If you didn't read my previous post on Wednesday, 2/26/2014, maybe you should. This is part two of a comparison between Marxism and capitalism. We're going to take a look at how the new perpetual motion machine driven automobile would be marketed in a purely capitalistic system.
With a capitalistic economic system, the car will be priced according to its value relative to the alternative products. In the first place, the car will use about $13,200 less in gasoline in the first 100,000 miles. There are also a number of consumers that are environmentally conscious. Those consumers have historically been willing to pay quite a bit more for a hybrid, even when the improved gas mileage doesn't justify the price differential. With the small number of these vehicles available for sale initially, a consumer might pay $18,000 - $20,000 more than a traditional internal combustion engine powered car. In fact, if your first production line that was converted for the new engine can produce 30,000 engines, then the price should be set just low enough to entice 30,000 consumers to buy it. If the price is set lower, there will be shortages; consumers will go to the lot to buy one, but there won't be any on the lot. (Remember the laws of supply and demand. There is an ideal price that matches supply with demand. Setting the price too low will result in shortages because demand will be higher than the supply. A price that is too high causes the supply to exceed demand, and the lots will be filled with unwanted cars.) The automotive company will likely set the sticker price a little higher than the optimum price, and that allows them to use discounts to more precisely match supply with demand.
If the sell price is considerably higher than the manufacturing cost, as it would be in this case, the so-called excessive profits will result. Is that a bad thing? No. Liberals will tell you that the excessively high price prevents poor people from being able to buy this vehicle that would save them money. Fewer people will be able to afford a car that produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This is far from the truth. The production line can only produce 30,000 engines. That's all you're going to be able to sell unless another production line is converted for the new engine.
With the high profitability of the new product line, where will the automobile company invest their capital? That's right; they will convert another production line and double the production capability to capture more profits. Of course, to sell an extra 30,000 units annually, the price will need to be reduced slightly. This investment in new production equipment will continue as long as the company sees high enough profitability to provide the required return on investment. The percentage profit will drop as the price must be reduced to get more consumers to buy this new product.
The market will do a much better job of transitioning from the internal combustion engine to the new perpetual motion engine than the Marxist MessAPolitico would. The high profits generated by the new product will generate cash that can be used for purchasing the capital to convert the production machinery. The "excessive profits" will encourage the increase in production capability until minimum return on investment is reached. A new, alternative energy that is clean will be available without the need for government support. The high profits will generate tax revenues. The automotive company will increase its market share as consumers switch from other brands that don't have the new product. This will create good permanent jobs. In addition, this product that is very valuable to the American consumer will be very valuable to consumers around the world. The export business should grow drastically as well, creating more jobs.
There is another dynamic that will also happen. As more and more of these cars are on the road, the demand for gasoline will drop. That will tend to drop the price of gasoline for the folks still driving the traditional automobiles. The reduced cost of driving the old type cars will force the price of the new product down further.
I haven't written anything about the engineer that developed this new technology. This person could sell the patent to the highest bidder. That would undoubtedly bring a very high price, making the inventor independently wealthy. On the other hand, this inventor may decide to become an entrepreneur. If they have good business sense, the new company could start manufacturing the new product and selling it to all automakers worldwide. That would bring the entrepreneur massive profits, but there would be a lot of work and risk. A lot of capital would be needed to buy the production equipment, and a venture capitalist will be needed to make the business work. The venture capitalist will provide vital experience in addition to the capital, but they will demand a significant chunk of the stock. Unlike businesses funded by our tax dollars, this one would be funded with the venture capitalist's money. Venture capitalists won't throw their own money after a project unless it has a good chance of success.
I don't know how you feel about it, but this capitalistic system seems to make a lot more sense than Marxism. Capitalism worked very well in America for over 200 years. Marxism has been tried by numerous countries around the globe, and none have seen good results. The MessAPolitico might tell you that the rich are taking money from the poor and making them poor, but I would beg to differ. Marxism not only makes the rich poorer, but it makes the rest of us poorer too. When capital investment becomes less profitable, there will be less of it invested. Dry up the capital, and you won't have jobs. Does that sound familiar? The MessAPolitico thinks that they are smarter than the others that just didn't execute socialism or communism the "right" way. Use your common sense. How can Marxism ever work?
Friday, February 28, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
What Do Young Americans Think of Marxism?
I saw a poll the other day, and it showed that an alarming number of Americans today don't know that our economic system is capitalism. I guess some folks would say that we lean more toward socialism today than capitalism. There is certainly some truth to that. I believe that the respondents to the poll weren't trying to express that though. It is more likely that the American education system doesn't clearly explain the difference. Also, communism and socialism were nearly unanimously vilified by our leaders during the cold war. Now that our global adversaries are Islamic terrorists rather than the communists, we just don't focus on the contrast between capitalism and socialism.
In the days when America was known as a beacon of freedom and capitalism around the world, our most successful business leaders and entrepreneurs were heroes . The most successful ones made the most profits and grew their businesses into large, multi-national corporations. Today, the Democrat politicians and the media love to tell us about how some corporation made record profits, while their workers only earned $X/hour on average. Another refrain is that the products the company is selling must be over-priced, and that's why they are making record profits.
I am going to write a fictional story today that illustrates the fallacy of this liberal/socialist thinking. For years, entrepreneurs have been trying to develop a perpetual motion machine. There was an inventor, Joseph Newman, that had a patent application in 1979 for a perpetual motion machine, but the United States Patent Office denied the application. A perpetual motion machine is able to produce as much or more energy than it consumes, and this would allow it to be started and kept running forever (perpetually) without injecting any additional energy. To do this, the perpetual motion machine must be greater than or equal to 100% efficiency. The US Patent Office said the application was denied because Newman's machine wasn't greater than 100% efficient. They said his output power calculations were flawed. However, there was a lot of discussion about this machine and others up through the early 1980's in technical journals and magazines.
Imagine that some engineer came up with an actual working perpetual motion machine. With this machine in an automobile, the driver could simply start the engine rotating with a battery and starter, and it would just keep running. There would be no need to purchase gasoline or electricity or anything else to power this car. Also, the engine produces no pollution or greenhouse gases whatsoever. Just to make this really compelling, the cost of producing this engine happens to be less than the equivalent horsepower gasoline powered internal combustion engine, and it will fit right into the same engine compartment.
With this background, how much should the automobile company charge for their new vehicle with this engine? Karl Marx would tell us that the new vehicle should cost less than the ones with a gasoline engine. After all, Marxism says that products and services should be sold at a low fixed mark-up above production costs. If the automotive company said that they have a large investment in new equipment and tooling to make the new engine, Karl Marx would say that it doesn't matter. Getting a high return on investment shouldn't be necessary. Marxism dictates that your return on investment is what it is based on making that small profit on each unit of production.
It's not hard to imagine that initially, the company that bought rights to use this engine doesn't have a very high production capability for this new design. In year one, they can build about 10% of their cars with this engine. The company has a 20% market share in the United States, therefore about 2% of the cars sold in the USA will have this new design. What do you think will happen when these automobiles are sold at a lower cost than the ones with gasoline engines?
The folks with cars that require gasoline will not only pay more for the car, they will also spend money on gasoline. If the average car gets 25 miles/gallon, they will use 4000 gallons in 100,000 miles. At $3.30/gallon, that will cost $13,200. Why will anyone want to buy a gasoline powered automobile? Everyone will want the new design, but very few will find any at the car lot for sale. The waiting time for ordering one will be years.
The gasoline engine cars will not sell. The only buyers that purchase one will be the folks who got their car wrecked or have one that is totally worn out. They won't be able to wait years for the new vehicle. How much will that used car be worth compared to a new one that doesn't require the expense of buying gasoline? Your trade-in won't be worth much either. Will the Marxists make the dealer give you more for the trade-in since it cost more to manufacture? Not likely.
