Third quarter numbers are in and it is official: Hillary wins. That was the headlines. What did she win? Not the popular vote but the $$$ vote. At this time of year the media follows not popular opinion but who has raised the most money. Does anyone else than me find this disgusting? First in the modern era, to run for President you must have nothing else to do for 2 years, have access to $100 million (just to win the primary), and know how to seduce the press and public. Some of our finest presidents such as Abe lincoln and Harry Truman, never rich, would never have qualified. Is America's future going to be which billionaire wants the presidency? Is that what we want? Secondly, I thought political races were about votes not money. When Barrack is downgraded because he failed to raise the same amount of money as Hillary, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. One billionaire and he could be ahead in no time. In the end it comes down to popular opinion. The way the media is held is disdain and the way most politicians are disliked, heavy ad campaigns will only further irritate the american people.
I wonder about the future of this country and the leaders we are creating. Not statesman but moneyed politicians who can literally buy races. Should not we take a step back and rethink this and the potential fatal future it bodes for democracy?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Jobs
Today I heard two differnt economic statistics and was depressed. The first one was a government report that cheerfully indicated that 151,000 jobs had been created last month--a great achievement . . . or is it? Are all jobs the same?
The second economic report indicated that over 200,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost and the number of manufacturing jobs in the US was at its lowest point since 1950. At the same time it was reported that service jobs (food/lodging/tourism) and health care jobs both increased by 300,000.
Then I saw a NBC report concerning Flint with unemployment rate of nearly 15%. One man who was interviewed indicated that he had been unemployed since May, could not find a comparative manufacturing job, and was thinking of changing industries to . . you guessed it health care.
Let's take this one worker and generalize. He was working at a manufacturing job making probably 15 to 20/hr (more likely nearer 20) with solid health benefits and retirement. Now he is thinking of moving to the service industry (health care) in an effort to survive (not unlike millions of others in the same predictament). But more than likely this means taking a job at near 10-12/hr with few benefits. To make up what he had made his spouse must work or he must work two jobs. Whatever occurs, he is much worse off and his standard of living and quality of life has fallen tremendously.
But no worry. According to job numbers, one was lost and one was gain so all okay. The government is happy as unemployment is down and jobs created is up. However, the worker is worse off and is sincere danger of falling further down the economic ladder.
Not all jobs are the same. Perhaps to economists they are but to the ordinary workers who must contend with offshoring and loss of good manufacturing jobs and take much lesser paying service jobs, they are death come early.
Lets have new economic data to reflect the quality of jobs gained and lost. Otherwise the US is in danger of a two class system, the Elite and the serfs.
The second economic report indicated that over 200,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost and the number of manufacturing jobs in the US was at its lowest point since 1950. At the same time it was reported that service jobs (food/lodging/tourism) and health care jobs both increased by 300,000.
Then I saw a NBC report concerning Flint with unemployment rate of nearly 15%. One man who was interviewed indicated that he had been unemployed since May, could not find a comparative manufacturing job, and was thinking of changing industries to . . you guessed it health care.
Let's take this one worker and generalize. He was working at a manufacturing job making probably 15 to 20/hr (more likely nearer 20) with solid health benefits and retirement. Now he is thinking of moving to the service industry (health care) in an effort to survive (not unlike millions of others in the same predictament). But more than likely this means taking a job at near 10-12/hr with few benefits. To make up what he had made his spouse must work or he must work two jobs. Whatever occurs, he is much worse off and his standard of living and quality of life has fallen tremendously.
But no worry. According to job numbers, one was lost and one was gain so all okay. The government is happy as unemployment is down and jobs created is up. However, the worker is worse off and is sincere danger of falling further down the economic ladder.
Not all jobs are the same. Perhaps to economists they are but to the ordinary workers who must contend with offshoring and loss of good manufacturing jobs and take much lesser paying service jobs, they are death come early.
Lets have new economic data to reflect the quality of jobs gained and lost. Otherwise the US is in danger of a two class system, the Elite and the serfs.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Deficits
Deficits?
