This is about Larry Summers - who he was, and who he is.
He was the Dean of Harvard University. He decided to invest the university's endowment fund into high-risk investments. His advisors warned him against doing that, but he fancied himself a financial whiz, so much smarter than they. He lost $1.8 BILLION of the university's funds. In other words, what he knows about money, finance and investing can fit into a thimble.
Now for who Larry Summers is today.
He is President Obama's Chief Financial Advisor. I guess the president was impressed with Mr. Summers' financial acumen. No one else is.
Oh, and a couple years ago he got into hot water when, in a public speech, he stated that women were not as capable as men in the subjects of science and math. So apparently he knows as much about women as he does about finance.
'Nuff said.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Contingent
Lasting success is contingent upon a healthy economy. Everyone, regardless of political bent, agrees on that point. The disagreement comes when the discussion turns to "What makes for a healthy economy?"
For the answer to that, we need look no further than to the stories we were taught as children. Children are taught these stories not because they are entertaining, but because they carry certain truths that are necessary for our success, not unlike the parables in the Bible.
Two such stories are "The Little Red Hen" and "The Golden Goose".
In the Little Red Hen, the hen asked for help to plant her garden. No one wanted to help. She then asked for help in watering and weeding. Still no help. She then asked for help in harvesting - no help was offered. She asked for help in baking the pies from her harvest. STILL no help. But when it came time to EAT the pies, EVERYONE wanted to help. But she said "No" and ate them herself. The moral being that those who do the work are entitled to the proceeds of their sweat, and those who do not want to contribute deserve exactly what they put in - nothing.
But in today's world, with liberals in power, the opposite is suddenly true. The farmer (Congress) comes out and takes the pies, and shares them with everyone. He does not realize that next year the hen, frustrated that the work was all for nothing, will not have a garden. There will be no pies. And everyone loses. But the farmer never thought that far ahead. He does not realize that you cannot take money out of the bank unless you first put money IN.
In "The Golden Goose", she lays the golden eggs that her owner profits from. The moral of the story is that the owner must take very good care of the goose, to insure continuation of the golden eggs. He must feed her well, and pamper her, for if she gets sick, or dies, or gets mistreated there will be no more golden eggs, and the prosperity goes away.
In real life, the golden eggs are jobs, products, services. These are the things we want. And all of those things come from the Golden Goose - businesses. Businesses provide the jobs, which in turn results in products and services available. If businesses fail, jobs go away, and products and services become scarce.
Therefore, simple logic tells anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits that it behooves us to feed and pamper businesses. The healthier they are, the more jobs there are, and the more products become available.
But our liberal Congress sees businesses not as the Golden Goose to be preened, but as the lamb to be sheared. They impose punitive taxes, and give power to the unions that milk the companies to the point of bankruptcy. Instead of caring for the goose, they starve it.
The goose will either run away, or starve to death. Americas geese are doing both - smaller businesses, with no other options, are forced into closing their doors. The larger businesses run to China or India, where the governments favor them, and treat them well, with lower taxes and no unions to drain them.
If our Congress had an ounce of intelligence, they would severely decrease the taxes on business, and restrict and limit the power of unions to issues of safety and fairness, which would result in two things:
1) greater profitability, allowing the business to expand, which creates jobs and products - golden eggs, and
2) businesses would have no reason to leave America, which results in jobs staying here.
But of course, our liberal Congress is not about to do either - they owe their seats to the unions, and by taxing businesses they create poverty, which results in more people needing entitlements - which just happens to be what the liberals are famous for providing. This, in turn, results in a larger voting bloc on the liberal side - after all, one must not bite the hand that feeds them. If you were on welfare, would you vote AGAINST the party that provides it?
President Obama was right about one thing - we need change. But we need the kind of change that he and the liberal Congress would never even consider. We need a Congress that understands that there is only ONE source of jobs, products and services, and we need to take proper care of that source. And we need a Congress that understands that people who are allowed a "free ride" will drain our resources, and result in fewer people wanting to bust their hump to get what others are getting for free.