Will the company making this new product have a huge incentive to build more of these cars? Maybe I should ask if this company will ever make any of these cars. The fact is that selling the same number of cars this year with the lower cost engine will result in lower sales dollars and less profits than last year. Marx would say that it shouldn't matter. Maybe a communist or socialist country that owns all of the businesses will be the place to do this, because they won't care about or even want a profit. A private company will buy the patent and put the new design away where it will never be found; they don't want to reduce their sales and profits. Come to think of it, why would the engineer bother to invent this new machine? They will be expected to sell the patent at their cost plus a small mark-up. What is their incentive to invent anything?
Friday, I will present a capitalist's way of introducing the new product. You can compare and contrast the two approaches and decide for yourself. Which is better for everyone? The MessAPolitico will never tell you that they are pushing Marxism, but that's what they are doing. The MessAPolitico will say that they definitely aren't socialist or communist if asked. The MessAPolitico is betting that your public education and college indoctrination won't provide you with the critical thinking skills required to understand which is best for you. Hopefully the readers of this blog will know better.
In the days when America was known as a beacon of freedom and capitalism around the world, our most successful business leaders and entrepreneurs were heroes . The most successful ones made the most profits and grew their businesses into large, multi-national corporations. Today, the Democrat politicians and the media love to tell us about how some corporation made record profits, while their workers only earned $X/hour on average. Another refrain is that the products the company is selling must be over-priced, and that's why they are making record profits.
I am going to write a fictional story today that illustrates the fallacy of this liberal/socialist thinking. For years, entrepreneurs have been trying to develop a perpetual motion machine. There was an inventor, Joseph Newman, that had a patent application in 1979 for a perpetual motion machine, but the United States Patent Office denied the application. A perpetual motion machine is able to produce as much or more energy than it consumes, and this would allow it to be started and kept running forever (perpetually) without injecting any additional energy. To do this, the perpetual motion machine must be greater than or equal to 100% efficiency. The US Patent Office said the application was denied because Newman's machine wasn't greater than 100% efficient. They said his output power calculations were flawed. However, there was a lot of discussion about this machine and others up through the early 1980's in technical journals and magazines.
Imagine that some engineer came up with an actual working perpetual motion machine. With this machine in an automobile, the driver could simply start the engine rotating with a battery and starter, and it would just keep running. There would be no need to purchase gasoline or electricity or anything else to power this car. Also, the engine produces no pollution or greenhouse gases whatsoever. Just to make this really compelling, the cost of producing this engine happens to be less than the equivalent horsepower gasoline powered internal combustion engine, and it will fit right into the same engine compartment.
With this background, how much should the automobile company charge for their new vehicle with this engine? Karl Marx would tell us that the new vehicle should cost less than the ones with a gasoline engine. After all, Marxism says that products and services should be sold at a low fixed mark-up above production costs. If the automotive company said that they have a large investment in new equipment and tooling to make the new engine, Karl Marx would say that it doesn't matter. Getting a high return on investment shouldn't be necessary. Marxism dictates that your return on investment is what it is based on making that small profit on each unit of production.
It's not hard to imagine that initially, the company that bought rights to use this engine doesn't have a very high production capability for this new design. In year one, they can build about 10% of their cars with this engine. The company has a 20% market share in the United States, therefore about 2% of the cars sold in the USA will have this new design. What do you think will happen when these automobiles are sold at a lower cost than the ones with gasoline engines?
The folks with cars that require gasoline will not only pay more for the car, they will also spend money on gasoline. If the average car gets 25 miles/gallon, they will use 4000 gallons in 100,000 miles. At $3.30/gallon, that will cost $13,200. Why will anyone want to buy a gasoline powered automobile? Everyone will want the new design, but very few will find any at the car lot for sale. The waiting time for ordering one will be years.
The gasoline engine cars will not sell. The only buyers that purchase one will be the folks who got their car wrecked or have one that is totally worn out. They won't be able to wait years for the new vehicle. How much will that used car be worth compared to a new one that doesn't require the expense of buying gasoline? Your trade-in won't be worth much either. Will the Marxists make the dealer give you more for the trade-in since it cost more to manufacture? Not likely.
Will the company making this new product have a huge incentive to build more of these cars? Maybe I should ask if this company will ever make any of these cars. The fact is that selling the same number of cars this year with the lower cost engine will result in lower sales dollars and less profits than last year. Marx would say that it shouldn't matter. Maybe a communist or socialist country that owns all of the businesses will be the place to do this, because they won't care about or even want a profit. A private company will buy the patent and put the new design away where it will never be found; they don't want to reduce their sales and profits. Come to think of it, why would the engineer bother to invent this new machine? They will be expected to sell the patent at their cost plus a small mark-up. What is their incentive to invent anything?
Friday, I will present a capitalist's way of introducing the new product. You can compare and contrast the two approaches and decide for yourself. Which is better for everyone? The MessAPolitico will never tell you that they are pushing Marxism, but that's what they are doing. The MessAPolitico will say that they definitely aren't socialist or communist if asked. The MessAPolitico is betting that your public education and college indoctrination won't provide you with the critical thinking skills required to understand which is best for you. Hopefully the readers of this blog will know better.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Why Do We Have Unions?
Nobody seems to remember the real reason that workers unionized in America. In the early days of the industrial revolution, workers had very poor pay and working conditions. The number of deaths and injuries to workers was extremely high. Machinery wasn't guarded. People worked very long hours for low pay. Children were taken out of school and put to work in these conditions. There were none of the benefits that we take for granted today. It's not hard to see why the workers organized and stood together to demand fair treatment and safe working conditions.
Now unions seem to be thought of differently. My impression is that workers unionize so they can squeeze every penny available out of their employer. The union workers pay dues out of every paycheck. The unions then take the money and donate it to the Democratic party. Today, the unions are more like an extension of the Democratic party than representatives of the workers. Corporations that earn a profit are vilified by the Democrats in office. I was doing work recently at a company with a union, and the workers were reading some union propaganda about Walmart profits. I heard them talking about the low pay for Walmart employees, while the corporation earns "outrageous" profits. Somehow Walmart owes the employees above average pay. Karl Marx certainly would agree with that sentiment. Return on investment or return on total capital employed are not even considered by the Marxists. Of course, there would be no jobs without capital investment, and their wouldn't be any capital investment without return on that investment.
In the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, most of the things we bought in the United States were made in the USA. My personal career is involved with equipment sold to industrial customers primarily. My employers and their competitor's were all US companies until the 1990's. Things started gradually changing through the 1990's with the Japanese companies first. Today, there are plenty of Japanese, European, and Korean companies in the business, and most of the products we deal with are manufactured in China or Mexico.
Why do I bring this up? Well, the unions had the upper hand in American industry until about 20 years ago. Today manufacturers will build new plants filled with state-of-the-art equipment in low cost countries around the world. Alternatively, they will purchase finished product or components from other manufacturers in these same countries. With this environment, anytime a union drives costs up with higher wages, lower productivity, higher costs of benefits, or anything else, those jobs are likely to move offshore. Consequently, union jobs are at a very low level in the private sector of the USA.
Of course, the unions donate a lot of money to the Democrats, and they are paid back with increases in the minimum wage or regulations forcing employers to provide more benefits. You might ask why the unions care about minimum wage when their workers all make significantly more than minimum wage. Did you know that some union contracts are indexed against minimum wage? That's right; the workers make minimum wage plus an offset. If the minimum wage was raised by $2.85/hour, those union members would also get a $2.85/hour raise. Well these folks will get the raise unless their jobs are moved out of the country or replaced with automation.
It is interesting that private sector unions are losing membership at a rapid rate, whereas public sector unions are growing. Why do we need public sector unions? Do government employees really need the protections of a union from unfair treatment? Are their jobs unsafe? They make more than the average private sector employee. Do government employees have to worry about losing their jobs? We've seen that the government overreach is creating an employment explosion in government, and performance quality doesn't seem to be much of a factor.
