When you or your employer pay the premiums for a health insurance plan, the money goes to several places. Part is used to pay the providers of medical services like doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. Also, there are administrative costs for receiving the claims, reviewing them, and paying them. There are costs of creating and maintaining a network of providers. Also, the payout levels to the network providers must be set in order to entice providers to join the network. Then there is the cost of marketing the insurance to employers and/or individuals. Hopefully after all of this, there is a profit for the corporation providing all of these benefits to the policy holders.
The AHIP publishes industry costs as a percentage of your premium cost. With regard to administrative costs, they were 14.7% in 1960, and in 2011 they were down to 12.3%. Viewing the graph, 2011 appears to have the lowest percentage over the 52 year period. You can view the statistics at http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2013/07/18/quick-facts-about-health-care-reform-and-premiums/. This link shows that your health insurance premiums have closely tracked the cost of the health care services since 1980.
Would you say that the cost of administering our government health plans like Medicare and Medicaid is more or less than this 12.3% level of private insurers? When you're calculating the administration cost of these government programs, you need to include all of the levels of bureaucracy that are required to operate them. I would bet that we could dismantle the bureaucracy of Health and Human Services and just buy a private policy for everyone on Medicare and Medicaid. The care would have to be better, the cost would be less, the fraud would be eliminated, and the providers would receive enough to keep their practices running.
Also, most of the profits that President Obama finds so appalling are being earned in pharmaceuticals and medical products and equipment. The pharmacies, hospitals, and insurance providers are making quite modest profits. Why? Could it be that there is a lot of competition in these areas, whereas a pharmaceutical company that develops a new drug may have no competition until the patent expires. Also, there is a lot of risk in pharmaceutical R&D. Millions may be spent developing a new drug that proves to have side effects in clinical trials. That drug may never make the company a penny. There is also the risk that side effects may not be found in clinical trials. If people are injured or die from a drug side effect, the costs can be astronomical. Those lawyers that start the class action lawsuits aren't working pro bono when these things happen. The plaintiffs get a small settlement, but the lawyers make millions. Often, reports seem to imply that the drug companies purposely put patients at risk by cutting corners to get a drug to market more quickly. If they are doing that, these companies can take a massive public relations hit in addition to the punitive awards to plaintiffs and their lawyers.
I believe there are ways to improve patient safety and patient care in the US medical industry. There are ways that the costs could be reduced. This MessAPolitico that is gradually being phased in does more harm than good though. The Patient Lack of Protection and Unaffordable Careless Act causes the government to exercise increasing control over the medical industry. The method of cost reduction is coverage denial or "strong-arming" providers into earning less money. Why would a corporation risk millions of dollars developing a new drug or medical device, when the government tells them how much money they can earn when it goes to market? Will the government subsidize these companies when the risk doesn't pay off? Why would anyone want to go to pre-med and med school for 8-10 years and run up massive amounts of student loan debt? Their reward might be a small salary and the opportunity to deal with endless red-tape feeding the bureaucracy.
So what are some things we could do to reduce the cost of health care without giving up services or quality of services? Could we streamline the process of filing insurance claims and getting the providers paid? How about if the claims were filed using an electronic, generic claim system used by all insurers? What if your doctor electronically stored your medical records in a system that could be accessed by all of your providers? They could better coordinate your care and watch for drug interactions, etc. If you needed to go to a doctor or emergency room while traveling, the doctor there could access your records and update them for your provider back at home. They would need your permission, of course. Possibly you would carry a medical card with a barcode and PIN that would be used for access. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't need to fill out all of those forms every time you visit a provider? How about paramedics that could use your card to find out if you have diabetes or epilepsy. What if the health insurance company could easily check your records to see if you are making fraudulent claims? How about using a system like this to determine if a patient is really entitled to Medicaid or Medicare or if that patient is really a US citizen?
Why do the rules in each individual state need to be different? This practice causes an insurance company to have 50 sets of laws to comply with. Think of their costs for lawyers to figure out this MessAPolitico. Insurers need as many providers in the network as possible and as many patients to offer to these providers as possible. That will allow them to negotiate a great PPO deal. Why limit this by making the insurance company act like 50 insurance companies, with a different set of policies in each state? If we were going to have insurance reform, maybe elimination of red tape like this would help out. Here in Cincinnati, you could get your health care in Ohio, Kentucky, or Indiana. You could live in one and work in another. Why do we need a bunch of unnecessary complication in the insurance business?
When are the politicians going to stop creating MessAPoliticos that screw up everything with red-tape? When will they start to work for us instead of themselves? It's time to kill Obamacare and do something meaningful and simpler. How about they just get out of the way and let the market take care of itself?
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Is Government Run Health Insurance Efficient?
I was a long-time employee of a large manufacturing company that has offered insurance to its employees. When I started working there in the late 1970's, that company was self-insured. Today, they offer a plan from Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Why did they change?
Back 30 years ago, I just turned in the payment form from the doctor when I paid the bill after receiving services. After meeting my $100 deductible, they would send me checks as reimbursement for 80% of the cost. The whole program was administered by the human resources department, which was called the personnel department back then. They had a list of "reasonable and customary" charges for the various medical services. If the doctor bill was too high, they wouldn't reimburse me for the full amount, but I never had that scenario happen.
Consumers don't generally pick their doctors based on price. Getting bargain basement health care and putting your family's health at risk is probably not the smartest thing to do. Over time, people had better health insurance that required them to pay a smaller and smaller share of the health care costs. In my opinion, doctors didn't see this situation as billing their patients anymore. They were billing the insurance company. Sometimes, they were even billing the government where Medicare or Medicaid was involved. Consequently, they raised prices and felt no guilt.
Then, our universities began graduating more and more lawyers. These lawyers wanted to earn big salaries, and they could do this through lawsuits seeking damages for torts. Doctors and hospitals could be sued for liability in wrongful death or malpractice cases. This caused expenses for doctors to rise dramatically for malpractice insurance premiums. It also caused the doctors to do many extra tests to rule out every remote possibility. Why not do the tests? You and your insurance company pay for them, and the doctor is protected from liability suits to reduce his or her costs.
Employers were providing insurance as a benefit to their employees in order to be competitive. The cost of providing this insurance was rising rapidly. The insurance companies offered corporations a way to reduce their benefit cost. They would create networks of preferred providers -- PPO's. The providers were only selected to join the network if they agreed to accept the network price for services. When networks were able to get enough people insured, the providers were pressured to accept the lower price or lose a number of patients that had this insurance at their jobs. I guess you could say that the HMO's were shopping and negotiating with your doctor on your behalf. I have had at least four different insurance plans in the past 10 years, and we have never changed a single doctor. They all seem to belong to all company PPO's.
Of course, insurance companies generally can reduce the cost of administering the claims. They can better provide protection against fraudulent claims, too. All of these costs being reduced significantly allows the insurance company to offer the health coverage at a lower price while making a profit.
Are you worried that they make too much profit? Well, the liberals in our federal government will tell you to trust the government to pass laws and regulations that tell these insurance companies how much profit they can make. They believe that the government is in a great position to tell these insurance companies how to run their businesses in order to keep your costs down. President Obama will tell you that the reason our health care costs are so high is because the insurance companies are making a profit. I'll bet that you've heard that the insurance company CEO's make too much money, too. Obama will also tell you that we need the government insuring you, and that will save the cost of that profit and the CEO's salary.
Is that stuff true? I guess it could be. Do you believe that the government will do an effective job administering claims and preventing fraud? Do you believe the government will figure out how to build a PPO and negotiate prices of health care with your providers? Will they get you prices as good as you have now or better, while paying the providers enough to stay in business? Will enough kids be persuaded to go into medicine as a career? Will the doctors keep practicing medicine, or will they be forced to close down their practice because the insurance payments aren't enough to cover the expenses?
If the MessAPolitico would stay out of our business, the free market would take care of itself. Competition would keep the profits reasonable. With insurance companies having to compete, they will always be trying to reduce their costs of administering claims. They will take steps to effectively eliminate fraud. Their prices will be driven down by the competition, because they will need plenty of enrollees in order to gain power over the PPO network. If one company tried to make 25% operating profit while the others only make 10%, their prices would be too high. The enrollees would leave. The corporations would take their employees to a different insurance company to save money.
When the government has taken over the whole health care industry, will there be any competition driving them to get better? NO! How will they reduce costs? They will tell you that you can't have that elective surgery because you're too old or you probably will die anyway. They will tell your doctor that he needs to comply will all of their paperwork and regulations, but he or she will get paid a smaller amount. What will you do for health care when your doctor decides to quit practicing medicine? My daughter's Gynecologist sent out a letter recently saying that he would no longer deliver babies. Is this a sign of things to come?
Congress, please respect the wishes of the people. President Obama, it's time to listen to the citizens of the United States. Repeal this MessAPolitico. Repeal the Patient Lack of Protection and Unaffordable Careless Act. Congress, please don't fund this MessAPolitico. Americans, pay attention to how they vote in Congress and in your state legislature. Remember on election day in 2014.
Back 30 years ago, I just turned in the payment form from the doctor when I paid the bill after receiving services. After meeting my $100 deductible, they would send me checks as reimbursement for 80% of the cost. The whole program was administered by the human resources department, which was called the personnel department back then. They had a list of "reasonable and customary" charges for the various medical services. If the doctor bill was too high, they wouldn't reimburse me for the full amount, but I never had that scenario happen.
