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
Friday, October 7, 2011
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)