So the minimum wage and the unions are driving up the costs of manufacturing in the USA. Pretty soon the MessAPolitico will have driven every job offshore that can be moved out of the country. Then, they can blame the "greedy" corporate profiteers and the Republicans that "support" them. The losers are the American workers. If you want to end unemployment in the USA, get rid of the minimum wage and make all states "right to work." Don't be fooled by the slick talking MessAPolitico. Keep your job, and keep America working.
Now unions seem to be thought of differently. My impression is that workers unionize so they can squeeze every penny available out of their employer. The union workers pay dues out of every paycheck. The unions then take the money and donate it to the Democratic party. Today, the unions are more like an extension of the Democratic party than representatives of the workers. Corporations that earn a profit are vilified by the Democrats in office. I was doing work recently at a company with a union, and the workers were reading some union propaganda about Walmart profits. I heard them talking about the low pay for Walmart employees, while the corporation earns "outrageous" profits. Somehow Walmart owes the employees above average pay. Karl Marx certainly would agree with that sentiment. Return on investment or return on total capital employed are not even considered by the Marxists. Of course, there would be no jobs without capital investment, and their wouldn't be any capital investment without return on that investment.
In the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, most of the things we bought in the United States were made in the USA. My personal career is involved with equipment sold to industrial customers primarily. My employers and their competitor's were all US companies until the 1990's. Things started gradually changing through the 1990's with the Japanese companies first. Today, there are plenty of Japanese, European, and Korean companies in the business, and most of the products we deal with are manufactured in China or Mexico.
Why do I bring this up? Well, the unions had the upper hand in American industry until about 20 years ago. Today manufacturers will build new plants filled with state-of-the-art equipment in low cost countries around the world. Alternatively, they will purchase finished product or components from other manufacturers in these same countries. With this environment, anytime a union drives costs up with higher wages, lower productivity, higher costs of benefits, or anything else, those jobs are likely to move offshore. Consequently, union jobs are at a very low level in the private sector of the USA.
Of course, the unions donate a lot of money to the Democrats, and they are paid back with increases in the minimum wage or regulations forcing employers to provide more benefits. You might ask why the unions care about minimum wage when their workers all make significantly more than minimum wage. Did you know that some union contracts are indexed against minimum wage? That's right; the workers make minimum wage plus an offset. If the minimum wage was raised by $2.85/hour, those union members would also get a $2.85/hour raise. Well these folks will get the raise unless their jobs are moved out of the country or replaced with automation.
It is interesting that private sector unions are losing membership at a rapid rate, whereas public sector unions are growing. Why do we need public sector unions? Do government employees really need the protections of a union from unfair treatment? Are their jobs unsafe? They make more than the average private sector employee. Do government employees have to worry about losing their jobs? We've seen that the government overreach is creating an employment explosion in government, and performance quality doesn't seem to be much of a factor.
So the minimum wage and the unions are driving up the costs of manufacturing in the USA. Pretty soon the MessAPolitico will have driven every job offshore that can be moved out of the country. Then, they can blame the "greedy" corporate profiteers and the Republicans that "support" them. The losers are the American workers. If you want to end unemployment in the USA, get rid of the minimum wage and make all states "right to work." Don't be fooled by the slick talking MessAPolitico. Keep your job, and keep America working.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Where's the Global Warming?
I heard that Bill Nye (the science guy) recently had a debate with Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee regarding "climate change" and the recent extreme weather events. Bill Nye is actually an engineer, and Marsha Blackburn is a member of Congress. Neither is specifically trained in climatology or meteorology. Was this really a substantive debate on the subject? Not really.
Bill Nye told Representative Blackburn that “we have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing." Climate change is a pretty drastic term to use when we only have data that shows a rise in global temperatures over a relatively short period. The scientists overwhelming agree that we had an ice age and much warmer periods over millions of years, and those events happened when the population of humans was quite small. Those humans didn't drive SUV's or even hybrid automobiles, they didn't burn coal to produce electricity, and they didn't heat their caves with natural gas or propane. It would be nonsensical to debate that the temperatures on the planet have not risen over the past 20 years or so. On the other hand, to say that these temperature changes are the result of something humans have done by burning fossil fuels is a pretty big leap too.
Mr. Nye said that “there is no debate in the scientific community." Representative Blackburn responded by noting "two vocal dissenters, Richard Lindzen of MIT and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who claim that humans are not causing climate change." This dissent is a pretty amazing thing when you consider this. Judith Curry is a "climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology." Richard Lindzen is an "atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry." Can you imagine that after attending college for about 7 or 8 years in pursuit of a PhD in Climatology or Atmospheric Physics, your research for writing your dissertation shows that global warming isn't real? What are you going to do with that scientific conclusion? If there is no such thing as man-made global warming, there isn't much need for a degree in climatology? Who will take a course in a subject about nothing but "souped up" meteorology? How many government grants will you get to fund your research to prove that there is nothing to worry about?
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, there were periods of several days every 4-5 years where the low temperatures in the Ohio River Valley got down to -20F to -25F. The scientists were all worried about the aerosol hair sprays and deodorants destroying the ozone layer. There was also grave concern about acid rain. Of course, there was a lot of talk about global cooling. Now, of course, that has given way to global warming, and any of us that has lived in the Ohio River Valley since the 1970's knows that this is the first year since about 1989 that we have had very cold temperatures and quite a bit of snow. This data has been lauded by the environmentalists as proof that we have global warming. Of course, temperature data that shows the temperature at spots all over the globe is readily available today, and it requires only simple math to prove whether the average daily temperatures are rising, falling, or staying the same. If the data shows that the temperature has risen over a 20 year period, then it would be difficult to argue against this conclusion unless the data was falsified.
There have been incidents where data falsification occurred, but that is beside the point I'm trying to make. To prove that global warming has occurred is not proof that the climate is changing. According to these same scientists, the stories of Adam and Eve in the Bible are mythical, and the Earth has been around for millions of years. There have been numerous, long-term global temperature events in that million year history of the Earth. The scientists are looking at real global temperature data that was accurately collected and compiled over maybe 100 years or less. How can they make any conclusion about the global temperature trends from this limited set of data? The answer is that they can take that data and massage it with computer simulations and statistical analysis, and the data will say whatever the scientist wants it to say.
Now the environmentalists have gone another step further to making themselves right all the time. They changed the description from global warming to climate change. Now, if we have a week of hotter than average temperatures, that is climate change. If there is above average snow, that is climate change. John Kerry even made the statement last week that increased volcanic activity was a sign of climate change. Does he realize that a volcano erupts when very hot molten rock comes from inside the Earth? Hey John, the lava and volcanic ash don't just fall from the atmosphere; they come from under the ground!
Do you remember the year when Florida had three hurricanes in one year, and Al Gore told us it was caused by the warmer ocean waters? He said it was going to be like that every year now because of global warming. Since then, Florida hasn't seen a similar outbreak. Then we were told that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Was Katrina an extremely powerful hurricane? No. It just made landfall in a location where it pushed a lot of storm surge water into Lake Pontchartrain, and the high water level caused some levees to break. If New Orleans was located on higher ground, this would have been a run-of-the-mill hurricane. The folks in Mississippi would have suffered a lot of damage near the waterfront, but that almost always happens with a hurricane of moderate strength.
When the MessAPolitico is trying to make political hay of anything, be wary of the "facts" they spew around. Politicians know that about half of the populous has an IQ score below 100. These folks are gullible, and the MessAPolitico doesn't find it to be "dirty pool" to take advantage of this gullibility. The MessAPolitico is willing to destroy our economy for their personal political gain. Keep this in mind when you go to the polls during the upcoming primary season. It's time to replace the career politicians with leaders, statesmen, and stateswomen. If you don't do this in the primary, you're likely to have a choice of bad or worse on the general election ballot. Then too many people will just stay home on general election day because neither RepubliCrat will take care of business. We must turn this around now before it's too late. I'm not talking about it being too late to reverse climate change; I'm talking about saving America.