Consumers don't generally pick their doctors based on price. Getting bargain basement health care and putting your family's health at risk is probably not the smartest thing to do. Over time, people had better health insurance that required them to pay a smaller and smaller share of the health care costs. In my opinion, doctors didn't see this situation as billing their patients anymore. They were billing the insurance company. Sometimes, they were even billing the government where Medicare or Medicaid was involved. Consequently, they raised prices and felt no guilt.
Then, our universities began graduating more and more lawyers. These lawyers wanted to earn big salaries, and they could do this through lawsuits seeking damages for torts. Doctors and hospitals could be sued for liability in wrongful death or malpractice cases. This caused expenses for doctors to rise dramatically for malpractice insurance premiums. It also caused the doctors to do many extra tests to rule out every remote possibility. Why not do the tests? You and your insurance company pay for them, and the doctor is protected from liability suits to reduce his or her costs.
Employers were providing insurance as a benefit to their employees in order to be competitive. The cost of providing this insurance was rising rapidly. The insurance companies offered corporations a way to reduce their benefit cost. They would create networks of preferred providers -- PPO's. The providers were only selected to join the network if they agreed to accept the network price for services. When networks were able to get enough people insured, the providers were pressured to accept the lower price or lose a number of patients that had this insurance at their jobs. I guess you could say that the HMO's were shopping and negotiating with your doctor on your behalf. I have had at least four different insurance plans in the past 10 years, and we have never changed a single doctor. They all seem to belong to all company PPO's.
Of course, insurance companies generally can reduce the cost of administering the claims. They can better provide protection against fraudulent claims, too. All of these costs being reduced significantly allows the insurance company to offer the health coverage at a lower price while making a profit.
Are you worried that they make too much profit? Well, the liberals in our federal government will tell you to trust the government to pass laws and regulations that tell these insurance companies how much profit they can make. They believe that the government is in a great position to tell these insurance companies how to run their businesses in order to keep your costs down. President Obama will tell you that the reason our health care costs are so high is because the insurance companies are making a profit. I'll bet that you've heard that the insurance company CEO's make too much money, too. Obama will also tell you that we need the government insuring you, and that will save the cost of that profit and the CEO's salary.
Is that stuff true? I guess it could be. Do you believe that the government will do an effective job administering claims and preventing fraud? Do you believe the government will figure out how to build a PPO and negotiate prices of health care with your providers? Will they get you prices as good as you have now or better, while paying the providers enough to stay in business? Will enough kids be persuaded to go into medicine as a career? Will the doctors keep practicing medicine, or will they be forced to close down their practice because the insurance payments aren't enough to cover the expenses?
If the MessAPolitico would stay out of our business, the free market would take care of itself. Competition would keep the profits reasonable. With insurance companies having to compete, they will always be trying to reduce their costs of administering claims. They will take steps to effectively eliminate fraud. Their prices will be driven down by the competition, because they will need plenty of enrollees in order to gain power over the PPO network. If one company tried to make 25% operating profit while the others only make 10%, their prices would be too high. The enrollees would leave. The corporations would take their employees to a different insurance company to save money.
When the government has taken over the whole health care industry, will there be any competition driving them to get better? NO! How will they reduce costs? They will tell you that you can't have that elective surgery because you're too old or you probably will die anyway. They will tell your doctor that he needs to comply will all of their paperwork and regulations, but he or she will get paid a smaller amount. What will you do for health care when your doctor decides to quit practicing medicine? My daughter's Gynecologist sent out a letter recently saying that he would no longer deliver babies. Is this a sign of things to come?
Congress, please respect the wishes of the people. President Obama, it's time to listen to the citizens of the United States. Repeal this MessAPolitico. Repeal the Patient Lack of Protection and Unaffordable Careless Act. Congress, please don't fund this MessAPolitico. Americans, pay attention to how they vote in Congress and in your state legislature. Remember on election day in 2014.
Friday, July 26, 2013
It's Not My Fault
On Wednesday, Barack Obama gave a speech that lasted over an hour. What was the point of the speech? Barack Obama is not the cause of our economic problems. It's those obstructionist Republicans in the House of Representatives. They are the ones causing the MessAPolitico that we are living today.
The economy needs to be the main focus of Washington. Without Washington, the earth would stop rotating. The reason our "economic recovery" has stalled out is because Washington's attention has been diverted to a bunch of phony crises trumped up by the racist, right-wing ideologues that oppose everything Barack Obama wants to do. Poor old Barack is being berated because he's African-American. These conservative nuts can't stand that he is president, and they will do anything to bring his administration down. (For you liberals, this is sarcasm. I don't really believe any of this is true.)
Really, Barack Obama doesn't need any help from the Republicans/conservatives to bring down this administration. The only reason we haven't had a mutiny is that the mainstream media hasn't reported on anything that puts Barack Obama in a bad light. If the American people were paying attention, they would see this regime for what it is. Tear down the constitution, or go around it. Freedom and rights are in the way of Obama's agenda, so just eliminate them with new laws or regulations or policies.
Do you think the recent controversies and scandals swirling around the Obama administration were phony, trumped-up nonsense? Do the dead Americans in Benghazi matter? Was that incident the fault of someone else? Was it Hillary Clinton's fault? She was running the State Department when those murders happened. Did she ignore the requests from Benghazi for better security? Did she ignore the fact that other countries were closing their embassies in this dangerous location? Or maybe she just wasn't paying attention to her job? Maybe she was incompetent and unprepared to be Secretary of State? Was this a case of an incompetent person being hired by an incompetent boss? Should someone get fired over this incident? Absolutely. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and others in the administration tried lying to the American people about the incident to hide their foreign policy failures. They let people die in furtherance of their political goals and to get Barack Obama re-elected. How do these people live with themselves?
The NSA data harvesting scandal is one of the "phony" things being used to discredit Obama. Do you think it is constitutional to watch all the phone numbers that call everyone and that everyone calls? Do you think it is constitutional to watch which web sites everyone visits? How would you like it if cops stood around all over the country and recorded every license plate number that visited every address in the country, whether commercial, industrial, or residential? How would you like it if a GPS tracked every move you made and sent a report to the NSA or the police every day? The NSA says they aren't listening to your phone calls. They are just checking with whom your are conversing. I don't like it. I also don't like that the House of Representatives voted down the bill to stop this NSA program. Supposedly, it was a tough call for some Representatives, because they saw that the program had stopped some attacks before they happened. If it was really a tough call, why didn't they ask their constituents what they thought? I have yet to hear anyone on talk radio or around me at work say that they agreed with the NSA program actions. In fact, everyone that I've heard talk about this scandal was adamantly opposed to the program, and here in the Cincinnati area, the folks were upset with the area Republicans that voted "no" on Thursday. This is a subject that has really made a lot of people very angry and upset.
Do you think the IRS enforcers should have the right to punish citizens for having political beliefs that differ from the current regime in charge in Washington? Would you have liked it if the Bush administration had used the IRS to limit progressive/liberal political activities? How can the IRS selectively apply the tax code to people period? Don't we have a constitution that says everyone should have equal treatment under the laws and regulations?
Was "Fast and Furious" a phony scandal? Did they or didn't they get weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels? Did they or didn't they lose track of those weapons? Did a customs agent die at the hands of one of these criminals using one of these guns? Would this have been a scandal six or eight years ago with a different president in the White House?
This stuff isn't phony. Only the administration is phony. It is a full blown MessAPolitico. It is the reason why we need to take our country back. Don't vote for a personality. Vote for character and integrity. Vote for freedom. Demand that the politicians represent us. Represent us or lose your jobs.
The economy needs to be the main focus of Washington. Without Washington, the earth would stop rotating. The reason our "economic recovery" has stalled out is because Washington's attention has been diverted to a bunch of phony crises trumped up by the racist, right-wing ideologues that oppose everything Barack Obama wants to do. Poor old Barack is being berated because he's African-American. These conservative nuts can't stand that he is president, and they will do anything to bring his administration down. (For you liberals, this is sarcasm. I don't really believe any of this is true.)
Really, Barack Obama doesn't need any help from the Republicans/conservatives to bring down this administration. The only reason we haven't had a mutiny is that the mainstream media hasn't reported on anything that puts Barack Obama in a bad light. If the American people were paying attention, they would see this regime for what it is. Tear down the constitution, or go around it. Freedom and rights are in the way of Obama's agenda, so just eliminate them with new laws or regulations or policies.
Do you think the recent controversies and scandals swirling around the Obama administration were phony, trumped-up nonsense? Do the dead Americans in Benghazi matter? Was that incident the fault of someone else? Was it Hillary Clinton's fault? She was running the State Department when those murders happened. Did she ignore the requests from Benghazi for better security? Did she ignore the fact that other countries were closing their embassies in this dangerous location? Or maybe she just wasn't paying attention to her job? Maybe she was incompetent and unprepared to be Secretary of State? Was this a case of an incompetent person being hired by an incompetent boss? Should someone get fired over this incident? Absolutely. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and others in the administration tried lying to the American people about the incident to hide their foreign policy failures. They let people die in furtherance of their political goals and to get Barack Obama re-elected. How do these people live with themselves?
