BloggeRhythms 10/28/2012

According to the Department of Commerce on Friday, the GDP grew by 2% in the April-June quarter.

 

I mention this hoping voters take the time to think about what that statistic indicates. Because while the nation contends with an extremely harmful administration, bent on curtailing business success, focused on penalizing achievement and a continual piling on of crippling regulation and governmental interference, the economy grew nonetheless.

 

So, what that says to me is, as bad as the situation is at the moment, with unyielding unemployment, uncertainty regarding taxes, anti-business policy making, dependency on foreign oil, decreasing world status and rapidly increasing costs for health care, just to name a few self-caused impediments, if  the economy still grew at all despite these roadblocks… imagine what would happen if it were all to reverse. I think it's highly likely the GDP results would quickly go right through the roof. 

 

And that’s why the coming election may well be one of the most important to ever take place, whereas the nation’s future course now lies squarely on individual voters and no one else. So, if unemployed folks truly want jobs, others seek higher wages, and lower costs of fuel, food and wherewithal with rising living standards, now’s their chance to really help themselves.

 

However, if they choose the status quo for the next four years, still believing that things will improve, they’re not only sealing their own fate, they’re going to take the rest of us right down the proverbial chute with them as well.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/27/2012

Like everyone else,  I see poll results constantly displayed by all the TV news outlets  while experts analyze every rise, dip and blip taking place. And then, just a few moments ago, I realized that the whole voting game’s changed, however, the pundits and predictors don’t seem to grasp what’s been happening around them.

 

As I sat in front of my screen, information about Benghazi crawled across the bottom. A few moments later, folks discussed skyrocketing unemployment expected if the soon arriving “fiscal cliff” problems aren’t fixed. Meanwhile, the presidential candidates schedules flashed by, insets and lists showing anticipated talking points to be addressed with various audiences while criss-crossing the nation.

 

And that’s when it occurred to me that today, I think just about everyone --and especially likely voters-- get their information directly from the sources themselves. And although there are certainly pundits, experts, and analysts of every stripe and type, along with myriad opinions from practically anyone with media access, folks can now view just about every newsworthy occurrence in real time and assess those situations for themselves.

 

Consequently, I don’t think it matters much anymore how many folks attend a political rally, or answer inquirer’s questions about whom they’ll support at the polls in November, because the samples are far too small to indicate trends that can turn in a heartbeat, depending on new or quickly changing information that now goes to each of us directly right on our TV screens at home.   

   

So, although years ago candidates could sway whole crowds and populations via speeches, rally's, and personal appearances and the impressions would stick right through to elections, I don’t think that’s true anymore. Because today, I believe all the political rhetoric is like verbal Chinese food. An hour later it’s forgotten and folks are ready to go on to something else.

 

And that’s why I doubt it’s the crowds that count anymore regarding elections. Because today I think every free-thinking individual is far more likely to make up his or her own mind regardless of what the polls, pundits or even the candidates themselves say since there’s direct instant access to real-time raw information which we all can decide upon specifically by ourselves. And I’m also quite certain we will.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/26/2012

Yesterday, watching the incumbent’s contorted face, wild body movement, flailing arms, slashing microphone and what appeared to be snarls, he looked much to me like a spoiled child in a tantrum or hissy fit of displeasure. However, this wasn’t some overindulged brat losing control due to some type of disappointment, this was the president of the United States simply making a campaign speech somewhere in the nation.

 

As I watched the display of outright immaturity --and not distracted by the sound of his words whereas my TV was muted-- I was able to concentrate purely on the visible impression he made. And the thought that stood out most clearly was; if this is how this man reacts to the pressure of merely facing an electoral contender, what would he do in a real crisis situation on his watch? My guess is he’d likely lose his wits altogether whereas he obviously can’t handle stress coolly, calmly or in a statesmanlike manner.

 

So, maybe the campaign stops are actually doing what they should regarding giving voters a sense of the candidates involved. And in the case of the incumbent, I think many voters are now learning things about him they might not have noticed before.

 

Because having proven to be unqualified, unprepared and ill-studied to lead the country, the incumbent’s now been forced to expose the only true traits he possesses, fear-mongering, name-calling, finger-pointing and shrilly screamed threats toward a stalwart contender. But, unfortunately for the incumbent, the job calls for more than just hysterical verbiage, which is pretty much all he has left now.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/25/2012

As regular readers know, I rarely turn TV volume on, instead getting my input primarily from print media. That way, I can take my time, digest what I read and generally receive far more information as opposed to sound bites, clipped or distorted imagery, and over-talk from biased newsreaders or presenters.

 

And, best of all, I not only haven’t “heard” a word in any kind of commercial in more than fifteen years, I don’t have to bother hitting the mute button when ad’s come on because there was no sound in the first place. While as far as my wife is concerned, she wears a headset and thus, can listen or not as she pleases.

 

I mention this again today because although I have no clue as to what the incumbent says when he speaks whereas I keep the sound off, I do occasionally glance at the TV screen. And last evening it occurred to me that he seems to hold his ever-present microphone as if it was some kind of “magic wand,” which led me to thinking that perhaps he actually believes that by waving that thing around his delusional wishes for the nation might really come true.

 

So, having gone that far in my speculating, I gave the matter some more thought and reached a conclusion again that I’ve mentioned here in the past.