If we want to get our country back, and our economy brought back to health, we need to elect people who understand how things work, not just in the short term, but in the long term. And you will not find any such people among the liberals.
/
For the answer to that, we need look no further than to the stories we were taught as children. Children are taught these stories not because they are entertaining, but because they carry certain truths that are necessary for our success, not unlike the parables in the Bible.
Two such stories are "The Little Red Hen" and "The Golden Goose".
In the Little Red Hen, the hen asked for help to plant her garden. No one wanted to help. She then asked for help in watering and weeding. Still no help. She then asked for help in harvesting - no help was offered. She asked for help in baking the pies from her harvest. STILL no help. But when it came time to EAT the pies, EVERYONE wanted to help. But she said "No" and ate them herself. The moral being that those who do the work are entitled to the proceeds of their sweat, and those who do not want to contribute deserve exactly what they put in - nothing.
But in today's world, with liberals in power, the opposite is suddenly true. The farmer (Congress) comes out and takes the pies, and shares them with everyone. He does not realize that next year the hen, frustrated that the work was all for nothing, will not have a garden. There will be no pies. And everyone loses. But the farmer never thought that far ahead. He does not realize that you cannot take money out of the bank unless you first put money IN.
In "The Golden Goose", she lays the golden eggs that her owner profits from. The moral of the story is that the owner must take very good care of the goose, to insure continuation of the golden eggs. He must feed her well, and pamper her, for if she gets sick, or dies, or gets mistreated there will be no more golden eggs, and the prosperity goes away.
In real life, the golden eggs are jobs, products, services. These are the things we want. And all of those things come from the Golden Goose - businesses. Businesses provide the jobs, which in turn results in products and services available. If businesses fail, jobs go away, and products and services become scarce.
Therefore, simple logic tells anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits that it behooves us to feed and pamper businesses. The healthier they are, the more jobs there are, and the more products become available.
But our liberal Congress sees businesses not as the Golden Goose to be preened, but as the lamb to be sheared. They impose punitive taxes, and give power to the unions that milk the companies to the point of bankruptcy. Instead of caring for the goose, they starve it.
The goose will either run away, or starve to death. Americas geese are doing both - smaller businesses, with no other options, are forced into closing their doors. The larger businesses run to China or India, where the governments favor them, and treat them well, with lower taxes and no unions to drain them.
If our Congress had an ounce of intelligence, they would severely decrease the taxes on business, and restrict and limit the power of unions to issues of safety and fairness, which would result in two things:
1) greater profitability, allowing the business to expand, which creates jobs and products - golden eggs, and
2) businesses would have no reason to leave America, which results in jobs staying here.
But of course, our liberal Congress is not about to do either - they owe their seats to the unions, and by taxing businesses they create poverty, which results in more people needing entitlements - which just happens to be what the liberals are famous for providing. This, in turn, results in a larger voting bloc on the liberal side - after all, one must not bite the hand that feeds them. If you were on welfare, would you vote AGAINST the party that provides it?
President Obama was right about one thing - we need change. But we need the kind of change that he and the liberal Congress would never even consider. We need a Congress that understands that there is only ONE source of jobs, products and services, and we need to take proper care of that source. And we need a Congress that understands that people who are allowed a "free ride" will drain our resources, and result in fewer people wanting to bust their hump to get what others are getting for free.
If we want to get our country back, and our economy brought back to health, we need to elect people who understand how things work, not just in the short term, but in the long term. And you will not find any such people among the liberals.
/
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Bribery
When you or I try to bribe a politician, judge or police officer, we get arrested and go to prison. But when a politician pays a bribe to another politician in exchange for their vote, or gives money to an organizatiuon in return for their support, that is simply "politics as usual."
