I guess the newly elected President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has reached the same conclusions about America's president as I have. Because Mr. Putin canceled a planned trip to Camp David in the U.S. where he was to have had a private meeting with him.
I suppose Mr. Putin's been reading U.S. polls, paying attention to the miserable presidential decision-making, and likely getting inside information that suggests to him that the incumbent's on his way out after November's election. So why waste the trip?
Mr. Putin must think he can always schedule a visit early next year to meet with Mitt Romney, the likely next president, and I believe he's probably right.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/9/2012
I never thought much of Democrat strategist, James Carville, because frankly, it seemed to me he always came on as some marginally coherent, yahoo kind of boob. However, I guess he's still revered by his audience and consequently was interviewed on CNN.
In a recap of the interview I found on Drudge, apparently Carville said, "As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis." He then went on to explain that "A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."
Carville's concern is that "Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be reelected and that we have a good shot to take the House back while holding the Senate." And to that Carville asks, "What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking?" Because he thinks the coming election is far from a cinch for the president to win.
On that score, I agree with him completely, because I certainly don't think the contest will be a slam dunk re-election, and my guess is that incumbent hasn't a prayer of repeating. But I'm mentioning Carville because his take is 180 degrees polar to mine as to why the incumbent will lose.
Because Carville goes on to say that, "You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992."
Now, the way I interpret Carville's meaning, it seems he actually believes the preceding actions of the administration are good things and ought be campaigned upon. However, I think he's totally missed the boat. Because it's expressly those doings that are sinking the administration, and they should.
The shooting of Bin Laden, for example, was the result of efforts begun by "W" Bush and then enacted by hundreds if not thousands of dedicated people. However, the incumbent chose to ignore them and tried to take all the credit for himself. And that ticked off a huge number of voters.
As far as the bailouts go, there are millions more folks who think it was absolutely wrong to save failing businesses with taxpayers money. They believe that those entities should have simply reorganized and fixed their problems themselves without government intervention getting them ff the hook. And there's the more subtle issue, as far as the auto business goes, whereas the Dem supported unions and their pensions contributed greatly to the car-makers demise in the first place.
And in regard to the banking problems, it was the lending to non-creditworthy mortgagees that ultimately took them under which is something forced on them by Democrats like Chris Dodd and the incumbent himself through Project Acorn.
So, as you go down the list of who's responsible for what, I think Mr. Carville ought to back off a bit in his approach and do some homework. Because if the incumbent actually runs on his record, which is even worse that Jimmy Carter's, he's going to lose in the biggest landslide ever seen in a presidential election.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/8/2012
Apparently, Warren Buffett took some heat at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting last week. Although not the majority, but several key stockholders questioned the so-called "Buffett Rule" under which the wealthiest Americans would be required to pay higher taxes than at present. Those upset by the rule suggested Buffett keep such thoughts to himself.
Buffett, however, reinforced his belief and said that each year "he compares his tax rate to others in his office, and he routinely pays the lowest rate. They all are in the 30s, and I am in the range of 17%. It's time we look at that."
The item that caught my eye though, was a comment made by Charlie Munger, Buffett's long-time partner in running Berkshire Hathaway. According to Stephen Gandel, Senior Editor of CNN Money, Munger seemed to somewhat disagree with Buffett on taxes. Because, even though Munger says he is "100% behind the Buffett Rule," he thinks the focus should not just be on taxes, but how government spends its money as well. "We need more sacrifice and we need more sensible ways of spending money."
And there we have it. Because if the irresponsible parasites in DC, especially in the Democrat party, stopped freely spending taxpayer's money without care or thought, the deficit would take care of itself. Therefore, although Warren Buffett, the world's third wealthiest individual, may have no compunction about politicians redistributing portions of his wealth, I think he's completely missing the point. And perhaps he ought to walk next door, or to wherever Mr. Munger's office is, and have his partner explain Democrat economics to him.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Buffett, however, reinforced his belief and said that each year "he compares his tax rate to others in his office, and he routinely pays the lowest rate. They all are in the 30s, and I am in the range of 17%. It's time we look at that."
The item that caught my eye though, was a comment made by Charlie Munger, Buffett's long-time partner in running Berkshire Hathaway. According to Stephen Gandel, Senior Editor of CNN Money, Munger seemed to somewhat disagree with Buffett on taxes. Because, even though Munger says he is "100% behind the Buffett Rule," he thinks the focus should not just be on taxes, but how government spends its money as well. "We need more sacrifice and we need more sensible ways of spending money."