The NSA data harvesting scandal is one of the "phony" things being used to discredit Obama. Do you think it is constitutional to watch all the phone numbers that call everyone and that everyone calls? Do you think it is constitutional to watch which web sites everyone visits? How would you like it if cops stood around all over the country and recorded every license plate number that visited every address in the country, whether commercial, industrial, or residential? How would you like it if a GPS tracked every move you made and sent a report to the NSA or the police every day? The NSA says they aren't listening to your phone calls. They are just checking with whom your are conversing. I don't like it. I also don't like that the House of Representatives voted down the bill to stop this NSA program. Supposedly, it was a tough call for some Representatives, because they saw that the program had stopped some attacks before they happened. If it was really a tough call, why didn't they ask their constituents what they thought? I have yet to hear anyone on talk radio or around me at work say that they agreed with the NSA program actions. In fact, everyone that I've heard talk about this scandal was adamantly opposed to the program, and here in the Cincinnati area, the folks were upset with the area Republicans that voted "no" on Thursday. This is a subject that has really made a lot of people very angry and upset.
Do you think the IRS enforcers should have the right to punish citizens for having political beliefs that differ from the current regime in charge in Washington? Would you have liked it if the Bush administration had used the IRS to limit progressive/liberal political activities? How can the IRS selectively apply the tax code to people period? Don't we have a constitution that says everyone should have equal treatment under the laws and regulations?
Was "Fast and Furious" a phony scandal? Did they or didn't they get weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels? Did they or didn't they lose track of those weapons? Did a customs agent die at the hands of one of these criminals using one of these guns? Would this have been a scandal six or eight years ago with a different president in the White House?
This stuff isn't phony. Only the administration is phony. It is a full blown MessAPolitico. It is the reason why we need to take our country back. Don't vote for a personality. Vote for character and integrity. Vote for freedom. Demand that the politicians represent us. Represent us or lose your jobs.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Americans Are to Blame
Our country and our states and many of our cities are going bankrupt. We all blame the politicians, but should we? We did elect them. We rewarded them with repeated re-election for doing what they do. If everyone is all that unhappy with their performance, why don't we do something about it?
Why does "the party" tell the members of congress how to vote? How does "the party" get away with that? Congress works for the constituents -- us! We have the power to fire them when the next election comes around. We also have the power to threaten them with the loss of our votes when they vote against our will. Do you communicate with your representatives and senators? I do. I tell them what I expect before they vote on a bill. I give them my opinion on the issue and the bill that is supposed to address that issue.
I was listening to a lot of facts today about Detroit. Of course, Detroit is bankrupt. It is amazing to hear all of the facts about this once great industrial center. At that time, Detroit was the fourth largest city in America. It had more than 10 times as many manufacturing jobs in those days, and the citizens had the highest per capita income in the country largely because of that manufacturing base. Now Detroit is a crumbling, largely vacant, crime ridden disgrace. It is bankrupt because the politicians spent money they didn't have. When the jobs and the people with high incomes fled the city, the government was unable to adapt. Instead of cutting back on spending as tax revenues declined, the politicians just continued down the road like nothing had changed. That is the definition of a monumental MessAPolitico.
Politicians certainly know how to spend more each year, no matter what. They have no idea how to cut back. If America is going to rebound from this MessAPolitico, it will be done by growing out of the problem. That can still be done, but not with the current bunch that is running Washington and a number of the states and largest cities too. This is my prescription:
Why does "the party" tell the members of congress how to vote? How does "the party" get away with that? Congress works for the constituents -- us! We have the power to fire them when the next election comes around. We also have the power to threaten them with the loss of our votes when they vote against our will. Do you communicate with your representatives and senators? I do. I tell them what I expect before they vote on a bill. I give them my opinion on the issue and the bill that is supposed to address that issue.
I was listening to a lot of facts today about Detroit. Of course, Detroit is bankrupt. It is amazing to hear all of the facts about this once great industrial center. At that time, Detroit was the fourth largest city in America. It had more than 10 times as many manufacturing jobs in those days, and the citizens had the highest per capita income in the country largely because of that manufacturing base. Now Detroit is a crumbling, largely vacant, crime ridden disgrace. It is bankrupt because the politicians spent money they didn't have. When the jobs and the people with high incomes fled the city, the government was unable to adapt. Instead of cutting back on spending as tax revenues declined, the politicians just continued down the road like nothing had changed. That is the definition of a monumental MessAPolitico.
Politicians certainly know how to spend more each year, no matter what. They have no idea how to cut back. If America is going to rebound from this MessAPolitico, it will be done by growing out of the problem. That can still be done, but not with the current bunch that is running Washington and a number of the states and largest cities too. This is my prescription:
- Get this notion out of your head that we are a service economy, and find ways to bring manufacturing back to America
- Our labor rate is relatively high in America, but we have abundant natural resources that make the factors of production cheap here
- We must bring the cost of all forms of energy down by tapping our reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil
- Forget man-made global warming - it is a hoax created by a bunch of disingenuous liberal politicians and scientists that earn a huge living off of corruption and government grants
- Send the wacko tree-huggers back to the forest where they belong, and let them plant trees to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen -- they'll be happy, and we'll have a bunch of beautiful trees to look at and enjoy
- Get the teachers unions and the MessAPolitico out of the education business -- give us school vouchers to save money and improve educational outcomes simultaneously
- Instead of having government run health care for everyone, privatize Medicare and Medicaid -- in other words, get the MessAPolitico out of health care completely by purchasing private health insurance for the poor and the retirees
- Eliminate all government regulations that were issued by executive branch agencies that have no power to legislate under the constitution -- they cost business, and ultimately consumers, too much, they don't fix anything, they cause unforeseen problems, and they cost us jobs
- Eliminate the minimum wage that makes all people that are worth less than minimum wage unemployable
- Gradually cut back on welfare and government assistance until it is eliminated for all but sick and disabled among us -- come to think of it, just end it for everyone and let charities do this work -- get the able bodied people out and working somewhere
- Get rid of most agencies in the federal government because they aren't giving us enough "bang for the buck" -- in fact, they cost a lot of bucks with no bang at all
Monday, July 22, 2013
Barack Obama = Travon Martin?
I heard some snippets of Barack Obama's comments about the Zimmerman trial outcome on the news last Friday. They were quite interesting. I'm sure Barack Obama was trying to make the point that he and all young African-American males are profiled on a regular basis in America. He talked about walking around in a store and being watched or followed carefully as a youth.
In my mind, this happening is not the problem. It is a symptom of the real problem. There is mistrust between different races. There is fear. This is just my take on that incident in Sanford, FL. Travon Martin was being followed by a "creepy ass white cracker" as he reportedly referred to George Zimmerman. He was uncomfortable. He didn't trust Mr. Zimmerman. Travon had no idea why he was being followed, and there was probably some fear welling up inside him. There may have also been a certain amount of anger there too, as Travon believed he was being profiled for being black. In fact, Zimmerman claims that Travon just turned around and attacked him, and that indicates there was quite a bit of emotion involved, whether it was fear or anger or both will never be known.
George Zimmerman claims that he was not racially motivated in this incident. He says he followed Travon because of the way he was walking up close to the houses and cutting through yards. No one but George knows what thoughts went through his mind before the incident. No one else knows his heart, but there were no prior incidents that have been dug up to prove he was a racist. George did find something about Travon's demeanor and actions to be "suspicious." Was he even subconsciously profiling Travon because of his race? I don't know? Maybe. Maybe not. Why would Zimmerman profile an African-American youth as a criminal or as out-of-place in the neighborhood? Maybe the answer to this question is getting closer to the root of the problem that led to this incident. Did Travon's response to the situation reinforce the fears and mistrust in the minds of white people in America?
George Zimmerman's description of the incident has Travon suddenly coming after him. Travon punches him in the nose and knocks Zimmerman down. Then, Travon is on top of him pounding with his fists. I'm not sure this is a "stand your ground" incident. How can it be? If George had a choice of run or pull the gun for protection and shoot before being attacked, that would be a "stand your ground" incident that would be covered by the law that Barack Obama called into question on Friday. George couldn't very well be standing his ground when he was flat on his back being pummeled. He simply used the gun for self-defense while under attack. If George had been a "defenseless" little lady, would this incident be viewed differently? I believe it would be. Is his arrest really a case of sexual discrimination then?
Now, back to President Obama. Obama said that Travon could have easily been his son involved in this type of incident. Then, Obama said it could have been him as a youngster. Is Barack Obama saying that he would have handled the situation the way that Travon did? Is he saying that a child he raised would handle a situation in this way? Barack Obama says that the "stand your ground" law didn't work right here, and we should take a look at the laws.
In fact, I believe that the self-defense law worked exactly as it should in this case. A man was attacked, and he defended himself with the gun he has a permit to carry. If we aren't allowed to use our concealed carry weapons to defend ourselves, then what is the purpose of having the permit?
If you want to figure out how to avoid this MessAPolitico in the future, here are some suggestions:
In my mind, this happening is not the problem. It is a symptom of the real problem. There is mistrust between different races. There is fear. This is just my take on that incident in Sanford, FL. Travon Martin was being followed by a "creepy ass white cracker" as he reportedly referred to George Zimmerman. He was uncomfortable. He didn't trust Mr. Zimmerman. Travon had no idea why he was being followed, and there was probably some fear welling up inside him. There may have also been a certain amount of anger there too, as Travon believed he was being profiled for being black. In fact, Zimmerman claims that Travon just turned around and attacked him, and that indicates there was quite a bit of emotion involved, whether it was fear or anger or both will never be known.
George Zimmerman claims that he was not racially motivated in this incident. He says he followed Travon because of the way he was walking up close to the houses and cutting through yards. No one but George knows what thoughts went through his mind before the incident. No one else knows his heart, but there were no prior incidents that have been dug up to prove he was a racist. George did find something about Travon's demeanor and actions to be "suspicious." Was he even subconsciously profiling Travon because of his race? I don't know? Maybe. Maybe not. Why would Zimmerman profile an African-American youth as a criminal or as out-of-place in the neighborhood? Maybe the answer to this question is getting closer to the root of the problem that led to this incident. Did Travon's response to the situation reinforce the fears and mistrust in the minds of white people in America?