Just read today that a poll indicates the public believes the Democrats are the party more likely to eliminate government deficits. That may be the truth but it paints a false image of the true question. A deficit occurs when one spends more than one makes. A balance budget is when spending and earning equate. As a famous democrat once said, “Republicans and I both believe in balance budgets. . . only he wants it balanced at 1 Trillion and I want it balanced at 2 Trillion.” A democrat has never met a spending bill he did not like (except for piddly things like national defense and security). Sure the Democrats are more likely to eliminate deficits, by increasing spending and then increasing taxes more than enough. If you think you are taxed enough now, just wait until Hillary and her love of big government gets in . . . give every baby 5000 why? So parents can spend it right away? What is she thinking of?
The correct question is not best to eliminate deficits (there are 2 ways to eliminate deficits, higher taxes or less spending . . . when was the last time you heard anyone mention the second position?) but how to grow the economy so as to grow one’s way out of the deficit (that is, spend less than you make and eventually you will earn more than you spend . . . I am sure most consumers understand this philosophy).
Be careful of what you ask for since you might get it.
Just read today that a poll indicates the public believes the Democrats are the party more likely to eliminate government deficits. That may be the truth but it paints a false image of the true question. A deficit occurs when one spends more than one makes. A balance budget is when spending and earning equate. As a famous democrat once said, “Republicans and I both believe in balance budgets. . . only he wants it balanced at 1 Trillion and I want it balanced at 2 Trillion.” A democrat has never met a spending bill he did not like (except for piddly things like national defense and security). Sure the Democrats are more likely to eliminate deficits, by increasing spending and then increasing taxes more than enough. If you think you are taxed enough now, just wait until Hillary and her love of big government gets in . . . give every baby 5000 why? So parents can spend it right away? What is she thinking of?
The correct question is not best to eliminate deficits (there are 2 ways to eliminate deficits, higher taxes or less spending . . . when was the last time you heard anyone mention the second position?) but how to grow the economy so as to grow one’s way out of the deficit (that is, spend less than you make and eventually you will earn more than you spend . . . I am sure most consumers understand this philosophy).
Be careful of what you ask for since you might get it.
TheRich
Who is rich?
The Democrats are at it again. Soak the rich. Equitable society. It got me thinking who exactly are the rich?
I used to live in San Antonio and Laredo Texas. Land of the illegal. To the poverty stricken Mexican scratching out an existence in a single room hut with only outdoor plumbing, the illegals living in Laredo with six or eight or ten in a house having their own indoor plumbing and electricity were rich. To those same Laredoans, a Mexican, legal or not, living in the slums of south San Antonio in a small 500-800 square foot duplex home with no one else but their family, be it two, four, six or eight members, had it too well off. To a south San Antonio low income family, a middle class home in middle of town with 1200 square feet, two baths, two or three bedrooms, and a small backyard had to be rich. To a middle class worker, looking at those ‘huge’ Northside homes (2500 square feet, 3 bath, 3 bedrooms, two car garage for 150-175K), they surely were the residences of the wealthy. To the average Northsider, the wealthier enclaves of the city with their 4000 square foot, half acre lots, with prices over 300-400K, that must have been heaven. To those folks, scratching out a living with two professionals, they looked with envy at the Gates, the Dells, and others, surely richer than rich could be.
So what is rich? Everyone believes those above him on the economic scale are rich while ignoring the fact that all those beneath him believe him to be rich. Wealth envy. If I only could have some of their (those above) income, one thinks to himself, forgetting all those beneath him are thinking the same. It is a no win game. There are not enough rich to make everyone better off. Confiscate all of Bill Gates immense wealth and each citizen of the US will get $200, perhaps $250 each, hardly enough to worry about. But it makes good press, gets politicians elected, and government growing.
Who is the rich? Well to anyone below you and I, it is you and I, and to you and I, anyone with more than what you or I have.
The Democrats are at it again. Soak the rich. Equitable society. It got me thinking who exactly are the rich?
