more of the CEOs and Directors concerning salaries and bonuses. In effect, the CEO of Corporation A will have a very nice salary and bonus approved by the Board of Corporation B, which contains the CEO of Corporation B and likely the CEOs of other corporations. Conversely with one hand washing the other, the CEO of Corporation A will vote for a nice salary-bonus package for the CEO of Corporation B, when such is being discussed by his board.
The net result of this practice is that "Sales and Administrative Expenses" for each Corporation are significantly increased. In order to remain profitable, each Corporation must then increase its prices to the consuming public.
There are many federal, state, and local laws and regulations, which would easily control such abuse, the government has not seen fit to prosecute any of the practices or make changes in Corporation Law, which would not allow such practice to continue.
I encourage Congress to consider a simple change in antitrust laws to disallow an officer of any Corporation to be a Board member of any other corporation. This must also be followed by an enforcement policy, in which Congress will cooperate with the Justice Department.
Pres. Obama and Your Children
Pres. Obama is scheduled to address US schoolchildren this
coming Tuesday. If you do not want your children or
grandchildren exposed directly to Pres. Obama's philosophies, I
suggest you telephone the Administration of your local School
District and the School Board President to ask that they NOT
accept the message into the school communication system. This is
the last day to act.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their
children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be
difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less
certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that
parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school.
This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being
applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent,
you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a
reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and
his staff.
coming Tuesday. If you do not want your children or
grandchildren exposed directly to Pres. Obama's philosophies, I
suggest you telephone the Administration of your local School
District and the School Board President to ask that they NOT
accept the message into the school communication system. This is
the last day to act.
It has previously been suggested that parents keep their
children out of school next Tuesday. However, that may be
difficult for working parents, and it may be easier but less
certain to look up phone numbers and make two phone calls.
I have heard of one school administrator who has said that
parents will not be ALLOWED to keep their children from school.
This is an indication of a philosophy that is already being
applied in many school systems. It seems to me that as a parent,
you have the responsibility to have your child educated in a
reasonable manner and not a manner dictated by the President and
his staff.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Airline Deficits
EIN News says, "Airlines Lost $6 Billion in First Half, Raised Equity. A sample of more than 50 airlines surveyed worldwide showed net losses in excess of $6 billion for the first half of this year, the International Air Transport Association said today. Airlines have also taken advantage of stronger equity markets to raise $15 billion to help offset dwindling operating cash flow, IATA said in a statement (bloomberg.com)".
My opinion is that the primary problem is too many airlines pursuing too little business. However, the fact that the private market is willing and able to supply $15 billion may indicate my opinion is wrong. Let's see what happens.
However, the key point is that the airline business should remain private enterprise, with some minor government control to avoid monopolistic practices and ensure public safety. It is not an area for government to be pouring in public money. Congress should stay out of this, unless it wants to take the next step of proving that it is oligarchic/socialist.
My opinion is that the primary problem is too many airlines pursuing too little business. However, the fact that the private market is willing and able to supply $15 billion may indicate my opinion is wrong. Let's see what happens.
However, the key point is that the airline business should remain private enterprise, with some minor government control to avoid monopolistic practices and ensure public safety. It is not an area for government to be pouring in public money. Congress should stay out of this, unless it wants to take the next step of proving that it is oligarchic/socialist.
Philosophies and agendas
EIN News says, "China Closes Doors to European Businesses. Doing business in China is getting harder, not easier, according to European businesses, as they laid out almost 600 pages of complaints in a new report. The report paints a troubling picture of the Chinese business landscape, filled with discrimination against foreign companies, arbitrary laws and regulations, and abuses of China's World Trade Organization obligations. (telegraph.co.uk)".
Not surprising.
Christians are obligated to convert the world to Christianity. Muslims are obligated to convert the world to Islam. Republics, such as democratic US, believe they are obligated to convert the world to democracy. Communist countries, such as China, believe they are obligated to convert the world to communism.
Be assured that China has two objectives. The first is to become financially, physically, and militarily strong. The second is to use that capability to establish communism wherever it can. China is now financially, physically and militarily strong enough so that it no longer needs the West to build its financial and technological strength. Therefore, it will start to sever relations.
Whatever "do-gooders" may think, the world operates on a competitive basis and will continue to do so. As we have granted power to China, through various operations, we have in turn become weaker. It is a "hardball" game and the sooner Congress realizes this, the better. We cannot count on our Administration,
Not surprising.