George Zimmerman's description of the incident has Travon suddenly coming after him. Travon punches him in the nose and knocks Zimmerman down. Then, Travon is on top of him pounding with his fists. I'm not sure this is a "stand your ground" incident. How can it be? If George had a choice of run or pull the gun for protection and shoot before being attacked, that would be a "stand your ground" incident that would be covered by the law that Barack Obama called into question on Friday. George couldn't very well be standing his ground when he was flat on his back being pummeled. He simply used the gun for self-defense while under attack. If George had been a "defenseless" little lady, would this incident be viewed differently? I believe it would be. Is his arrest really a case of sexual discrimination then?
Now, back to President Obama. Obama said that Travon could have easily been his son involved in this type of incident. Then, Obama said it could have been him as a youngster. Is Barack Obama saying that he would have handled the situation the way that Travon did? Is he saying that a child he raised would handle a situation in this way? Barack Obama says that the "stand your ground" law didn't work right here, and we should take a look at the laws.
In fact, I believe that the self-defense law worked exactly as it should in this case. A man was attacked, and he defended himself with the gun he has a permit to carry. If we aren't allowed to use our concealed carry weapons to defend ourselves, then what is the purpose of having the permit?
If you want to figure out how to avoid this MessAPolitico in the future, here are some suggestions:
- Just lay there and let the attacker beat you senseless -- then the pain will stop
- Ask the attacker if he has a gun to establish if you're on a "level playing field"
- Turn and run full speed away from the attacker -- I hope you're fast enough to escape
- Have a sex change operation before being attacked if you are a man
- From the attacker's point of view, don't attack someone you don't know -- they might have a concealed weapon
- From the racially profiled young man's point of view, don't attack the person following you
- Turn around and say hello
- Continue walking away from the profiler or run if they are catching up (they can't say they are standing their ground if you are trying to get away from them)
Friday, July 19, 2013
Are George Zimmerman and His Kind the Biggest Threat to African-American Teenagers?
In 2012, Chicago had over 500 murders. Chicago had some of the strictest gun control laws in America, and lawmakers are tightening them more all the time. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry permits. In spite of the laws that are touted by liberals as preventatives to gun violence, Chicago's murder rate is skyrocketing. As of July 15th, there have been 231 homicides in Chicago in 2013. As of June 28th, 1073 people have been shot this year there.
The racial make up of Chicago murder victims is 79.6% black, 18.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% white this year. 84.5% were shot, and 8% were stabbed. I have tried to find a statistic showing what percentage of these murders were committed by African Americans. That has proven difficult to locate. There is a wealth of speculation that the justice system is working against African-Americans, and the evidence used to make this case is the disproportionate number of them that are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for major crimes like murder. I don't think it is any secret that the majority of murders occur in the inner city neighborhoods of America. It is also a fact that the neighborhoods with the most murders have heavy minority populations.
So what is the point, you might ask? Well, I would really like to see some outrage about the crimes being committed every day in the black communities across this country. The overwhelming majority of these murders aren't committed by guys like George Zimmerman. They are committed by African-Americans against African-Americans. Why aren't Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on TV every day complaining about this problem? Why are there no marches or protests? Why isn't the media having special reports about this subject every other day? Why doesn't anyone in the black community or in America as a whole look for solutions to the tragedy of innocent African-American children dying in the streets in drive-by shootings or by stray bullets from a drug deal gone bad? Why does everyone just accept it as an inevitable reality in the black community?
I'm very sorry that Travon Martin was shot and killed. It is a great tragedy for his friends and family. I would never minimize his family's loss that must be terrible. I only wish the MessAPolitico would do something meaningful to end the bigger problems that lead to thousands of murders and tens of thousands of stabbings and shootings every year in America.
The racial make up of Chicago murder victims is 79.6% black, 18.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% white this year. 84.5% were shot, and 8% were stabbed. I have tried to find a statistic showing what percentage of these murders were committed by African Americans. That has proven difficult to locate. There is a wealth of speculation that the justice system is working against African-Americans, and the evidence used to make this case is the disproportionate number of them that are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for major crimes like murder. I don't think it is any secret that the majority of murders occur in the inner city neighborhoods of America. It is also a fact that the neighborhoods with the most murders have heavy minority populations.
So what is the point, you might ask? Well, I would really like to see some outrage about the crimes being committed every day in the black communities across this country. The overwhelming majority of these murders aren't committed by guys like George Zimmerman. They are committed by African-Americans against African-Americans. Why aren't Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on TV every day complaining about this problem? Why are there no marches or protests? Why isn't the media having special reports about this subject every other day? Why doesn't anyone in the black community or in America as a whole look for solutions to the tragedy of innocent African-American children dying in the streets in drive-by shootings or by stray bullets from a drug deal gone bad? Why does everyone just accept it as an inevitable reality in the black community?
I'm very sorry that Travon Martin was shot and killed. It is a great tragedy for his friends and family. I would never minimize his family's loss that must be terrible. I only wish the MessAPolitico would do something meaningful to end the bigger problems that lead to thousands of murders and tens of thousands of stabbings and shootings every year in America.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Why Are We Fixated on the George Zimmerman Trial?
The news has been filled with the big trial down in Sanford, FL. The incident that led to the trial was given a lot of press when it happened until George Zimmerman was charged with murder. Why? I've seen a number of African-Americans on television lately saying that things would be different if George Zimmerman was black and Travon Martin was white. They are saying that people would be outraged if a white teenager had been "murdered" by a black man. They believe that the African-American man would have been found guilty and sentenced to death. Are they right?
I'll bet an unarmed white kid murdered by an African-American man with a gun would not have made national headlines. I don't believe that a black man who killed a white kid after the kid jumped him would have been charged with a crime. I don't believe the DA would have been forced by public pressure to charge him. I absolutely don't believe that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have butted in.
Now everyone is outraged because George Zimmerman was acquitted. Is the Justice Department going to pursue the case and charge George Zimmerman with a hate crime? Were Travon Martin's civil rights violated? With George Zimmerman being acquitted of the crime for which he was charged, how can he be charged with a hate crime? If he didn't commit a crime, then there was no hate crime. Could he possibly be guilty of a hate crime, but not a crime? Huh? That makes no sense at all.
Whose civil rights were violated? George Zimmerman was walking down the street within the confines of the gated community where he lived. He has every right to walk down the street in that neighborhood, doesn't he? I know what your going to say. He kept following Travon Martin, even after the 911 operator told him to stop. He was harassing Travon Martin and provoked him to attack. Or maybe Travon was scared and was just defending himself. All of those things are a possibility. However, there was never any evidence produced in the trial that definitively showed that George Zimmerman lied about the incident. George Zimmerman told his story over and over right after the incident and in television interviews. I never heard his story change or evolve at all. I don't know how anyone could expect a conviction in this case. There was certainly "reasonable doubt" that there was a murder committed. I never heard a shred of evidence that backed up the prosecution's case.
Look at the evidence. George Zimmerman somehow had his nose broken in the scuffle that ensued. He also got cuts or scrapes on the back of his head. How would that happen if he was on top of Travon pounding him in the scuffle? Why didn't Travon have injuries beyond the gunshot wound? If George Zimmerman had the upper hand in the fight, why would he shoot Travon at all? If there was lying involved here, the only people that know would be George Zimmerman and Travon Martin. Only one of them is talking.
The MessAPolitico was forced to charge George Zimmerman because it was the politically correct thing to do. Then, the people would not be satisfied with any verdict except "guilty." Millions of Americans now believe that the acquittal is a sign that America is still the same as it was in the 1960's.
Maybe the problem is a law that allows people to protect themselves with a gun. What if George hadn't had a gun? Chances are that Travon Martin would still be alive. If George Zimmerman has been truthful about the incident, he would likely have been badly beaten and injured. Would he have died from his injuries? What if he did die from the injuries? Would anyone care? Would the media care? Would Travon Martin have even been charged without definitive evidence against him?
I'll bet an unarmed white kid murdered by an African-American man with a gun would not have made national headlines. I don't believe that a black man who killed a white kid after the kid jumped him would have been charged with a crime. I don't believe the DA would have been forced by public pressure to charge him. I absolutely don't believe that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have butted in.
Now everyone is outraged because George Zimmerman was acquitted. Is the Justice Department going to pursue the case and charge George Zimmerman with a hate crime? Were Travon Martin's civil rights violated? With George Zimmerman being acquitted of the crime for which he was charged, how can he be charged with a hate crime? If he didn't commit a crime, then there was no hate crime. Could he possibly be guilty of a hate crime, but not a crime? Huh? That makes no sense at all.
Whose civil rights were violated? George Zimmerman was walking down the street within the confines of the gated community where he lived. He has every right to walk down the street in that neighborhood, doesn't he? I know what your going to say. He kept following Travon Martin, even after the 911 operator told him to stop. He was harassing Travon Martin and provoked him to attack. Or maybe Travon was scared and was just defending himself. All of those things are a possibility. However, there was never any evidence produced in the trial that definitively showed that George Zimmerman lied about the incident. George Zimmerman told his story over and over right after the incident and in television interviews. I never heard his story change or evolve at all. I don't know how anyone could expect a conviction in this case. There was certainly "reasonable doubt" that there was a murder committed. I never heard a shred of evidence that backed up the prosecution's case.
