Saw this article yesterday from the Associated Press that said, "A mix of snow, rain and slush made for sheer misery at the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York City, where drenched protesters hunkered down in tents and under tarps as the plaza filled with rainwater and melted snow. Although technically, tents are banned in the park, protesters say authorities have been looking the other way, even despite a crackdown on generators that were keeping them warm."
But here’s the quote that caught my eye. This guy, Nick Lemmin, who’s 25 and from Brooklyn was spending his first night at the encampment. He was one of a handful of protesters still at the park early Sunday, and he said, “I had to come out and support. The underlying importance of this is such that you have to weather the cold."
So, my question for Mr. Lemmin is: What exactly is he supporting? Does he want his student loans forgotten, forgiven, or reduced? Is he anti-military/anti-war? Is he one of the Neo-Nazis? Is he a teacher who wants to work less hours for more benefits and more pay? Or is he one of those who resent the bank and industrial bailouts and believes they help cause high unemployment and job insecurity?
I ask because, regardless of his problems, issues or complaints, he and all his compatriots are camping out in the wrong place. Almost every issue -except for the teachers who always look for forums to reinforce their rip-off of the taxpaying public and the Neo-Nazis who likely don’t even know where they are- stems from Washington, DC, the administration and Congress.
Consequently, I think Mr. Lemmin and his cohorts would accomplish considerably more if they got on trains, buses, or hitch-hiked -based on their financial conditions- and got themselves down to DC. Because, due to the now-boring little squawk protesters have made so far, the president’s already given away millions of taxpayer bucks in student loan and mortgage concessions and likely plans to do more.
So, now’s the time for the protesting loser’s to strike while the iron’s hot (analogy intended) and grab some real loot for themselves. Because the clock’s ticking and the new guy in the White House after November likely won’t be so quick to give hard-working voter's money away in the future. And that means that Mr. Lemmin and friends then may have to leave their rent-free heated tents, union donated food and live entertainment and actually look for real jobs.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/30/2011
Nothing much in the news today, lot's of same old, same old about how the administration's disintegrating piece by piece and Cain's doing well in the polls. And, unfortunately, these stories will go on for another year until the election sorts it all out.
On another front, there's the surprising change in the weather (pun intended). According to National Weather Service spokesman, Chris Vaccaro, the 1.3 inches of snow so far in Central Park in Manhattan makes this the snowiest October there since records began being kept in 1869. It's also a record for the date of October 29. It's part of a storm expected to dump anywhere from a dusting to about 10 inches along the East Coast.
Looking out my window at the flakes reminded me of a report I read last week, saying this winter's expected to be the coldest one in many years, with lot's of snowfall predicted. And that got me to thinking about Al Gore. Because if his phantom global warming hype is still believed by anyone other than those who are making millions off the scam like he is, I'd like to sell them some stock in a company that I'll create tonight. Maybe I can come up with a cure for terminal dumbness.
But then I went on to remember that the last time there was an unexpected early cold front, or maybe it was a blizzard, some noted pro-global-warming scientists got together to explain that the freak freezing weather was "the exception that proves the rule." And that phrase always confused me because, I not only have never understood what it means, but it sounds completely ridiculous to me. Because I think if there can be an exception to something, and it doesn't happen the same way all the time, then it's not a rule in the first place.
In any case, just to satisfy my curiosity this morning I looked up the phrase and here's what I found out.
According to "Fowler's Modern English Usage" the following is an example of the original meaning:
The phrase is derived from the medieval Latin legal principle exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"), a concept first proposed by Cicero in his defense of Lucius Cornelius Balbus. This means a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception. The second part of Cicero's phrase, "in casibus non exceptis" or "in cases not excepted," is almost always missing from modern uses of the statement that "the exception proves the rule," which may contribute to frequent confusion and misuse of the phrase.
Another example states:
Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain.
In other words, a legal exception implies that something is normally not excluded.
Then there are some more:
Stating that emergency vehicles may exceed the speed limit carries the implicature that other vehicles may not do so, even if the latter is not explicitly stated. Similarly, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
The phrase may also be invoked to claim the existence of a rule that usually applies, when a case to which it does not apply is specially mentioned. For example, the fact that a nurse is described as "male" (the exception) could be taken as evidence that most nurses are female (the rule). This is a slightly looser interpretation of the original meaning.
So, now that I've done my research and read the preceding examples over and over many times, I'm more confused than ever about the rules part, but have a much better understanding of what Al Gore and the scientists are doing. They're taking a subject that most folks know nothing about and creating tons of hype, and smoke, and noise about it and then using theory's that college professors with Doctorates in English couldn't understand to prove it.
So I guess the only rule about global warming I've proven today is PT Barnum's who said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
On another front, there's the surprising change in the weather (pun intended). According to National Weather Service spokesman, Chris Vaccaro, the 1.3 inches of snow so far in Central Park in Manhattan makes this the snowiest October there since records began being kept in 1869. It's also a record for the date of October 29. It's part of a storm expected to dump anywhere from a dusting to about 10 inches along the East Coast.
Looking out my window at the flakes reminded me of a report I read last week, saying this winter's expected to be the coldest one in many years, with lot's of snowfall predicted. And that got me to thinking about Al Gore. Because if his phantom global warming hype is still believed by anyone other than those who are making millions off the scam like he is, I'd like to sell them some stock in a company that I'll create tonight. Maybe I can come up with a cure for terminal dumbness.
But then I went on to remember that the last time there was an unexpected early cold front, or maybe it was a blizzard, some noted pro-global-warming scientists got together to explain that the freak freezing weather was "the exception that proves the rule." And that phrase always confused me because, I not only have never understood what it means, but it sounds completely ridiculous to me. Because I think if there can be an exception to something, and it doesn't happen the same way all the time, then it's not a rule in the first place.
In any case, just to satisfy my curiosity this morning I looked up the phrase and here's what I found out.
According to "Fowler's Modern English Usage" the following is an example of the original meaning:
The phrase is derived from the medieval Latin legal principle exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"), a concept first proposed by Cicero in his defense of Lucius Cornelius Balbus. This means a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception. The second part of Cicero's phrase, "in casibus non exceptis" or "in cases not excepted," is almost always missing from modern uses of the statement that "the exception proves the rule," which may contribute to frequent confusion and misuse of the phrase.
Another example states:
Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain.
In other words, a legal exception implies that something is normally not excluded.
Then there are some more:
Stating that emergency vehicles may exceed the speed limit carries the implicature that other vehicles may not do so, even if the latter is not explicitly stated. Similarly, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
The phrase may also be invoked to claim the existence of a rule that usually applies, when a case to which it does not apply is specially mentioned. For example, the fact that a nurse is described as "male" (the exception) could be taken as evidence that most nurses are female (the rule). This is a slightly looser interpretation of the original meaning.
So, now that I've done my research and read the preceding examples over and over many times, I'm more confused than ever about the rules part, but have a much better understanding of what Al Gore and the scientists are doing. They're taking a subject that most folks know nothing about and creating tons of hype, and smoke, and noise about it and then using theory's that college professors with Doctorates in English couldn't understand to prove it.
So I guess the only rule about global warming I've proven today is PT Barnum's who said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, October 29, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/29/2011
There seem to be some who think that since the controversies over Solyndra and Fast and Furious show no signs of going away anytime soon, the president faces an uphill battle of staying focused on winning re-election next November. On Friday the White House announced it's ordered a review of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program while multiple investigations swirl over Solyndra. Meanwhile, at least eight Republican lawmakers are calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over the botched federal gun-trafficking program known as Fast and Furious.
Then I read an article this morning, that says public opinion's tipped against the president's new health-care law according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly tracking poll. In the October survey, 51% of respondents now say they have an unfavorable opinion of the legislation passed by Democrats in March 2010, while only 34% feel favorably about it. The information came from a nonpartisan telephone survey of 1,223 people in October.
Beyond that, unemployment figures haven't changed much at all, still hovering at above nine percent while nothings been done to incent businesses to hire at all. In fact, it's expected that the NLRB and EPA will not only continue to strangle business opportunity, but have piles of new legislation to introduce that will make it even worse.
Many more think it's a terrible mistake to withdraw troops from Iraq completely, and that more should have been done to have their new government cooperate with us, considering we saved and rebuilt their nation. But instead, we've probably handed all we've done over to Iran who now fully believe we're timid and not too bright, and they'll just move right in as soon as we're gone.
Then we have the Wall Street protesters who at the moment have no clue as to why or what they're protesting. But, to assuage them the president's changed terms and conditions of loans they've signed. However, the awareness that he can apparently change any loan payback arrangements he wants, will likely scare off any viable lenders of any kind. Because now they're terrified he might do it to them. And that scenario puts a huge crimp in any expansion of business nationwide.
So, I guess this all goes to show, and it isn't half the problem, that when you have someone in charge who knows absolutely nothing about what he's doing, things can go downhill pretty quickly. And what's needed to fix it isn't a new speech, plan, or program...what's direly needed is a completely new and experienced leader.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Then I read an article this morning, that says public opinion's tipped against the president's new health-care law according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly tracking poll. In the October survey, 51% of respondents now say they have an unfavorable opinion of the legislation passed by Democrats in March 2010, while only 34% feel favorably about it. The information came from a nonpartisan telephone survey of 1,223 people in October.
Beyond that, unemployment figures haven't changed much at all, still hovering at above nine percent while nothings been done to incent businesses to hire at all. In fact, it's expected that the NLRB and EPA will not only continue to strangle business opportunity, but have piles of new legislation to introduce that will make it even worse.
Many more think it's a terrible mistake to withdraw troops from Iraq completely, and that more should have been done to have their new government cooperate with us, considering we saved and rebuilt their nation. But instead, we've probably handed all we've done over to Iran who now fully believe we're timid and not too bright, and they'll just move right in as soon as we're gone.
Then we have the Wall Street protesters who at the moment have no clue as to why or what they're protesting. But, to assuage them the president's changed terms and conditions of loans they've signed. However, the awareness that he can apparently change any loan payback arrangements he wants, will likely scare off any viable lenders of any kind. Because now they're terrified he might do it to them. And that scenario puts a huge crimp in any expansion of business nationwide.
So, I guess this all goes to show, and it isn't half the problem, that when you have someone in charge who knows absolutely nothing about what he's doing, things can go downhill pretty quickly. And what's needed to fix it isn't a new speech, plan, or program...what's direly needed is a completely new and experienced leader.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, October 28, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/28/2011
Michele Bachmann slammed the president last night, at an educational forum held by Newscorp and the College Board in New York. She appeared via satellite, and said his decision to amend students loans was an "abuse of power" that would prompt people to avoid financial responsibility. She added that, putting the burden of the loan debt onto the taxpayer is a "moral hazard."
I mention her comments because in my recent entries, I've noted that although the White House stated that the president's executive decision for changing payback terms and conditions of those loans "will carry no additional costs to taxpayers," I don't see how that can possibly be true.
And now it seems, I've got agreement in my contention from a presidential candidate. And although I don't think she has the experience, credentials or capabilities required as president, because she simply hasn't been in government that long, she certainly has enough knowledge to comment validly in this case. In 1988, she received an LL.M. degree in tax law from the William & Mary School of Law, and from1988 to 1993, she was an attorney for the IRS. And that expertise is good enough for me.
On another subject, Rick Perry's announced that he plans to skip some of the upcoming presidential debates, which was met with criticism from some of the other candidates. Particularly former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who said that to skip the debates would be "an enormous" mistake.
Gingrich went on to state, "Why would any Republican want to vote for someone who can't stand on the same platform as us, and the thought that he is then going to stand on the platform against Obama? I think it would just define him out of the race."
However, as far I'm concerned and have noted many times in prior blogs, I've never watched a debate, have no interest in them at all, and frankly, don't understand their purpose. I also have many friends who vote, talk with them frequently and they don't watch them either. In fact, we discuss politics all the time but the subject of debates never comes up. And, as I keep mentioning in my writings on the subject, I doubt you can find a worse debater on the planet than "W" Bush. He mumbles, inarticulately stumbles, and isn't exactly the fastest finger on the verbal trigger by any means. So, how come he got elected twice?
Aside from that, I can't conceive that any interested voter doesn't clearly know what all these candidates are about. There's information about them all over the place. And that's why I don't understand what a great debating talent means, because the presidency isn't about BS. And to prove the point, we have a supposedly great debater in office right now, but he sure as hell doesn't have a clue in the world about what's needed to be a worthy President of the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I mention her comments because in my recent entries, I've noted that although the White House stated that the president's executive decision for changing payback terms and conditions of those loans "will carry no additional costs to taxpayers," I don't see how that can possibly be true.
And now it seems, I've got agreement in my contention from a presidential candidate. And although I don't think she has the experience, credentials or capabilities required as president, because she simply hasn't been in government that long, she certainly has enough knowledge to comment validly in this case. In 1988, she received an LL.M. degree in tax law from the William & Mary School of Law, and from1988 to 1993, she was an attorney for the IRS. And that expertise is good enough for me.
On another subject, Rick Perry's announced that he plans to skip some of the upcoming presidential debates, which was met with criticism from some of the other candidates. Particularly former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who said that to skip the debates would be "an enormous" mistake.
Gingrich went on to state, "Why would any Republican want to vote for someone who can't stand on the same platform as us, and the thought that he is then going to stand on the platform against Obama? I think it would just define him out of the race."