Bill Nye told Representative Blackburn that “we have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing." Climate change is a pretty drastic term to use when we only have data that shows a rise in global temperatures over a relatively short period. The scientists overwhelming agree that we had an ice age and much warmer periods over millions of years, and those events happened when the population of humans was quite small. Those humans didn't drive SUV's or even hybrid automobiles, they didn't burn coal to produce electricity, and they didn't heat their caves with natural gas or propane. It would be nonsensical to debate that the temperatures on the planet have not risen over the past 20 years or so. On the other hand, to say that these temperature changes are the result of something humans have done by burning fossil fuels is a pretty big leap too.
Mr. Nye said that “there is no debate in the scientific community." Representative Blackburn responded by noting "two vocal dissenters, Richard Lindzen of MIT and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who claim that humans are not causing climate change." This dissent is a pretty amazing thing when you consider this. Judith Curry is a "climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology." Richard Lindzen is an "atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry." Can you imagine that after attending college for about 7 or 8 years in pursuit of a PhD in Climatology or Atmospheric Physics, your research for writing your dissertation shows that global warming isn't real? What are you going to do with that scientific conclusion? If there is no such thing as man-made global warming, there isn't much need for a degree in climatology? Who will take a course in a subject about nothing but "souped up" meteorology? How many government grants will you get to fund your research to prove that there is nothing to worry about?
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, there were periods of several days every 4-5 years where the low temperatures in the Ohio River Valley got down to -20F to -25F. The scientists were all worried about the aerosol hair sprays and deodorants destroying the ozone layer. There was also grave concern about acid rain. Of course, there was a lot of talk about global cooling. Now, of course, that has given way to global warming, and any of us that has lived in the Ohio River Valley since the 1970's knows that this is the first year since about 1989 that we have had very cold temperatures and quite a bit of snow. This data has been lauded by the environmentalists as proof that we have global warming. Of course, temperature data that shows the temperature at spots all over the globe is readily available today, and it requires only simple math to prove whether the average daily temperatures are rising, falling, or staying the same. If the data shows that the temperature has risen over a 20 year period, then it would be difficult to argue against this conclusion unless the data was falsified.
There have been incidents where data falsification occurred, but that is beside the point I'm trying to make. To prove that global warming has occurred is not proof that the climate is changing. According to these same scientists, the stories of Adam and Eve in the Bible are mythical, and the Earth has been around for millions of years. There have been numerous, long-term global temperature events in that million year history of the Earth. The scientists are looking at real global temperature data that was accurately collected and compiled over maybe 100 years or less. How can they make any conclusion about the global temperature trends from this limited set of data? The answer is that they can take that data and massage it with computer simulations and statistical analysis, and the data will say whatever the scientist wants it to say.
Now the environmentalists have gone another step further to making themselves right all the time. They changed the description from global warming to climate change. Now, if we have a week of hotter than average temperatures, that is climate change. If there is above average snow, that is climate change. John Kerry even made the statement last week that increased volcanic activity was a sign of climate change. Does he realize that a volcano erupts when very hot molten rock comes from inside the Earth? Hey John, the lava and volcanic ash don't just fall from the atmosphere; they come from under the ground!
Do you remember the year when Florida had three hurricanes in one year, and Al Gore told us it was caused by the warmer ocean waters? He said it was going to be like that every year now because of global warming. Since then, Florida hasn't seen a similar outbreak. Then we were told that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Was Katrina an extremely powerful hurricane? No. It just made landfall in a location where it pushed a lot of storm surge water into Lake Pontchartrain, and the high water level caused some levees to break. If New Orleans was located on higher ground, this would have been a run-of-the-mill hurricane. The folks in Mississippi would have suffered a lot of damage near the waterfront, but that almost always happens with a hurricane of moderate strength.
When the MessAPolitico is trying to make political hay of anything, be wary of the "facts" they spew around. Politicians know that about half of the populous has an IQ score below 100. These folks are gullible, and the MessAPolitico doesn't find it to be "dirty pool" to take advantage of this gullibility. The MessAPolitico is willing to destroy our economy for their personal political gain. Keep this in mind when you go to the polls during the upcoming primary season. It's time to replace the career politicians with leaders, statesmen, and stateswomen. If you don't do this in the primary, you're likely to have a choice of bad or worse on the general election ballot. Then too many people will just stay home on general election day because neither RepubliCrat will take care of business. We must turn this around now before it's too late. I'm not talking about it being too late to reverse climate change; I'm talking about saving America.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Why Should We Worry About the National Debt?
Through the 1980's, the National Debt was in the news a lot. It was a big deal to a lot of people, and there was extensive debate about whether the budget deficit should be attacked by cutting spending or raising taxes. In fact, George H. W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in large part because of his broken promise of "no new taxes." No one seems to remember, but he signed a bill passed by the Democratic Congress that had a tax increase and spending cuts. You see, there was a compromise where Bush got spending cuts he wanted, and the Democratically controlled Congress got the tax increase they wanted. All of that was about balancing the budget.
Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992 after George H. W. Bush's first term. For two years Clinton wasn't able to balance the budget with the Democrats controlling Congress. In 1994, the Republicans ran on a plan called the "contract with America." They took control of the House and the Senate and succeeded in balancing the budget. Bill Clinton fought back against their balanced budget and refused to sign it. There was a big hoopla about shutting down the government, and Clinton blamed the whole debacle on the Republicans. Somehow the budget was passed and put into effect though. Eventually the mainstream media decided that Clinton had balanced the budget as President, and that made him the greatest President of all time. I see this as a dichotomy that has gone largely unchallenged by the American people.
So why do we get so uptight about the National Debt? Who cares about it anyway? It doesn't seem to bother anyone that didn't attend the Republican National Convention in 2012. We should seriously worry about it. Today, interest rates are at historically low levels. Our government must pay out interest to the holders of Treasury bonds. As bonds reach maturity, they must be replaced by new ones at the prevailing interest rates. All new bonds issued to cover the new debt created to cover the over-spending are issued at the prevailing interest rates as well. If the interest rates rise dramatically, the federal government will need to pay a lot more in interest to the debt holders. That means we will either increase the debt exponentially or spending on other pet programs will have to be curtailed.
The interest rates are the main levers used by the Federal Reserve to regulate economic growth and, ultimately, the US economy. Today, the interest rates are so low because the Federal Reserve is trying to get this economy moving. Normally, interest rates this low would encourage folks to buy houses and cars and to use their credit cards to buy everything. However, people just have no confidence in the future of the US economy. Many are unemployed, so they can't buy anything besides the necessities. Others aren't sure their jobs will last.
If the economy ever does take off, inflation is likely to kick in. The treasury has been using money they printed to buy up the bonds they are issuing these days. That devalues the currency and is highly inflationary. The only thing preventing the inflation is the high unemployment and stagnant economy.
So what happens when the economy does get out of the doldrums? Inflation kicks in with a vengeance. Then what happens? The Federal Reserve raises interest rates. Then what's next? The federal spending on interest on the National Debt skyrockets. Has the MessAPolitico thought this far into the future? Maybe. If they did, they're thinking that it will come to pass long after they are retired. It's not a problem if they are still in office though. The disaster can always be blamed on the other party. If you are a Democrat, don't worry. The mainstream media will be so busy blaming everything on the Republicans, you won't have to say anything.
No, we have the Republicans raising the Debt Ceiling at the drop of a hat. They raise taxes on the rich. They reduce the amount the spending goes up and call it a cut. There is no difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans. It's time for a change. Let's do it in the primaries. We need a good batch of Tea Party Republicans running in November. Help me get it done.
Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992 after George H. W. Bush's first term. For two years Clinton wasn't able to balance the budget with the Democrats controlling Congress. In 1994, the Republicans ran on a plan called the "contract with America." They took control of the House and the Senate and succeeded in balancing the budget. Bill Clinton fought back against their balanced budget and refused to sign it. There was a big hoopla about shutting down the government, and Clinton blamed the whole debacle on the Republicans. Somehow the budget was passed and put into effect though. Eventually the mainstream media decided that Clinton had balanced the budget as President, and that made him the greatest President of all time. I see this as a dichotomy that has gone largely unchallenged by the American people.
So why do we get so uptight about the National Debt? Who cares about it anyway? It doesn't seem to bother anyone that didn't attend the Republican National Convention in 2012. We should seriously worry about it. Today, interest rates are at historically low levels. Our government must pay out interest to the holders of Treasury bonds. As bonds reach maturity, they must be replaced by new ones at the prevailing interest rates. All new bonds issued to cover the new debt created to cover the over-spending are issued at the prevailing interest rates as well. If the interest rates rise dramatically, the federal government will need to pay a lot more in interest to the debt holders. That means we will either increase the debt exponentially or spending on other pet programs will have to be curtailed.
The interest rates are the main levers used by the Federal Reserve to regulate economic growth and, ultimately, the US economy. Today, the interest rates are so low because the Federal Reserve is trying to get this economy moving. Normally, interest rates this low would encourage folks to buy houses and cars and to use their credit cards to buy everything. However, people just have no confidence in the future of the US economy. Many are unemployed, so they can't buy anything besides the necessities. Others aren't sure their jobs will last.
If the economy ever does take off, inflation is likely to kick in. The treasury has been using money they printed to buy up the bonds they are issuing these days. That devalues the currency and is highly inflationary. The only thing preventing the inflation is the high unemployment and stagnant economy.
So what happens when the economy does get out of the doldrums? Inflation kicks in with a vengeance. Then what happens? The Federal Reserve raises interest rates. Then what's next? The federal spending on interest on the National Debt skyrockets. Has the MessAPolitico thought this far into the future? Maybe. If they did, they're thinking that it will come to pass long after they are retired. It's not a problem if they are still in office though. The disaster can always be blamed on the other party. If you are a Democrat, don't worry. The mainstream media will be so busy blaming everything on the Republicans, you won't have to say anything.
No, we have the Republicans raising the Debt Ceiling at the drop of a hat. They raise taxes on the rich. They reduce the amount the spending goes up and call it a cut. There is no difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans. It's time for a change. Let's do it in the primaries. We need a good batch of Tea Party Republicans running in November. Help me get it done.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Why Is There A Debt Ceiling?
I don't know why we don't just repeal the law that sets a debt ceiling. It doesn't limit anything any more. It's like having a credit card with a $5000 limit, and when you start to approach the limit, the credit card company raises the limit to $7500. As soon as you get close to $7500, they raise the limit to $10000. After a few years, your limit is up to $50000, and your debt is at $48000. Eventually you won't be able to make the monthly payments, so I guess you'll have to get another credit card to pay for the groceries and the electric bill.
Why did the Republicans roll over and just raise the debt limit enough to get well past the mid-term elections? It's just the MessAPolitico playing politics. The Republicans don't want anything taking our attention off of the Obamacare debacle. They would love for this Democrat problem to stay in the headlines all the way through November. In fact, they don't like for Obama to delay the various mandates for years into the future. The Republicans are hoping you will lose your insurance, will have to pay a lot more for insurance, and will lose your doctor. If the employer mandate was to cause more of us pain, that would suit the Republicans just fine.
You folks that voted for Obama and the Democrats in the Senate are being punished, along with the rest of us. The Republicans don't want to minimize the pain of Obamacare, because none of them voted for it. Some folks would say that the Democrats shoved it down the collective throats of America -- that they passed it against the will of their constituents. If that is true, why was Obama re-elected in 2012? If that is true, why do Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate? Enough people decided to stay home on election day or went out and voted to extend the term of the Democrat MessAPolitico, and we have what we have. The Republicans have given up trying to fight that MessAPolitico and the mainstream media. They have decided to use their own establishment MessAPolitico to kill Obamacare. The Republicans are willing to let the entire health care system in America collapse under the weight of Obamacare in hopes of sweeping the mid-term elections. Of course, Obama will remain in office until after the 2016 elections, so unless there is a veto proof majority in the House and the Senate, Obamacare won't go away until at least then. Of course, the Republicans don't have a win in the bag yet in 2016. What if Hillary Clinton wins the election?
It's time to get the establishment politicians sent home. I don't care if they are Democrats or Republicans. Politics has grown counterproductive. It is a serious impediment to the success of the American economy. Please join me in voting in the upcoming primaries to get the career politicians a new challenge in their lives -- succeeding in the private sector economy that they have created.
Why did the Republicans roll over and just raise the debt limit enough to get well past the mid-term elections? It's just the MessAPolitico playing politics. The Republicans don't want anything taking our attention off of the Obamacare debacle. They would love for this Democrat problem to stay in the headlines all the way through November. In fact, they don't like for Obama to delay the various mandates for years into the future. The Republicans are hoping you will lose your insurance, will have to pay a lot more for insurance, and will lose your doctor. If the employer mandate was to cause more of us pain, that would suit the Republicans just fine.
You folks that voted for Obama and the Democrats in the Senate are being punished, along with the rest of us. The Republicans don't want to minimize the pain of Obamacare, because none of them voted for it. Some folks would say that the Democrats shoved it down the collective throats of America -- that they passed it against the will of their constituents. If that is true, why was Obama re-elected in 2012? If that is true, why do Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate? Enough people decided to stay home on election day or went out and voted to extend the term of the Democrat MessAPolitico, and we have what we have. The Republicans have given up trying to fight that MessAPolitico and the mainstream media. They have decided to use their own establishment MessAPolitico to kill Obamacare. The Republicans are willing to let the entire health care system in America collapse under the weight of Obamacare in hopes of sweeping the mid-term elections. Of course, Obama will remain in office until after the 2016 elections, so unless there is a veto proof majority in the House and the Senate, Obamacare won't go away until at least then. Of course, the Republicans don't have a win in the bag yet in 2016. What if Hillary Clinton wins the election?
It's time to get the establishment politicians sent home. I don't care if they are Democrats or Republicans. Politics has grown counterproductive. It is a serious impediment to the success of the American economy. Please join me in voting in the upcoming primaries to get the career politicians a new challenge in their lives -- succeeding in the private sector economy that they have created.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Was O'Reilly Rude to the President?
The Obama supporters seem to think that Bill O'Reilly was rude to the President. He kept interrupting Mr. Obama. Why did Bill do it? Remember that the interview was only to be 10 minutes long. If Barack Obama was given free reign, he could have bloviated on one subject for the full 10 minutes. Bill had to maintain some control over the conversation, or the President could have talked only about what he wanted.
Barack Obama also gave some answers that weren't quite right. Does that mean he was lying or that he doesn't have enough facts to know that the answers were wrong? I can't answer that one, but I'm willing to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt. In any case, Mr. O'Reilly had to challenge those answers that didn't feel truthful or correct.
I have heard left-leaning media pundits say that the interview was irrelevant because O'Reilly didn't bring up any new and fresh subjects in his questioning. These folks seemed to think that the questions were all about old news, and they had already been answered. Isn't this the exact reason why his questions were relevant and why they weren't old news? Those questions should have been old news, and they should have already been answered, but none have been asked by the mainstream media yet.
I have a bunch of questions about Benghazi that were never answered. Why did they not get the added security assistance that was requested? How high did the requests go before being rejected? When the attack started, did the CIA and the military believe it was a terrorist attack? If so, did they tell the Secretary of State or the President? With the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, did the State Department or any other branches of our government take any precautions against an attack against the homeland or our diplomatic outposts? Why was the military so unprepared in the areas of the world where an attack was most likely on 9/11 (like Benghazi)? Why were no assets deployed to stop the attack and save our people when it started? Who gave the order to stand down?