Christians are obligated to convert the world to Christianity. Muslims are obligated to convert the world to Islam. Republics, such as democratic US, believe they are obligated to convert the world to democracy. Communist countries, such as China, believe they are obligated to convert the world to communism.
Be assured that China has two objectives. The first is to become financially, physically, and militarily strong. The second is to use that capability to establish communism wherever it can. China is now financially, physically and militarily strong enough so that it no longer needs the West to build its financial and technological strength. Therefore, it will start to sever relations.
Whatever "do-gooders" may think, the world operates on a competitive basis and will continue to do so. As we have granted power to China, through various operations, we have in turn become weaker. It is a "hardball" game and the sooner Congress realizes this, the better. We cannot count on our Administration,
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Government Mandate on Lufthansa
EIN News says, "Lufthansa Cargo Threatens to Close Freighter Fleet. Lufthansa is threatening to close its fleet of freighter aircraft if restrictions on night flights are imposed on its hub at Frankfurt. In order to calm opposition to the growth of the airport, politicians in the State of Hesse agreed to limit the number of night flights to just 17. Lufthansa challenged this condition, but the court rejected the airline's objection stating that the local politicians had the right to agree to such limitations. (transportintelligence.com)".
Congratulations to Lufthansa for objecting! However, see what it got them so far. Nowhere. Government has the power, as demonstrated here by the court agreeing with local politicians. Let's see how it plays out. Will Lufthansa actually close its freighter fleet in Frankfurt? I doubt it. More likely they will try to continue to operate with one hand tied behind their back. Lufthansa executive's now realize the power of government, if they didn't realize it before. Any similarities to England in imposing a tax on imported tea by the US colonies?
All of Western Europe is characterized by oligarchic/socialistic government and Germany is no exception. I can fault Lufthansa for allowing this to happen some years ago, when they had an opportunity to preserve a capitalistic system through use of advertising and education of their employees. Perhaps they did this, but in all likelihood they did not. Private companies and corporations generally concentrate on maintaining a profitable business and usually don't think down the road about government mandates and restrictions which will not only eliminate their development, but may actually drive them out of business, as is now being done with healthcare in the US.
Congratulations to Lufthansa for objecting! However, see what it got them so far. Nowhere. Government has the power, as demonstrated here by the court agreeing with local politicians. Let's see how it plays out. Will Lufthansa actually close its freighter fleet in Frankfurt? I doubt it. More likely they will try to continue to operate with one hand tied behind their back. Lufthansa executive's now realize the power of government, if they didn't realize it before. Any similarities to England in imposing a tax on imported tea by the US colonies?
All of Western Europe is characterized by oligarchic/socialistic government and Germany is no exception. I can fault Lufthansa for allowing this to happen some years ago, when they had an opportunity to preserve a capitalistic system through use of advertising and education of their employees. Perhaps they did this, but in all likelihood they did not. Private companies and corporations generally concentrate on maintaining a profitable business and usually don't think down the road about government mandates and restrictions which will not only eliminate their development, but may actually drive them out of business, as is now being done with healthcare in the US.
Democratic Government
EIN News says, "Borneo Blowpipes Fight Biofuel Barons. Hundreds of Borneo tribesmen armed with blowpipes are blockading roads in protest against companies they accuse of destroying their rainforests to grow oil palms for biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. The confrontation is taking place in the endangered forests of the Malaysian state of Sarawak, where members of the Penan tribe have existed for centuries as nomadic hunter-gatherers living on fish, wild animals and plants. (indiatimes.com)"
Here we have a typical example of a misguided Democratic group. While it involves only a few hundred Borneo tribesmen, it is also applicable to the total population of the United States. People do not always know what's good for them, which is why our government was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Growing oil palms could be very beneficial to the Borneo tribesmen. They would be able to work in the harvesting of palm oil, with economic advantage to themselves, such that they could improve their water supplies, housing, etc.. Could this be a better life style than shooting each other with blow guns, as they have been doing for at least a few hundred years? "Living on fish, wild animals, and plants" also creates an unreasonable sympathetic reaction from semi-educated fundamentalists, who would like to return the world to primacy, without any consideration of the disadvantages of such action. Meanwhile, they love their iPhone's.