 

At those times, I remembered an extremely bright man who presided over a world leading financial organization that I was fortunate enough to work for near the start of my career. And in a conversation one afternoon, I rambled on about my expectations for huge successes, sincerely sighting all kinds of positive assumptions. As I progressed in my glowing narrative, my listener stopped me at some point and said something like, “You know, Berkey, (that’s what he often called me) one of the most tragic mistakes a person can make is to truly believe their own BS.”

 

And, I think, that’s one of the biggest problems on the incumbent’s list among the many others. Because as he talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, about a future that has no rationalistic base, when he waves his microphone around it appears as if by that very action he believes something material's actually being accomplished.
 

Consequently, perhaps I’ve misread him from the very start and he isn’t really a dedicated socialist who wants to bring the U.S. down to third world status by diluting it’s resources, redistributing its wealth and stripping the assets of those still having  any left. Because now I see that perhaps it’s not a political belief to begin with, whereas it might be he’s just a plain nutcase having no agenda whatsoever at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/24/2012

Fortunately, election day’s getting closer because I’m nearing terminal boredom. All of the parties involved; pollsters, pundits, party hacks and the candidates themselves have long since burned out and seem to be on verbal treadmills.

 

Regarding actual expectation however, I’ve not changed my mind for what seems more than three years. Because, as I keep repeating, with the exception of a solid union base that the incumbent bought and paid for some time ago with taxpayer’s bucks,  I can’t think of a population segment he hasn’t harmed significantly.

 

And whereas most folks tend to vote based on their personal feelings toward candidates, I simply can’t imagine enough of them satisfied with the incumbent’s performance to date or willing to suffer another four years of occupational gloom, world status doom and an increasing downtrend of lifestyle and diminishing future hopes during his watch

 

In summation, over the past four years ---actually six if you count the last two Bush years where the Dem’s had control of the Senate and House--- everything that was sold to the public by them as good turned out bad, while everything bad became worse, regardless.

 

So, simple logic’s been telling me for a long time now that the American voting public’s too smart to let themselves be conned again. And that means, not only a Romney win, but I truly expect a landslide, perhaps the biggest one there’s ever been.

 

That’s it for today folks

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/23/2012

The debates are finally over, and depending on whom you ask either Romney or the incumbent won. Once again, I didn’t tune in, watching Detroit lose to Chicago in the NFL Monday night game instead.

 

However, later on I did troll through some of the post-debate commentary to get a sense of what the pundits perceived. While watching, I came away with the realization that although virtually all of the "experts" focus almost entirely on the “issues,” be they domestic or foreign affairs, there’s another, much subtler, impression being made on voters beyond strictly the verbiage spewed by the contestants.

 

As the campaign stops and now the debates have progressed, Mitt Romney’s gradually become more familiar to interested voters,  and during that time his leadership qualities and professional skills have taken stronger hold. And that’s happened to the extent where, as far as last night was concerned, he maintained an extremely calm, confident demeanor, stuck to his game plan and coolly continued to conduct himself in a highly presidential manner.

 

But, what came through to me the most was that although he was facing the President of the U.S. and leader of the free world, Mr. Romney didn’t flinch, blink or allow himself to be taken off his game. So, here’s what I concluded in the end regarding foreign policy and affairs.

 

If Mr. Romney isn’t phased an iota by the most powerful person on earth, and stubbornly refuses to be intimated by every slick debating trick, cheap shot , slur, and the demeaning posturing of that opponent, how do you think he’d do versus all the other leaders of foreign nations? Because if the guy at the top of the U.S. doesn’t rattle him at all, those other folks haven’t a prayer of getting away with a thing. And that means a return to world prominence by the U.S. and a rebuilding of our once-powerful image.

 

So, as far as the individual debating points go, it’s likely no one but political junkies will remember any of them by tomorrow. However, as far as how those points were made, and who was the most “presidential” in their delivery and impact, it looks like Mr. Romney won again.

 

And lastly, I think it’s a total joke that the incumbent considers his “experience” in world matters to be far superior to his opponent when just four years ago he likely needed a globe, guide dog and flashlight to find New Jersey himself.  What’s more, I don’t think you deal with many foreign leaders while hustling for votes on the streets of Chicago.

 

So, if the incumbent can learn what’s needed internationally in four years, Romney can probably do the same in three weeks, because he’ll likely attend all the meetings  and actually pay attention to what he hears presented to him.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/22/2012

Endorsements keep pouring in for Mitt Romney. The three new big ones are similar to yesterday’s from the Iranian government, whereas Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Vladimir Putin have all now stated they hope the incumbent will be reelected for four more years.

 

And there’s no doubt that they really mean it, because so long as he stays in office, they have absolutely nothing to fear from the U.S. No matter what kind of atrocities, warmongering or abuses of power they commit. However, if Romney gets in, they’ll all have someone to worry about because he’ll step up to responsibility and try his best to stop them.

 

Which brings me to another subject: Romney’s surge in the polls and the pundit’s reactions.

 

Just yesterday while watching some guy who’s name I forgot interviewed on Fox -however he’s a big honcho political writer and guru- I was astounded when he said he was shocked at how well Romney’s doing lately, because he’d thought up to now Mitt was only along for the trip and simply wanted the nomination to see if he could get it. But as far as the election itself was concerned, this guy didn’t think Mitt had the will, fight or stamina to win it.

 

And that’s when I scratched my head and not only wondered what planet these sideline “experts” live on, but had my beliefs confirmed that talking-head voyeurs know considerably less than nothing about how mover’s; shaker’s, and most of all, doer’s think. 