I say it is way past the time when we, the people, slam on the brakes - tell politicians that we will hold THEM accountable for their bribes, and send them to prison if they use bribes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just took $100,000,000 (one hundred MILLION) of YOUR tax money and gave it to Senator Mary Landrieu for her state in exchange for her YES vote on Health Care. Landrieu had been opposed to the bill because her constituents do not like it. But she sold out the folks she is SUPPOSED to represent in exchange for bringing so much tax money to her state to insure her re-election next year.
Reid should go to prison for bribing an elected official, which IS a felony. Also, for misuse of public funds. And Landrieu should get busted and go to prison for accepting a bribe. And the good folks of her state, Louisiana, should vote her out for betraying them, regardless of the pork she steals from the taxpayers.
WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF ILLICIT BEHAVIOR???
Time to send a message folks - vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT. Vote FOR the opponent no matter who it is. This will send a clear message to ALL politicians that, contrary to what they believe, THEY do not run things - WE do. THEY work for US, and when they stop doing that, we give them the old heave-ho.
And it is time to do just that, to every senator and representative now in Congress.
And it is also time to call a bribe a bribe, and start prosecuting politicians who participate in such shady activities.
/
I say it is way past the time when we, the people, slam on the brakes - tell politicians that we will hold THEM accountable for their bribes, and send them to prison if they use bribes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just took $100,000,000 (one hundred MILLION) of YOUR tax money and gave it to Senator Mary Landrieu for her state in exchange for her YES vote on Health Care. Landrieu had been opposed to the bill because her constituents do not like it. But she sold out the folks she is SUPPOSED to represent in exchange for bringing so much tax money to her state to insure her re-election next year.
Reid should go to prison for bribing an elected official, which IS a felony. Also, for misuse of public funds. And Landrieu should get busted and go to prison for accepting a bribe. And the good folks of her state, Louisiana, should vote her out for betraying them, regardless of the pork she steals from the taxpayers.
WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF ILLICIT BEHAVIOR???
Time to send a message folks - vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT. Vote FOR the opponent no matter who it is. This will send a clear message to ALL politicians that, contrary to what they believe, THEY do not run things - WE do. THEY work for US, and when they stop doing that, we give them the old heave-ho.
And it is time to do just that, to every senator and representative now in Congress.
And it is also time to call a bribe a bribe, and start prosecuting politicians who participate in such shady activities.
/
Thursday, November 19, 2009
What We Are Up Against
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, after weeks in closed office crafting his so-called health care reform bill, came out and told us that we, the people, are stupid.
Actually, he said his bill would come in at $849 billion and would cut the deficit. And he thinks we are stupid enough not to see the truth.
What Mr Reid did was to cut $210 billion from the bill and putting it into9 a SEPARATE bill called the "doctor fix", which increases medicare payments to doctors. So, the actual health care reform bill, when you add it ALL up, comes to over a trillion dollars, and does, indeed, add to the deficit.
More important is the White House comment today that the president supports the passage of the "doctor fix" by Congress. What makes this questionable is that just 14 hours previously, he did an interview with Major Garrett where Obama said, "If we keep adding to the deficit and don't get spending under control...it will cause a double dip recession." And he immediately calls for Congress to SPEND MORE.
Reid and Pelosi are pathological liars and con artists, and think we, the people, are mindless lemmings. And Obama is not much better, as he is single-handedly destroying the greatest society the world has ever known., and is doing so with INTENT. He KNOWS more spending will cause a double-dip recession, then calls for more spending!
Yes, it could simply be gross incompetence. But those who elected him keep telling us how smart he is, so I doubt if incompetence is the problem. No, this must be intentional. But why?
Simple. Obama, who studied under Alinsky (Marxist) wants a socialist country. The fastest and easiest way to do that is to make the people want it. And the easiest way to make the people want it is to give them cause to abandon capitalism as a failure.
Ergo, it is the Obama administration's goal to cause the massive failure of capitalism. Create recessions and depressions. Create massive deficits we cannot possibly repay, forcing America into bankruptcy. Do that, and the people will rush to socialism, trying to salvage their lives, crying "Please save us, Federal Government!"