I used to live in San Antonio and Laredo Texas. Land of the illegal. To the poverty stricken Mexican scratching out an existence in a single room hut with only outdoor plumbing, the illegals living in Laredo with six or eight or ten in a house having their own indoor plumbing and electricity were rich. To those same Laredoans, a Mexican, legal or not, living in the slums of south San Antonio in a small 500-800 square foot duplex home with no one else but their family, be it two, four, six or eight members, had it too well off. To a south San Antonio low income family, a middle class home in middle of town with 1200 square feet, two baths, two or three bedrooms, and a small backyard had to be rich. To a middle class worker, looking at those ‘huge’ Northside homes (2500 square feet, 3 bath, 3 bedrooms, two car garage for 150-175K), they surely were the residences of the wealthy. To the average Northsider, the wealthier enclaves of the city with their 4000 square foot, half acre lots, with prices over 300-400K, that must have been heaven. To those folks, scratching out a living with two professionals, they looked with envy at the Gates, the Dells, and others, surely richer than rich could be.
So what is rich? Everyone believes those above him on the economic scale are rich while ignoring the fact that all those beneath him believe him to be rich. Wealth envy. If I only could have some of their (those above) income, one thinks to himself, forgetting all those beneath him are thinking the same. It is a no win game. There are not enough rich to make everyone better off. Confiscate all of Bill Gates immense wealth and each citizen of the US will get $200, perhaps $250 each, hardly enough to worry about. But it makes good press, gets politicians elected, and government growing.
Who is the rich? Well to anyone below you and I, it is you and I, and to you and I, anyone with more than what you or I have.
Hatecrimes
New Bill in Congress to make Crimes against Gays a Hate Crime. I always wondered about hate crimes. if I kill someone I am guilty of murder and can be punishable by death. If I do it against a protected minority (it always seems the minorities are protected not the majority) than I can be accused of a hate crime. What are they going to do? Kill me again?
AMerica has this thing called Free Speech. It is often abused--as Move Org and Media Matters have been doing recently. But it exists. Part of free speech is my inherent right to think as I wish (no matter how badly or filthy or deviously). Hate crimes is a not so subtle attempt to instill politically correct thoughts in everyone. I always thought that no matter if I hated the person next to me, if I did not say or do anything or showed that hatred in any way, no harm no foul. I guess not. As Jimmy Carter once said, "I have lusted in my heart." Well today he might be found guilty of sexual harassement just for thinking that thought.
Just another thought. We can have hate crimes against gays and blacks and women but when was the last time you had a hate crime against Christians or Men or the Middle Class? Why the exception? If you are going to do it, do it right and exclude all hate crimes against all persons irregardless. But you cannot otherwise no one would speak at all to anyone else. (Isnt hate subjective anyway? If I love you and you do not love me than not stating that love to me is hating me isnt it?) Oh well. You get my point.
I would do away with all hate crimes. You can think it just do not do it. and we have enough laws on the books as it is anyway.
pah
AMerica has this thing called Free Speech. It is often abused--as Move Org and Media Matters have been doing recently. But it exists. Part of free speech is my inherent right to think as I wish (no matter how badly or filthy or deviously). Hate crimes is a not so subtle attempt to instill politically correct thoughts in everyone. I always thought that no matter if I hated the person next to me, if I did not say or do anything or showed that hatred in any way, no harm no foul. I guess not. As Jimmy Carter once said, "I have lusted in my heart." Well today he might be found guilty of sexual harassement just for thinking that thought.
Just another thought. We can have hate crimes against gays and blacks and women but when was the last time you had a hate crime against Christians or Men or the Middle Class? Why the exception? If you are going to do it, do it right and exclude all hate crimes against all persons irregardless. But you cannot otherwise no one would speak at all to anyone else. (Isnt hate subjective anyway? If I love you and you do not love me than not stating that love to me is hating me isnt it?) Oh well. You get my point.
I would do away with all hate crimes. You can think it just do not do it. and we have enough laws on the books as it is anyway.
pah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