Have the conservative/libertarian groups received their 501C tax exempt status from the IRS yet, and if not, why? Who gave the order to target the Tea Party? How does Barack Obama know that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS? Did he personally give the order to squash the dissenting voices in the heartland? Who has been fired for incompetence or political favoritism at the IRS? If the Tea Party shouldn't have tax exempt status under the provisions of the law, then are the similar liberal organizations going to have their tax exempt status revoked?
Has the health care.gov website really been fixed? Is it working as it should be? What happens to the costs if the target number of people don't sign up for Obamacare? Are the young, healthy Americans signing up in sufficient numbers to offset the very sick people that are receiving this benefit? Did the President know that we wouldn't really be able to keep our health insurance coverage? Is Barack Obama's legacy more important than destruction of the greatest health care system in the world?
While I didn't think this interview was at all important initially, I'm rethinking that now. I didn't think O'Reilly or the President had persuaded anyone to change their views on anything, and consequently I thought the interview was more show than substance. However, the MessAPolitico in Congress is now holding hearings on various subjects. I have heard several questions in these hearings where the President's words from the interview were quoted precisely. Maybe Bill O'Reilly has stirred the pot enough to get us some answers. The answers didn't come out of the actual interview, but maybe they will come out later in the Congressional hearings.
Barack Obama also gave some answers that weren't quite right. Does that mean he was lying or that he doesn't have enough facts to know that the answers were wrong? I can't answer that one, but I'm willing to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt. In any case, Mr. O'Reilly had to challenge those answers that didn't feel truthful or correct.
I have heard left-leaning media pundits say that the interview was irrelevant because O'Reilly didn't bring up any new and fresh subjects in his questioning. These folks seemed to think that the questions were all about old news, and they had already been answered. Isn't this the exact reason why his questions were relevant and why they weren't old news? Those questions should have been old news, and they should have already been answered, but none have been asked by the mainstream media yet.
I have a bunch of questions about Benghazi that were never answered. Why did they not get the added security assistance that was requested? How high did the requests go before being rejected? When the attack started, did the CIA and the military believe it was a terrorist attack? If so, did they tell the Secretary of State or the President? With the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, did the State Department or any other branches of our government take any precautions against an attack against the homeland or our diplomatic outposts? Why was the military so unprepared in the areas of the world where an attack was most likely on 9/11 (like Benghazi)? Why were no assets deployed to stop the attack and save our people when it started? Who gave the order to stand down?
Have the conservative/libertarian groups received their 501C tax exempt status from the IRS yet, and if not, why? Who gave the order to target the Tea Party? How does Barack Obama know that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS? Did he personally give the order to squash the dissenting voices in the heartland? Who has been fired for incompetence or political favoritism at the IRS? If the Tea Party shouldn't have tax exempt status under the provisions of the law, then are the similar liberal organizations going to have their tax exempt status revoked?
Has the health care.gov website really been fixed? Is it working as it should be? What happens to the costs if the target number of people don't sign up for Obamacare? Are the young, healthy Americans signing up in sufficient numbers to offset the very sick people that are receiving this benefit? Did the President know that we wouldn't really be able to keep our health insurance coverage? Is Barack Obama's legacy more important than destruction of the greatest health care system in the world?
While I didn't think this interview was at all important initially, I'm rethinking that now. I didn't think O'Reilly or the President had persuaded anyone to change their views on anything, and consequently I thought the interview was more show than substance. However, the MessAPolitico in Congress is now holding hearings on various subjects. I have heard several questions in these hearings where the President's words from the interview were quoted precisely. Maybe Bill O'Reilly has stirred the pot enough to get us some answers. The answers didn't come out of the actual interview, but maybe they will come out later in the Congressional hearings.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Hillary Clinton, the "Inevitable" Candidate
Is Hillary Clinton "destined" to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016? If so, can the Republicans select a candidate that can beat her? These are some serious questions. Are the Clintons the darlings of the Democratic party and the liberal voters? It seems so.
There was a time when Hillary was called the most polarizing candidate in America. Everyone seemed to either love her or hate her as a candidate. Let's face it, she's not that lovable or endearing. Hillary is a feminist that views women who choose to stay home and raise a family as pretty worthless. Remember her book that famously said "it takes a village to raise a child." Still, many women see her as a female crusader of sorts. Others see her as a victim with a philandering husband.
There are a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that scare me. I just don't get the love and adoration. What has she ever done to qualify her to be President? What political offices has Hillary held? She was a Senator from New York. What pieces of legislation were written or proposed or even promoted by Hillary Clinton.
Hillary was the Secretary of State for Obama's first term. What treaties did she negotiate and get ratified? What was the biggest diplomatic accomplishment of her time in the State department? I can't think of a single accomplishment during that period. The only thing I remember from her time in charge of this vital department is the Benghazi attack. My take away is that Hillary ignored the suggestions and requests from the field and left these folks out there in a dangerous place on their own. Maybe the President told her that committing the resources to protect our embassies and consulates would send a message that contradicted his narrative. If so, a real leader would have pressed the President and explained the dangers to his re-election if the threats were ignored. She didn't do that. Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She is too weak to be President.
When you elect a person President because of his or her race or gender rather than experience, qualifications, and leadership, you end up with Barack Obama. There are African-Americans that are capable of executing the office of President of the United States, but Barack Obama isn't one of them. America are you going to do that again? There are women that are qualified and capable to run this country. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is one of them. If America is tired of establishment party politics, how can you consider another Clinton. If you don't like Obamacare, is Hillary Clinton the cure?
There was a time when Hillary was called the most polarizing candidate in America. Everyone seemed to either love her or hate her as a candidate. Let's face it, she's not that lovable or endearing. Hillary is a feminist that views women who choose to stay home and raise a family as pretty worthless. Remember her book that famously said "it takes a village to raise a child." Still, many women see her as a female crusader of sorts. Others see her as a victim with a philandering husband.
There are a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that scare me. I just don't get the love and adoration. What has she ever done to qualify her to be President? What political offices has Hillary held? She was a Senator from New York. What pieces of legislation were written or proposed or even promoted by Hillary Clinton.
Hillary was the Secretary of State for Obama's first term. What treaties did she negotiate and get ratified? What was the biggest diplomatic accomplishment of her time in the State department? I can't think of a single accomplishment during that period. The only thing I remember from her time in charge of this vital department is the Benghazi attack. My take away is that Hillary ignored the suggestions and requests from the field and left these folks out there in a dangerous place on their own. Maybe the President told her that committing the resources to protect our embassies and consulates would send a message that contradicted his narrative. If so, a real leader would have pressed the President and explained the dangers to his re-election if the threats were ignored. She didn't do that. Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She is too weak to be President.
When you elect a person President because of his or her race or gender rather than experience, qualifications, and leadership, you end up with Barack Obama. There are African-Americans that are capable of executing the office of President of the United States, but Barack Obama isn't one of them. America are you going to do that again? There are women that are qualified and capable to run this country. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is one of them. If America is tired of establishment party politics, how can you consider another Clinton. If you don't like Obamacare, is Hillary Clinton the cure?
Monday, February 10, 2014
Obama vs. O'Reilly
It's been a week since the President gave Bill O'Reilly the chance for a quick interview. There were some big subjects covered, including the Affordable Care Act, the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, and the IRS targeting scandal.
President Obama said that the problems with the computer systems were fixed about a month and a half into the roll out of the Affordable Care Act. Do you believe that? O'Reilly brought up a poll conducted by the Associated Press recently that showed that only about 8% of people using the website today believe that it is "working well." He asked the President why Kathleen Sebelius hadn't been fired because of all the problems. Obama dodged that question by saying that "my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people." Really? The only thing it has delivered so far is a bunch of health insurance cancellations, higher premiums, lost access to the doctors we like, the 29 hour work week, etc. etc.