And there we have it. Because if the irresponsible parasites in DC, especially in the Democrat party, stopped freely spending taxpayer's money without care or thought, the deficit would take care of itself. Therefore, although Warren Buffett, the world's third wealthiest individual, may have no compunction about politicians redistributing portions of his wealth, I think he's completely missing the point. And perhaps he ought to walk next door, or to wherever Mr. Munger's office is, and have his partner explain Democrat economics to him.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, May 7, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/7/2012
Flipping channels last night, I noticed pop singer Pat Boone, who's now a senior citizen, being interviewed on the Huckabee show. The crawler said the subject was health care, so I turned the volume on and found that they were discussing what Boone calls "death panels."
As highlighted prior to the vote on Obamacare last year by Sarah Palin, among others, the panel is actually a 15-member Independent Payments Advisory Board, also known as IPAB, which by itself, without congressional approval, is empowered to dictate what constitutes "necessary care" for those who participate in Medicare.
Boone was irate in presenting his opinion which for him boiled down to 15 people rationing health care for seniors and deciding who was to live or die, which he naturally thinks is outrageous and beyond belief. He went on to say that he's a spokesman for a group called 60 Plus which has 7.1 million members nationwide.
So, in keeping with my recent theme about population segments and groups that have been alienated by the current administration, here's another 7 million folks or so, who likely won't vote for the incumbent again. Because, it seems to me, that would be like like buying a gun and then deciding to shoot yourself with it. And I just can't see senior citizens, of all people, doing something so abjectly stupid to themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
As highlighted prior to the vote on Obamacare last year by Sarah Palin, among others, the panel is actually a 15-member Independent Payments Advisory Board, also known as IPAB, which by itself, without congressional approval, is empowered to dictate what constitutes "necessary care" for those who participate in Medicare.
Boone was irate in presenting his opinion which for him boiled down to 15 people rationing health care for seniors and deciding who was to live or die, which he naturally thinks is outrageous and beyond belief. He went on to say that he's a spokesman for a group called 60 Plus which has 7.1 million members nationwide.
So, in keeping with my recent theme about population segments and groups that have been alienated by the current administration, here's another 7 million folks or so, who likely won't vote for the incumbent again. Because, it seems to me, that would be like like buying a gun and then deciding to shoot yourself with it. And I just can't see senior citizens, of all people, doing something so abjectly stupid to themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, May 6, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/6/2012
A major national news story this week concerned a dying Vietnam veteran, Jerry Meekins, who had to cancel a trip on Spirit Airlines due to his illness. He's getting his money back from the owner personally, despite the company's strict policy of no returned fares whatsoever.
I mention it not so much about the details, but rather for the reason the money's being reimbursed. Because according to Fox News on-line, there was a week of criticism of the airline from veterans around the nation complaining that Mr. Meekins would not receive a refund of his fare. And that's why Spirit's CEO said on Friday afternoon, he'd not only refund Meekins' $197 himself, but the discount carrier would make a $5,000 donation to the Wounded Warrior Project.
Now, I don't know whether or not the airline will now suffer for their original refusal to reimburse the fare due to something like a boycott by veterans, or from other flyer's simply avoiding them as well, but I do believe there's another, much stronger, message demonstrated here. Because I think that if took only a week for a story to become to a big enough black eye for its CEO to acquiesce to media pressure about a $197 ticket, how big will the backlash be for someone who tanked the whole economy of the most successful nation on Earth?
So, what we have here is hard information flashing across the nation in seconds, alerting concerned folks to a poor decision made by an airline, forcing them to reverse their position as gracefully as they're able due to fear of retribution. And if that's as strong an indicator as I think it is that things have changed to the extent that a CEO fears that greatly for business losses, it bodes far more ominously for politicians who rely solely on hot air to get by. Because today, folks want real results and piles of BS simply will no longer cut it at all.
That's it for folks.
Adios
I mention it not so much about the details, but rather for the reason the money's being reimbursed. Because according to Fox News on-line, there was a week of criticism of the airline from veterans around the nation complaining that Mr. Meekins would not receive a refund of his fare. And that's why Spirit's CEO said on Friday afternoon, he'd not only refund Meekins' $197 himself, but the discount carrier would make a $5,000 donation to the Wounded Warrior Project.