However, as far I'm concerned and have noted many times in prior blogs, I've never watched a debate, have no interest in them at all, and frankly, don't understand their purpose. I also have many friends who vote, talk with them frequently and they don't watch them either. In fact, we discuss politics all the time but the subject of debates never comes up. And, as I keep mentioning in my writings on the subject, I doubt you can find a worse debater on the planet than "W" Bush. He mumbles, inarticulately stumbles, and isn't exactly the fastest finger on the verbal trigger by any means. So, how come he got elected twice?
Aside from that, I can't conceive that any interested voter doesn't clearly know what all these candidates are about. There's information about them all over the place. And that's why I don't understand what a great debating talent means, because the presidency isn't about BS. And to prove the point, we have a supposedly great debater in office right now, but he sure as hell doesn't have a clue in the world about what's needed to be a worthy President of the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, October 27, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/27/2011
The last few days, I've been commenting on proposed reduction of debt obligations of students and home owners by the president who's unilaterally giving them breaks because he seems to believe it's his personal job to amend financial contracts for lenders.
Now, although it's probably not a good idea for him to get involved in issues he likely knows nothing about, such as how loans work, I think his actions do something else. Because what they clearly illustrate is what's so horribly wrong with his entire administration when it comes to finance, money or business.
On one hand he bombasts, belittles and bully's business folks because they won't invest, take risks, or spend any more than they must to keep their operations running profitably. He also finds fault with them because they certainly try everything they can to avoid hiring more people. And since business folks aren't cooperating with his ideas, he thinks it's simply that hard-hearted owners have something against him.
And the funny thing is, he's correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. Because what he doesn't understand is that businesses need to know what the rules are before they invest. They also need stability and assurances that after they make commitments, especially financial ones, the rug won't be pulled out from under them.
So, on the one hand we have a president who's pushing, cajoling and prodding folks to take business risks and invest their hard-earned money while on the other hand he blatantly changes repayment terms on loans from about 7.5 million people by himself.
Consequently, I doubt any sophisticated, successful business owner is going to step up and invest additional funds under conditions like that. And that's not the only issue, because the alphabet soup of agencies the president's turned loose such as the NLRB, EPA, Justice Department and a whole parade of bureaucracies are doing their damnedest to penalize, fine or shut down every operation they can.
And that's why, as far as the business side of the economy goes I doubt the president can accomplish very much, because if nothing else he's firmly established that his absence of business knowledge is too huge to fix any time soon and his financial judgement is absolutely worthless.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Now, although it's probably not a good idea for him to get involved in issues he likely knows nothing about, such as how loans work, I think his actions do something else. Because what they clearly illustrate is what's so horribly wrong with his entire administration when it comes to finance, money or business.
On one hand he bombasts, belittles and bully's business folks because they won't invest, take risks, or spend any more than they must to keep their operations running profitably. He also finds fault with them because they certainly try everything they can to avoid hiring more people. And since business folks aren't cooperating with his ideas, he thinks it's simply that hard-hearted owners have something against him.
And the funny thing is, he's correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. Because what he doesn't understand is that businesses need to know what the rules are before they invest. They also need stability and assurances that after they make commitments, especially financial ones, the rug won't be pulled out from under them.
So, on the one hand we have a president who's pushing, cajoling and prodding folks to take business risks and invest their hard-earned money while on the other hand he blatantly changes repayment terms on loans from about 7.5 million people by himself.
Consequently, I doubt any sophisticated, successful business owner is going to step up and invest additional funds under conditions like that. And that's not the only issue, because the alphabet soup of agencies the president's turned loose such as the NLRB, EPA, Justice Department and a whole parade of bureaucracies are doing their damnedest to penalize, fine or shut down every operation they can.
And that's why, as far as the business side of the economy goes I doubt the president can accomplish very much, because if nothing else he's firmly established that his absence of business knowledge is too huge to fix any time soon and his financial judgement is absolutely worthless.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/26/2011
As mentioned yesterday, the president's delving into finance, and especially loans such as home mortgages, hit a hot button with me because I've spent most of my own career in commercial lending. Specifically, the financing and leasing of equipment.
During that time, one of the key things I learned was that most people, even quite sophisticated one's, know very little about how money really works, especially when it comes to borrowing. And the reason has nothing to do with their intellectual acumen, knowledge, or education. It's simply that most folks, even those operating sizable businesses, aren't involved in financial transactions very often at all.
Most folks, regardless of their financial condition, and except for the extremely wealthy don't purchase houses too often, thus they have no real need to be expert in the details of mortgages. Even the vast majority of businesses don't make real estate or large equipment acquisitions frequently either. So, as a result, most people have no real base of borrowing knowledge at all.
That's why a great deal of time is invested by those who sell financial services in educating prospective clients, simply to bring them up to speed on what the various alternatives currently are, and the pro's and con's of each. And what the best, and most reliable, lenders all have in common is that while they're aware of the fact that most borrowers need assistance in decision making due to lack of knowledge, they don't use that unawareness to try to take advantage, but honestly try to help.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the best lenders ride on white horses and deserve pedestals in the Honesty Hall of Fame. I'm simply noting they're smart enough to know that satisfied customers tend to pay their bills, come back again in the future and recommend others, and the one's not quite so pleased tend to call their lawyers or the cops.
So, what the preceding sets up is my thought for today. Because in step two of the president's plan for bailing out deadbeats is letting students who took out loans in supposedly good faith to get off the hook.
First, he'll accelerate a measure passed by Congress reducing the maximum repayment on student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. Additionally, the remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25. About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.
Secondly, borrowers having loans from both the Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government can now consolidate them into one loan, lowering interest rates to half a percentage point less. This could affect 5.8 million more borrowers.
The White House said the changes will carry no additional costs to taxpayers (which is impossible.)
Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters on a conference call that the changes could save some borrowers hundreds of dollars a month. "These are real savings that will help these graduates get started in their careers and help them make ends meet."
However, in all the governmental rhetoric, I didn't see any reference to the integrity of the original loans that the borrowers entered or the loss of income to the lenders. Yet it seems to me the borrowers happily took the money, found out they can't get jobs and now don't want to honor their obligations to pay it back.
So, what does the government do? The president sets a new precedent saying it's alright to whine and cry about your financial mistakes and occupational ineptitude, because Uncle Sam will get you off the hook. And all it costs you is your credit rating, your integrity, and of course a vote for the guy who bought it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
During that time, one of the key things I learned was that most people, even quite sophisticated one's, know very little about how money really works, especially when it comes to borrowing. And the reason has nothing to do with their intellectual acumen, knowledge, or education. It's simply that most folks, even those operating sizable businesses, aren't involved in financial transactions very often at all.
Most folks, regardless of their financial condition, and except for the extremely wealthy don't purchase houses too often, thus they have no real need to be expert in the details of mortgages. Even the vast majority of businesses don't make real estate or large equipment acquisitions frequently either. So, as a result, most people have no real base of borrowing knowledge at all.
That's why a great deal of time is invested by those who sell financial services in educating prospective clients, simply to bring them up to speed on what the various alternatives currently are, and the pro's and con's of each. And what the best, and most reliable, lenders all have in common is that while they're aware of the fact that most borrowers need assistance in decision making due to lack of knowledge, they don't use that unawareness to try to take advantage, but honestly try to help.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the best lenders ride on white horses and deserve pedestals in the Honesty Hall of Fame. I'm simply noting they're smart enough to know that satisfied customers tend to pay their bills, come back again in the future and recommend others, and the one's not quite so pleased tend to call their lawyers or the cops.
So, what the preceding sets up is my thought for today. Because in step two of the president's plan for bailing out deadbeats is letting students who took out loans in supposedly good faith to get off the hook.
First, he'll accelerate a measure passed by Congress reducing the maximum repayment on student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. Additionally, the remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25. About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.
Secondly, borrowers having loans from both the Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government can now consolidate them into one loan, lowering interest rates to half a percentage point less. This could affect 5.8 million more borrowers.
The White House said the changes will carry no additional costs to taxpayers (which is impossible.)
Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters on a conference call that the changes could save some borrowers hundreds of dollars a month. "These are real savings that will help these graduates get started in their careers and help them make ends meet."
However, in all the governmental rhetoric, I didn't see any reference to the integrity of the original loans that the borrowers entered or the loss of income to the lenders. Yet it seems to me the borrowers happily took the money, found out they can't get jobs and now don't want to honor their obligations to pay it back.
So, what does the government do? The president sets a new precedent saying it's alright to whine and cry about your financial mistakes and occupational ineptitude, because Uncle Sam will get you off the hook. And all it costs you is your credit rating, your integrity, and of course a vote for the guy who bought it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/25/2011
The president announced a home refinancing program yesterday in Las Vegas. The plan, Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, is intended to avert foreclosures by lowering interest rates for homeowners still current on payments by allowing them to refinance no matter how much their home's value has dropped below what they still owe.
Now, while phrases like, "lower payments," always seem to get people's attention, I've learned to stop and consider why that should be so. And that's because I spent my career in the commercial finance business which taught me a few things. Such as, there's no such thing as "free" or "lowest" anything's because entities have to stay in business and they can't do that by giving away the store. Therefore, buyers have to figure out where the loopholes are before they jump right into any purchase of anything.
So first of all in this case, in any financing arrangement there are five elements that comprise the transaction. The amount that's involved, in this case the net price of a house after any down payments. The term of the loan. The rate of interest. Any future value remaining at the end of the financing term, if applicable, and lastly, the payments.
So, what that means is, in order for lender's to derive a particular return on their investment in a home, they calculate the required payments predicated on the other four variables (term, interest rate, future value of the asset, if any, and down payment.) And if any of those variables devalue for any reason over the term of the loan, they lose whatever that amounts to.
In this case the lender isn't losing value because the home's that were financed are worth less, because payments were based on the original amount when the loan was transacted. However, the payments were derived on a higher rate of interest. Therefore, if payments are reduced now, without any increase in any other variables in the transactions, the lender's absorbing what's likely a considerable loss.
So, as far as the loss of lender's income goes, I don't know if or how that's covered, but I do know who the lender is, and that's Fannie Mae. And since that's the case, in one way or another the taxpaying public's likely absorbing the loss, as always with this administration. Which means successful folks are getting hosed again, it's just that the mirrors have been moved to different corners.
And I know I've used this analogy before but it's appropriate again, since it seems the only weapon the administration uses is the gullibility or lack of knowledge of the public. Because their methodology seems to be just like the crooked haberdasher who said to his tailor: Turn on the blue light Cecil, the man wants a blue suit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Now, while phrases like, "lower payments," always seem to get people's attention, I've learned to stop and consider why that should be so. And that's because I spent my career in the commercial finance business which taught me a few things. Such as, there's no such thing as "free" or "lowest" anything's because entities have to stay in business and they can't do that by giving away the store. Therefore, buyers have to figure out where the loopholes are before they jump right into any purchase of anything.
So first of all in this case, in any financing arrangement there are five elements that comprise the transaction. The amount that's involved, in this case the net price of a house after any down payments. The term of the loan. The rate of interest. Any future value remaining at the end of the financing term, if applicable, and lastly, the payments.
So, what that means is, in order for lender's to derive a particular return on their investment in a home, they calculate the required payments predicated on the other four variables (term, interest rate, future value of the asset, if any, and down payment.) And if any of those variables devalue for any reason over the term of the loan, they lose whatever that amounts to.
In this case the lender isn't losing value because the home's that were financed are worth less, because payments were based on the original amount when the loan was transacted. However, the payments were derived on a higher rate of interest. Therefore, if payments are reduced now, without any increase in any other variables in the transactions, the lender's absorbing what's likely a considerable loss.
So, as far as the loss of lender's income goes, I don't know if or how that's covered, but I do know who the lender is, and that's Fannie Mae. And since that's the case, in one way or another the taxpaying public's likely absorbing the loss, as always with this administration. Which means successful folks are getting hosed again, it's just that the mirrors have been moved to different corners.
And I know I've used this analogy before but it's appropriate again, since it seems the only weapon the administration uses is the gullibility or lack of knowledge of the public. Because their methodology seems to be just like the crooked haberdasher who said to his tailor: Turn on the blue light Cecil, the man wants a blue suit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, October 24, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/24/2011
For the past few weeks, it seems that Rick Perry's campaign has run out of significant steam. And it doesn't appear that he's got a lot of alternatives left to regain momentum. So, I guess that's why he decided to focus on his pro-life stance to try to attack Romney and Cain, claiming they're not tough enough on the issue.
Now, I realize that the subject of abortion is extremely important to many in our nation and heads many lists of concerns. Yet, there are also many other things we have to contend with as well.
At the moment, our economy's in the tank and it doesn't look like there's any kind of remedy on the Democrat side. At the same time, our foreign policy and national security just took a huge turn for the worse via troop withdrawals from Iraq. We have monstrous continuing problems with un and under-employment, a housing market that's stagnant and an administration that wants to increase national debt with a hare-brained stimulus scheme already proven to not work. And it would take me two or three more pages to list the morasses of education, potential tax-increases, health care and illegal immigration.
Consequently, in view of all these critical issues, what Perry's abortion stance got me thinking about was, is this really the time to address that discussion? Because, if that's the deciding factor of the next election, we could wind up with a totally incompetent boob in the White House who happens to be pro-life. And I don't think I have to do much explaining about the perils an incompetent boob can create, because we've got one now that's a perfect example.
