I mentioned the other day that the Gingrich assault on Romney's business success was a ridiculous approach, and in its own way a seemingly un-American premise. Because, if nothing else, this country provides practically unlimited opportunity, however it also requires that you figure out how to accomplish your goals for yourself if you want to get to the top.
And in that regard I also wrote that since earnings are generally the measure employed in determining who's best in the U.S. in most endeavors, at present Romney's head, shoulders and body ahead of everyone seeking election in 2012, regardless of party or former work experience.
Then today I read a blurb that said, Charles Schumer, was "relishing a push on some kind of Romney rule, I mean Buffett rule, " that the president's advocating regarding the inequity of laws letting Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
But, what they left out was that Buffett takes no salary from his position as head of Berkshire Hathaway because he doesn't need the money, since all of his real income derives from investments and dividends. And the last time I looked, if I'm not mistaken, the last several years of his Berkshire's returns are in dispute with the IRS, going back to 2002, because the company refuses to simply pay the taxes due as assessed by law.
So here we have Democrats continuing their drive against successful Americans and a bogus Buffet confirmation of their plans for higher taxes on the "rich," bolstering their desire to extort every cent they can from those who have some. However that's no surprise since class warfare's been the cornerstone of their party for the last fifty years.
Nonetheless, regardless that Democrats have an inborn resentment and hatred of financial acumen, I still find it surprising that the only candidate the Republicans have with the ability to return the nation to true economic success is apparently despised by Conservatives like Gingrich too.
So, what that leads me to ask is: That although political ideology may be a wonderful thing for true believers of various causes on both sides, while they're pursuing their lofty ideals, who's supposed to support them financially and pay the bills?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/29/2012
One of the things taught to me early on in my career in financing equipment was the basics of contract negotiation, because although I wasn't an attorney, prospective customers frequently asked questions about legal terms and conditions of proposed written agreements.
In that regard, I clearly remember an experienced contract lawyer explaining to me that he believed there were basically two kinds of contract negotiators. One type was extremely specific, very carefully dotting every "I" and dutifully crossing every "T", to make sure that every possible contingency was fully addressed, precisely covered in writing, and doubtlessly agreed by all parties to every agreement which was reviewed by them.
The other type of counsel took a more general approach. Their thought was that if the gist of an agreement was covered in writing, that was enough. They believed business was business and that, as a practical matter, most disputes or disagreements could be hashed out between the parties involved by themselves, without the need for attorneys or courts. Furthermore, they also felt it was practically impossible for any attorney, no matter how prominent or famed, to anticipate events that might possibly take place in the future.
The reason I mention this today is, I get the sense that in his own way, the president's done the same things in his approach to his governance as a rigid attorney would. And by doing so, he's made very specific promises, the majority in writing, recorded speeches or addresses, and has promised his "clients" (those who voted for him) he'd not deviate from what he swore to uphold, no matter.
However, as realized by most practical people, the real world fairly often doesn't really work as expected, even by the most wise among us. And what's more, there's no way on earth to predict slews of future outcomes in almost any case imaginable. Thus, the incumbent's had to do some bending and shaping of his positions.
So, as a result, since recent polls show the incumbent needing additional votes next November, he's inching towards the political middle to close that gap. However, for just about every new vote he picks up by easing rigid party stances, he loses one or more by breaking a former promise that he would not do so, still leaving him short of target.
And the oddest thing about the situation is, that now we have a specifist who very carefully built a platform, slat by slat, and then found out that that rigidity doesn't work. But, he did such a good job of selling his undeliverable product in the first place -his customers no longer want it even though they never got it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In that regard, I clearly remember an experienced contract lawyer explaining to me that he believed there were basically two kinds of contract negotiators. One type was extremely specific, very carefully dotting every "I" and dutifully crossing every "T", to make sure that every possible contingency was fully addressed, precisely covered in writing, and doubtlessly agreed by all parties to every agreement which was reviewed by them.
The other type of counsel took a more general approach. Their thought was that if the gist of an agreement was covered in writing, that was enough. They believed business was business and that, as a practical matter, most disputes or disagreements could be hashed out between the parties involved by themselves, without the need for attorneys or courts. Furthermore, they also felt it was practically impossible for any attorney, no matter how prominent or famed, to anticipate events that might possibly take place in the future.
The reason I mention this today is, I get the sense that in his own way, the president's done the same things in his approach to his governance as a rigid attorney would. And by doing so, he's made very specific promises, the majority in writing, recorded speeches or addresses, and has promised his "clients" (those who voted for him) he'd not deviate from what he swore to uphold, no matter.
However, as realized by most practical people, the real world fairly often doesn't really work as expected, even by the most wise among us. And what's more, there's no way on earth to predict slews of future outcomes in almost any case imaginable. Thus, the incumbent's had to do some bending and shaping of his positions.
So, as a result, since recent polls show the incumbent needing additional votes next November, he's inching towards the political middle to close that gap. However, for just about every new vote he picks up by easing rigid party stances, he loses one or more by breaking a former promise that he would not do so, still leaving him short of target.
And the oddest thing about the situation is, that now we have a specifist who very carefully built a platform, slat by slat, and then found out that that rigidity doesn't work. But, he did such a good job of selling his undeliverable product in the first place -his customers no longer want it even though they never got it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, January 28, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/28/2012
I find the extent that double-standards can be taken to in politics is astounding. Because the anti-war policies of the current administration seem to be falling by the wayside as the U.S. Navy's now working to place a 'mothership' for Special Operations Forces in the Middle East, as confirmed by Fox News.
The USS Ponce, scheduled to be decommissioned in December, will now be transformed into a flotilla for use by Navy SEALs which, I believe, can only be confirmation that a military intervention or war's now expected regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons buildup.
And this issue got me to remembering a list I saw posted on the Internet about eight years ago, comparing decisions made by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as far as the U.S. press was concerned.
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad
Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad
Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad
No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad
Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad
So, I guess what we have here is the same old, same old. Because the actual effect of decisions doesn't seem to really matter where politics in the press is concerned. All that counts for them is the promotion of a biased agenda, with no regard whatsoever as to what's good for the world.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The USS Ponce, scheduled to be decommissioned in December, will now be transformed into a flotilla for use by Navy SEALs which, I believe, can only be confirmation that a military intervention or war's now expected regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons buildup.
And this issue got me to remembering a list I saw posted on the Internet about eight years ago, comparing decisions made by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as far as the U.S. press was concerned.
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad
Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad
Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad
No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad
Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad
Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad
So, I guess what we have here is the same old, same old. Because the actual effect of decisions doesn't seem to really matter where politics in the press is concerned. All that counts for them is the promotion of a biased agenda, with no regard whatsoever as to what's good for the world.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, January 27, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/27/2012
I saw a news blurb go by yesterday that practically got me out of my chair in disbelief. Because it now seems, according to the incumbent's State of the Union address, that the administration plans to let the nation's biggest banks pay out billions to compensate for a raft of mortgage foreclosures. And, according to Fox News, the president's supporters credit him for his announced plans to investigative abusive lending via the Justice Department.
The other side, however, claims the administration is trying to fast track a deal amounting to extortion of banks that followed federal government rules to expand access to loans. Additionally, Judicial Watch announced this week it's suing the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "in an effort to get more information about the settlement offer and the audits that purport to prove the banks defrauded consumers."
What I found so incredible though, is that I think I remember quite clearly how the mortgage lending crisis began. And, as I recall, it was the president himself, along with the likes of Chris Dodd and others who demanded that banks reduce their credit requirements to practically nothing for mortgage approval.
Their claim at the time was that everyone's entitled to financing even if they had no proof of ability to pay back at all. And in that way, they stuck the banks and other lenders with countless numbers of deals that went bad, to the extent that the public's still paying for their mistakes and moronic policies in what's now a worldwide financial crisis in the trillions. Consequently, the incumbent should actually have the Justice folks investigating him and his pals.
So, here we have once again an arrogant bunch of politicians who believe they can keep on bilking and fooling the public by simply moving their mirrors into different corners and shining different colored lights. But, this time around I'm not sure their scams going to work. And what would be the greatest comeuppance imaginable, is that the Feds actually did a real job of investigation and threw the incumbent and his cohorts into the slammer for so grossly insulting the intelligence of the voting public.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The other side, however, claims the administration is trying to fast track a deal amounting to extortion of banks that followed federal government rules to expand access to loans. Additionally, Judicial Watch announced this week it's suing the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "in an effort to get more information about the settlement offer and the audits that purport to prove the banks defrauded consumers."
What I found so incredible though, is that I think I remember quite clearly how the mortgage lending crisis began. And, as I recall, it was the president himself, along with the likes of Chris Dodd and others who demanded that banks reduce their credit requirements to practically nothing for mortgage approval.
Their claim at the time was that everyone's entitled to financing even if they had no proof of ability to pay back at all. And in that way, they stuck the banks and other lenders with countless numbers of deals that went bad, to the extent that the public's still paying for their mistakes and moronic policies in what's now a worldwide financial crisis in the trillions. Consequently, the incumbent should actually have the Justice folks investigating him and his pals.
So, here we have once again an arrogant bunch of politicians who believe they can keep on bilking and fooling the public by simply moving their mirrors into different corners and shining different colored lights. But, this time around I'm not sure their scams going to work. And what would be the greatest comeuppance imaginable, is that the Feds actually did a real job of investigation and threw the incumbent and his cohorts into the slammer for so grossly insulting the intelligence of the voting public.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, January 26, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/26/2012
I've mentioned the sudden surge by Gingrich a couple of times, and also how I can't figure out why voters would give him any support at all, considering his miserable past performance. However, in the last few days there's been a showing of negativism about him in the press, pretty well summed up by this article by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in a special to the New York Sun.
According to Tyrrell "Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire." Tyrrell goes on to say, "Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 -all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths."
In another example, the author says "Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee."
I listed the preceding for a couple of reasons. First because it succinctly confirms my own opinion of Newt, making some excellent points. And also because it's written much better than I could do myself.
So, in closing, I'm very pleased to see more of this kind of stuff in the press and can only hope that's lots of voters read and understand it. Because, obviously, if the general election comes down to the choice between the current incumbent and a Clinton clone, as far as any kind of hope for real recovery goes; the nation is over.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to Tyrrell "Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire." Tyrrell goes on to say, "Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 -all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths."
In another example, the author says "Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee."
I listed the preceding for a couple of reasons. First because it succinctly confirms my own opinion of Newt, making some excellent points. And also because it's written much better than I could do myself.
So, in closing, I'm very pleased to see more of this kind of stuff in the press and can only hope that's lots of voters read and understand it. Because, obviously, if the general election comes down to the choice between the current incumbent and a Clinton clone, as far as any kind of hope for real recovery goes; the nation is over.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/25/2012
Yesterday's name must have ended in a "Y," because the president gave another speech. This one was called "State of the Union." And although I didn't watch it, I read several recaps that tell me it was basically the same old, same old with a couple of twists.
What it all boils down to is the "rich" must be made to pay more taxes, folks need jobs and government needs to control just about every aspect of the economy and people's lives. So, in summary, he still hasn't learned an iota about what makes the economy run and spouts policies and ideas that are just about totally upside down.
One of the surprises though, if I read the information correctly, was that he suggested increasing production of domestic oil which says to me that he may be more interested in re-election than in pleasing Soros, his boss.
And if that's the case, he just might have given himself a real boost, because adding that to a likely run against Gingrich (who has no prayer of national election) practically guarantees the incumbent another four years in office.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
What it all boils down to is the "rich" must be made to pay more taxes, folks need jobs and government needs to control just about every aspect of the economy and people's lives. So, in summary, he still hasn't learned an iota about what makes the economy run and spouts policies and ideas that are just about totally upside down.
One of the surprises though, if I read the information correctly, was that he suggested increasing production of domestic oil which says to me that he may be more interested in re-election than in pleasing Soros, his boss.
And if that's the case, he just might have given himself a real boost, because adding that to a likely run against Gingrich (who has no prayer of national election) practically guarantees the incumbent another four years in office.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/24/2102
Mitt Romney released his tax records for 2010 and 11 yesterday, and gee whiz, what a shock. He made a lot of money. The information also shows he paid a 14% tax rate and gave $3 million to charity.
As for me, I was actually surprised by the information. Because in today's day and age, where kids on Wall Street, or in high tech businesses or in Hollywood regularly make hundreds of millions of dollars, Romney didn't do all that well. And from the all the preamble noise that was made, I expected his earnings to be much higher.
But now that the data that everyone's been clamoring has been seen, and seems to be in order, I think perhaps it ought to be viewed in a different way. Because we live in a nation that thrives on all kinds of competition and measures winners and losers on a regular basis, in any kind of endeavor. From sports MVP's to the Emmy's, or guys in a bowling league, or shooting pool in a tavern, people compete by nature and winners generally rise to the top. And as far as business goes, it's usually those who earn the most that are deemed best.
So, if money's the standard for measurement of ability and success, now we have a clear winner in that regard. Because Mr. Romney outpaced Gingrich by about seven times, and completely blew the incumbent out of the water regarding the last time that guy was in the real world regarding income. Because the incumbent's earnings were chump change by comparison.
Consequently, perhaps Gingrich ought to pick another subject to sling mud at Mitt Romney, because this one looks like it backfired in spades. Because I thought Gingrich was a vacillating weasel whom I had no regard for, even before I found out that he was seven times less than a guy like Romney.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
As for me, I was actually surprised by the information. Because in today's day and age, where kids on Wall Street, or in high tech businesses or in Hollywood regularly make hundreds of millions of dollars, Romney didn't do all that well. And from the all the preamble noise that was made, I expected his earnings to be much higher.
But now that the data that everyone's been clamoring has been seen, and seems to be in order, I think perhaps it ought to be viewed in a different way. Because we live in a nation that thrives on all kinds of competition and measures winners and losers on a regular basis, in any kind of endeavor. From sports MVP's to the Emmy's, or guys in a bowling league, or shooting pool in a tavern, people compete by nature and winners generally rise to the top. And as far as business goes, it's usually those who earn the most that are deemed best.
So, if money's the standard for measurement of ability and success, now we have a clear winner in that regard. Because Mr. Romney outpaced Gingrich by about seven times, and completely blew the incumbent out of the water regarding the last time that guy was in the real world regarding income. Because the incumbent's earnings were chump change by comparison.
Consequently, perhaps Gingrich ought to pick another subject to sling mud at Mitt Romney, because this one looks like it backfired in spades. Because I thought Gingrich was a vacillating weasel whom I had no regard for, even before I found out that he was seven times less than a guy like Romney.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)