 

So, here are my questions for today for this writer clown whose name I forgot: If Mitt Romney wasn’t tough as nails and committed to ideals, how did he build and grow Bain capital into such a great success?  And if he was the type who only wanted to get nominations, why did he fight for and win the Massachusetts governorship and then turn the state around so much for the better? And how about the Olympics? Did that resurrection happen by magic, or did Mitt get completely involved and fix it?

 

As for me, I think these questions answer themselves, but I’m not a writer by trade. I came from the same kind of business world as Mitt. And in that environment talk is worthless, results are all that count. However, most writers have no managerial capabilities whatsoever, so they sit on the sidelines and comment on things they know nothing about as participants. Which brings me to my last query for today: Exactly what credential of real world managerial experience can this pompous side-line critic present that gives him the ability to correctly assess what goes on in the mind of a continually successful contender like Mitt Romney?

 

And I think I can likely answer that one myself pretty accurately. Zip, zero, nada.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/21/2012

Coming on the heels of the strong endorsement from Lee Iacocca, Mitt Romney received another one today, although it’s far subtler, requiring some interpretation.

 

According to the New York Times “The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”

 

And although the White House denies what’s been printed, it looks to me like the far left-leaning publication is trying it’s best to make the administration appear far more successful in foreign affairs than it actually is.

 

However, from my point of view, I don’t believe the Iranians are frightened a whit by the incumbent whereas he’s run from every military confrontation he’s been involved in. In fact, our nation’s entire international image has been tarnished unimaginably.

 

Consequently, I think that by agreeing to private negotiations, Iranian leadership hopes it helps the incumbent win in November, because they also believe Mitt Romney will quickly step up and confront them militarily if need be.

 

Additionally, there’s the personal tie between Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu, which is bad news for Iran because while the incumbent’s thrown Israel under the bus and couldn’t care less about it, Romney will reestablish solid, supportive ties in a heartbeat after his election to office.

 

As a result, regardless of all the hot air to be spewed in Boca Raton tomorrow night regarding the incumbent’s performance concerning foreign affairs, the Iranian’s have pretty much summed up what they think. And their answer is that keeping the incumbent in office is the best thing that can happen for them and their desire to attain nuclear military strength.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/20/2012

An article on Drudge from Human Events on-line by John Gizzi, caught my eye this morning because I believe it strongly supports my long held opinion about the coming election and expectation of a Romney win.

 

The piece began with, “After a lifetime of voting for and supporting Democrats — and even declining appointment to the U.S. Senate from a Democratic governor — Lee Iacocca Thursday endorsed Republican Mitt Romney for president.”

 

Gizzi then explained that “Iacocca, who now lives in California, issued a statement saying he backed Romney because of his “dozens of years of experiences in the public and private sectors” and because the GOP nominee has a plan that “will enable a stronger America.”

 

However, here’s the key comment that really interested me, whereas Gizzi added, “In his 2009 book Leadership, Iacocca was highly critical of President Obama and his administration, and in his statement endorsing Romney, he said “hope and speeches won’t get our people back to work.”

 

Now, while all the pundits, analysts, experts and flaks have been filling the media 24/7 with stories, opinions, charts, graphs, maps and endless chatter about how the debates are turning the voting tide toward Mr. Romney, I still believe firmly that he was going to win regardless of all the hot air spewing back and forth in a couple of TV appearances versus the incumbent. Not only are the nation’s problems far too deep and damaging to be fixed by words, too many folks have known for a long time now that there is no hope unless you change the guy at the top. Because he’s the one who purposefully caused them.

 

So, with one more verbal contest to go, I still have no plan to watch. Because I’m certain there are far more folks across the nation than Mitt Romney needs to win the coming election, and they'll make their points with their votes. And I’m also sure they made their minds up long ago, as did Lee Iacocca and myself, whereas except for some union members and party faithful, nobody in the nation’s been helped by the empty suit now in the oval office.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/19/2012

As readers know, I’ve been wracking my brain trying to figure out why the Clinton’s would so strongly support the incumbent’s reelection efforts. Because after the way the he blew Hillary’s campaign out of the water in 2008, ultimately becoming POTUS, coupled with the Clinton’s longstanding history of seeking and attaining revenge against real and perceived enemies of theirs…I've expected retaliation long before now.

 

Then, after careful consideration, I concluded that perhaps they were simply biding their time, waiting for the day when they could act in the most clandestine way, yet still inflict significant irreparable damage to POTUS himself. Consequently, when Hillary accepted the post of Secretary of State, I assumed she was simply accruing some personal knowledge in the meantime about how a government job works, whereas up to then she had, zip, zero, nada firsthand.  In fact, her credentials where any kind of real work was involved were non-existent, her married life having been spent riding under the coat-tails of her husband, who was somewhat shaky national experience-wise himself.

 

And then I became even more befuddled when Bill recently stepped up to campaign on behalf of POTUS, and kept trying to figure out why he would do that whereas a reelection would likely do the whole Dem party damage it might never overcome in the future, thereby negatively Hillary even more so.

 

But the real stumper was, Hillary’s recent grandstand play where she stood up and took widely-noted personal blame for the total flub in Benghazi, thereby letting the White House off the hook. And I kept asking myself: Why would she do that?