So, for me, as important as the life issue is, I think I'd like to have someone at the helm that's the best there is at economic issues, taxes, homeland security, the military, national defense and securing our borders and leave the abortion issue to individuals themselves, their religious beliefs and their Lord.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Now, I realize that the subject of abortion is extremely important to many in our nation and heads many lists of concerns. Yet, there are also many other things we have to contend with as well.
At the moment, our economy's in the tank and it doesn't look like there's any kind of remedy on the Democrat side. At the same time, our foreign policy and national security just took a huge turn for the worse via troop withdrawals from Iraq. We have monstrous continuing problems with un and under-employment, a housing market that's stagnant and an administration that wants to increase national debt with a hare-brained stimulus scheme already proven to not work. And it would take me two or three more pages to list the morasses of education, potential tax-increases, health care and illegal immigration.
Consequently, in view of all these critical issues, what Perry's abortion stance got me thinking about was, is this really the time to address that discussion? Because, if that's the deciding factor of the next election, we could wind up with a totally incompetent boob in the White House who happens to be pro-life. And I don't think I have to do much explaining about the perils an incompetent boob can create, because we've got one now that's a perfect example.
So, for me, as important as the life issue is, I think I'd like to have someone at the helm that's the best there is at economic issues, taxes, homeland security, the military, national defense and securing our borders and leave the abortion issue to individuals themselves, their religious beliefs and their Lord.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, October 23, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/23/2011
Tying two of my hot button subjects together, I saw one of the Wall Street protesters interviewed yesterday evening. The young man answering a reporter's questions seemed bright, alert, was well spoken and, totally misinformed. Because wherever he got his inputs, education and what he thought were facts, they were upside down.
According to the young man, the main complaints of the protester's are about how Wall Street, the big banks and businesses are taking advantage of the public, especially younger folks who've been financially abused and restricted.
However, if he'd done some homework and checked the facts leading to our current horrendous financial situation, he'd have found out that it wasn't Wall Street or the banks that decided to spend almost a trillion dollars on bailouts, it was the president and a Democrat Congress. And it was the same folks in office who decided to save GM and Chrysler by throwing taxpayer funds at them, primarily because they have so many union workers on their payrolls.
It was also the government, and guys like Dodd, Frank and O'bama who long ago put together legislation forcing mortgage lenders to provide home financing to just about anyone who could sign their names, regardless of their financial condition. That caused the almost world-wide collapse of the real estate markets which have yet to recover, and may not fully come back for years, if ever.
What all this means, and there many more examples of absolutely idiotic government schemes, is that the protesters have their "ism's' mixed up. Because it isn't capitalism that's failed in the preceding situations, it's the opposite one...socialism that's totally at fault.
In a free market, which is what capitalism is all about, failing businesses and organizations would have been allowed to sink, fail or reorganize, whichever was appropriate for those entities. But, whatever happened to them, they certainly wouldn't have been financially propped up with federal funds. And in that regard, there aren't really any federal funds at all, all those dollars come from successful businesses and individuals who pay taxes.
Consequently, at the bottom of all these horrendous financial debacles, the government's to blame and so are socialistic practices. Because what we've got left now is humongous debt piled upon debt with still no clear signs of improvement and an administration whose primary aim is to keep repeating the same financial mistakes.
And what all this means is that if the protesters really want their financial problems fixed, they'd find out what capitalism is really about. Then they'd realize that socialism did them in and instead of whining and moaning on Wall Street, they'd band together in voting booths and get the real culprits out.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to the young man, the main complaints of the protester's are about how Wall Street, the big banks and businesses are taking advantage of the public, especially younger folks who've been financially abused and restricted.
However, if he'd done some homework and checked the facts leading to our current horrendous financial situation, he'd have found out that it wasn't Wall Street or the banks that decided to spend almost a trillion dollars on bailouts, it was the president and a Democrat Congress. And it was the same folks in office who decided to save GM and Chrysler by throwing taxpayer funds at them, primarily because they have so many union workers on their payrolls.
It was also the government, and guys like Dodd, Frank and O'bama who long ago put together legislation forcing mortgage lenders to provide home financing to just about anyone who could sign their names, regardless of their financial condition. That caused the almost world-wide collapse of the real estate markets which have yet to recover, and may not fully come back for years, if ever.
What all this means, and there many more examples of absolutely idiotic government schemes, is that the protesters have their "ism's' mixed up. Because it isn't capitalism that's failed in the preceding situations, it's the opposite one...socialism that's totally at fault.
In a free market, which is what capitalism is all about, failing businesses and organizations would have been allowed to sink, fail or reorganize, whichever was appropriate for those entities. But, whatever happened to them, they certainly wouldn't have been financially propped up with federal funds. And in that regard, there aren't really any federal funds at all, all those dollars come from successful businesses and individuals who pay taxes.
Consequently, at the bottom of all these horrendous financial debacles, the government's to blame and so are socialistic practices. Because what we've got left now is humongous debt piled upon debt with still no clear signs of improvement and an administration whose primary aim is to keep repeating the same financial mistakes.
And what all this means is that if the protesters really want their financial problems fixed, they'd find out what capitalism is really about. Then they'd realize that socialism did them in and instead of whining and moaning on Wall Street, they'd band together in voting booths and get the real culprits out.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, October 22, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/22/2011
There are two parallel situations clearly illustrating the danger of enabling an untried amateur to try and head the United States. Because we have an incumbent in the White House in so far over his head, he doesn't know which way is up and hasn't the smarts to figure it out. And, on the other hand another wants the job, but has no foundation for doing it effectively either.
Aside from the pay-back deals, and attempts to enrich friends with frauds like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and others, the president's now bringing home 40,000 troops from Iraq to appease Liberals who put him in office. But that not only means another slew of folks to soon add to the rolls of unemployment, it significantly weakens our strength and influence in the Middle-East. The odds are that this will wind up as a double-barreled blast of foreign policy and unemployment moronic's.
And then we have Herman Cain, who's risen quickly to the top of the pile of Republican presidential hopefuls. But, like most candidates, he's not only gotten more secure in campaigning, he hasn't learned when it's best to just smile and keep quiet. And the more he talks, the more holes appear in his rhetoric and the more he gets dissected in the press.
During the last week alone he's suggested electrifying a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico to kill illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States. He later called it a joke and apologized, should anyone be offended by the remarks.
He also said he'd negotiate for the release of U.S. prisoners held by terrorists, but then reversed himself, saying he'd misunderstood the question.
After telling CNN that while strongly opposing abortion, "the government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make." But later, he issued a statement reiterating his opposition to abortion.
Then after being criticized because his 9-9-9 tax overhaul would force the majority of Americans to pay more to the government, he reworked the plan to exclude the poorest people and to allow some deductions. However, while backers of his original plan had praised its simplicity, carving out exceptions could erode that support.
So, what all this proves to me is that at the core, all these guys are nothing more than politicians who'll promise anything to anyone if they think it'll get them elected. And for somebody like Cain who isn't in office -and with any luck for the public won't be- yapping a mile a minute doesn't do any real damage. But on the other hand, when an unqualified stooge, like the one in the White House now actually gets elected, it's we the public that are at risk and keep paying for his lack of knowledge and absence of capability.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Aside from the pay-back deals, and attempts to enrich friends with frauds like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and others, the president's now bringing home 40,000 troops from Iraq to appease Liberals who put him in office. But that not only means another slew of folks to soon add to the rolls of unemployment, it significantly weakens our strength and influence in the Middle-East. The odds are that this will wind up as a double-barreled blast of foreign policy and unemployment moronic's.
And then we have Herman Cain, who's risen quickly to the top of the pile of Republican presidential hopefuls. But, like most candidates, he's not only gotten more secure in campaigning, he hasn't learned when it's best to just smile and keep quiet. And the more he talks, the more holes appear in his rhetoric and the more he gets dissected in the press.
During the last week alone he's suggested electrifying a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico to kill illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States. He later called it a joke and apologized, should anyone be offended by the remarks.
He also said he'd negotiate for the release of U.S. prisoners held by terrorists, but then reversed himself, saying he'd misunderstood the question.
After telling CNN that while strongly opposing abortion, "the government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make." But later, he issued a statement reiterating his opposition to abortion.
Then after being criticized because his 9-9-9 tax overhaul would force the majority of Americans to pay more to the government, he reworked the plan to exclude the poorest people and to allow some deductions. However, while backers of his original plan had praised its simplicity, carving out exceptions could erode that support.
So, what all this proves to me is that at the core, all these guys are nothing more than politicians who'll promise anything to anyone if they think it'll get them elected. And for somebody like Cain who isn't in office -and with any luck for the public won't be- yapping a mile a minute doesn't do any real damage. But on the other hand, when an unqualified stooge, like the one in the White House now actually gets elected, it's we the public that are at risk and keep paying for his lack of knowledge and absence of capability.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Friday, October 21, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/21/2011
According to Jonathan Starkey of Delaware Online, there's this guy, Henrik Fisker, whose new company, Fisker Automotive, is building a $100,000 Karma hybrid car. To help the project along, the U.S. Department of Energy lent the business half a billion dollars. However, in an interview on ABC with Brian Ross here's what Fisker said:
“There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle. They don’t exist here.” So it's actually being built by contract manufacturer, Valmet Automotive, in Finland.
Then, after scrambling around, Fisker finally explained that the company's got a new plant in Newport, Delaware, which will build the next car, the Nina, though that remains to be seen. But what's known for sure right now is that there's only $329 million left of the $535 million borrowed. So, $206 billion of tax-payer guaranteed bucks went to Finland.
There's also a rumor, but totally unconfirmed by myself, that Al Gore's an investor in Fisker's business. Gee, what a surprise.
So, little by little, the hypocrisy and fraud of the current administration's leaking out and taxpayer's are getting ripped off in spades while friends of the White House make out like bandits. And while all this double-dealing goes on, Joe Biden, who's become the front man, is out there screaming for more tax-payer funds to abscond with. So, maybe when it all works out, perhaps instead of getting another four years, some judge will sentence them all to ten to twenty.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
“There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle. They don’t exist here.” So it's actually being built by contract manufacturer, Valmet Automotive, in Finland.
Then, after scrambling around, Fisker finally explained that the company's got a new plant in Newport, Delaware, which will build the next car, the Nina, though that remains to be seen. But what's known for sure right now is that there's only $329 million left of the $535 million borrowed. So, $206 billion of tax-payer guaranteed bucks went to Finland.
There's also a rumor, but totally unconfirmed by myself, that Al Gore's an investor in Fisker's business. Gee, what a surprise.
So, little by little, the hypocrisy and fraud of the current administration's leaking out and taxpayer's are getting ripped off in spades while friends of the White House make out like bandits. And while all this double-dealing goes on, Joe Biden, who's become the front man, is out there screaming for more tax-payer funds to abscond with. So, maybe when it all works out, perhaps instead of getting another four years, some judge will sentence them all to ten to twenty.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/20/2011
The White House, Joe Biden and Dem's in Congress are jumping up and down again, demanding more federal money be spent on mini-stimulus packages, such as hiring more teachers and police in various localities. But they're forgetting two things. Those jobs are the responsibility of localities themselves and not the feds, and secondly, stimulus funds almost never get spent where they were designated, they mostly get frittered away on other purposes.
In the same vein, an article on Fox caught my eye this morning. Another $424,000 in federal stimulus funds were lost by TR Auto Truck Plaza off Interstate 40 in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Department of Transportation gave the company an Environmental Protection Agency stimulus grant for electrical hookups so truckers wouldn't have to burn diesel fuel while resting. Now, I honestly don't know if that's a worthwhile project or not. However, even if it's a good thing to do, here's what happened to the bucks.
Both the state and EPA were apparently unaware that the truck stop's owner, Rick Lewis, had a history of legal and financial problems and had filed for bankruptcy. And now, Tennessee's first electrified truck terminal is boarded up.
Representative Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia said, "It is Solyndra in miniature. What I am questioning is the vetting and oversight and the fiduciary responsibility that the federal government -the people who run these programs- have to we, the taxpayer."
And, apparently, there's neither vetting, oversight or any other kind of diligence either because even before this bankruptcy filing, Rick Lewis had a history of financial troubles. He filed for bankruptcy in 2003, a year after a conviction on 31 counts of theft, and currently faces indictments for allegedly writing worthless checks, according to court records.
So my question for today is, while these clowns in the administration and Congress are screaming for more taxpayer funds, which of them are accountable for the billions they've wasted due to outright stupidity and gross dereliction of duty? What's more, giving them additional funds to waste is the same as giving it to Zippy the Chimp.
And I think that before they're allowed to spend another cent of other people's money, they should be forced to account for every dime they've already spent. And whatever the shortfall is, they should be made to pay it personally, and after that taxpayer's can consider whether or not they'll pay the rest.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In the same vein, an article on Fox caught my eye this morning. Another $424,000 in federal stimulus funds were lost by TR Auto Truck Plaza off Interstate 40 in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Department of Transportation gave the company an Environmental Protection Agency stimulus grant for electrical hookups so truckers wouldn't have to burn diesel fuel while resting. Now, I honestly don't know if that's a worthwhile project or not. However, even if it's a good thing to do, here's what happened to the bucks.
Both the state and EPA were apparently unaware that the truck stop's owner, Rick Lewis, had a history of legal and financial problems and had filed for bankruptcy. And now, Tennessee's first electrified truck terminal is boarded up.
Representative Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia said, "It is Solyndra in miniature. What I am questioning is the vetting and oversight and the fiduciary responsibility that the federal government -the people who run these programs- have to we, the taxpayer."