O'Reilly asked the President about the first conversation he had with Leon Panetta as the Benghazi attack was in full swing. He asked if the attack was called terrorism. The President pooh poohed the question. He even said "an act of terror . . . is how I characterized it the day after it happened. Anybody would know that an attack on our consulate was terrorism. So O'Reilly mentioned that Susan Rice was out there for days saying that it was a spontaneous demonstration about a YouTube video. Susan Rice and others in the administration including Hillary Clinton continued this diatribe for quite a few days after the attack. In fact, they continued with this story until after the election was over. The campaign had been saying that the war on terror was over. They said that the death of Osama Bin Laden had effectively shut down Al Qaeda. It almost sounded like Obama was the guy who pulled the trigger when Bin Laden was shot. This little Benghazi incident would have been a seriously inconvenient truth at the end of the election cycle.
The President said that there was not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. The whole problem was caused by the ambiguous and confusing nature of the law that governs the tax exempt 501C organizations. Was that the real problem, or was that the opportunity? If the law had been really clear and straight-forward, it would have been impossible to delay and postpone and stop the conservative groups from being granted the tax exempt status by the IRS. If the law was more understandable in its explanation of the intent, would the liberal groups have received their tax exempt status? It seems like the complexity of laws is convenient for lawyers and law makers. They can take the statutes and bend them into any shape they want.
Of course, the big tough President Obama is never wrong. He will never admit to a mistake. He will never relieve a member of his administration from their duties regardless of the level of their incompetence. His answer on the IRS scandal and the murderous act of terrorism in Benghazi was that these were trumped up stories. These incidents wouldn't have been noticed at all if were not for the Fox News channel and guys like Bill O'Reilly working conservatives up into a frenzy. None of the problems in the Barack Obama presidency are real; they are merely lies promoted by the evil conservative media at Fox News. The Fox News channel is a mouth piece for the Republican party that isn't a real news organization like CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.
President Obama, I'm certain that your supporters will believe every word you and your MessAPolitico have said. They are likely cheering the way you put O'Reilly and Fox News in their places. Did you win anyone over to your point of view? Not likely. Did Bill O'Reilly switch anyone from the liberal to conservative point of view? Probably not. Hopefully Barack Obama will be seen for what he is. He is definitely NOT that breath of fresh air he claimed to be before the 2008 election. He is just another politician whose main goals involve winning an election for himself and his party.
President Obama said that the problems with the computer systems were fixed about a month and a half into the roll out of the Affordable Care Act. Do you believe that? O'Reilly brought up a poll conducted by the Associated Press recently that showed that only about 8% of people using the website today believe that it is "working well." He asked the President why Kathleen Sebelius hadn't been fired because of all the problems. Obama dodged that question by saying that "my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people." Really? The only thing it has delivered so far is a bunch of health insurance cancellations, higher premiums, lost access to the doctors we like, the 29 hour work week, etc. etc.
O'Reilly asked the President about the first conversation he had with Leon Panetta as the Benghazi attack was in full swing. He asked if the attack was called terrorism. The President pooh poohed the question. He even said "an act of terror . . . is how I characterized it the day after it happened. Anybody would know that an attack on our consulate was terrorism. So O'Reilly mentioned that Susan Rice was out there for days saying that it was a spontaneous demonstration about a YouTube video. Susan Rice and others in the administration including Hillary Clinton continued this diatribe for quite a few days after the attack. In fact, they continued with this story until after the election was over. The campaign had been saying that the war on terror was over. They said that the death of Osama Bin Laden had effectively shut down Al Qaeda. It almost sounded like Obama was the guy who pulled the trigger when Bin Laden was shot. This little Benghazi incident would have been a seriously inconvenient truth at the end of the election cycle.
The President said that there was not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. The whole problem was caused by the ambiguous and confusing nature of the law that governs the tax exempt 501C organizations. Was that the real problem, or was that the opportunity? If the law had been really clear and straight-forward, it would have been impossible to delay and postpone and stop the conservative groups from being granted the tax exempt status by the IRS. If the law was more understandable in its explanation of the intent, would the liberal groups have received their tax exempt status? It seems like the complexity of laws is convenient for lawyers and law makers. They can take the statutes and bend them into any shape they want.
Of course, the big tough President Obama is never wrong. He will never admit to a mistake. He will never relieve a member of his administration from their duties regardless of the level of their incompetence. His answer on the IRS scandal and the murderous act of terrorism in Benghazi was that these were trumped up stories. These incidents wouldn't have been noticed at all if were not for the Fox News channel and guys like Bill O'Reilly working conservatives up into a frenzy. None of the problems in the Barack Obama presidency are real; they are merely lies promoted by the evil conservative media at Fox News. The Fox News channel is a mouth piece for the Republican party that isn't a real news organization like CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.
President Obama, I'm certain that your supporters will believe every word you and your MessAPolitico have said. They are likely cheering the way you put O'Reilly and Fox News in their places. Did you win anyone over to your point of view? Not likely. Did Bill O'Reilly switch anyone from the liberal to conservative point of view? Probably not. Hopefully Barack Obama will be seen for what he is. He is definitely NOT that breath of fresh air he claimed to be before the 2008 election. He is just another politician whose main goals involve winning an election for himself and his party.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Do We Have Wage Inequality?
The answer to my question is yes. That is obvious. Do we all make the same wages? No. Therefore our wages aren't equal. Duh. Of course, Barack Obama loves to promote communism. With communism everyone shares equally, like the communes the Hippies had in the 1960's and 1970's. The communists believe that we all should be totally equal in every way. The government should own all property and all businesses. The government should employ everyone and give them all the same wage.
Everyone should be equal except for the ruling class. They get to live like kings. They can take all the government money and pay themselves a nice salary. The rulers get to live in palaces (or maybe big white houses in Washington). The ruling class has the finest clothing. The ruling class goes on extravagant paid vacations all over the world (to places like Martha's Vineyard or Spain or Hawaii or ...). The ruler can play golf every week on the best courses in the country. The ruling class doesn't have to mingle with the little people; they have armed guards to protect them.
I have traveled to third world countries before. I noticed that everyone wasn't poor. In fact, there was a small, very affluent group of people in these countries. Anyone with education and technical or business knowledge was very well off compared to the masses. In fact, with the low standard of living in a third world country, an everyday professional was very well off. Of course, there was also a large group of poor people, and many of them were extremely poor by US standards. The thing that makes the United States and Western Europe different is the large middle class. Most of us in the US fall into this middle category, and even the lower end of the middle class generally has had access to schools for the kids, plenty of food, good housing, and top-notch health care.
What places us in our particular station in life? How do we end up in our economic class? Is it what we are born into? Is it our birthright to be a millionaire or to be lower middle class or somewhere else on the socioeconomic scale? This is and always has been a big thing that sets the United States apart from the majority of the world. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed. Some folks choose to live a middle class life just like their parents did. They find a job working for a company and begin collecting their paycheck. Others work hard in school, go off to college and get a degree, and/or start a business. Some start really big businesses and become billionaires. Others start small, local retail establishments that provide them an above average income that isn't much better than those middle class folks that are collecting paychecks from an employer. It is strictly left up to them how much work and sacrifice they want to endure.
Is this system somehow unfair to the people that make lower salaries? The Democrat MessAPolitico is telling us that our system is unfair. They keep talking about the widening gap between the "haves" and the "have nots." Barack Obama made a big deal about it in the State of the Union address last week. He said something to the effect that it is embarrassing to have women making 28% less than men in the United States in this day and age. (I heard someone on the radio the next day saying that the real number is more in the range of 5%-10% less. I also heard that women make higher wages than men in many cases when you compare women and men with equivalent jobs.)