 

And then, just this AM, I think finally may have figured it out. Because let’s suppose -and this is absolutely and purely hypothetical- that the Clinton’s knew all along, and bet on the fact, that sooner or later the buck had to stop at the top in D.C. for any kind of Libyan terrorist attack in Benghazi. And then let’s further guess that Hillary’s intelligence network warned her strongly in advance, but she took no action, nor did she inform the White House in time to beef security up. Simply leaving those in D.C.to fend for themselves after the attack, which was highly unlikely to be done correctly because she knew full well they almost never do anything right. Consequently, this whole Benghazi affair was a set-up from the git-go, intended to embarrass, defame and demean the incumbent.  However, the Clinton's themselves made it appear they were trying their best to help him. 

 

Now, I’m aware that my forgoing speculation is perhaps a bit over the top. But, considering the Clinton’s history and long line of previous actions that were seemingly incredible, right up to and including Bill’s lying under oath to Congress, my guess as to what really took place in Libya is as good as anyone else’s. And lastly, in it’s own way, seems to finally make some sense.

 

That’s it for today folks

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/18/2012

Nineteen days to go to the election, and I obviously don’t know how you feel, but I’m so tired of reading and typing about this campaign I’d rather watch paint dry.

 

In the meantime, however, according to a Gallup poll released today Mitt Romney leads the incumbent 51% to 46% nationwide, with Romney’s trend line heading up and the incumbent’s sliding the other way. These numbers of course do not reflect results of Tuesday night’s debate which may reverse the statistics.

 

As for me, I still have significant doubts about the accuracy of the majority of the information presented to the public, regardless of the provider. Because biases and filters exist within every source of data presented -no matter their preferences- although quite often it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure them out. And that’s why I try to apply basic logic to what I see and hear, no matter the source, and not simply accept what others strive to make me believe.

 

So, in the preceding regard, that’s why I’ve felt for a very long time now that the incumbent’s days are numbered. And it has very little to do with Mitt, although he happens to be an ideal candidate at this particular time whereas his prior business successes are a huge plus. However, since there’s hardly anything the incumbent’s done while in office that’s a success, it’s my belief that he’d lose no matter who he ran against.

 

When all’s said and done though, I still have one disappointment, and that’s in regard to the debates. Because since I’ve been so convinced that the incumbent will lose the election based on job performance from the start, I now have nothing to offer as proof of my point. And that's because these three boring back and forth’s between the candidates will be credited to the extent that they might be seen as actually having some determining value of their own.

 

But perhaps the debate issue doesn’t make sense to me because of my background, whereas I’ve always been measured by results and not the sound of my voice. And to tell the truth, now that I think about it, it could be I’ve been wrong for a very, very, long time now. Because if I had been able to get by simply spewing hot air instead of actually getting the job done, who knows…I might have wound up president of the U.S. myself.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios 

BloggeRhythms 10/17/2012

As planned, I didn’t watch the debate last evening, and from what I’ve seen in the recaps so far, I’m quite glad I skipped it. According to Greta Van Susteran on Fox late last night, it was too nasty for her at times but other than that she thought it was boring. My wife turned it off shortly after it started, saying the same thing except adding the word stupid as well.

 

Naturally all the other flaks and pundits are spinning a win for their side, which is exactly what I’d expect and confirms my basic premise. Because I can’t understand who in the world that truly intends to vote will be swayed by the monotonous verbiage expended on both sides whereas the candidates, their history’s, their agendas, their plans, and especially their track records have been documented and discussed in the media 24/7/366 for what seems like eons now.

 

Consequently, regardless of all the noise about the large number of still undecided’s, I don’t believe there are very many left at all. And for those who truly still are unsure, my bet is they won’t vote in November. Because if they didn’t care enough to do any of their own homework regarding the candidates so far, especially considering the critical importance of the coming election, I sincerely doubt they’ll show up at the polls. Because, lazy, dense, ignorant, spoiled, and noncommittal are innate traits which I believe this group will still have on election day, therefore the odds are they’ll stay home and duck responsibility as usual.

 

So, I guess, at best the three wastes of time so far have provided the media with something to fill up their space with, and they still have one more to go. But as for me, I can’t help but notice that things are exactly the same today as they were before these talk-fests began: Unemployment’s horrendous, health care’s a fiasco, foreign affairs have become a tragic joke, education’s going backwards, the nation’s world status has shrunk, oil prices are breaking citizen's financial backs, inflation’s rising, global warming doesn't even exist, alternative energy’s a total bust, unions are gouging employers more than ever, GM and Chrysler are losing ground in the U.S., patronage and political paybacks have created frauds like Solyndra and these are just a few examples of the total ineptitude of current governance.

 

So, I’ll ask again: What is there to debate about in view of the preceding list of facts?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/16/2012

Trying to figure out today’s efforts by Hillary to take the blame for Benghazi is a real stumper for me. That’s because the only things I know for certain give me no hints whatsoever as to why she did it.

 

For example, I know beyond doubt that all party’s on the administration’s side of the issue have no compunction nor concern about distorting truths regarding their actions of any kind. All that matters to them is appearance and personal or political gain. And that’s where the rub is, because I can’t figure out what’s in it for Hillary by taking the hit.

 

The way I see it, Hillary hasn’t got much time left to seek the presidency. However, if the incumbent’s reelected, the destruction he’ll cause next time around will likely set his party back for many, many, years. Or perhaps sink it completely forever. Therefore, she hasn’t a hint of a prayer of being elected in 2016. So, why should she help him now?

 

On the other hand, if Mitt Romney wins the White House there’s always a chance he’ll not perform as promised, opening the door for her to step in against him next time around.