And, apparently, there's neither vetting, oversight or any other kind of diligence either because even before this bankruptcy filing, Rick Lewis had a history of financial troubles. He filed for bankruptcy in 2003, a year after a conviction on 31 counts of theft, and currently faces indictments for allegedly writing worthless checks, according to court records.
So my question for today is, while these clowns in the administration and Congress are screaming for more taxpayer funds, which of them are accountable for the billions they've wasted due to outright stupidity and gross dereliction of duty? What's more, giving them additional funds to waste is the same as giving it to Zippy the Chimp.
And I think that before they're allowed to spend another cent of other people's money, they should be forced to account for every dime they've already spent. And whatever the shortfall is, they should be made to pay it personally, and after that taxpayer's can consider whether or not they'll pay the rest.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/19/2011
There seems to be a general consensus about the protesters, that they're disorganized, aimless and don't have a point. And that's probably why the president now sees something kindred in them. Because, except for the fact that he's given his staff jobs, and paying them well, they're doing exactly the thing: wandering around in circles looking for someone to blame for their helplessness and lack of worth.
However, whether those protesting -as opposed to the hundreds who've shown up to listen to the music and party since they've nothing better to do- know it or not, they really do have a beef. The only problem is, they're gathering in the wrong place and have picked the wrong target.
Because while there's no doubt that Wall Streeter's abuse the system here and there, that's simply a trait of a free enterprise system. Some folks will take advantage wherever they can. But on balance, investors do a pretty good job and financially grease the wheels that keep the economy humming.
But far worse than anything the Wall Streeter's have done, it was the administration that stepped in and kept the free market from working as it should. White Houser's decided to pump out almost a trillion dollars of tax-payer funds to keep big banks afloat that should have been sunk. Business bailouts too, like GM and Chrysler, were uncalled for and the government should have stepped back and said no. And, today they want to do it all over again, wishing to mis-apply another $400 billion.
So, for starters there's over a trillion dollars that could have stayed in tax-payers pockets, or not been added to the national debt. And somehow or other that money would have reached the free market, it always does. And that would have provided more far-reaching stimulus.
Thus, when you consider the colossal mis-use of funds, and add it to other fiasco's like Solyndra where no one even knows where half a billion went, you begin to grasp the fact that it's not Wall Street but Pennsylvania Avenue where the protesters should line up.
However, in a population watered down educationally for generations, few in the crowd if any, knows anything about how business or economics works. Nonetheless if I had to bet on which side survives this dust-up, the protesters in the park or those in the towers up the block, I'll put my money on Goldman-Sachs.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
However, whether those protesting -as opposed to the hundreds who've shown up to listen to the music and party since they've nothing better to do- know it or not, they really do have a beef. The only problem is, they're gathering in the wrong place and have picked the wrong target.
Because while there's no doubt that Wall Streeter's abuse the system here and there, that's simply a trait of a free enterprise system. Some folks will take advantage wherever they can. But on balance, investors do a pretty good job and financially grease the wheels that keep the economy humming.
But far worse than anything the Wall Streeter's have done, it was the administration that stepped in and kept the free market from working as it should. White Houser's decided to pump out almost a trillion dollars of tax-payer funds to keep big banks afloat that should have been sunk. Business bailouts too, like GM and Chrysler, were uncalled for and the government should have stepped back and said no. And, today they want to do it all over again, wishing to mis-apply another $400 billion.
So, for starters there's over a trillion dollars that could have stayed in tax-payers pockets, or not been added to the national debt. And somehow or other that money would have reached the free market, it always does. And that would have provided more far-reaching stimulus.
Thus, when you consider the colossal mis-use of funds, and add it to other fiasco's like Solyndra where no one even knows where half a billion went, you begin to grasp the fact that it's not Wall Street but Pennsylvania Avenue where the protesters should line up.
However, in a population watered down educationally for generations, few in the crowd if any, knows anything about how business or economics works. Nonetheless if I had to bet on which side survives this dust-up, the protesters in the park or those in the towers up the block, I'll put my money on Goldman-Sachs.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/18/2011
I think it might be a good idea if folks took a step back for a moment and looked at politicians as simply people, rather than according to the positions they hold. And in that regard, I think just about anyone with a grain of common sense would have to conclude that our president is just about as distasteful as one can get.
Because at the moment the biggest problem in the nation is unemployment. And aside from the fact that those not working are a drain on everyone else, the whole economy suffers due to the loss of the trickle effect deriving from reductions in spending. Less dollars spent means less dollars earned by producers, leading to less funds available for hiring and a down-trending cycle that keeps repeating itself.
So, what does the president do to try to reverse the problem, which has been there for more than three years? He concocts a plan that's worthless, simply so he can blame adversaries and try to prove that they're at fault for the employment morass.
Now, when it comes to the lowest lifeforms there's little doubt that politicians and lawyers exemplify the category, but be that as it may. In the president's case he's supposed to overcome those givens and do what's best for the nation. In fact, he took an oath, swearing he would. But we shouldn't be too impressed by that, Bill Clinton did the same thing...and lied to us all anyway.
Yet, regardless of the lies, because they're pretty much expected of politicians, there's really something wrong when someone puts personal goals, ambitions, and self-serviance above the needs of so many people who really need help. And using them as a foil against political opponents is beyond the realm of immoral...it's in a class beyond description.
And that's why simply voting folks like the president out of office isn't enough. Because in the meantime, he'll keep destroying millions of folks lives trying to save himself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Because at the moment the biggest problem in the nation is unemployment. And aside from the fact that those not working are a drain on everyone else, the whole economy suffers due to the loss of the trickle effect deriving from reductions in spending. Less dollars spent means less dollars earned by producers, leading to less funds available for hiring and a down-trending cycle that keeps repeating itself.
So, what does the president do to try to reverse the problem, which has been there for more than three years? He concocts a plan that's worthless, simply so he can blame adversaries and try to prove that they're at fault for the employment morass.
Now, when it comes to the lowest lifeforms there's little doubt that politicians and lawyers exemplify the category, but be that as it may. In the president's case he's supposed to overcome those givens and do what's best for the nation. In fact, he took an oath, swearing he would. But we shouldn't be too impressed by that, Bill Clinton did the same thing...and lied to us all anyway.
Yet, regardless of the lies, because they're pretty much expected of politicians, there's really something wrong when someone puts personal goals, ambitions, and self-serviance above the needs of so many people who really need help. And using them as a foil against political opponents is beyond the realm of immoral...it's in a class beyond description.
And that's why simply voting folks like the president out of office isn't enough. Because in the meantime, he'll keep destroying millions of folks lives trying to save himself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, October 17, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/17/2011
A few days ago, I wrote about Herman Cain, after researching his very impressive background which I then knew quite little about. And since then, having absolutely nothing to do with my write-up, he's surged in many presidential polls.
I'm mentioning him again today because although he's been far more successful than the current incumbent career-wise (the incumbents having been put into office as a stooge by moveon.org had nothing to do with his prior successes, because he had none in any endeavor before) and Cain seems significantly brighter, I still don't think he's prepared to become President of the United States. And the incumbents the obvious reason for my belief.
As we've all seen over the last three years, the presidency isn't a position that can be quickly learned on the job. In fact, the incumbent still hasn't learned anything about good governance at all. And it's not just demonstrated by the fact that our economy's been devastated via incompetence. Almost every other aspect of American life has been negatively affected as well.
Consequently, what the nation needs right now is experienced guidance in governance. Someone who knows how the system works and can quickly right a myriad of wrongs, to get the nation back on track. And although there's no job on earth that can really prepare anyone for the monumental task of leading the United States, a prior stint as a state governor is as close as one can get.
Now, I don't know if it really matters which governor gets elected, there are several of them in the race, but one things for sure. If we go through another four years waiting for someone to grow up in office, there won't be much of a nation left at the end.
So, for now I think the best solution is electing one of the governors to the presidency and Herman Cain as VP. That way you get the benefit of his extremely valuable experience as an advisor while he learns the politics of how the presidency works. And then, eight years from now, when he runs for the job again, you get the perfect package as President of the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I'm mentioning him again today because although he's been far more successful than the current incumbent career-wise (the incumbents having been put into office as a stooge by moveon.org had nothing to do with his prior successes, because he had none in any endeavor before) and Cain seems significantly brighter, I still don't think he's prepared to become President of the United States. And the incumbents the obvious reason for my belief.
As we've all seen over the last three years, the presidency isn't a position that can be quickly learned on the job. In fact, the incumbent still hasn't learned anything about good governance at all. And it's not just demonstrated by the fact that our economy's been devastated via incompetence. Almost every other aspect of American life has been negatively affected as well.
Consequently, what the nation needs right now is experienced guidance in governance. Someone who knows how the system works and can quickly right a myriad of wrongs, to get the nation back on track. And although there's no job on earth that can really prepare anyone for the monumental task of leading the United States, a prior stint as a state governor is as close as one can get.
Now, I don't know if it really matters which governor gets elected, there are several of them in the race, but one things for sure. If we go through another four years waiting for someone to grow up in office, there won't be much of a nation left at the end.
So, for now I think the best solution is electing one of the governors to the presidency and Herman Cain as VP. That way you get the benefit of his extremely valuable experience as an advisor while he learns the politics of how the presidency works. And then, eight years from now, when he runs for the job again, you get the perfect package as President of the United States.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, October 16, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/16/2011
I wonder if politicians ever get concerned that they have less than zero credibility with anyone who has an IQ that's larger than their shoe size. Primarily because the vast majority of those in office usually lie like rugs consistently.
And in the end, I guess it doesn't matter to them, because they surely understand that people don't really vote for them because they're thought of as individuals, but usually only have two alternatives to choose from in most elections. Consequently, if a cocker spaniel ran on the ticket of the voter's choice of party, we'd have to take incumbents out for walks several times a day.
And that leads me to today's commentary.
As I recall, back when the president was campaigning he made a lot of noise about the military and how we didn't belong on foreign soil such as in Iraq. I must admit, I'm not exactly sure of the details, because as I've mentioned many times before, I've never personally heard a word he's ever said. However, I'm pretty sure, from things I've read, he's promised his constituency which is made up of scads of cowards and slackers, that they'll never have to face the responsibility of serving in their country's military or have to defend it's safety overseas or anywhere else.
And then today I read that the president recently sent a letter to John Boehner that says, "... I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa."
Now, I have no problem with what the president's now done whatsoever, because I'm pretty sure he's getting solid input every day. But, regardless of the circumstances, and the result...I'm only focusing on the fact fact that he's broken just about every vow he campaigned on. And, my only wish is that someone would cut his microphone cord because I'm tired of reading about his only talent: continually double-talking anyone dumb enough to actually believe anything he ever says.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And in the end, I guess it doesn't matter to them, because they surely understand that people don't really vote for them because they're thought of as individuals, but usually only have two alternatives to choose from in most elections. Consequently, if a cocker spaniel ran on the ticket of the voter's choice of party, we'd have to take incumbents out for walks several times a day.
And that leads me to today's commentary.
As I recall, back when the president was campaigning he made a lot of noise about the military and how we didn't belong on foreign soil such as in Iraq. I must admit, I'm not exactly sure of the details, because as I've mentioned many times before, I've never personally heard a word he's ever said. However, I'm pretty sure, from things I've read, he's promised his constituency which is made up of scads of cowards and slackers, that they'll never have to face the responsibility of serving in their country's military or have to defend it's safety overseas or anywhere else.
And then today I read that the president recently sent a letter to John Boehner that says, "... I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa."
Now, I have no problem with what the president's now done whatsoever, because I'm pretty sure he's getting solid input every day. But, regardless of the circumstances, and the result...I'm only focusing on the fact fact that he's broken just about every vow he campaigned on. And, my only wish is that someone would cut his microphone cord because I'm tired of reading about his only talent: continually double-talking anyone dumb enough to actually believe anything he ever says.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, October 15, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/15/2011
I continually find it amazing that the so-called party of the people, the Dem's, is so often guilty of riding over them roughshod in order to either try to prove it's point, or otherwise simply for political or personal gain.
We've seen it in the ramming through of healthcare legislation which is causing loss of many existing jobs and fostering unemployment because of its costs to employers. We've seen it in banking regulation, such as Dodd-Frank, wherein requirements are so stringent banks can now lend only to the most pristine applicants or face serious repercussion. And as mentioned here quite often before, the EPA and NLRB not only stand squarely in the way of new business ventures or expansion, they severely punish many of those already in existence. The list of anti-business measures Dem's take goes on and on, primarily because they have no understanding nor interest in how business works.
But today I read an item that demonstrates even further how upside down Dem thinking, if they actually do any, really is.
According to Fox news, it seems Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, has a plan suggesting that the government directly hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans, at a cost of about $600 billion and put them to work cleaning up communities. This is what he said, "We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it. It could be a five-year program (and) for another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”
He then continued “We put people to work. And as more people work, they pay taxes, they pay taxes into the 4th quarter, they buy wares, they buy homes, they meet their obligations and our economy begins to work its way out of this protracted recession. That’s the only way out of this crisis. And I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.”
So, after reading his comments and thinking them through I was somewhat surprised when I realized that here we have Jesse Jackson, Jr., of all people, proposing what sounds like outright slavery to me. Because nowhere in his proposal did I see any reference to his asking any of those unemployed folks if they wanted those jobs, or even if they were able to do that kind of work. His position clearly says, I repeat, "I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.” That sure sounds like forced labor to me. (And by the way: What does "begins to continue" mean? Is that the opposite of "proceeding to stop?" And I don't think it's an oxymoron. It seems to me that this guy's a total moron.)
