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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