Contrary to Democratic leadership in the US government, who forces its position on the US public, I believe the Borneo tribesmen should have a right to maintain their aboriginal standard of living versus opportunities for what they may consider to be improved lifestyle, if it is explained to them. They also need to be educated on the legal aspects of property rights. They are already well accustomed to property rights in an aboriginal society, but are likely unfamiliar with modern legal aspects, as opposed to tribal warfare.
There are also several significant emotional/social aspects in the news quote. Notice the wording of "destroying rainforests" to the questionable advantage of having biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. Environmentalists would certainly kick up their heels on this statement, because they have an unreasonable nostalgic interest in rainforests. However, God put all natural resources on this earth for our benefit of use. If rainforests need to be eliminated for the personal advantage of humans, so be it.
Notice also the use of the term "Biofuel Barons". This is obviously intended to place the reader's emotional sympathies with Borneo tribesmen fighting against the rich and powerful. The average US citizen generally takes the attitude that he has been deprived of economic advantage by the rich and powerful. Through this jealousy, he will always side with the underdog, no matter what the facts of the case may be.
With these obvious deficiencies of the average citizen, it should be apparent that our Congress should take a Republic form of government attitude rather than a Democrat form of government attitude, in the performance of its duties and any necessary confrontation with the Administration.
Here we have a typical example of a misguided Democratic group. While it involves only a few hundred Borneo tribesmen, it is also applicable to the total population of the United States. People do not always know what's good for them, which is why our government was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Growing oil palms could be very beneficial to the Borneo tribesmen. They would be able to work in the harvesting of palm oil, with economic advantage to themselves, such that they could improve their water supplies, housing, etc.. Could this be a better life style than shooting each other with blow guns, as they have been doing for at least a few hundred years? "Living on fish, wild animals, and plants" also creates an unreasonable sympathetic reaction from semi-educated fundamentalists, who would like to return the world to primacy, without any consideration of the disadvantages of such action. Meanwhile, they love their iPhone's.
Contrary to Democratic leadership in the US government, who forces its position on the US public, I believe the Borneo tribesmen should have a right to maintain their aboriginal standard of living versus opportunities for what they may consider to be improved lifestyle, if it is explained to them. They also need to be educated on the legal aspects of property rights. They are already well accustomed to property rights in an aboriginal society, but are likely unfamiliar with modern legal aspects, as opposed to tribal warfare.
There are also several significant emotional/social aspects in the news quote. Notice the wording of "destroying rainforests" to the questionable advantage of having biofuel, cooking oil, soap and margarine. Environmentalists would certainly kick up their heels on this statement, because they have an unreasonable nostalgic interest in rainforests. However, God put all natural resources on this earth for our benefit of use. If rainforests need to be eliminated for the personal advantage of humans, so be it.
Notice also the use of the term "Biofuel Barons". This is obviously intended to place the reader's emotional sympathies with Borneo tribesmen fighting against the rich and powerful. The average US citizen generally takes the attitude that he has been deprived of economic advantage by the rich and powerful. Through this jealousy, he will always side with the underdog, no matter what the facts of the case may be.
With these obvious deficiencies of the average citizen, it should be apparent that our Congress should take a Republic form of government attitude rather than a Democrat form of government attitude, in the performance of its duties and any necessary confrontation with the Administration.
Britain Facing Blackouts
EIN News says, "Britain Facing Blackouts for First Time Since 1970s. Demand for power from homes and businesses will exceed supply from the national grid within eight years, according to official figures. The shortage of supplies will hit the equivalent of many as 16 million families for at least one hour during the year, it is forecast. (telegraph.co.uk)"
Britain is now starting to pay for its conversion to oligarchic/socialist government. When government takes over, it interferes with private enterprise. In this case, we see that the oligarchic/socialist government has discouraged private enterprise through regulations and higher taxes, such that private enterprise had no incentive to invest in electricity production necessary for the market. Theoretically, the British government could have done the job, but practical experience shows that such governments are so tied up in their own red tape, that they are unable to accomplish practical physical developments.
Do we notice any similarities with the state of California?
Britain is now starting to pay for its conversion to oligarchic/socialist government. When government takes over, it interferes with private enterprise. In this case, we see that the oligarchic/socialist government has discouraged private enterprise through regulations and higher taxes, such that private enterprise had no incentive to invest in electricity production necessary for the market. Theoretically, the British government could have done the job, but practical experience shows that such governments are so tied up in their own red tape, that they are unable to accomplish practical physical developments.
Do we notice any similarities with the state of California?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