So once again I'm a little bit confused, because another pillar of the party of the little folks who haven't any clout, wants to totally disregard their freedom and use them to perform menial tasks while they work off the horrendous debt the Dem party's created on its own. And that's why I continue to shake my head in disbelief that anyone who doesn't prefer being broke and idle would ever vote for a Democrat, or worse a Liberal. Because when it comes to doing anything that's any good for anyone, anywhere, any time, these folks are not only clueless, they don't care a whit about anyone but themselves either.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
We've seen it in the ramming through of healthcare legislation which is causing loss of many existing jobs and fostering unemployment because of its costs to employers. We've seen it in banking regulation, such as Dodd-Frank, wherein requirements are so stringent banks can now lend only to the most pristine applicants or face serious repercussion. And as mentioned here quite often before, the EPA and NLRB not only stand squarely in the way of new business ventures or expansion, they severely punish many of those already in existence. The list of anti-business measures Dem's take goes on and on, primarily because they have no understanding nor interest in how business works.
But today I read an item that demonstrates even further how upside down Dem thinking, if they actually do any, really is.
According to Fox news, it seems Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, has a plan suggesting that the government directly hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans, at a cost of about $600 billion and put them to work cleaning up communities. This is what he said, "We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it. It could be a five-year program (and) for another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”
He then continued “We put people to work. And as more people work, they pay taxes, they pay taxes into the 4th quarter, they buy wares, they buy homes, they meet their obligations and our economy begins to work its way out of this protracted recession. That’s the only way out of this crisis. And I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.”
So, after reading his comments and thinking them through I was somewhat surprised when I realized that here we have Jesse Jackson, Jr., of all people, proposing what sounds like outright slavery to me. Because nowhere in his proposal did I see any reference to his asking any of those unemployed folks if they wanted those jobs, or even if they were able to do that kind of work. His position clearly says, I repeat, "I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.” That sure sounds like forced labor to me. (And by the way: What does "begins to continue" mean? Is that the opposite of "proceeding to stop?" And I don't think it's an oxymoron. It seems to me that this guy's a total moron.)
So once again I'm a little bit confused, because another pillar of the party of the little folks who haven't any clout, wants to totally disregard their freedom and use them to perform menial tasks while they work off the horrendous debt the Dem party's created on its own. And that's why I continue to shake my head in disbelief that anyone who doesn't prefer being broke and idle would ever vote for a Democrat, or worse a Liberal. Because when it comes to doing anything that's any good for anyone, anywhere, any time, these folks are not only clueless, they don't care a whit about anyone but themselves either.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, October 14, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/14/2011
When I asked my severest critic this morning her thoughts about my most recent entry, my wife replied that lately I've written as if I'm very angry. My immediate response was that, no, I'm not really angry, I'm just offering my opinions on what I see in the news.
But then I gave the matter some more thought, and have to agree with her since, as usual, she's correct. In fact, I'm not only angry, I'm frustrated too, because I'm tired of being treated as if I'm a fool by others who are either in power or have access to public forums, and use them to try to sell or persuade me that they have my best interests at heart when they're nothing more than self-serving slugs.
Starting at the top we have politicians who's only goal is to garner as much for themselves as they can from others, while telling you they're saving you from the evils of their rivals. And I find it curious that many of these devoted folks, if not most, such as those retired presidents who spent lifetimes in relatively low-paying public office, soon after leaving those posts wind up multi-millionaires. I think that even the simplest arithmetic proves that's a pretty big return from making speeches and selling books.
Then we have high-profile business-folks, such as Warren Buffett and Gary Immelt, telling us that paying more taxes is a good thing, and more of those who are successful should willingly want to chip in. Yet, oddly enough, both of these guys have an inside track to the administration and arrange sweetheart deals.
Beyond that, according to the New York Post, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. And as far as Immelt's GE goes, also according to Forbes magazine, they pay no U.S. taxes at all and for 2010 are actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.
Then there are the protesters, who like aging fish and house guests, are getting a little bit hard to take anymore, who are now being joined not only by Dem politicians, but Hollywood types too. And what interests me most is that the Hollywoodites, and some guy who owned a huge debit-card business, agree that Wall Street and the banks are crooks. They claim that the folks controlling all that money do nothing more than lie, cheat and steal and should give all of it back to the "people."
However, I saw a list of the highest profile folks from the land of the fruits and the nuts, like Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon and so on, which also listed their approximate net worths. And, not surprisingly, most of them are as financially well off as many of those folks they hate right up the block in Wall Street towers. So, since this is still America, they're free to join Buffet and Immelt and give away as much of their wealth as they want. Which leads me to ask: Why do I always hear them talk about why everybody with bucks should give it back, but all they themselves do is yap and yap and never throw in a quarter of their own?
So, going back to the beginning, I guess my wife's correct. I am ticked off and after typing all the preceding, when I read it back, I should be. Because people are absolutely free to say and do whatever they choose within the law. So I have no argument with the premise. But when folks who are nothing more than phonies, self-serving parasites, or outright thieves expect me to buy their BS, they insult my intelligence and that makes me angry. And especially so when the stuff they try to get me to swallow is so full of holes, only Liberal voters would believe it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But then I gave the matter some more thought, and have to agree with her since, as usual, she's correct. In fact, I'm not only angry, I'm frustrated too, because I'm tired of being treated as if I'm a fool by others who are either in power or have access to public forums, and use them to try to sell or persuade me that they have my best interests at heart when they're nothing more than self-serving slugs.
Starting at the top we have politicians who's only goal is to garner as much for themselves as they can from others, while telling you they're saving you from the evils of their rivals. And I find it curious that many of these devoted folks, if not most, such as those retired presidents who spent lifetimes in relatively low-paying public office, soon after leaving those posts wind up multi-millionaires. I think that even the simplest arithmetic proves that's a pretty big return from making speeches and selling books.
Then we have high-profile business-folks, such as Warren Buffett and Gary Immelt, telling us that paying more taxes is a good thing, and more of those who are successful should willingly want to chip in. Yet, oddly enough, both of these guys have an inside track to the administration and arrange sweetheart deals.
Beyond that, according to the New York Post, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. And as far as Immelt's GE goes, also according to Forbes magazine, they pay no U.S. taxes at all and for 2010 are actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.
Then there are the protesters, who like aging fish and house guests, are getting a little bit hard to take anymore, who are now being joined not only by Dem politicians, but Hollywood types too. And what interests me most is that the Hollywoodites, and some guy who owned a huge debit-card business, agree that Wall Street and the banks are crooks. They claim that the folks controlling all that money do nothing more than lie, cheat and steal and should give all of it back to the "people."
However, I saw a list of the highest profile folks from the land of the fruits and the nuts, like Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon and so on, which also listed their approximate net worths. And, not surprisingly, most of them are as financially well off as many of those folks they hate right up the block in Wall Street towers. So, since this is still America, they're free to join Buffet and Immelt and give away as much of their wealth as they want. Which leads me to ask: Why do I always hear them talk about why everybody with bucks should give it back, but all they themselves do is yap and yap and never throw in a quarter of their own?
So, going back to the beginning, I guess my wife's correct. I am ticked off and after typing all the preceding, when I read it back, I should be. Because people are absolutely free to say and do whatever they choose within the law. So I have no argument with the premise. But when folks who are nothing more than phonies, self-serving parasites, or outright thieves expect me to buy their BS, they insult my intelligence and that makes me angry. And especially so when the stuff they try to get me to swallow is so full of holes, only Liberal voters would believe it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, October 13, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/13/2011
The Senate voted on the president's new jobs bill yesterday, and as expected by just about anyone familiar with the submission at all...the bill was defeated. The indications now are that the bill will be segmented into pieces, each to be introduced separately, because it's known that there are several, perhaps quite a few, parts of the bill that both parties agree on.
But, leaving the particulars aside for the moment, and looking at only the process, it's quite obvious that for both sides this whole scenario was simply a political game. Because both sides clearly knew long ago that the bill could never pass in the Senate, even though the vote was close. But even if it did get through, it would certainly be voted down in the House.
So, my question for today is: Why is the behavior of both political parties in Congress tolerated by the public? Because while there are approximately 16 to 17% of the American workforce either un or under-employed, these politicos are playing games designed to keep them in office by using those who are out of work, and can't support themselves at all, as foils.
And to prove the point, you don't have to know much about business or have a degree in economics because the facts have been discussed in the news every day for more than three years. It's already been shown that stimulus doesn't work, and the last time around it cost taxpayers $666 billion to prove it.
So why introduce a new jobs bill not only based on additional stimulus spending, but also including new taxes, albeit only on the rich? The answer is, it was never intended for the bill to pass at all...the strategy was that after the legislation was voted down, the president could then say it was politically motivated Republicans that are standing in the way of job creation.
But, on the other hand it's also known that there are many things the president can do if he really wants to create employment opportunity in the U.S. instead of diddling around with sham legislation.
Simply permitting the drilling for oil here would add billions in new business. Repealing Dodd-Frank legislation would add billions more. Shutting down Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would provide significant help to the under-water mortgage situation. Pulling back, or greatly restricting, the EPA and NLRB would alone be incentive for business investment. Additionally, billions more would return to our country if offshore funds could be brought back without onerous costs and taxes. If these few items, along with eliminating the horrendous mis-use of billions more of taxpayers funds on frauds like Solyndra, would pretty quickly put our economy right back where it belongs...the best in the world.
But no, that's not what politicos do. Instead of dealing honestly and effectively with the needs of the nation and it's inhabitants, they pander to cronies, special interest groups and constituencies that keep them in office, regardless of how many citizens they harm financially or otherwise in the process. So the folks who suffer are simply pawns in a game who have no more importance than wooden pieces on a board.
Nonetheless, this time around I think politicos of every stripe may have played too hard, especially those in the White House, because there isn't a friend or foe they haven't harmed one way or another. The damage to all has been horrendous. And that's why I think that quite soon, be it for better or worse...there's definitely going to be a new game in town and a whole new array of players.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But, leaving the particulars aside for the moment, and looking at only the process, it's quite obvious that for both sides this whole scenario was simply a political game. Because both sides clearly knew long ago that the bill could never pass in the Senate, even though the vote was close. But even if it did get through, it would certainly be voted down in the House.
So, my question for today is: Why is the behavior of both political parties in Congress tolerated by the public? Because while there are approximately 16 to 17% of the American workforce either un or under-employed, these politicos are playing games designed to keep them in office by using those who are out of work, and can't support themselves at all, as foils.
And to prove the point, you don't have to know much about business or have a degree in economics because the facts have been discussed in the news every day for more than three years. It's already been shown that stimulus doesn't work, and the last time around it cost taxpayers $666 billion to prove it.
So why introduce a new jobs bill not only based on additional stimulus spending, but also including new taxes, albeit only on the rich? The answer is, it was never intended for the bill to pass at all...the strategy was that after the legislation was voted down, the president could then say it was politically motivated Republicans that are standing in the way of job creation.
But, on the other hand it's also known that there are many things the president can do if he really wants to create employment opportunity in the U.S. instead of diddling around with sham legislation.
Simply permitting the drilling for oil here would add billions in new business. Repealing Dodd-Frank legislation would add billions more. Shutting down Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would provide significant help to the under-water mortgage situation. Pulling back, or greatly restricting, the EPA and NLRB would alone be incentive for business investment. Additionally, billions more would return to our country if offshore funds could be brought back without onerous costs and taxes. If these few items, along with eliminating the horrendous mis-use of billions more of taxpayers funds on frauds like Solyndra, would pretty quickly put our economy right back where it belongs...the best in the world.
But no, that's not what politicos do. Instead of dealing honestly and effectively with the needs of the nation and it's inhabitants, they pander to cronies, special interest groups and constituencies that keep them in office, regardless of how many citizens they harm financially or otherwise in the process. So the folks who suffer are simply pawns in a game who have no more importance than wooden pieces on a board.
Nonetheless, this time around I think politicos of every stripe may have played too hard, especially those in the White House, because there isn't a friend or foe they haven't harmed one way or another. The damage to all has been horrendous. And that's why I think that quite soon, be it for better or worse...there's definitely going to be a new game in town and a whole new array of players.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/12/2011
The longer the protesters stay around, the more I grasp about the whole issue. And, frankly, when Dem's started coming out of the woodwork to support them, even though I couldn't figure out a specific reason for them doing so, it did make some sense to me. Because Dem pol's have always come down on the wrong side of economic issues and have never understood how finance, or any other business function, works. To them, businesses are simply entities you fleece til you bleed them dry of funds and move on.
Consequently, the protesters fit the Dem mold perfectly. Because these are a corps of losers totally unable to help themselves. As I've stated before, that's probably because they likely attended public schools and are likely unable to perform most basic functions such as reading, writing, or spelling. But, up until now they've been alone in their self-made plight and wasted their time by themselves, waiting around for their next welfare or unemployment checks.
And here's where the political fit comes in. Most Dem's are anti-business, anti-work and anti-economic growth. They do their damnedest in every way to insure that roadblocks and hurdles block the path of anyone engaged in commerce, by pushing for crippling laws, fines, and penalties that prohibit or retard success. However, in the event that some folks are smart and competent enough to beat that system, they then step in and try to rip off as much of the profits as they can for themselves.