Look at the evidence. George Zimmerman somehow had his nose broken in the scuffle that ensued. He also got cuts or scrapes on the back of his head. How would that happen if he was on top of Travon pounding him in the scuffle? Why didn't Travon have injuries beyond the gunshot wound? If George Zimmerman had the upper hand in the fight, why would he shoot Travon at all? If there was lying involved here, the only people that know would be George Zimmerman and Travon Martin. Only one of them is talking.
The MessAPolitico was forced to charge George Zimmerman because it was the politically correct thing to do. Then, the people would not be satisfied with any verdict except "guilty." Millions of Americans now believe that the acquittal is a sign that America is still the same as it was in the 1960's.
Maybe the problem is a law that allows people to protect themselves with a gun. What if George hadn't had a gun? Chances are that Travon Martin would still be alive. If George Zimmerman has been truthful about the incident, he would likely have been badly beaten and injured. Would he have died from his injuries? What if he did die from the injuries? Would anyone care? Would the media care? Would Travon Martin have even been charged without definitive evidence against him?
Monday, July 15, 2013
Was Mitt Romney a Statesman?
During the primaries in 2012, I would admit that Mitt Romney wasn't my pick amongst the Republicans. I was afraid that he would be too far to the left for my liking. I also felt that he was too weak in a nasty political battle. I liked Herman Cain initially, because I was familiar with him and because he was fiscally conservative. Herman worried me though, with his limited experience outside of the economy. I liked the toughness and experience of Newt Gingrich. Newt was instrumental in balancing the budget in the 1990's by standing up to Bill Clinton. His "Contract with America" was political genius. I liked his creativeness and political savvy, but he scared me at the same time. I knew that getting the Christian right to vote for Newt would be difficult, and I really felt that the media was holding back on releasing "dirt" near the end of the election cycle. Ron Paul was a very favorable choice, maybe the best choice in terms of his platform. However, I didn't consider him a candidate that could really win either the Republican primary or in November. I did end up voting for Ron Paul in the primary, because Romney had already essentially wrapped up the nomination. All of my other favorites were gone or falling fast. I voted for Ron Paul to make a statement to the Republican Party that they need to lean farther toward a freedom and fiscal responsibility platform.
In spite of my feelings about Romney then, he was the pick for opposing Barack Obama. When the primaries were over, I started paying a lot more attention to Mitt. I really liked his plans to restore the American economy. He is a venture capitalist. Those are the guys that fund start-ups. He was also involved in buying corporations that were failing and turning them around. That is certainly what the fledgling American economy needed and still needs. Romney was focused on bringing the cost of energy down. That is a strategy of using our exceptional natural resources to make manufacturing quit leaving and possibly start returning to America.
However, more than all that, I found Mitt to be a really decent human being. The stories of things he had done for friends and people in his church were very compelling. Mitt was not a career politician. He wasn't running for president to bring himself personal gain. That was very strongly my belief. I don't believe Mitt was "power hungry" or trying to bring himself another accomplishment. I think he was trying to use his experience and skills to help strengthen the economy of our country. Every bit of information about Mitt in the Republican Convention and in reports I watched showed him as a true "public servant." Comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the two men weren't even in the same league. If you wanted to stop the MessAPolitico in Washington, Mitt was the best choice, hands down.
Barack Obama's advertisements made out Mitt to be an uncaring, greedy, rich guy. Ironically, Mitt Romney was too polite and respectful to go out and hammer the president about his mischaracterizations. During the debates, Romney never took the incidents in Benghazi and used them for political advantage. Of course, the media could have and should have done that work for Mitt Romney, but we all know that the media bias would not let that truth ever be known. Initially, I had thought that Romney didn't stand up for himself because he was weak, but today, I've changed my mind. I think Mitt is a very nice and respectful person. His inner strength stopped him from going off on Barack Obama. Not one ounce of dirt was brought up about the man, and you know that the media would have found the dirt if it existed.
Where do we as conservatives and libertarians go from here? Can we ever win an election again? Can America be saved? I hope so on both accounts. If we lose, America loses. The MessAPolitico depends on the hard working Americans to earn a living and pay taxes. If we lose and fall from our position in the middle and upper socioeconomic classes, how will the US survive?
In spite of my feelings about Romney then, he was the pick for opposing Barack Obama. When the primaries were over, I started paying a lot more attention to Mitt. I really liked his plans to restore the American economy. He is a venture capitalist. Those are the guys that fund start-ups. He was also involved in buying corporations that were failing and turning them around. That is certainly what the fledgling American economy needed and still needs. Romney was focused on bringing the cost of energy down. That is a strategy of using our exceptional natural resources to make manufacturing quit leaving and possibly start returning to America.
However, more than all that, I found Mitt to be a really decent human being. The stories of things he had done for friends and people in his church were very compelling. Mitt was not a career politician. He wasn't running for president to bring himself personal gain. That was very strongly my belief. I don't believe Mitt was "power hungry" or trying to bring himself another accomplishment. I think he was trying to use his experience and skills to help strengthen the economy of our country. Every bit of information about Mitt in the Republican Convention and in reports I watched showed him as a true "public servant." Comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the two men weren't even in the same league. If you wanted to stop the MessAPolitico in Washington, Mitt was the best choice, hands down.
Barack Obama's advertisements made out Mitt to be an uncaring, greedy, rich guy. Ironically, Mitt Romney was too polite and respectful to go out and hammer the president about his mischaracterizations. During the debates, Romney never took the incidents in Benghazi and used them for political advantage. Of course, the media could have and should have done that work for Mitt Romney, but we all know that the media bias would not let that truth ever be known. Initially, I had thought that Romney didn't stand up for himself because he was weak, but today, I've changed my mind. I think Mitt is a very nice and respectful person. His inner strength stopped him from going off on Barack Obama. Not one ounce of dirt was brought up about the man, and you know that the media would have found the dirt if it existed.
Where do we as conservatives and libertarians go from here? Can we ever win an election again? Can America be saved? I hope so on both accounts. If we lose, America loses. The MessAPolitico depends on the hard working Americans to earn a living and pay taxes. If we lose and fall from our position in the middle and upper socioeconomic classes, how will the US survive?
Friday, July 12, 2013
Americans Have the Power
America, you have the power to stop this MessAPolitico. I know that certain states are filled with people that feel compelled to vote Democrat. It is a rare election where these folks vote Republican. There are many groups that vote this way as a block at a pace of 80%-90% for Democrats. I also know that Democrats may talk like conservatives in the election season, but in Washington, the Democrat leadership pressures them until they cave in to the Democrat agenda.
All this being said, the people still control the lawmakers' fates. If you don't want Obamacare, but you voted for a Democrat in the last election, you certainly have the power to get what you want. You Democrat voters have the most legitimate case of any American to demand that the person you elected vote your will.
Barack Obama got a slim majority of votes in the 2012 election. However, the American people have answered poll questions over and over saying that they don't want Obamacare. How could the Democrats retain the presidency and control of the Senate, when these entities are standing in the way of the will of the majority of Americans? I don't know the answer to that one. I'll never understand this reality.
No matter why the electorate voted against their own will or, possibly, why they stayed home on election day, we can still deal with this reality. There are elections coming up in 2014. They will happen again in 2016, 2018, and every two years from now until forever. Eventually, all of these politicians will run for re-election, or their parties will put forth a candidate hoping to retain that office. They will need to convince enough Americans that they are worthy of their votes when that election rolls around.
It's time for all Americans to write letters to their Senators, House of Representatives members, and the president. They need to express their feelings about Obamacare or Immigration Reform or any of these controversial laws that are being considered and debated. I personally absolutely oppose Obamacare. The repeal of this law is something extremely important to me. I also want these unilaterally defined government regulations that are strangling our economy stopped, and, consequently, I support the REINS act that was passed in the House, but was never even brought up for a vote in the Senate.
These letters I'm proposing should be written in the strongest possible terms. They should explain to the politician, that getting your vote is contingent on them representing your views. They were elected to represent us. If they don't vote in accordance with your views on the floor in Washington, they must be fired. The Democratic leadership doesn't vote for them, we do. For that matter, the same could be said for the Republican leadership. Many of these issues are of supreme importance to us in our everyday lives. They make a huge difference in our employment, our health care, our cost of energy, etc. If you don't get what you want from the government, don't just accept that as an inevitable reality. Throw the bums out if they don't vote your way. Tell them in correspondence that they need to straighten up and fly right or you will send them packing. Tell them exactly what you want done. If you're like me, tell them to repeal Obamacare or lose the election next time they're up. Tell them to vote to over-ride any veto of a repeal or lose their job. Tell them you will watch their vote, and you won't forget on election day.
Put the politicians in their place. You can do it. Stop this MessAPolitico.
All this being said, the people still control the lawmakers' fates. If you don't want Obamacare, but you voted for a Democrat in the last election, you certainly have the power to get what you want. You Democrat voters have the most legitimate case of any American to demand that the person you elected vote your will.
Barack Obama got a slim majority of votes in the 2012 election. However, the American people have answered poll questions over and over saying that they don't want Obamacare. How could the Democrats retain the presidency and control of the Senate, when these entities are standing in the way of the will of the majority of Americans? I don't know the answer to that one. I'll never understand this reality.
No matter why the electorate voted against their own will or, possibly, why they stayed home on election day, we can still deal with this reality. There are elections coming up in 2014. They will happen again in 2016, 2018, and every two years from now until forever. Eventually, all of these politicians will run for re-election, or their parties will put forth a candidate hoping to retain that office. They will need to convince enough Americans that they are worthy of their votes when that election rolls around.