It is the only explanation for the actions of this administration and the liberal Congress, acting together to bring down capitalism and the role of free markets. The Stimulus bills. The bail-outs. Taking over banks, insurance companies and car companies. Passing massive, incredibly expensive bills like health care, cap and trade and even "cash for clunkers", which we now know was a terrible failure, as it "borrowed" sales from later and got them all to occur in September, to give the APPEARANCE of an uptick in GDP.
Look out, folks! While you were sleeping, these clowns have dragged America perilously close to Marxism. And you REALLY don't want to go there. Every nation that ever has, has failed.
/
Actually, he said his bill would come in at $849 billion and would cut the deficit. And he thinks we are stupid enough not to see the truth.
What Mr Reid did was to cut $210 billion from the bill and putting it into9 a SEPARATE bill called the "doctor fix", which increases medicare payments to doctors. So, the actual health care reform bill, when you add it ALL up, comes to over a trillion dollars, and does, indeed, add to the deficit.
More important is the White House comment today that the president supports the passage of the "doctor fix" by Congress. What makes this questionable is that just 14 hours previously, he did an interview with Major Garrett where Obama said, "If we keep adding to the deficit and don't get spending under control...it will cause a double dip recession." And he immediately calls for Congress to SPEND MORE.
Reid and Pelosi are pathological liars and con artists, and think we, the people, are mindless lemmings. And Obama is not much better, as he is single-handedly destroying the greatest society the world has ever known., and is doing so with INTENT. He KNOWS more spending will cause a double-dip recession, then calls for more spending!
Yes, it could simply be gross incompetence. But those who elected him keep telling us how smart he is, so I doubt if incompetence is the problem. No, this must be intentional. But why?
Simple. Obama, who studied under Alinsky (Marxist) wants a socialist country. The fastest and easiest way to do that is to make the people want it. And the easiest way to make the people want it is to give them cause to abandon capitalism as a failure.
Ergo, it is the Obama administration's goal to cause the massive failure of capitalism. Create recessions and depressions. Create massive deficits we cannot possibly repay, forcing America into bankruptcy. Do that, and the people will rush to socialism, trying to salvage their lives, crying "Please save us, Federal Government!"
It is the only explanation for the actions of this administration and the liberal Congress, acting together to bring down capitalism and the role of free markets. The Stimulus bills. The bail-outs. Taking over banks, insurance companies and car companies. Passing massive, incredibly expensive bills like health care, cap and trade and even "cash for clunkers", which we now know was a terrible failure, as it "borrowed" sales from later and got them all to occur in September, to give the APPEARANCE of an uptick in GDP.
Look out, folks! While you were sleeping, these clowns have dragged America perilously close to Marxism. And you REALLY don't want to go there. Every nation that ever has, has failed.
/
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Quiz For You
Just for the moment, assume you have a small business. And further assume you have (4) employees that you pay $36,000 per year.
Now assume a law is passed that forces you to pay each employee $48,000 per year. But your business income is not increased. In fact, during the recession, the business income is probably shrinking. Still, the law says you MUST pay your employees that extra $12,000 per year.
So, what do you do, to remain solvent and still abide by the law?
You only have two choices:
1) lose $48,000 per year and risk bankruptcy because each employee must get a $12,000 raise, or
2) lay off one employee, and use the $36,000 you WERE paying him to cover the $12,000 raise you must give each of the other three.
If you have any business sense at all, you would choose option #2, and tell the remaining three employees they must pick up the slack from the lost employee, because THEY are now getting HIS pay in addition to their original salary. They are getting 1/3 more pay, so you expect 1/3 more work from them.
Sounds mean, I know, but remember - you own the business, and you are responsible for supporting the families of your remaining employees. Therefore, you have an obligation to keep up production so you do not have to go broke and lay everyone else off.
Well, this is exactly what will happen to millions of small businesses if the current health care bill is passed. It includes a provision that FORCES businesses to provide insurance coverage to all employees. And that coverage costs an average of $12,000 per year per employee.