So, in that way the protesters and Dem politicians are exactly the same. Individually they haven't the smarts, the abilities, or the drive to accomplish anything economically at all, and don't really understand how businesses function.
But put them together and all of a sudden they've got some strength from their sheer numbers, because in this world there are far, far more losers than winners. And that's why there are whole parades of parasites all over the country today demanding their share of other's success. And since there aren't any bigger financial blood-suckers in the universe today than a Democrat pol, put them together with the protesters and you've got a perfect match.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Consequently, the protesters fit the Dem mold perfectly. Because these are a corps of losers totally unable to help themselves. As I've stated before, that's probably because they likely attended public schools and are likely unable to perform most basic functions such as reading, writing, or spelling. But, up until now they've been alone in their self-made plight and wasted their time by themselves, waiting around for their next welfare or unemployment checks.
And here's where the political fit comes in. Most Dem's are anti-business, anti-work and anti-economic growth. They do their damnedest in every way to insure that roadblocks and hurdles block the path of anyone engaged in commerce, by pushing for crippling laws, fines, and penalties that prohibit or retard success. However, in the event that some folks are smart and competent enough to beat that system, they then step in and try to rip off as much of the profits as they can for themselves.
So, in that way the protesters and Dem politicians are exactly the same. Individually they haven't the smarts, the abilities, or the drive to accomplish anything economically at all, and don't really understand how businesses function.
But put them together and all of a sudden they've got some strength from their sheer numbers, because in this world there are far, far more losers than winners. And that's why there are whole parades of parasites all over the country today demanding their share of other's success. And since there aren't any bigger financial blood-suckers in the universe today than a Democrat pol, put them together with the protesters and you've got a perfect match.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/11/2011
I've written many entries about how far our public schools have sunk, and that attending them today is practically worthless. I've also placed a lot of the blame on tenure and the unions, which basically lower the teaching bar, because the ineffective, and in too many cases the simply unqualified, are protected from termination. And that repeating cycle continually waters down teaching quality overall.
The reason I mention this today is, I got a dose of confirmation about how dumbed-down today's younger folks are by watching newsclips of the protesters in downtown Manhattan. And all you really have to do to understand how little these people know, is to listen to their complaints, or better yet, read the signs they carry.
Much of their programmed rhetoric concerns "corporate greed" and how big businesses are harming folks by their actions. And you very quickly learn that these protesters seem to believe that "corporations" are some kind of machines with no hearts or brains that run by themselves and roll over every obstacle in their way. Therefore, a major goal of the protesters is to do corporations in.
But what these anti-corporate, or anti-business types, don't seem to understand is what a "corporation" really is. Because, in fact, they're nothing more than a type of business structure under the law, and in fact, other than their legal status on paper...don't even exist. What's more, corporations come in all shapes and sizes and are organized in many different ways, but what should be most interesting to the protesters, if they had any knowledge at all, would be that the largest one's management's are overseen by Boards of Directors. And in most cases, directors come from outside the particular entity and are there to ensure that the business plays by the rules and to protect the rights and investments of the real corporate owners -the stockholders. And that's because most large corporations are owned by those who have bought and own their stock.
So, when you boil it all down, the way the financial world works today with corporate stock owned by so many people, institutions, trusts and entities like mutual funds, if these protesters have any kind of investment at all, like pension futures or group retirement plans they're likely unknowingly invested in these "greedy corporations" themselves and therefore are clamoring for the destruction of their own financial future. And in my book, that makes them all dunces.
But, I have an idea for them. Since there are so many of them with nothing to do but march in the sun, they ought to sit down and come up with an idea for a product or service. Then then could incorporate, develop and build whatever they've devised, market it and sell it. And then when they're successful, they could take their business public. But then, instead of doing what all good managements have tried to do in the past, keep growing the business and trying to maximize profits for their investors...they could give their hard-earned profits away to whomever they choose. And then they'd be right back where they started -broke, dumb, dis-spirited, and angry at the world for their plight.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The reason I mention this today is, I got a dose of confirmation about how dumbed-down today's younger folks are by watching newsclips of the protesters in downtown Manhattan. And all you really have to do to understand how little these people know, is to listen to their complaints, or better yet, read the signs they carry.
Much of their programmed rhetoric concerns "corporate greed" and how big businesses are harming folks by their actions. And you very quickly learn that these protesters seem to believe that "corporations" are some kind of machines with no hearts or brains that run by themselves and roll over every obstacle in their way. Therefore, a major goal of the protesters is to do corporations in.
But what these anti-corporate, or anti-business types, don't seem to understand is what a "corporation" really is. Because, in fact, they're nothing more than a type of business structure under the law, and in fact, other than their legal status on paper...don't even exist. What's more, corporations come in all shapes and sizes and are organized in many different ways, but what should be most interesting to the protesters, if they had any knowledge at all, would be that the largest one's management's are overseen by Boards of Directors. And in most cases, directors come from outside the particular entity and are there to ensure that the business plays by the rules and to protect the rights and investments of the real corporate owners -the stockholders. And that's because most large corporations are owned by those who have bought and own their stock.
So, when you boil it all down, the way the financial world works today with corporate stock owned by so many people, institutions, trusts and entities like mutual funds, if these protesters have any kind of investment at all, like pension futures or group retirement plans they're likely unknowingly invested in these "greedy corporations" themselves and therefore are clamoring for the destruction of their own financial future. And in my book, that makes them all dunces.
But, I have an idea for them. Since there are so many of them with nothing to do but march in the sun, they ought to sit down and come up with an idea for a product or service. Then then could incorporate, develop and build whatever they've devised, market it and sell it. And then when they're successful, they could take their business public. But then, instead of doing what all good managements have tried to do in the past, keep growing the business and trying to maximize profits for their investors...they could give their hard-earned profits away to whomever they choose. And then they'd be right back where they started -broke, dumb, dis-spirited, and angry at the world for their plight.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, October 10, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/10/2011
Scanning the news this morning, there are all kinds of TV shots and stories about the anti-everything marches, sit-ins and sleep-ins that began in New York and are now erupting in several other cities. And while most of the folks who've shown up don't really have an issue, but have nothing better to do than follow the crowd, the unions have taken the opportunity to join in.
Many of the unions have sent their own members because, as I've mentioned before, few of them are really needed by the businesses forced to hire them so they aren't missed on the job, and others are paid gang-bangers union leaders have used for years to threaten, muscle and scare those who try to get in their way. But regardless of who the union marchers are, they're playing the same old tune we've all heard for years; that no matter how much they rip employers off for now, they're demanding more.
Now, while all this union marching's going on, I came across an article on Fox on the Web by Claudia Cowan titled: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Controversially Made in China which talks about how and why the decision was made to use foreign suppliers to build the structure.
According to California Department of Transportation spokesman Bart Ney,"China was immensely helpful to getting this project built. They were able to turn the steel around and work directly with our own inspectors to make sure we met the specifications of what this bridge required."
Several thousand Chinese workers spent five years fabricating the steel used to construct the roadbeds, cable strands, and landmark tower for the single anchor suspension bridge set to open in 2013. Huge deck segments were shipped overseas from Shanghai, because "We're trying to get this bridge completed by 2013. These segments that are larger steel boxes were fabricated in Shanghai because they had the ability to produce them and get them out here on site," says Ney.
Now, naturally, local politicians and business leaders are going bazookas because the project, a public work no less, was farmed out to foreign suppliers. Not only that, they say, the trickle-down effect was lost too. Because according to Roger Ferch with the National Steel Bridge Alliance, "I saw one estimate of the fabrication man hours, the labor to construct this bridge in the fabrication shop of more than a million man hours. That's a million man hours of work that should have been done in the US." And not only that: "Each job has a multiplier effect because not only do you lose the fabrication jobs, you lose those people paying taxes, those people buying groceries, those people buying clothing, and the list goes on."
So, all in all it sounds like giving this job to foreign providers is a truly horrible thing, except for some comments made by California transportation officials who argue they saved $400 million by turning to China, in large part because they didn't have to pay American union wages and benefits. And with the clock ticking, they say more was at stake than money because China, which has dominated bridge building for years, has helped produce a "structural marvel" that will be immediately usable after a major earthquake.
I mention all this only because, if you listen to unionistas they're always crying about how workers are abused and how unfair the system is against them. But, as a practical matter, if you look beyond all their noise and at their actual production versus costs you find that not only do they rip off anyone who employs them cost-wise, they also do lousy work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Many of the unions have sent their own members because, as I've mentioned before, few of them are really needed by the businesses forced to hire them so they aren't missed on the job, and others are paid gang-bangers union leaders have used for years to threaten, muscle and scare those who try to get in their way. But regardless of who the union marchers are, they're playing the same old tune we've all heard for years; that no matter how much they rip employers off for now, they're demanding more.
Now, while all this union marching's going on, I came across an article on Fox on the Web by Claudia Cowan titled: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Controversially Made in China which talks about how and why the decision was made to use foreign suppliers to build the structure.
According to California Department of Transportation spokesman Bart Ney,"China was immensely helpful to getting this project built. They were able to turn the steel around and work directly with our own inspectors to make sure we met the specifications of what this bridge required."
Several thousand Chinese workers spent five years fabricating the steel used to construct the roadbeds, cable strands, and landmark tower for the single anchor suspension bridge set to open in 2013. Huge deck segments were shipped overseas from Shanghai, because "We're trying to get this bridge completed by 2013. These segments that are larger steel boxes were fabricated in Shanghai because they had the ability to produce them and get them out here on site," says Ney.
Now, naturally, local politicians and business leaders are going bazookas because the project, a public work no less, was farmed out to foreign suppliers. Not only that, they say, the trickle-down effect was lost too. Because according to Roger Ferch with the National Steel Bridge Alliance, "I saw one estimate of the fabrication man hours, the labor to construct this bridge in the fabrication shop of more than a million man hours. That's a million man hours of work that should have been done in the US." And not only that: "Each job has a multiplier effect because not only do you lose the fabrication jobs, you lose those people paying taxes, those people buying groceries, those people buying clothing, and the list goes on."
So, all in all it sounds like giving this job to foreign providers is a truly horrible thing, except for some comments made by California transportation officials who argue they saved $400 million by turning to China, in large part because they didn't have to pay American union wages and benefits. And with the clock ticking, they say more was at stake than money because China, which has dominated bridge building for years, has helped produce a "structural marvel" that will be immediately usable after a major earthquake.
I mention all this only because, if you listen to unionistas they're always crying about how workers are abused and how unfair the system is against them. But, as a practical matter, if you look beyond all their noise and at their actual production versus costs you find that not only do they rip off anyone who employs them cost-wise, they also do lousy work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, October 9, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/9/2011
If nothing else, it seems to me the current administration has a disconnect with significant numbers of the American population. Because program after program and plan after plan, seem to be turning many more folks off than they turn on. So, I have no clue where they get their input from, but if I were them, I'd tear up my whole game plan and start over again.
In that regard, I saw a blurb that says they sent a fund-raising email to New York City residents that reads, "Here's something you don't have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY. These donors "had their own personal reason for giving," and reiterated that "our records show that you aren't one of the 15,049 people where you're from who have stepped up for 2012."
Now, I was born and raised in that town, and realize that over the years the population's changed a lot. But, nonetheless, some things have remained pretty much the same. And if there's one thing experienced NYC dwellers understand, it's to avoid contact with just about everyone they don't really know. Because more people live in most buildings than populate entire hick towns. And that means that someone on your very apartment floor could be an axe murderer, con artist or thief, deranged sociopath or worse...fund raiser for some kind of campaign, cause or other kind of contribution seeker. Which all means, avoid them at just about all costs.
I myself was born in the city, and lived in an apartment house for twenty-three years in one of the best neighborhoods in Manhattan. And during that time didn't know the names of 99% of the people who lived in my building, and certainly not a soul residing anywhere else on my block. However, I surely knew plenty of neighboring kids, because we played together out in the street. But, when the end of the day came, they all went home, to where I couldn't tell you, because I didn't know except for one or two.
And that's why I wonder why the administration's fund raisers think that any New Yorker would care a whit about what some other folks did, simply because they lived in the same neighborhood. Yet, as far as personal residency's go, there's one I'm sure most folks living everywhere would like to see vacant ASAP: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In that regard, I saw a blurb that says they sent a fund-raising email to New York City residents that reads, "Here's something you don't have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY. These donors "had their own personal reason for giving," and reiterated that "our records show that you aren't one of the 15,049 people where you're from who have stepped up for 2012."
Now, I was born and raised in that town, and realize that over the years the population's changed a lot. But, nonetheless, some things have remained pretty much the same. And if there's one thing experienced NYC dwellers understand, it's to avoid contact with just about everyone they don't really know. Because more people live in most buildings than populate entire hick towns. And that means that someone on your very apartment floor could be an axe murderer, con artist or thief, deranged sociopath or worse...fund raiser for some kind of campaign, cause or other kind of contribution seeker. Which all means, avoid them at just about all costs.
I myself was born in the city, and lived in an apartment house for twenty-three years in one of the best neighborhoods in Manhattan. And during that time didn't know the names of 99% of the people who lived in my building, and certainly not a soul residing anywhere else on my block. However, I surely knew plenty of neighboring kids, because we played together out in the street. But, when the end of the day came, they all went home, to where I couldn't tell you, because I didn't know except for one or two.