It's time for all Americans to write letters to their Senators, House of Representatives members, and the president. They need to express their feelings about Obamacare or Immigration Reform or any of these controversial laws that are being considered and debated. I personally absolutely oppose Obamacare. The repeal of this law is something extremely important to me. I also want these unilaterally defined government regulations that are strangling our economy stopped, and, consequently, I support the REINS act that was passed in the House, but was never even brought up for a vote in the Senate.
These letters I'm proposing should be written in the strongest possible terms. They should explain to the politician, that getting your vote is contingent on them representing your views. They were elected to represent us. If they don't vote in accordance with your views on the floor in Washington, they must be fired. The Democratic leadership doesn't vote for them, we do. For that matter, the same could be said for the Republican leadership. Many of these issues are of supreme importance to us in our everyday lives. They make a huge difference in our employment, our health care, our cost of energy, etc. If you don't get what you want from the government, don't just accept that as an inevitable reality. Throw the bums out if they don't vote your way. Tell them in correspondence that they need to straighten up and fly right or you will send them packing. Tell them exactly what you want done. If you're like me, tell them to repeal Obamacare or lose the election next time they're up. Tell them to vote to over-ride any veto of a repeal or lose their job. Tell them you will watch their vote, and you won't forget on election day.
Put the politicians in their place. You can do it. Stop this MessAPolitico.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Obama Can't Delay the Mandate
If the president can just arbitrarily decide to change a law or make a law without regard for the legislature, then do we have separation of powers? When Obama tries to get a law passed that he supports, but uses regulations to go around the will of congress, is he not just another dictator? Obama is a constitutional law professor. He has studied the constitution for the express purpose of circumventing it. Is this not what we all love about lawyers? They are always trying to twist the laws and use them to win? So Obama and the communists win, but we, the not-so-free-anymore Americans, lose.
It's time for the Republicans to stand up and say it for everyone to hear. The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act language says that the employer mandate shall take effect on a particular date, I believe it is 1/1/2014 or 12/31/2013. It doesn't say that it shall take effect unless Obama decides that date is inconvenient for the Democrats running for re-election in the 2014 mid-term elections.
I know that the Republicans are all torn up about this. They hate Obamacare and don't want it implemented at the end of this year or any year. It goes against every fiber of their beings to make it go into effect this year instead of delaying it. I get it. They apparently don't get it. Once again, the Democrats are beating the Republicans at the game of politics. The Republicans can still win, but they need to start playing hardball today. Rhetoric is great, but I want results. I want this Obamacare MessAPolitico stopped before it begins. If it isn't stopped now, entitlements are very difficult to ever get repealed.
So what should the Republicans do? They absolutely must file suit immediately to force the president to abide by the letter of the law that was passed as it was passed and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama. They should offer to repeal the entire law before the end of the year if Obama and the Democrats have changed their collective minds. They should offer to work with the Democrats to produce a series of health care reform laws that improve health care access for those that don't have it. These bills should be small, understandable, and meaningful.
If the president and the senate decide to leave the PPACA in tact as it is, then why delay the pain one year. Put it into effect as written in the law. If unemployment and underemployment rise next year, blame it on the PPACA and the Democrats that passed it. Win super majorities in both the House and the Senate. Then it can be repealed. That is the will of a majority of Americans.
It's time for the Republicans to stand up and say it for everyone to hear. The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act language says that the employer mandate shall take effect on a particular date, I believe it is 1/1/2014 or 12/31/2013. It doesn't say that it shall take effect unless Obama decides that date is inconvenient for the Democrats running for re-election in the 2014 mid-term elections.
I know that the Republicans are all torn up about this. They hate Obamacare and don't want it implemented at the end of this year or any year. It goes against every fiber of their beings to make it go into effect this year instead of delaying it. I get it. They apparently don't get it. Once again, the Democrats are beating the Republicans at the game of politics. The Republicans can still win, but they need to start playing hardball today. Rhetoric is great, but I want results. I want this Obamacare MessAPolitico stopped before it begins. If it isn't stopped now, entitlements are very difficult to ever get repealed.
So what should the Republicans do? They absolutely must file suit immediately to force the president to abide by the letter of the law that was passed as it was passed and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama. They should offer to repeal the entire law before the end of the year if Obama and the Democrats have changed their collective minds. They should offer to work with the Democrats to produce a series of health care reform laws that improve health care access for those that don't have it. These bills should be small, understandable, and meaningful.
If the president and the senate decide to leave the PPACA in tact as it is, then why delay the pain one year. Put it into effect as written in the law. If unemployment and underemployment rise next year, blame it on the PPACA and the Democrats that passed it. Win super majorities in both the House and the Senate. Then it can be repealed. That is the will of a majority of Americans.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Youth Unemployment is Too High
On Saturday afternoon I saw a report on youth unemployment in America. Currently, 16.1% or 6.54 million of our young people are unemployed. This is very bad. I remember when I was part of this group, and I was always able to find summer jobs in high school and college.
I worked in a shoe factory first making minimum wage. I did alright considering that I worked 10-15 hours of overtime every week, and the cost of living wasn't nearly as high as it is today. My second job was working in a freezer/refrigerator factory. I didn't make much more than minimum wage, but I worked a lot of hours. While I was in college, I worked as a tutor during the school year and did drafting in an engineering department in the summer. I gained valuable experience as to how an engineering department operates during those summers.
With these jobs, I made enough money to pay my college tuition and buy a used Ford Pinto to get back and forth to college and to work. My dad helped me out a little my freshman year, but after that, I was able to pay for everything. That includes tuition, books, room and board. My dad did give me a gasoline credit card to pay for gas to get home every 3 or 4 weeks. My bill for each semester that included everything except books was only around $1,100-$1,200. The books were only about $125/semester.
Today, the kids have jobs working in retail or in restaurants. They seldom work 40 hours/week. The tuition bills are almost $5,000/semester, not including room and board or books. Single books can cost as much as the five books I would buy each semester. The kids today can't earn enough in an entire summer to pay for more than 10%-15% of their college expenses for one semester. If their parents can't come up with the rest, they take out student loans. Graduating from a state university with $50,000 dollars in debt is not uncommon. Then, these college graduates are lucky to find a job in their chosen field. If they do find a job, salaries are down. The prospects of buying a car or home anytime in the near future are bleak. They have enough debt to own a house, but they have no house.
So why do the youth vote for liberals like Barack Obama that have brought them this amazing level of poverty and financial stress? I just don't understand it. Somehow Barack Obama has been in office for more than one term, but so many people don't see the connection between his policies and the sluggish economy. I want to tell all of you, and especially the youth, that this MessAPolitico is a direct result of taking all of the wrong actions to get the economy restarted.
Barack Obama and the liberal left believe that government stimulus is what makes the economy go. Government spending can somehow end the recession or lessen its effect on us. That is 100% wrong. They are taxing rich people and their businesses more to pay for all of the government spending. The liberals are telling you that all of the benefits they are delivering are paid for by someone else that can afford it. First of all, they aren't collecting more taxes today, because unemployment, underemployment, and low corporate profits are reducing the taxable income. They are borrowing money or, more specifically, they are printing money to pay the bills. If our economy ever recovers, we are looking at an undervalued dollar and high inflation. We already have high inflation in the oil sector. We are about to have high inflation in electricity as well.
When rich people are spending more on taxes and energy, they don't have as much to invest in their businesses. Buying new, bigger buildings and filling them with machines creates jobs. Paying more to the federal government does not. Paying twice as much for energy diverts consumer money from buying other things. That reduces sales revenue which prevents manufacturing expansion or even shrinks manufacturing. That is where our unemployment is coming from. Until manufacturing begins to expand again in America, we must learn to accept high unemployment. I'm absolutely not willing to accept this!
We could bring manufacturing back tomorrow if the MessAPolitico would stop the policies of purposefully driving energy prices higher. Did you read what I just wrote? Did it sink in? Yes, the Obama administration is hoping to drive gasoline prices so high that electric cars and hybrids look like a good deal. Then, they want to close down coal-fired power plants to drive the price of electricity higher until windmills and solar power look competitive. The problem is very simply that driving prices of gasoline and electricity that high is strangling the economy. Not only do we have too little money for discretionary spending after we pay the energy bills, but manufacturing is moving out of America at an alarming pace. Why is illegal immigration down under Barack Obama? Because the jobs they came here to get are not here anymore. They're in Mexico or China or somewhere with cheaper costs of doing business.
There is another issue that affects youth unemployment. Many older Americans are finding it difficult to retire. They are worried about the future of Social Security, and their 401k is just now back up to where it was years ago. The stock market situation is tenuous at best. It is common for people to continue working as long as their health will allow. Some of these people never retire. Others retire and immediately start a part-time job that would normally be held by a kid in the summer or after school. Of course, those people that don't retire don't open up a hole to be filled by a new college graduate either.
Youth of America, please wake up and smell the coffee. Just because Barack Obama likes to tweet doesn't mean he is doing the right things for you or anyone else. Please help up stop this MessAPolitico, starting with the mid-term elections next year. Take the Senate back from the Democrats.
I worked in a shoe factory first making minimum wage. I did alright considering that I worked 10-15 hours of overtime every week, and the cost of living wasn't nearly as high as it is today. My second job was working in a freezer/refrigerator factory. I didn't make much more than minimum wage, but I worked a lot of hours. While I was in college, I worked as a tutor during the school year and did drafting in an engineering department in the summer. I gained valuable experience as to how an engineering department operates during those summers.