How can a president be taken seriously when he makes a blanket statement like this that overall average pay for women is X% lower than the overall average pay for men? Is that necessarily proof that wage inequality exists? I guess so if you expect everyone to make the same salary, regardless of career choice or weekly hours worked.
Why are men and women making different annual salaries? If the world is about 50% male and 50% female, does that mean that 50% of hairdressers are men? Are 50% of engineers women? Are 50% of corporate CEO's women? Are 50% of professional athletes women? The law says that businesses and schools and everything else must treat men and women equally. If you folks in the MessAPolitico want us all to be homogeneous and exactly alike, why don't you pass a law that says it is a felony to be different? Should we change the rules and make everyone have the same job? Let's pick a job, and everyone will have that same job. Since we all need to eat, I hope everyone will be a farmer. Of course, there won't be anyone building houses, so we will have to build our own houses. There won't be any stores to buy the nails and lumber either. I guess there won't be any lumber or nails being manufactured either, so why would you need the store.
Or maybe the MessAPolitico should pass a law that says half of all doctors must be women. If you're going to do it right, half of all Gynecologists must be women. The same goes for Family Practicioners, Orthopedic Surgeons, Urologists, Trauma Surgeons, Cardiologists, etc. Of course, half of all nurses, steel workers, NFL running backs, airline pilots, bus drivers, mechanical engineers, lawyers, insurance salespeople, NBA centers, fast food cooks, etc. etc. must also be women. Then, all women and men must work the same number of hours per week.
Are you MessAPoliticians going to pass a law that says women and men must like the same things too? I guess all of the guys will have to like "chick flicks," but look at the bright side; it will be against the law for women to hate football. Of course, that could be pretty interesting when the female linebacker tries to make a tackle on a 250 pound male fullback. (Are they going to pass a law that says we all have to weigh the same, be the same height, cut our hair the same, dress the same, and eat the same stuff too? What are they going to do about the different genitalia? That's going to be a problem . . . unless they want to slow down population growth.)
It is wrong that gender or race or religion or any personal characteristic would cause any of us to be treated unfairly. I strongly believe that women should make the same wages as a man doing the same job. I also believe that our system is fair. Women generally don't like the same things that men do, and they choose jobs and professions that interest them. Sometimes, women choose to stay home and raise the family. They might choose to work part-time or choose to have no job at all. If a person chooses to work 20 hours/week, I would expect them to make half as much as another person that works 40 hours/week, regardless of gender. That is chosen inequality. The person chose something that means less pay.
Let's face it; the MessAPolitico is trying to change the subject. They're hoping we will forget that they have screwed up our health insurance and health care. They hope that we will forget that folks died in Benghazi. They hope that more and more of us will accept our new state of unemployment as permanent and look to the benevolent MessAPolitico for our subsistence. Let's not forget. End the status quo. Get back to the constitution so we can be free to pursue happiness however we see fit.
Everyone should be equal except for the ruling class. They get to live like kings. They can take all the government money and pay themselves a nice salary. The rulers get to live in palaces (or maybe big white houses in Washington). The ruling class has the finest clothing. The ruling class goes on extravagant paid vacations all over the world (to places like Martha's Vineyard or Spain or Hawaii or ...). The ruler can play golf every week on the best courses in the country. The ruling class doesn't have to mingle with the little people; they have armed guards to protect them.
I have traveled to third world countries before. I noticed that everyone wasn't poor. In fact, there was a small, very affluent group of people in these countries. Anyone with education and technical or business knowledge was very well off compared to the masses. In fact, with the low standard of living in a third world country, an everyday professional was very well off. Of course, there was also a large group of poor people, and many of them were extremely poor by US standards. The thing that makes the United States and Western Europe different is the large middle class. Most of us in the US fall into this middle category, and even the lower end of the middle class generally has had access to schools for the kids, plenty of food, good housing, and top-notch health care.
What places us in our particular station in life? How do we end up in our economic class? Is it what we are born into? Is it our birthright to be a millionaire or to be lower middle class or somewhere else on the socioeconomic scale? This is and always has been a big thing that sets the United States apart from the majority of the world. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed. Some folks choose to live a middle class life just like their parents did. They find a job working for a company and begin collecting their paycheck. Others work hard in school, go off to college and get a degree, and/or start a business. Some start really big businesses and become billionaires. Others start small, local retail establishments that provide them an above average income that isn't much better than those middle class folks that are collecting paychecks from an employer. It is strictly left up to them how much work and sacrifice they want to endure.
Is this system somehow unfair to the people that make lower salaries? The Democrat MessAPolitico is telling us that our system is unfair. They keep talking about the widening gap between the "haves" and the "have nots." Barack Obama made a big deal about it in the State of the Union address last week. He said something to the effect that it is embarrassing to have women making 28% less than men in the United States in this day and age. (I heard someone on the radio the next day saying that the real number is more in the range of 5%-10% less. I also heard that women make higher wages than men in many cases when you compare women and men with equivalent jobs.)
How can a president be taken seriously when he makes a blanket statement like this that overall average pay for women is X% lower than the overall average pay for men? Is that necessarily proof that wage inequality exists? I guess so if you expect everyone to make the same salary, regardless of career choice or weekly hours worked.
Why are men and women making different annual salaries? If the world is about 50% male and 50% female, does that mean that 50% of hairdressers are men? Are 50% of engineers women? Are 50% of corporate CEO's women? Are 50% of professional athletes women? The law says that businesses and schools and everything else must treat men and women equally. If you folks in the MessAPolitico want us all to be homogeneous and exactly alike, why don't you pass a law that says it is a felony to be different? Should we change the rules and make everyone have the same job? Let's pick a job, and everyone will have that same job. Since we all need to eat, I hope everyone will be a farmer. Of course, there won't be anyone building houses, so we will have to build our own houses. There won't be any stores to buy the nails and lumber either. I guess there won't be any lumber or nails being manufactured either, so why would you need the store.
Or maybe the MessAPolitico should pass a law that says half of all doctors must be women. If you're going to do it right, half of all Gynecologists must be women. The same goes for Family Practicioners, Orthopedic Surgeons, Urologists, Trauma Surgeons, Cardiologists, etc. Of course, half of all nurses, steel workers, NFL running backs, airline pilots, bus drivers, mechanical engineers, lawyers, insurance salespeople, NBA centers, fast food cooks, etc. etc. must also be women. Then, all women and men must work the same number of hours per week.
Are you MessAPoliticians going to pass a law that says women and men must like the same things too? I guess all of the guys will have to like "chick flicks," but look at the bright side; it will be against the law for women to hate football. Of course, that could be pretty interesting when the female linebacker tries to make a tackle on a 250 pound male fullback. (Are they going to pass a law that says we all have to weigh the same, be the same height, cut our hair the same, dress the same, and eat the same stuff too? What are they going to do about the different genitalia? That's going to be a problem . . . unless they want to slow down population growth.)
It is wrong that gender or race or religion or any personal characteristic would cause any of us to be treated unfairly. I strongly believe that women should make the same wages as a man doing the same job. I also believe that our system is fair. Women generally don't like the same things that men do, and they choose jobs and professions that interest them. Sometimes, women choose to stay home and raise the family. They might choose to work part-time or choose to have no job at all. If a person chooses to work 20 hours/week, I would expect them to make half as much as another person that works 40 hours/week, regardless of gender. That is chosen inequality. The person chose something that means less pay.
Let's face it; the MessAPolitico is trying to change the subject. They're hoping we will forget that they have screwed up our health insurance and health care. They hope that we will forget that folks died in Benghazi. They hope that more and more of us will accept our new state of unemployment as permanent and look to the benevolent MessAPolitico for our subsistence. Let's not forget. End the status quo. Get back to the constitution so we can be free to pursue happiness however we see fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)