Under this plan, every small business will be required to increase the cost of each employee by about $12,000 per year. This will, by necessity, cause even higher unemployment.
Yet, the Democratic vice chair of the finance committee and Nancy Pelosi are saying this plan will HELP small business.
As a small business owner, I do not need that kind of help, thank you.
/
Now assume a law is passed that forces you to pay each employee $48,000 per year. But your business income is not increased. In fact, during the recession, the business income is probably shrinking. Still, the law says you MUST pay your employees that extra $12,000 per year.
So, what do you do, to remain solvent and still abide by the law?
You only have two choices:
1) lose $48,000 per year and risk bankruptcy because each employee must get a $12,000 raise, or
2) lay off one employee, and use the $36,000 you WERE paying him to cover the $12,000 raise you must give each of the other three.
If you have any business sense at all, you would choose option #2, and tell the remaining three employees they must pick up the slack from the lost employee, because THEY are now getting HIS pay in addition to their original salary. They are getting 1/3 more pay, so you expect 1/3 more work from them.
Sounds mean, I know, but remember - you own the business, and you are responsible for supporting the families of your remaining employees. Therefore, you have an obligation to keep up production so you do not have to go broke and lay everyone else off.
Well, this is exactly what will happen to millions of small businesses if the current health care bill is passed. It includes a provision that FORCES businesses to provide insurance coverage to all employees. And that coverage costs an average of $12,000 per year per employee.
Under this plan, every small business will be required to increase the cost of each employee by about $12,000 per year. This will, by necessity, cause even higher unemployment.
Yet, the Democratic vice chair of the finance committee and Nancy Pelosi are saying this plan will HELP small business.
As a small business owner, I do not need that kind of help, thank you.
/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Another?
Yesterday I wrote - and proved - that Harry Reid is a liar. Today, he was joined by Barak Obama.
In his little speech to the media today, Obama stated that "the doctors support our health care plan". He made this rather bogus claim, knowing it was bogus, because the AMA endorses the plan. But what he DOESN'T tell you is that only 15% of all doctors belong to the AMA, and not many of those support the health care plan proposed by Congress.
Typical liberal - takes a generalized fact (AMA supports the plan) and spins it to make people believe that the doctors approve of it, when in fact fewer than 5% of all doctors support it.
He did the same with AARP - because AARP endorses the plan, the liberals try to convince people that this means the elderly like the plan. Yet, all polls indicate the elderly OPPOSE the plan, 2-1.
Just because an ORGANIZATION whose leaders have an agenda are in support of something does not necessarily mean its members also support it.
Obama and Reid also tried this BS when a single, lone Republican gave her tentative OK on it earlier (since withdrawn), and they then said that makes the bill "bipartisan". It does not. A bill is bipartisan when members of both parties craft it, then vote on it. This bill did not include a single Republican in its crafting.
I am getting damned tired of having liars in public office - especially in the Oval Office.
/
In his little speech to the media today, Obama stated that "the doctors support our health care plan". He made this rather bogus claim, knowing it was bogus, because the AMA endorses the plan. But what he DOESN'T tell you is that only 15% of all doctors belong to the AMA, and not many of those support the health care plan proposed by Congress.
Typical liberal - takes a generalized fact (AMA supports the plan) and spins it to make people believe that the doctors approve of it, when in fact fewer than 5% of all doctors support it.
He did the same with AARP - because AARP endorses the plan, the liberals try to convince people that this means the elderly like the plan. Yet, all polls indicate the elderly OPPOSE the plan, 2-1.
Just because an ORGANIZATION whose leaders have an agenda are in support of something does not necessarily mean its members also support it.
Obama and Reid also tried this BS when a single, lone Republican gave her tentative OK on it earlier (since withdrawn), and they then said that makes the bill "bipartisan". It does not. A bill is bipartisan when members of both parties craft it, then vote on it. This bill did not include a single Republican in its crafting.
I am getting damned tired of having liars in public office - especially in the Oval Office.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)