With these jobs, I made enough money to pay my college tuition and buy a used Ford Pinto to get back and forth to college and to work. My dad helped me out a little my freshman year, but after that, I was able to pay for everything. That includes tuition, books, room and board. My dad did give me a gasoline credit card to pay for gas to get home every 3 or 4 weeks. My bill for each semester that included everything except books was only around $1,100-$1,200. The books were only about $125/semester.
Today, the kids have jobs working in retail or in restaurants. They seldom work 40 hours/week. The tuition bills are almost $5,000/semester, not including room and board or books. Single books can cost as much as the five books I would buy each semester. The kids today can't earn enough in an entire summer to pay for more than 10%-15% of their college expenses for one semester. If their parents can't come up with the rest, they take out student loans. Graduating from a state university with $50,000 dollars in debt is not uncommon. Then, these college graduates are lucky to find a job in their chosen field. If they do find a job, salaries are down. The prospects of buying a car or home anytime in the near future are bleak. They have enough debt to own a house, but they have no house.
So why do the youth vote for liberals like Barack Obama that have brought them this amazing level of poverty and financial stress? I just don't understand it. Somehow Barack Obama has been in office for more than one term, but so many people don't see the connection between his policies and the sluggish economy. I want to tell all of you, and especially the youth, that this MessAPolitico is a direct result of taking all of the wrong actions to get the economy restarted.
Barack Obama and the liberal left believe that government stimulus is what makes the economy go. Government spending can somehow end the recession or lessen its effect on us. That is 100% wrong. They are taxing rich people and their businesses more to pay for all of the government spending. The liberals are telling you that all of the benefits they are delivering are paid for by someone else that can afford it. First of all, they aren't collecting more taxes today, because unemployment, underemployment, and low corporate profits are reducing the taxable income. They are borrowing money or, more specifically, they are printing money to pay the bills. If our economy ever recovers, we are looking at an undervalued dollar and high inflation. We already have high inflation in the oil sector. We are about to have high inflation in electricity as well.
When rich people are spending more on taxes and energy, they don't have as much to invest in their businesses. Buying new, bigger buildings and filling them with machines creates jobs. Paying more to the federal government does not. Paying twice as much for energy diverts consumer money from buying other things. That reduces sales revenue which prevents manufacturing expansion or even shrinks manufacturing. That is where our unemployment is coming from. Until manufacturing begins to expand again in America, we must learn to accept high unemployment. I'm absolutely not willing to accept this!
We could bring manufacturing back tomorrow if the MessAPolitico would stop the policies of purposefully driving energy prices higher. Did you read what I just wrote? Did it sink in? Yes, the Obama administration is hoping to drive gasoline prices so high that electric cars and hybrids look like a good deal. Then, they want to close down coal-fired power plants to drive the price of electricity higher until windmills and solar power look competitive. The problem is very simply that driving prices of gasoline and electricity that high is strangling the economy. Not only do we have too little money for discretionary spending after we pay the energy bills, but manufacturing is moving out of America at an alarming pace. Why is illegal immigration down under Barack Obama? Because the jobs they came here to get are not here anymore. They're in Mexico or China or somewhere with cheaper costs of doing business.
There is another issue that affects youth unemployment. Many older Americans are finding it difficult to retire. They are worried about the future of Social Security, and their 401k is just now back up to where it was years ago. The stock market situation is tenuous at best. It is common for people to continue working as long as their health will allow. Some of these people never retire. Others retire and immediately start a part-time job that would normally be held by a kid in the summer or after school. Of course, those people that don't retire don't open up a hole to be filled by a new college graduate either.
Youth of America, please wake up and smell the coffee. Just because Barack Obama likes to tweet doesn't mean he is doing the right things for you or anyone else. Please help up stop this MessAPolitico, starting with the mid-term elections next year. Take the Senate back from the Democrats.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Corrupt Politicians are Ruining America
There was a well respected politician from Butler County in southwest Ohio named Michael A. Fox. Mr. Fox held office as a state representative, a Butler County commissioner, and as the county director of children's services. He was so well regarded at one time that Ohio highway 129 was named the Michael Fox Highway. This 12 mile long freeway connecting Hamilton, OH to interstate 75 was renamed the Butler County Veterans Highway in 2004 because of allegations of corruption. In 2009, he was indicted on federal charges that accused him of "abusing his political authority, defrauding the public out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and financially benefiting from county contracts from 2000 to 2008."
In Washington, we have the IRS accused of using its authority to selectively apply tax laws to citizens with certain political leanings. The IRS seems to be unhappy with groups that are trying to reduce the complexities in the tax code with the flat or fair tax. After all, simplifying the tax code would undoubtedly eliminate a lot of jobs at the IRS.
Shortly after Barack Obama was inaugurated president in January 2009 the federal government gave large loans of our tax dollars to General Motors and Chrysler. Our tax dollars were also used to buy stock in these companies to prevent bankruptcy and protect the UAW from participation in a reorganization of these companies by the courts. The Obama regime ended up ousting the General Motors CEO and hand selecting his replacement. For some reason, the federal government then set about closing GM and Chrysler dealerships across the country. I have never understood how closing some outlets of your channel to market makes any positive difference to these auto manufacturers. If these independent dealerships weren't doing well, it was up to them to decide to close their doors. How can the federal government legally close these businesses? They could cancel their dealership authorizations subject to the terms and conditions of the contracts in place, but why would you want fewer outlets selling your products? Some of these dealerships were closed while they were actually profitable. Why? Was this done as punishment for their political contributions and political ideology?
We have politicians willing to drive our country into trillions of dollars of debt to buy votes for their re-election. Politicians are willing to give citizenship to millions of illegal aliens because they believe these new citizens will vote for them. They even give these illegal aliens benefits using our tax dollars (and new excessive government debt) to encourage them to enter our country illegally. The federal government and, more specifically, the department of justice fights any and all efforts to verify voter identities and legal immigration status. They want to keep these illegals in the country, keep the free benefits available to them, and allow them to vote one way or the other. If dead people vote, that's okay, as long as the dead vote the right way. Vote early and vote often for me.
We need term limits to stop this MessAPolitico. With term limits, it would be much harder to be a career politician. We need politicians that must go back to the "real world" after a temporary political stint. Then, these politicians couldn't afford to run our economy into the ground. They would need a job in a few years.
In Washington, we have the IRS accused of using its authority to selectively apply tax laws to citizens with certain political leanings. The IRS seems to be unhappy with groups that are trying to reduce the complexities in the tax code with the flat or fair tax. After all, simplifying the tax code would undoubtedly eliminate a lot of jobs at the IRS.
Shortly after Barack Obama was inaugurated president in January 2009 the federal government gave large loans of our tax dollars to General Motors and Chrysler. Our tax dollars were also used to buy stock in these companies to prevent bankruptcy and protect the UAW from participation in a reorganization of these companies by the courts. The Obama regime ended up ousting the General Motors CEO and hand selecting his replacement. For some reason, the federal government then set about closing GM and Chrysler dealerships across the country. I have never understood how closing some outlets of your channel to market makes any positive difference to these auto manufacturers. If these independent dealerships weren't doing well, it was up to them to decide to close their doors. How can the federal government legally close these businesses? They could cancel their dealership authorizations subject to the terms and conditions of the contracts in place, but why would you want fewer outlets selling your products? Some of these dealerships were closed while they were actually profitable. Why? Was this done as punishment for their political contributions and political ideology?
We have politicians willing to drive our country into trillions of dollars of debt to buy votes for their re-election. Politicians are willing to give citizenship to millions of illegal aliens because they believe these new citizens will vote for them. They even give these illegal aliens benefits using our tax dollars (and new excessive government debt) to encourage them to enter our country illegally. The federal government and, more specifically, the department of justice fights any and all efforts to verify voter identities and legal immigration status. They want to keep these illegals in the country, keep the free benefits available to them, and allow them to vote one way or the other. If dead people vote, that's okay, as long as the dead vote the right way. Vote early and vote often for me.
We need term limits to stop this MessAPolitico. With term limits, it would be much harder to be a career politician. We need politicians that must go back to the "real world" after a temporary political stint. Then, these politicians couldn't afford to run our economy into the ground. They would need a job in a few years.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Coal --> Solar or Wind
Last week, Obama did his big speech at Georgetown University where he issued a formal declaration of war on coal. (Doesn't the president need the consent of Congress to declare war?) The Obama regime really started this war in the run up to the 2008 election, so the speech wasn't a big surprise to anyone paying attention. Can we really replace coal-fired power plants with solar or wind energy? I don't see how.
Currently, most of our power in the United States is produced by nice steady sources like coal, hydro, or nuclear. These sources don't modulate up and down all day long as the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind speed rises and falls. They also work day or night, in heat or in cold. The power produced is well regulated, giving us a very reliable supply that is available for our use almost all of the time. When have you ever gone to turn on a light switch, and the power wasn't there? Can you run the air conditioner or heat pump as much as you want, any time you want? Do you have plenty of hot water for a shower or to wash the dishes? How often is your refrigerator letting your food spoil, because the wind has died down that day?
I think that most people would agree that we have affordable electricity and natural gas in the USA. If Barack Obama wins the war on coal, all of the regular folk in the USA will lose. In fact, the entire world will lose, if you believe his rhetoric about global warming being the most pressing issue facing the planet. We will lose, because the price of electricity will rise significantly by necessity.