And that's why I wonder why the administration's fund raisers think that any New Yorker would care a whit about what some other folks did, simply because they lived in the same neighborhood. Yet, as far as personal residency's go, there's one I'm sure most folks living everywhere would like to see vacant ASAP: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, October 8, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/8/2011
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but maybe the administration's wheels are starting to come off. I say that because yesterday I saw a lady CBS reporter, whose name I didn't get, say that when she called the White House to get some background information on the Attorney General's story denying he knew about the gun running plan, Operation Fast and Furious, more than a year ago May, they supposedly pressured quite hard to get her to drop the story.
The reason I mention it is, that up to now, situations like Solyndra's frittering away half a billion of taxpayer's funds on their worthless products has rarely been reported anywhere else but Fox. But now, if the mainstream media's really been stonewalled, there's a chance they might get upset enough to stop covering up for the incumbent and start reporting the truth all the way around.
But while a major media turnaround would be helpful to Republican hopefuls in the upcoming presidential campaign, I think that when the Attorney General is forced to resign, which is likely, and top White House folks start doing perp-walks alongside the Solyndra incompetents, those events will do plenty of damage to the administration by themselves. And all of this stuff ought to be pretty interesting, not to mention amusing, to watch.
And in the meantime, the losers are still picketing in downtown Manhattan and making lot's of noise which is attracting top Democrats to support them. Which goes to underline the point that when it comes to finance, business or jobs, leftists are absolutely clueless, and always have been.
Because if these folks really want jobs created, which I sincerely doubt, they'd understand that hiring stems from business investment, access to capital, innovation, success and most of all, profits. And who does the investing? Folks who have funds of their own or access to someone else's. And that's where Wall Street and the banks come in.
So, just like they want to tax anything successful until there's nothing left to take, Democrats now want to shut down the pump that provides the stream of cash businesses need to thrive on. Which leads me to see crystal clearly why these folks went into Dem politics to begin with. Because obviously, they haven't the ability to do anything at all that requires brains, talent or thought. And since this bunch is truly dumber than stones, politics is a perfect occupation.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The reason I mention it is, that up to now, situations like Solyndra's frittering away half a billion of taxpayer's funds on their worthless products has rarely been reported anywhere else but Fox. But now, if the mainstream media's really been stonewalled, there's a chance they might get upset enough to stop covering up for the incumbent and start reporting the truth all the way around.
But while a major media turnaround would be helpful to Republican hopefuls in the upcoming presidential campaign, I think that when the Attorney General is forced to resign, which is likely, and top White House folks start doing perp-walks alongside the Solyndra incompetents, those events will do plenty of damage to the administration by themselves. And all of this stuff ought to be pretty interesting, not to mention amusing, to watch.
And in the meantime, the losers are still picketing in downtown Manhattan and making lot's of noise which is attracting top Democrats to support them. Which goes to underline the point that when it comes to finance, business or jobs, leftists are absolutely clueless, and always have been.
Because if these folks really want jobs created, which I sincerely doubt, they'd understand that hiring stems from business investment, access to capital, innovation, success and most of all, profits. And who does the investing? Folks who have funds of their own or access to someone else's. And that's where Wall Street and the banks come in.
So, just like they want to tax anything successful until there's nothing left to take, Democrats now want to shut down the pump that provides the stream of cash businesses need to thrive on. Which leads me to see crystal clearly why these folks went into Dem politics to begin with. Because obviously, they haven't the ability to do anything at all that requires brains, talent or thought. And since this bunch is truly dumber than stones, politics is a perfect occupation.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, October 7, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/7/2011
Now that union members are joining the Wall Street protest, I gave the issue some more thought. And the first thing that struck me was, how come these union folks have all that time to march? Shouldn't they be at work? Which, I guess, proves the point that most union members under-work, are overpaid and significant numbers of them serve no useful purpose at all. Because it sure doesn't look like their employers are looking for them and don't likely know they're gone.
The next thought I had was, the focus is always on the hard core number of unemployed which has remained around nine percent. And while I agree that it seems high, there's still another question; If nine percent of the work force is idle it also means that 91% have jobs. So, who should really be studied?: the small group that have no jobs or the huge majority that do? And how come nine out of ten folks can find work, but this other group can't?
So, this leads me to reach the same conclusion I have for as long as I can remember. There are folks who accept responsibility and do whatever's needed to accomplish their goals without any fanfare or noise, they just suck in their gut, march straight ahead and produce. Then there others who look for the easiest way out, point fingers at everyone else, doing nothing much else but complain, whine, and moan, expecting someone else to solve their self-made problems. And those are the one's who do their best to drag everyone else down with them. So that means the difference between success and failure is quite often a matter of choice, not simply circumstance.
And that reminds me of something that goes all the way back to grade school.
Fairly often, in really hard courses, there were very difficult tests in which most of the students got low grades. Primarily, I believe, due to the fact that the majority had other interests than really hitting the books. Nonetheless, there was always one kid or another whose grade was perfect, or close. And the way the teachers fixed the low grade problem was to score on a curve, raising everyone's grade proportionally, which was far better for them than flunking almost an entire class.
Now, although adjusting scores and averaging results tended to level the playing field, and certainly made the kids feel better: What about the one or two who aced the tests? They sat in the same classes, they did the same homework and the took the exact same tests. So, how come they did so much better than everyone else?
Perhaps they were intellectually gifted, or had some kind of special test-taking knack, or maybe they planned to enter that particular field of study and were on their way to becoming experts. But, more often than not it came down to the simple fact that they studied much more than everyone else and tried harder.
So, what all of this means to me is, that although its always easier to blame others for one's plight and misery surely does love company, it's hard to believe folks who say something can't be done (like finding a job) when 91% of the others prove day in and day out that it's simply not true.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The next thought I had was, the focus is always on the hard core number of unemployed which has remained around nine percent. And while I agree that it seems high, there's still another question; If nine percent of the work force is idle it also means that 91% have jobs. So, who should really be studied?: the small group that have no jobs or the huge majority that do? And how come nine out of ten folks can find work, but this other group can't?
So, this leads me to reach the same conclusion I have for as long as I can remember. There are folks who accept responsibility and do whatever's needed to accomplish their goals without any fanfare or noise, they just suck in their gut, march straight ahead and produce. Then there others who look for the easiest way out, point fingers at everyone else, doing nothing much else but complain, whine, and moan, expecting someone else to solve their self-made problems. And those are the one's who do their best to drag everyone else down with them. So that means the difference between success and failure is quite often a matter of choice, not simply circumstance.
And that reminds me of something that goes all the way back to grade school.
Fairly often, in really hard courses, there were very difficult tests in which most of the students got low grades. Primarily, I believe, due to the fact that the majority had other interests than really hitting the books. Nonetheless, there was always one kid or another whose grade was perfect, or close. And the way the teachers fixed the low grade problem was to score on a curve, raising everyone's grade proportionally, which was far better for them than flunking almost an entire class.
Now, although adjusting scores and averaging results tended to level the playing field, and certainly made the kids feel better: What about the one or two who aced the tests? They sat in the same classes, they did the same homework and the took the exact same tests. So, how come they did so much better than everyone else?
Perhaps they were intellectually gifted, or had some kind of special test-taking knack, or maybe they planned to enter that particular field of study and were on their way to becoming experts. But, more often than not it came down to the simple fact that they studied much more than everyone else and tried harder.
So, what all of this means to me is, that although its always easier to blame others for one's plight and misery surely does love company, it's hard to believe folks who say something can't be done (like finding a job) when 91% of the others prove day in and day out that it's simply not true.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, October 6, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/6/2011
Browsing the Fox website this morning, I came across an article that for me sums up the current problems in the economy and clearly demonstrates why they'll not be fixed by this administration.
A Senior O'bama Advisor, Valerie Jarrett,said at an "Ideas Forum" in Washington on Wednesday that, "I think people are disappointed that our country is not further along. If the economy was doing great right now I don't think you would hear that disappointment in him (O'bama). The fact of the matter is, when the economy is suffering, when people feel that their jobs are at risk...people feel absolutely shaken up. And so I think that's a natural sense that, 'well we want the president to be able to lead us out of this.'"
And there's the rub because if she really reflects the administration's belief, they've got the whole picture upside down.
Most politicians, and especially those in this particular administration, have no clue as to how an economy works in general, and even less regarding businesses. The theorists in the White House now wouldn't know how to run a successful lemonade stand. But if someone else's fruit drinks made some money, they'd find a way to tax it dry
So, there's absolutely nothing the president can do to lead business folks anywhere, because he hasn't an iota of experience and employs no one else that does. And that means if he was smart, which his track record indicates he's not, he'd close down all his intruding departments, tear up the strangling regulations and get out of business folks way.
And, if he did that, business would rebound in a heartbeat, cash would flow freely again and then his administration could rip off their percentage without problems, because a booming economy could easily afford those parasitic thieves again.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
A Senior O'bama Advisor, Valerie Jarrett,said at an "Ideas Forum" in Washington on Wednesday that, "I think people are disappointed that our country is not further along. If the economy was doing great right now I don't think you would hear that disappointment in him (O'bama). The fact of the matter is, when the economy is suffering, when people feel that their jobs are at risk...people feel absolutely shaken up. And so I think that's a natural sense that, 'well we want the president to be able to lead us out of this.'"
And there's the rub because if she really reflects the administration's belief, they've got the whole picture upside down.
Most politicians, and especially those in this particular administration, have no clue as to how an economy works in general, and even less regarding businesses. The theorists in the White House now wouldn't know how to run a successful lemonade stand. But if someone else's fruit drinks made some money, they'd find a way to tax it dry
So, there's absolutely nothing the president can do to lead business folks anywhere, because he hasn't an iota of experience and employs no one else that does. And that means if he was smart, which his track record indicates he's not, he'd close down all his intruding departments, tear up the strangling regulations and get out of business folks way.
And, if he did that, business would rebound in a heartbeat, cash would flow freely again and then his administration could rip off their percentage without problems, because a booming economy could easily afford those parasitic thieves again.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/5/2011
I hadn't paid much attention to Herman Cain until the other day when he won the Florida straw poll. And frankly, had basically written him off because I thought the last thing the electorate would or should do, was support an inexperienced candidate after living through the horrors of the current incumbent. But then, after his rise in the national polls, I looked his history up and found a very impressive background.
Born in Memphis, Tennessee, his mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur. Growing up in Georgia he graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University while also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy.
Next he worked for Coca-Cola as a business analyst, then moved on to Pillsbury, soon becoming director of analysis in its restaurant and foods group. Assigned at first to analyze Burger King, then a Pillsbury subsidiary, he ultimately managed 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under him, in three years his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most. That prompted Pillsbury to appoint him President and CEO of another subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza. Aiming to cut costs, during a 14-month period he reduced the company's 911 stores down to 420, making them finally profitable. Then in a leveraged buyout in 1988, Cain with other executives and a group of investors bought Godfather's from Pillsbury where he continued as CEO until 1996, when he was asked to resign by the board.
In 1992 Cain became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, serving as chairman from January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics. He was also a 1996 recipient of the Horatio Alger Award.
Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. As president-elect of the National Restaurant Association, he challenged Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the bill and criticized its effect on small businesses.
Cain transformed the debate by challenging Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., asking the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate." Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted, saying "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."
So, although Cain still lacks the kind of experience a governor has, and would have a huge task simply to learn what's needed to effectively perform as president, his credentials are quite impressive, including the stint at the Federal Reserve. And that got me to thinking about how the current incumbent would campaign against Cain. Because, what could he say?
Cain not only represents everything the incumbent isn't, his successes refute every word and belief the incumbent utters. He's a guy who started with less than nothing, built himself up and got to the top with no help that I found written about, which seems the antitheses of "soft" to me.
So, on one hand we have an incumbent with no real experience himself, never holding a job in the real world, who thinks he'll change the world with his mouth versus someone who's made himself a complete success under the very conditions the incumbent claims don't work.
Therefore, I, for one, think a debate between these two would have the incumbent stuttering for a month because he's totally clueless as to what the real world's all about.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Born in Memphis, Tennessee, his mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur. Growing up in Georgia he graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University while also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy.
Next he worked for Coca-Cola as a business analyst, then moved on to Pillsbury, soon becoming director of analysis in its restaurant and foods group. Assigned at first to analyze Burger King, then a Pillsbury subsidiary, he ultimately managed 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under him, in three years his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most. That prompted Pillsbury to appoint him President and CEO of another subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza. Aiming to cut costs, during a 14-month period he reduced the company's 911 stores down to 420, making them finally profitable. Then in a leveraged buyout in 1988, Cain with other executives and a group of investors bought Godfather's from Pillsbury where he continued as CEO until 1996, when he was asked to resign by the board.
In 1992 Cain became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, serving as chairman from January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics. He was also a 1996 recipient of the Horatio Alger Award.
Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. As president-elect of the National Restaurant Association, he challenged Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the bill and criticized its effect on small businesses.
Cain transformed the debate by challenging Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., asking the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate." Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted, saying "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."
So, although Cain still lacks the kind of experience a governor has, and would have a huge task simply to learn what's needed to effectively perform as president, his credentials are quite impressive, including the stint at the Federal Reserve. And that got me to thinking about how the current incumbent would campaign against Cain. Because, what could he say?
Cain not only represents everything the incumbent isn't, his successes refute every word and belief the incumbent utters. He's a guy who started with less than nothing, built himself up and got to the top with no help that I found written about, which seems the antitheses of "soft" to me.