 

Aside from all that, I doubt there’s anyone walking the planet that hates the incumbent more than Bill does. So, what’s there in this for him? Because here’s a guy who does nothing for free and so far I’m not aware of any payback he’s received. In fact, I’ve thought all along he’d turn right before the election, trying to sink the incumbent in return for the muscling out of Hillary in 2008.

 

Now, obviously I haven’t an inkling of a clue as to what’s really going on at the moment in this situation. But I do know something about the involved players history’s. And from that I suspect when it all sorts out, either the White House or Department of State  will be hard to see under a gigantic political mushroom cloud.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/15/2012

The more I read about the incumbent’s debate preparations, the more convinced I become that he hasn’t a shred of success to point to after almost four years in office and thus plans to attack Mitt Romney personally.

 

However, I think that will be quite hard to do successfully, if not impossible. Because throughout his career in both business and politics, Romney’s been a proven leader and will likely benefit from the chance to present his credentials once again to a wide national audience. Consequently, I’ll repeat again that whoever’s advising the incumbent is either not too competent, not very bright, or else perhaps hopes for a Romney win.

 

In the meantime though,  while the situation in Benghazi keeps looking more like a cover-up and extremely misguided attempt to politicize  a huge failure in foreign policy, evidence of another immense blunder in decision-making appeared today in the MailOnline regarding global warming.

 

According to reporter David Rose, scientists have proven that global warming doesn’t exist to the extent its promoters have pushed, and temperature rising stopped 16 years ago. However, the information’s been suppressed, kept out of the headlines and the immense amount of money spent to stem  a climate condition that likely doesn’t even exist has been wasted for the most part.

 

What’s more, all that’s been done to promote alternative fuels and energy sources hasn’t really been needed at all, and as such the billions spent on fiascos like Solyndra and dinky electric cars have done nothing but cost the public dearly and greatly helped to shrink our economy and increase our debt.

 

I’ve included a link which you can click on to review the information for yourself: //www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

As for me, I hope Mitt Romney’s advisors have found this link themselves and it’s brought up during the upcoming debate. Because added to the other incredibly bad decisions the administration’s made, this would truly be “icing” on the cake.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/14/2012

Yesterday, I used examples from my business career to support my belief that the current administration not only hasn’t learned from it’s mistakes, but instead continues to repeat and compound them.  And to me, that factor demonstrates either an immense degree of stubborn arrogance from which the entire nation is forced to suffer, or a level of outright stupidity and incompetence far beyond measure.

 

As a basis for my conclusion, I noted that instead of offering valid arguments supporting the administration's performance to date, during their debate the vice president instead chose to childishly ridicule his opponent, Paul Ryan, acting like a brat caught misbehaving with no logical excuse. I then explained that I thought the reasons for the VP’s lame attempts stemmed from the administration’s doing nothing whatsoever yet to be proud of, and thus the VP could do little else.

 

Then today, I came across several items saying that the Incumbent has tipped his hand regarding his plans for his second go-round with Mitt Romney. And that a major focus will be Romney’s stint running Bain Capital, which the incumbent plans to attack, discredit and demean.

 

Now, if that turns out to be true, I think it will help Mr. Romney significantly in two extremely important ways. First and foremost it will give him a chance in rebuttal to describe and detail the outstanding job he did while at Bain. Simultaneously, it will serve to vividly point out that the incumbent knows nothing about how businesses run whatsoever, their huge importance and value to the economy overall and especially how the incumbent’s financial ignorance has cost the nation so dearly by greatly reducing one of the most revenue sources there is: taxes derived from business growth because the whole economy's shrunk.

 

However, beyond the preceding advantages to be gained by exposing the incumbent’s shortcomings regarding the nation’s economy, Mr. Romney will likely gain from a subtler point as well. Because, just like a poorly trained sales competitor in the business world, if competitors can do nothing but disparage other’s offerings, rather than presenting superior alternatives of their own, they not only appear weak and inferior…they cause prospective buyers to wonder why those particular other providers have them so scared.

 

So, in summation, it looks like the incumbent may truly be in a considerable bind regarding the remaining debates. Because having no positives to present, he’s not got much to offer at all, while his performance record’s a total bust. But, if he chooses to attack  his highly accomplished challenger instead, the facts will make the incumbent look far worse. So, maybe the best route for the incumbent to take would be just to keep on campaigning out in the sticks and not even try to show up at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/13/2012

Results of the two debates so far have brought a few memories back of my own career, and reconfirmed the educational value of “exposure” for me.

 

Through a series of events, resulting mostly from pure chance rather than a specifically detailed plan, I rose quite quickly to a position involving multi-million dollar transactions.

 

First selling metal buckles to garment and belt manufacturers in Manhattan, I then moved on to woven labels to clothing makers in the same market, item prices for both comparatively minimal.

 

Those endeavors were followed by lift trucks, costing anywhere between twenty-five hundred to twenty thousand dollars on average, depending on size and specifications. And after that, I arrived in the equipment leasing and financing business where six-figure deals were every day occurrences.

 

The reason I bring this subject up today is that when I made the jump from label sales to materials handling equipment, although the basic sales processes were fundamentally the same regarding calling on prospective customers, the significantly higher unit costs seemed overwhelming to me. Quite frightening in fact. 

 

When my lift truck sales manager learned of my trepidation, he sat me down to gave me a lesson I’ve never forgotten. He explained that the only thing that mattered was the customer’s need and ability to afford an acquisition. So, while shirt manufacturers might need labels costing four cents each and critical to their products, warehouse owners couldn’t move freight without lift trucks and thus, to them equipment cost was simply a business expense, as well. Consequently, he taught me to overcome my own awe about high prices, and get on to simply satisfying customer’s wants and needs.