Now, I don't know whether or not the airline will now suffer for their original refusal to reimburse the fare due to something like a boycott by veterans, or from other flyer's simply avoiding them as well, but I do believe there's another, much stronger, message demonstrated here. Because I think that if took only a week for a story to become to a big enough black eye for its CEO to acquiesce to media pressure about a $197 ticket, how big will the backlash be for someone who tanked the whole economy of the most successful nation on Earth?
So, what we have here is hard information flashing across the nation in seconds, alerting concerned folks to a poor decision made by an airline, forcing them to reverse their position as gracefully as they're able due to fear of retribution. And if that's as strong an indicator as I think it is that things have changed to the extent that a CEO fears that greatly for business losses, it bodes far more ominously for politicians who rely solely on hot air to get by. Because today, folks want real results and piles of BS simply will no longer cut it at all.
That's it for folks.
Adios
Saturday, May 5, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/5/2012
Every time I read an article like the one I found this morning, I shake my head in confusion as I wonder what's happened to our nation. Because I never in my life would have dreamt that a president would willfully and purposely disregard the vital needs of huge segments the American population.
However, in an update on the Canadian oil pipeline today from Reuters, the first paragraph says it all: "TransCanada Corp is taking its second shot at asking Washington to approve the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline, betting that a new route through Nebraska and post-U.S. election time frame for a decision will push the project forward."
So what the pipeline's builders clearly realize is that reason for delaying the project had very little to do with its practical merits, which are extremely beneficial in all, but is purely political pandering to a highly vocal group of environmental extremists. And what's even more outlandish is that as time goes by substantial information from well-credentialed experts disavows the premises raised by these lobbying fanatics.
However, looking at the practical side and how the imported oil would help the nation, and especially it's economics, here are some statistics. Overall 830,000 barrels of crude a day derived from the Alberta oil sands would move to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which are facing declining volumes of oil from traditional suppliers, including Mexico and Venezuela. It would also transport growing supplies from North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil fields."
Now, without even going into the specific arithmetic involved, but simply speculating about what would likely happen to the market, what would prices likely do if almost a million barrels of additional oil showed up every day? My guess is they'd reverse in a heartbeat and gas would cost about a buck and a half a gallon like it should.
Consequently, in view of the gigantic boost our economy would gain, I truly have to wonder exactly what kind of person would place roadblocks at every junction because his own survival in office outweighs the needs of a population wherein about 15 percent can't even find jobs.
And that brings me to another item in the article I read. The oil company pointed out that 10,000 pages of study from the first review concluded Keystone XL would have minimal impact on the environment, so the application need not be bogged down again. However, the State Department, which will review the situation, because it crosses the international border, noted that the earliest it could make a decision is early 2013.
So I guess what we're seeing here is another proof that there aren't nearly as many unsolvable issues bogging our economy down as touted, but instead an administration whose major intent is to insure as best they can that recovery doesn't quickly happen, if at all. Because it knows that it's major constituents, the hopeless and dependent, might not show as much support if the economy turned around and they were forced to go to work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
However, in an update on the Canadian oil pipeline today from Reuters, the first paragraph says it all: "TransCanada Corp is taking its second shot at asking Washington to approve the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline, betting that a new route through Nebraska and post-U.S. election time frame for a decision will push the project forward."
So what the pipeline's builders clearly realize is that reason for delaying the project had very little to do with its practical merits, which are extremely beneficial in all, but is purely political pandering to a highly vocal group of environmental extremists. And what's even more outlandish is that as time goes by substantial information from well-credentialed experts disavows the premises raised by these lobbying fanatics.
However, looking at the practical side and how the imported oil would help the nation, and especially it's economics, here are some statistics. Overall 830,000 barrels of crude a day derived from the Alberta oil sands would move to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which are facing declining volumes of oil from traditional suppliers, including Mexico and Venezuela. It would also transport growing supplies from North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil fields."
Now, without even going into the specific arithmetic involved, but simply speculating about what would likely happen to the market, what would prices likely do if almost a million barrels of additional oil showed up every day? My guess is they'd reverse in a heartbeat and gas would cost about a buck and a half a gallon like it should.
Consequently, in view of the gigantic boost our economy would gain, I truly have to wonder exactly what kind of person would place roadblocks at every junction because his own survival in office outweighs the needs of a population wherein about 15 percent can't even find jobs.