So, on one hand we have an incumbent with no real experience himself, never holding a job in the real world, who thinks he'll change the world with his mouth versus someone who's made himself a complete success under the very conditions the incumbent claims don't work.
Therefore, I, for one, think a debate between these two would have the incumbent stuttering for a month because he's totally clueless as to what the real world's all about.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/4/2011
The more I read about unrest in the nation, protests and marches, the more I wonder about how folks get to be so confused about how our country works. Because the basic premise is simple, involves no politics and has proven itself all day, every day, for two hundred years.
The U.S. was founded to give folks the freedom to fend for themselves and get government off people's backs. In that way, everyone was equal and to succeed all they had to was work. Now, naturally, some were better than others at getting things done and accumulated more for themselves, but that's the way it's supposed to happen in an open and free world. And nowhere in the original plan do I recall non-productive folks being invited to come to America's shores as guests, with their survival, well-being, and needs seen-to by all the rest.
That's why this morning I was intrigued when I saw an article about Van Jones, an ex-White House advisor, openly disdaining the Tea Party's ideals and ideas. But, nonetheless, he's urging liberal activists to "steal" their playbook.
Jones says that although there's really no "party" involved, just a bunch of folks with similar ideas, they've banded together to the extent that they're having some meaningful impact. But, whereas Tea Party'ers are trying to minimize government, favor economic growth and lower taxes, he thinks a concerted effort can be made to do the reverse. Which includes, for example, finding a more positive way to vilify Wall Street.
And there's where I get confused about Liberal's intent.
Because, if there were no successful businesses and if most dollars earned by them were taken for redistribution through taxes, fees and charges, where would the money come from to support all the hangers-on?
What's more, the present administration can never accomplish it's goal of forcing those who produce to fully carry all the dead weight of non-productive parasites on their backs, because the producers are always several steps ahead in protecting themselves. And that's certainly not due to greed, avarice or ill-intent. It's simply because they're all considerably smarter than anyone in government, especially the current president.
So, here's my suggestion for today concerning all the losers out there looking for handouts. I think their lives could be made even easier if they simply backed off a bit and stopped calling attention to themselves. Because if they just took everything they're given, got out of the way and shut up, the producers performance would improve, they'd have more to donate and the failures would win again.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The U.S. was founded to give folks the freedom to fend for themselves and get government off people's backs. In that way, everyone was equal and to succeed all they had to was work. Now, naturally, some were better than others at getting things done and accumulated more for themselves, but that's the way it's supposed to happen in an open and free world. And nowhere in the original plan do I recall non-productive folks being invited to come to America's shores as guests, with their survival, well-being, and needs seen-to by all the rest.
That's why this morning I was intrigued when I saw an article about Van Jones, an ex-White House advisor, openly disdaining the Tea Party's ideals and ideas. But, nonetheless, he's urging liberal activists to "steal" their playbook.
Jones says that although there's really no "party" involved, just a bunch of folks with similar ideas, they've banded together to the extent that they're having some meaningful impact. But, whereas Tea Party'ers are trying to minimize government, favor economic growth and lower taxes, he thinks a concerted effort can be made to do the reverse. Which includes, for example, finding a more positive way to vilify Wall Street.
And there's where I get confused about Liberal's intent.
Because, if there were no successful businesses and if most dollars earned by them were taken for redistribution through taxes, fees and charges, where would the money come from to support all the hangers-on?
What's more, the present administration can never accomplish it's goal of forcing those who produce to fully carry all the dead weight of non-productive parasites on their backs, because the producers are always several steps ahead in protecting themselves. And that's certainly not due to greed, avarice or ill-intent. It's simply because they're all considerably smarter than anyone in government, especially the current president.
So, here's my suggestion for today concerning all the losers out there looking for handouts. I think their lives could be made even easier if they simply backed off a bit and stopped calling attention to themselves. Because if they just took everything they're given, got out of the way and shut up, the producers performance would improve, they'd have more to donate and the failures would win again.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, October 3, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/3/2011
Two items caught my eye yesterday because I think their extremes reflect the core reasons for the country's current condition, although the underlying ideology goes back more than a hundred years.
700 people were arrested on NYC's Brooklyn Bridge over the weekend. They were part of a group of anti-Wall Street protesters that camped in a Manhattan park and sparked support elsewhere in the country. This marks the third week of their campaign.
The reason for the protest can be summed up by school teacher, Denise Martinez, who said most of the children she teaches in Brooklyn live at or below the poverty level, and her classes are jammed with up to about 50 students. According to her, "These are America's future workers, and what's trickling down to them are the problems -- the unemployment, the crime." She blamed Wall Street for causing the country's financial problems and said it needed to do more to solve them.
Then on Fox News, Robert Johnson, a Democrat who founded BET Network, said the inability of the nation to move forward is a byproduct of the president's approach. "There are no profiles in courage on either part. I didn't go in to business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went in business to create jobs and opportunity, create opportunity, create value for myself and my investors. And that's what the president should be praising, not demagoguing."
Johnson said he was raised in a family of ten kids, was the first to go to college, and was determined to make a success of himself.
So, there you have it. On one hand, those like Johnson who will do whatever it takes to succeed and do their damnedest in trying, and on the other those who bitch, moan and cry while taking no blame because their failures are everybody else's fault.
And, in conclusion, all I'm sorry about it is that I'm no longer active in business because it's apparent the mass of losers, whiners, and quitters keeps growing in droves. And if they're all out there walking on bridges, I'll have no problems closing deals...because no competition will ever show up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
700 people were arrested on NYC's Brooklyn Bridge over the weekend. They were part of a group of anti-Wall Street protesters that camped in a Manhattan park and sparked support elsewhere in the country. This marks the third week of their campaign.
The reason for the protest can be summed up by school teacher, Denise Martinez, who said most of the children she teaches in Brooklyn live at or below the poverty level, and her classes are jammed with up to about 50 students. According to her, "These are America's future workers, and what's trickling down to them are the problems -- the unemployment, the crime." She blamed Wall Street for causing the country's financial problems and said it needed to do more to solve them.
Then on Fox News, Robert Johnson, a Democrat who founded BET Network, said the inability of the nation to move forward is a byproduct of the president's approach. "There are no profiles in courage on either part. I didn't go in to business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went in business to create jobs and opportunity, create opportunity, create value for myself and my investors. And that's what the president should be praising, not demagoguing."
Johnson said he was raised in a family of ten kids, was the first to go to college, and was determined to make a success of himself.
So, there you have it. On one hand, those like Johnson who will do whatever it takes to succeed and do their damnedest in trying, and on the other those who bitch, moan and cry while taking no blame because their failures are everybody else's fault.
And, in conclusion, all I'm sorry about it is that I'm no longer active in business because it's apparent the mass of losers, whiners, and quitters keeps growing in droves. And if they're all out there walking on bridges, I'll have no problems closing deals...because no competition will ever show up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, October 2, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/2/2011
Bill Clinton was in Little Rock on Saturday, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the start of his presidential campaign. During a speech, he defended the current president against what he called the same anti-government stances he faced during his two terms in office.
He joked that his mother was the only one who believed the then governor of a small southern state would win the presidency, and later said about his candidacy, "We just made a decision that the country needed a new kind of politics, a new kind of economics, a new commitment to get into the next century with the American Dream alive and well, a commitment that would restore the middle class and give people who were poor a chance to work into it. We decided to stop the politics of pitting one American against another by race, by ethnicity, by gender, by income, by anything else. We decided, `well, we tried all that for a while, let's try working together and see how that works out."
So, as I interpret his comments, I think he's likely remembering words from countless speeches and writings. But, as I look back, I don't recall his ever accomplishing anything much except getting busted for taking sexual advantage of a young, helpless victim of his overwhelming power.
On the other hand, I do clearly remember scads of his proposed legislation fortunately being voted down because both houses of Congress were controlled by the other party, saving the nation from its passage. I also remember the Clinton's version of HillaryCare which would have given us all the travesty now faced in O'bamaCare, but fifteen years sooner. But, thank's to Congress, we dodged that bullet back then too.
But, what really kept Clinton's presidency alive, and got him elected for a second term, was a guy named Alan Greenspan, a Republican who somehow was kept on to head the Federal Reserve Bank. Greenspan's money management genius kept the economy humming to the extent that Clinton could do whatever he pleased, so long as it wasn't new legislation, and he'd have been reelected over and over again because no one paid any attention to him, they only cared about Greenspan and the great job he was doing.
So, with all that time on his hands because he wasn't really needed at all, Clinton ate fried chicken, hung out with Dick Morris as I recall, another card-carrying weasel, and chased bimbettes. Then, in the end, he was impeached by Congress for lying under oath but not removed from office because it was so late in his second term.
Thus, in conclusion we have a guy who never really got anything accomplished on his political agenda, but BS'ed his way through two terms in office giving advice to another failure on how to succeed. And the funny thing is, that now that we have a Tea Party helping make the current incumbent look good, we might get stuck with his re-election too.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
He joked that his mother was the only one who believed the then governor of a small southern state would win the presidency, and later said about his candidacy, "We just made a decision that the country needed a new kind of politics, a new kind of economics, a new commitment to get into the next century with the American Dream alive and well, a commitment that would restore the middle class and give people who were poor a chance to work into it. We decided to stop the politics of pitting one American against another by race, by ethnicity, by gender, by income, by anything else. We decided, `well, we tried all that for a while, let's try working together and see how that works out."
So, as I interpret his comments, I think he's likely remembering words from countless speeches and writings. But, as I look back, I don't recall his ever accomplishing anything much except getting busted for taking sexual advantage of a young, helpless victim of his overwhelming power.
On the other hand, I do clearly remember scads of his proposed legislation fortunately being voted down because both houses of Congress were controlled by the other party, saving the nation from its passage. I also remember the Clinton's version of HillaryCare which would have given us all the travesty now faced in O'bamaCare, but fifteen years sooner. But, thank's to Congress, we dodged that bullet back then too.
But, what really kept Clinton's presidency alive, and got him elected for a second term, was a guy named Alan Greenspan, a Republican who somehow was kept on to head the Federal Reserve Bank. Greenspan's money management genius kept the economy humming to the extent that Clinton could do whatever he pleased, so long as it wasn't new legislation, and he'd have been reelected over and over again because no one paid any attention to him, they only cared about Greenspan and the great job he was doing.
So, with all that time on his hands because he wasn't really needed at all, Clinton ate fried chicken, hung out with Dick Morris as I recall, another card-carrying weasel, and chased bimbettes. Then, in the end, he was impeached by Congress for lying under oath but not removed from office because it was so late in his second term.
Thus, in conclusion we have a guy who never really got anything accomplished on his political agenda, but BS'ed his way through two terms in office giving advice to another failure on how to succeed. And the funny thing is, that now that we have a Tea Party helping make the current incumbent look good, we might get stuck with his re-election too.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, October 1, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/1/2011
The president seems to have a remarkable ability to say precisely the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time and does it almost every time he opens his mouth. And yesterday's comment about "softness" is one which clearly illustrates not only how far out of touch he is with most Americans, but also shows he knows nothing about those who truly drive the nation. Because he's spent his life in a theoretical world funded by others and has never "worked" for a living himself.
That's why it's understandable that he thinks America's become soft, because his typical supporters surely are. They're the ones who expect government to carry them, subsidize their mortgages, if they have one, pay their bills, hand them food and see to their health care. They also have come to expect unemployment checks to keep coming forever. Consequently, he's got them right where he wants them: soft as sheep and totally dependent.
On the other hand there's a whole 'nother group out there that's hard as nails, fully capable of totally self-sustaining and simply waiting him out. Because if they drive this economy now, he'll get the credit and worse than that, might even get re-elected. So, they all know they're far better off sitting on their hands and being patient...there's less than fourteen months to go.
Beyond that, although I have no confirming information, I firmly believe there are plenty of folks doing quite well but staying under the financial radar, because they've learned that this administration will try every scheme on earth to find other's income and take it.
What's more, billions of dollars are being sent overseas every day because oil can't be drilled for here and taxation and regulation have made our labor costs non-competitive to foreign employment. In those regards, the list of negatives fostered by the current administration goes on and on.
So, it isn't softness that's the nation's problem at all, because that's never been the case and still isn't. But if the president truly wants to see how hard this nation can work, and how productive it truly is, all he needs do is utter two little words: "I quit."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
That's why it's understandable that he thinks America's become soft, because his typical supporters surely are. They're the ones who expect government to carry them, subsidize their mortgages, if they have one, pay their bills, hand them food and see to their health care. They also have come to expect unemployment checks to keep coming forever. Consequently, he's got them right where he wants them: soft as sheep and totally dependent.
On the other hand there's a whole 'nother group out there that's hard as nails, fully capable of totally self-sustaining and simply waiting him out. Because if they drive this economy now, he'll get the credit and worse than that, might even get re-elected. So, they all know they're far better off sitting on their hands and being patient...there's less than fourteen months to go.
Beyond that, although I have no confirming information, I firmly believe there are plenty of folks doing quite well but staying under the financial radar, because they've learned that this administration will try every scheme on earth to find other's income and take it.
What's more, billions of dollars are being sent overseas every day because oil can't be drilled for here and taxation and regulation have made our labor costs non-competitive to foreign employment. In those regards, the list of negatives fostered by the current administration goes on and on.
So, it isn't softness that's the nation's problem at all, because that's never been the case and still isn't. But if the president truly wants to see how hard this nation can work, and how productive it truly is, all he needs do is utter two little words: "I quit."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)