 

Along the same lines, in graduating to financial sales I faced similar concerns regarding transaction size, some of which were truly large amounts by any standard. However, my manager in this case gave me similar advice, using the word, “exposure.”

 

What he explained was, that here again, the fundamentals of sales don’t change, only the price involved does. And therefore, I was intimidating myself by letting my own perception of the deal size get in the way of conducting business professionally. And, naturally, he was absolutely right, whereas with time, experience and job growth, eventually transaction size meant nothing at all, only customer satisfaction counted in the end.

By taking the advice of those willing to help and train me, I ultimately headed a force of 125 salespeople located in 26 offices across the nation producing $500 million in annual sales and growing. Tops in our entire industry specialization. 

 

So, in the preceding examples it can be seen that a critical key to success is growth on the job, learning and understanding customer's needs and wants, and most important of all, listening to them and figuring out ways to provide satisfaction to all parties involved in any kind of transaction.

 

And that brings me back to the past two debates. Because in them we have blatant examples of what happens when people simply don’t grow into jobs, nor show any desire to professionally mature at all. And instead of demonstrating any examples of the slightest success -whereas they have none- the incumbent team at the top chose to sully, snipe, deride, and harass their competition, acting like spoiled children who’d flunked a grade-school test because they hadn't learned a thing yet. Which is also the reason, I believe, why our entire economy is sinking and national growth and world position declining. 

 

And I guess this also illustrates why the administration has such a strong liking for public school teachers.  Because today’s teachers have no desire to educate anyone at all, and those in the administration have no wish to learn, grow or improve whatsoever, making them absolutely perfect partners.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios  

BloggeRhythms 10/12/2012

Didn’t watch the debate last night, and was planning to watch Pittsburgh play the Tennessee Titans instead, however I fell asleep quite early and missed the game as well.

 

Nonetheless, and much as I expected, I didn’t miss much of substance as far as the debate goes according to today’s recaps. However, despite that I’ve received most of my input from stories on Drudge on-line, it seems the consensus of reporters was an old political hack rudely dismissing the points expressed by a much younger, serious contender, and the ancient curmudgeon's attempts to override facts with inane laughter and ill-timed interruptions. All of which added up to a sitting vice president demeaning the status of his office and coming off as immature, hostile, stubborn and questionable regarding truths.

 

However, while perusing other stories, also on Drudge, I came across one which really got me to thinking. Because, apparently all taxpayers, regardless of party, are paying for instruments known as “obamaphones” which are mobile devices given free of charge to the poor. And if that’s correct, it seems to me that all taxpayers, regardless of their personal political preferences, are helping subsidize the incumbent's reelection campaign, because he’s getting credit for the gifts and in that way buying votes with everyone else’s money.

 

I’ve inserted a link to the story which you can read and decide for yourself. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/10/carlos-slim-worlds-richest-man-gets-richer-supplying-obamaphones-to-poor/

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/11/2012

While Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee probes the White House/State Department/U.N. Ambassador’s cover-up of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, it seems there may be another questionable issue regarding the administration’s tendency toward fabrication. 

 

This one concerns the highly lauded report showing jobless claims reducing to 7.8%, which now looks like it may have been incorrect. Because according to Kelly Evans, reporting a story on CNBC on-line, apparently the data from one of the largest states was left out of the total.  

According to Ms. Evans, here's what actually happened: “The state did report weekly jobless claims but did not process and report its quarterly claims number (when many people have to reapply for benefits for technical reasons as opposed to being newly laid off). As a result, there wasn't the expected spike in claims that normally happens at the start of the quarter.”

She goes on that: “It is unclear why that happened or how unusual that is. What is clear is that the expected spike in claims around the start of each quarter was smaller this time than usual. Coupled with the seasonal adjustment (that expected a bigger increase), that pushed down the headline figure.” 

 

Which leads her to conclude that: “In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions. That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won’t be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week.” 

 

Ms. Evans also added that: “The Labor Department appears to have had little choice in this matter, however; it couldn’t estimate what the one large state would or should have reported. Still, it may have been able to avoid more confusion had it more clearly articulated that in its weekly press release. And now, there is one state’s labor department with plenty of explaining to do.”

So, here we have another case which I think serves to illustrate that the administration is not only incompetent, as proven by the continuing dearth of jobs, but is also blatantly dishonest whereas it blithely resorts to lies to cover it’s horrendous mistakes and/or shortcomings each time it has to face real facts

And, as always, since there's’ rarely any news about the administration doing anything that’s actually any good in the end, I have to ask why anyone with an ounce of sense would ever vote for these complete and utter failures again.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/10/2012

Pondering the huge gains accredited to Mitt Romney by many pollsters, I‘m not truly surprised. Because it’s been my expectation for a very long time now that he’ll win the upcoming election.

 

And although the experts are attributing Romney’s debate performance as the primary reason, I think the cause is much deeper than simply that. Because regardless of all the attention given to polling, I believe voter’s decisions rest far more on personal issues than anything else. And that reminded me of former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill who coined the phrase "All politics is local."

 

According to Wikipedia, O'Neill's phrase “encapsulates the principle that a politician's success is directly tied to his ability to understand and influence the issues of his constituents.”