Why will the price of electricity rise? It will be for a combination of two reasons. One reason is that a hefty increase in price will be required to reduce demand to the level of supply capacity. Of course, raising the price high enough will make wind and solar more practical financially. Some of that increase in price will cause expensive, alternative energy to replace some of the economical coal-fired power production.
The key that everyone needs to understand here is that the price of electricity will rise significantly. Obama and his DOE and EPA believe that coal-fired power production needs to be stopped and replaced with alternative energy. When you voted for Obama, were you consciously hoping to solve global warming by raising the price of the energy you use? Hey Obama lovers, how do you like that gasoline at double the cost you paid in 2008? If you like that, I'll bet you will love paying double for electricity.
Now for the kicker. When we quit burning so much coal in the power plants in the USA, do you think the coal companies will just close up the mines and go out of business? I think not. No, they will start selling the coal to Mexico or China or anywhere else that didn't declare a war on coal. Do these countries have clean burning technology in their power plants? No. Do these countries give a hoot about clean air, pollution, or global warming? No. Will the CO2 and other pollutants in Earth's atmosphere be reduced? Definitely not. It will increase. Where will the manufacturing in the world be done? Not in the USA.
Who will lose out in this MessAPolitico? All of us in the middle class will. Workers and professionals in the factories will have fewer jobs. Employees of companies that supply goods and services and raw materials to manufacturing plants will also have fewer jobs. Salaries will drop. These employees will earn less and then spend less. The economy will shrink. Profits will shrink. The stock market will drop. Tax revenues will drop. Our socialist regime running the country will insist that we need more stimulus to help these poor people that are being put out of work by the evil capitalists. Government spending certainly won't drop. It may rise, but it will certainly not drop.
The Obama energy policy is a serious MessAPolitico. He believes, or says he believes, that the man made global warming theory is a settled, proven scientific fact. That's the same thing I heard in the 1970's about global cooling caused by soot and other hydrocarbons in the atmosphere blocking the sun's rays. With regard to the Earth, it doesn't need to be saved. The economy is a different story. Stop Obama, or stop the US economy. Stop the MessAPolitico, or end life as we know it in the USA.
Currently, most of our power in the United States is produced by nice steady sources like coal, hydro, or nuclear. These sources don't modulate up and down all day long as the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind speed rises and falls. They also work day or night, in heat or in cold. The power produced is well regulated, giving us a very reliable supply that is available for our use almost all of the time. When have you ever gone to turn on a light switch, and the power wasn't there? Can you run the air conditioner or heat pump as much as you want, any time you want? Do you have plenty of hot water for a shower or to wash the dishes? How often is your refrigerator letting your food spoil, because the wind has died down that day?
I think that most people would agree that we have affordable electricity and natural gas in the USA. If Barack Obama wins the war on coal, all of the regular folk in the USA will lose. In fact, the entire world will lose, if you believe his rhetoric about global warming being the most pressing issue facing the planet. We will lose, because the price of electricity will rise significantly by necessity.
Why will the price of electricity rise? It will be for a combination of two reasons. One reason is that a hefty increase in price will be required to reduce demand to the level of supply capacity. Of course, raising the price high enough will make wind and solar more practical financially. Some of that increase in price will cause expensive, alternative energy to replace some of the economical coal-fired power production.
The key that everyone needs to understand here is that the price of electricity will rise significantly. Obama and his DOE and EPA believe that coal-fired power production needs to be stopped and replaced with alternative energy. When you voted for Obama, were you consciously hoping to solve global warming by raising the price of the energy you use? Hey Obama lovers, how do you like that gasoline at double the cost you paid in 2008? If you like that, I'll bet you will love paying double for electricity.
Now for the kicker. When we quit burning so much coal in the power plants in the USA, do you think the coal companies will just close up the mines and go out of business? I think not. No, they will start selling the coal to Mexico or China or anywhere else that didn't declare a war on coal. Do these countries have clean burning technology in their power plants? No. Do these countries give a hoot about clean air, pollution, or global warming? No. Will the CO2 and other pollutants in Earth's atmosphere be reduced? Definitely not. It will increase. Where will the manufacturing in the world be done? Not in the USA.
Who will lose out in this MessAPolitico? All of us in the middle class will. Workers and professionals in the factories will have fewer jobs. Employees of companies that supply goods and services and raw materials to manufacturing plants will also have fewer jobs. Salaries will drop. These employees will earn less and then spend less. The economy will shrink. Profits will shrink. The stock market will drop. Tax revenues will drop. Our socialist regime running the country will insist that we need more stimulus to help these poor people that are being put out of work by the evil capitalists. Government spending certainly won't drop. It may rise, but it will certainly not drop.
The Obama energy policy is a serious MessAPolitico. He believes, or says he believes, that the man made global warming theory is a settled, proven scientific fact. That's the same thing I heard in the 1970's about global cooling caused by soot and other hydrocarbons in the atmosphere blocking the sun's rays. With regard to the Earth, it doesn't need to be saved. The economy is a different story. Stop Obama, or stop the US economy. Stop the MessAPolitico, or end life as we know it in the USA.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Why Does Everything Have to be SOOOO Complicated?
My wife asks me everyday why everything has to be so complicated. She is very uncomfortable with technology. When she doesn't understand something, it is simply tuned out. Maybe you can relate.
Is this the reason so many things are over-complicated? Do politicians love to portray things as very complex? Are they hoping that our collective eyes will glaze over? They can do anything they want if the people are confused in sufficient numbers. In fact, a slick talking, Clintonesk lawyer can spin reality into appearing to be the opposite of what it is. And they do this every day.
The environmental green movement is a case of opposites. The movement is propelled forward by PhD scientists and professors that use words and reports that lead normal Americans to believe that the issue is beyond their feeble comprehension. The people see these scientists as unbiased saviors of Mother Earth. The people have to take the scientists' word on the whole complex problem. On the other hand, the ecological system of the Earth is extremely complex. In fact, I don't believe a PhD is enough to help bring anyone clarity on this subject. All the complex mathematical calculations in the world can't give a bunch of scientists the understanding that only God has. Are the scientists really unbiased, trustworthy purveyors of great knowledge? You can decide for yourself, but I think they have taken an extremely complex thing and made it seem that only they can solve the problem created by their biased research. You see, they do gain government grants and money studying the problems of their creation.
It used to be that one only had to open a newspaper or turn on the evening news to find out what is going on in the world. Today, we have the complication of going online to non-traditional sources for truth. But which sources can be trusted? Does anyone not have an agenda? What is right for America? Why do we have to be pitted against one another? Why is it that one man's success is billed as coming at the expense of someone?
When a person is very successful at business, doesn't that come after they have come up with a product or service offering that is very valuable to consumers? Don't consumers benefit from this? If they didn't benefit as much or more than the cost of the product or service, why did they buy it? No one held a gun to their heads. By the way, most successful businesses employ people and/or use contract employees to produce the products or services. Successful businesses make great employers, because the jobs are secure, and they can afford to pay good wages to get the best employees. Well run companies generally provide their employees the opportunity to be creative and to do things that bring them great satisfaction as well. Producing the products and services might be highly technical and pretty complicated, but understanding that rich, successful entrepreneurs are good for America isn't complicated at all. Don't let the MessAPolitico convince you differently.
This MessAPolitical is too complex for me to figure out. How will we ever fix it? Maybe we won't. Without more politicians with integrity and leadership skills, we won't.
Is this the reason so many things are over-complicated? Do politicians love to portray things as very complex? Are they hoping that our collective eyes will glaze over? They can do anything they want if the people are confused in sufficient numbers. In fact, a slick talking, Clintonesk lawyer can spin reality into appearing to be the opposite of what it is. And they do this every day.
The environmental green movement is a case of opposites. The movement is propelled forward by PhD scientists and professors that use words and reports that lead normal Americans to believe that the issue is beyond their feeble comprehension. The people see these scientists as unbiased saviors of Mother Earth. The people have to take the scientists' word on the whole complex problem. On the other hand, the ecological system of the Earth is extremely complex. In fact, I don't believe a PhD is enough to help bring anyone clarity on this subject. All the complex mathematical calculations in the world can't give a bunch of scientists the understanding that only God has. Are the scientists really unbiased, trustworthy purveyors of great knowledge? You can decide for yourself, but I think they have taken an extremely complex thing and made it seem that only they can solve the problem created by their biased research. You see, they do gain government grants and money studying the problems of their creation.
It used to be that one only had to open a newspaper or turn on the evening news to find out what is going on in the world. Today, we have the complication of going online to non-traditional sources for truth. But which sources can be trusted? Does anyone not have an agenda? What is right for America? Why do we have to be pitted against one another? Why is it that one man's success is billed as coming at the expense of someone?
When a person is very successful at business, doesn't that come after they have come up with a product or service offering that is very valuable to consumers? Don't consumers benefit from this? If they didn't benefit as much or more than the cost of the product or service, why did they buy it? No one held a gun to their heads. By the way, most successful businesses employ people and/or use contract employees to produce the products or services. Successful businesses make great employers, because the jobs are secure, and they can afford to pay good wages to get the best employees. Well run companies generally provide their employees the opportunity to be creative and to do things that bring them great satisfaction as well. Producing the products and services might be highly technical and pretty complicated, but understanding that rich, successful entrepreneurs are good for America isn't complicated at all. Don't let the MessAPolitico convince you differently.
This MessAPolitical is too complex for me to figure out. How will we ever fix it? Maybe we won't. Without more politicians with integrity and leadership skills, we won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)