And that brings me to another item in the article I read. The oil company pointed out that 10,000 pages of study from the first review concluded Keystone XL would have minimal impact on the environment, so the application need not be bogged down again. However, the State Department, which will review the situation, because it crosses the international border, noted that the earliest it could make a decision is early 2013.
So I guess what we're seeing here is another proof that there aren't nearly as many unsolvable issues bogging our economy down as touted, but instead an administration whose major intent is to insure as best they can that recovery doesn't quickly happen, if at all. Because it knows that it's major constituents, the hopeless and dependent, might not show as much support if the economy turned around and they were forced to go to work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, May 4, 2012
BloggeRhythms 5/4/2012
Since so much of the news each day concerns the coming presidential election, I've been devoting considerable blog-space to the subject, especially because the bulk of what I read doesn't seem to make very much sense. And that's certainly true today.
For example, many articles now highlight the massive effort by the president's campaign to personally malign and defame Mitt Romney. However, most of what's said seems quite childish to me and certainly beneath the standards of someone who's supposed to conduct himself as the world's most important leader. Nonetheless, the "Commander in Chief" seems content reacting like a street thug with no real substance to his cheap shots and jibes whatsoever. And I guess that's actually an attempt to take voter's eyes off the realities of how badly the nation's conditions become under his watch.
Just this morning, according to Bloomberg on-line, "American employers added fewer workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly fell as people left the labor force, adding to concern the economic expansion is cooling. Payrolls climbed 115,000, the smallest gain in six months. The median estimate of 85 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 160,000 advance."
But the most interesting to me continues to be the blatant politicizing of the nation's economic problems. Because as I keep repeating in my entry's, the woes aren't even hard to fix. However, the incumbent prefers letting the economy continue to sink than adopting any policy seeming to even remotely resemble any ideas from his rivals. And that's his major dilemma, because economy-wise his party's hopeless, and as history shows, always has been.
Then again, what's even more perplexing is that the one's being hurt most by the incumbent's insistence on staying a failed economic course are those who make up the base of his party. Because while businesses that provide the nation's lifeblood are quickly adapting to the dismal conditions and cutting their costs, including hiring less people, the administration's covering the shortfall with debt.
However, so much leverage's been added by the continual borrowing, there will soon come a time when the nation will either exhaust its avenues of credit, or worse, be forced to default. And that means that not only have the policies failed, but every citizen will individually help pay the price.
And, here again, the folks running successful businesses will survive as always, but conditions for the jobless, the under-educated and illegals will grow far worse. And since these groups make up the core of the incumbent's constituency, he's economically killing off those he loves most. And I guess, you really cant do anything dumber politically than that.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
For example, many articles now highlight the massive effort by the president's campaign to personally malign and defame Mitt Romney. However, most of what's said seems quite childish to me and certainly beneath the standards of someone who's supposed to conduct himself as the world's most important leader. Nonetheless, the "Commander in Chief" seems content reacting like a street thug with no real substance to his cheap shots and jibes whatsoever. And I guess that's actually an attempt to take voter's eyes off the realities of how badly the nation's conditions become under his watch.
Just this morning, according to Bloomberg on-line, "American employers added fewer workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly fell as people left the labor force, adding to concern the economic expansion is cooling. Payrolls climbed 115,000, the smallest gain in six months. The median estimate of 85 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 160,000 advance."
But the most interesting to me continues to be the blatant politicizing of the nation's economic problems. Because as I keep repeating in my entry's, the woes aren't even hard to fix. However, the incumbent prefers letting the economy continue to sink than adopting any policy seeming to even remotely resemble any ideas from his rivals. And that's his major dilemma, because economy-wise his party's hopeless, and as history shows, always has been.
Then again, what's even more perplexing is that the one's being hurt most by the incumbent's insistence on staying a failed economic course are those who make up the base of his party. Because while businesses that provide the nation's lifeblood are quickly adapting to the dismal conditions and cutting their costs, including hiring less people, the administration's covering the shortfall with debt.
However, so much leverage's been added by the continual borrowing, there will soon come a time when the nation will either exhaust its avenues of credit, or worse, be forced to default. And that means that not only have the policies failed, but every citizen will individually help pay the price.
And, here again, the folks running successful businesses will survive as always, but conditions for the jobless, the under-educated and illegals will grow far worse. And since these groups make up the core of the incumbent's constituency, he's economically killing off those he loves most. And I guess, you really cant do anything dumber politically than that.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)