 

And that, “The concept is contrary to the notion that most people, somehow, in local elections are casting votes to "send a message" to the highest levels; instead, the principle predicts that most people will not vote for local politicians simply as a means to act on feelings about higher politicians, such as concerns about a current U.S. President. The prediction is that most people who vote, or debate issues, are focused on resolving their local issues.”

 

However, O’Neill coined his words a very long time ago, in an age without technology permitting folks everywhere to receive instantaneous inputs about every level of government 24/7/366. So, in that regard, and using O’Neill’s phrase as the basis, I think that today all politics are local to everyone all the time.

 

Consequently, people can now see, assimilate and analyze considerable information from myriad sources and evaluate for themselves as to which candidates are most likely to satisfy their wishes and needs, local or not. And that’s why I think the coming election will ultimately be decided upon by the comparison of the two presidential candidates past performance and the proven results of their efforts in total, and not simply  a war of only words.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/9/2012

Yesterday, I highlighted the exodus of successful French businessfolks to other places because they’re tired of carrying the rest of the nation’s citizens on their backs.

 

Then today, gas rose to more than six dollars a gallon in parts of California due to shortages which can’t be satisfied by importing from elsewhere, whereas the state’s environmental requirements for fuel are far too stringent.

 

Consequently, what we see in these two recent examples is how misguided idealism, and perhaps an overabundance of naiveté, have come back to haunt and financially strangle significant populations. And I guess, to some extent it can be understood that there are those unable to grasp the intricacies and perils of ideologies that might sound theoretically preferable, but cannot be successfully implemented in real life.

 

And then there might be others who can simply be sold a bill of goods due to gullibility, lack of knowledge or outright ignorance.

So, in the preceding sense, as far as politics are concerned it seems to come down to a matter of which party or faction does a better job of making it’s case, and painting the rosiest picture in seeking support.
 

But then we have situations that go far beyond the promotion of particular ideologies themselves, and into the realm of outright misstatements, false premises', deceit and political fabrication which brings me to my subject for today.

 

It seems that one of  the greatest bastions of liberalism, equality for all, and ceaseless promoter of socialistic causes, doesn’t quite comply with it’s vaunted image when it’s own bucks are involved. Because here’s part of an article reported by Katherine Fung at the Huffington Post.

 

“Unionized New York Times staffers plan a short walkout on Monday afternoon. The staffers, members of the Newspaper Guild of New York, will meet up and collectively walk outside of the new but iconic New York Times building in Manhattan to protest management’s position on contract negotiations.”

Fung goes on that, “The walkout won’t be the first protest that Times’ staffers have staged over proposed contract terms. Earlier this year, employees held a silent protest outside a meeting of top editors, and demonstrated outside the company’s annual shareholders meeting. Angry staffers also made their demands.”

And here’s the rub: “Employees have become increasingly agitated over the Times' continued call to freeze pension plans and recent demand for separate contracts for print and digital employees. The walkout comes after a recent meeting of 200 staffers, who discussed taking collective action to send a message to management.”

 

So here we have another example of what happens when the real world collides with idealism. However, in this case there’s something far, far worse then simple philosophical rhetoric. Because even though the world’s premiere promoter of any and every socialistic cause on earth refuses to deal with it’s own employees seeking additional compensation, it will go on demanding that others everywhere else acquiesce. And if that isn’t the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy imaginable, I don’t know what is.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/8/2012

A headline on Drudge from a French news outlet, France 24, just caught my eye:  “Rich businessmen pulling out of France as tax-hit looms.” 

 

The article began by quoting a manager at Daniel Feau, a real-estate broker specializing in high-end property, who said, “A flood of top-end properties are hitting the market as businessmen seek to leave France before stiff tax hikes hit." Real estate agents and financial advisers say it's nearly a general panic. Some 400 to 500 residences worth more than one million euros ($1.3 million) have come onto the Paris market. 

 

The sell-off is in response to the tax plans of France's new Socialist President Francois Hollande and having a noticeable effect whereas the plan is to raise the tax rate to 75 percent on income above 1.0 million euros per year and sharply increase taxes on capital gains from the sales of stock and company stakes.

However, it was the following paragraph from the article that started me typing. “French entrepreneurs have complained vociferously against a proposal in the Socialist's 2013 budget to increase the capital gains tax on sales of company stakes, which they argue will kill the market for innovative start-up companies in France.”

Now, I realize that these events are going on in France, which has almost nothing in common businesswise with the U.S. Nonetheless, though, it does demonstrate how business types think and react no matter where they’re located. Because there’s a fundamental commonality among them to the extent that these folks tend to fend for themselves and are driven by a will to succeed, not a grand desire to carry others through life on their backs.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying these folks are selfish, self-serving, or greedy by nature. My point is the reverse. They’ll happily support however many others they need to help them, and keep hiring as their growth continues because that makes economic sense, and in fact is the basis of the entire financial success of our nation. Which brings me right back to the most simple of questions.

Why is it that typical Democrats, and Socialists particularly, don’t grasp the basics of the most fundamental economics. Because although the French movers and shakers are far more dramatic by picking up their chips and leaving Dodge altogether, we see exactly the same trend here. 

 

When government threatens higher taxes, over-regulates, gets over-involved, and makes too many nonsensical bureaucratic demands, businesses stop hiring, real estate doesn’t get purchased, tax revenues decline, the economy stagnates and everyone in the nation winds up with less. In fact, the entire system goes into reverse. 

 

So, perhaps it’s time for Democrats to realize that businessfolks aren’t bad guys by any stretch, and perhaps it’s time to stop and do some learning about how economies really work. Because just like in today’s  France, I don’t think it will be long now before the one’s paying all the bills here at home are just going to pack up and move somewhere else. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/7/2012

Much of the news still regards the incumbent’s disastrous showing in Wednesday’s  debate premiere. And while extremely bored with the subject myself, I did read several stories on-line, one of which stood out.

 

A Breitbart News headline on Drudge stated “Obama Hopes to Calm Panicked Hollywood During Latest La-La-Land Fundraiser.” And, after reading about the panic spreading throughout that group, I realized I actually have no understanding at all as to why those folks hate Republicans so much. So I looked the answer up.  

 

The best rationale I found was posted by a blogger identifying himself very sparsely as a Colorado investment banker. I've posted basically what he wrote, though editing some words but not the meaning or substance, as follows:

“I do have one theory as to why there is this hatred. I think it has to do with a misunderstanding of the term Conservative and liberal. I think  people tend to confuse the political term Liberal and pop culture term liberal. My understanding of the political term “Liberal” is, in a very abbreviated description, big government, higher taxes, and socialized programs. Now my understanding of the pop culture term Liberal is free spirited, easy going, and independent. To me that seems to sum it up pretty well.”

The banker then went on: “Now I think most people tend to confuse these terms, most Liberals thinking that politically Liberal is the same as pop culturally Liberal. So, most in Hollywood think that if you are politically liberal it means you are for personal freedom, and independence. However, in reality that’s the general definition of a Conservative. Conservatives in the traditional political sense are more about personal freedom, less government control, and independence.“

 

He then concludes with, “So it is with this misconception that traditional conservatives are demonized into gun toting red necks who cling to their religion, according to Obama. So that is just my take on why Hollywood democrats hate Republicans so much. Of course that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.”

As for me, the banker’s rationalization is as good as any other I’ve ever read, which is why I employed it today. Especially because he highlights the point that Republican’s are generally types that insist on thinking and doing for themselves.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/6/2012

Despite huge clamor in the news regarding Mitt Romney’s wipeout of the incumbent in the debate, I still don’t think much has changed regarding those truly intending to vote in November.

 

Because, as I’ve been noting for the past three years, regardless of what the polls supposedly illustrated prior to Wednesday, almost everyone, in practically any situation -other than union members or those receiving some kind of government handout- has been negatively affected by the current administration. Thus, I’ve always expected a Republican win regardless of the eventual candidate in particular. Nonetheless though, I think it helps even more that it turned out to be Romney, because of his outstanding successes in every prior endeavor.

 

For today though, I think there’s a much stronger indication than the debate results of not only how empty the incumbent’s suit is, but how truly unqualified he is as one who’s supposed to be a leader. Because while on stage and dealing one-on-one with Mr. Romney, the incumbent had no ready come-backs, no witty retorts, nor any real ammunition to counter the shellacking he took, but instead hemmed, hawed, and stammered with no valid answers.

 

But then, the following morning, this same truly embarrassed loser went out and spoke before a stacked house of toadies, groupies and Kool Ade quaffers, telling them all that the debate was fixed, his opponent’s a total liar, and the results prove nothing positive at all for Mitt Romney.

 

And that reaction tells me more than enough about the incumbent and exactly what kind of weasel he actually is. 

 

Because, when he had his chance in front of millions of viewers to make a positive case for his record, he couldn’t. And not because of any kind of problem with debating itself. After all, for his entire life he’s done nothing but bombast, self-promote and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, etc. forever. But his real problem is, his record's a total disaster.  

 

Consequently, we now see someone who’s done a miserable job in office and been confronted by someone who not only refused to be intimidated, but presented facts, figures and irrefutable examples of presidential incompetency. And then, after slinking away when the debate was over, instead of moving on to recovery like the seasoned pro he’s purported to be in the press, the incumbent took the very next opportunity to defame his contender behind his back. And that to me illustrates far more clearly what kind of immature, ill-equipped, overrated phony we have in office than any debate ever could.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms 10/5/2012

It seems I’ve been starting a lot of entry’s lately by writing that I’m confused. And today’s another such time. Because people everywhere, on both sides of the aisle, claim they’re astounded that the incumbent did such a lousy debating job. However, I’m not surprised at all.

 

I’ve mentioned several times in the past about a tip I received way back when beginning my career from a highly successful veteran salesman. He suggested that when calling on accounts I pay close attention to the employees I meet at every level, aside from the person at the top. Because their work attitudes, demeanor, degree of professionalism and manner will tell me a lot about the leader’s philosophy regarding business practices.

 

Therefore, if the surroundings are crisp, clean, well-maintained and precisely functional, they suggest someone whose mind works the same way, as does the reverse. Because management style generally reflects individual's preferences and behavior which can then be used to guide your own conduct in dealing with them. 

 

So, if you apply the preceding guidelines and look at the nation’s condition, you see failure in every single aspect of governance that can be measured. From unemployment, business growth, education, health care, natural resource development, military strength, welfare reform to massive over-regulation, nothing performs in a positive manner. And whereas the reason for that sub-standard record stems directly from the top, obviously the leader’s a failure himself.

 

Consequently, if well-documented results illustrate poor performance clearly in every other instance, why shouldn’t debating ability be consistently weak as well? And especially in cases like this one where the performer has no personal knowledge base of success to draw on in the subjects in question at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios