There has been a lot of speculation if Trump is a racist. I don't know for sure, but he is reveling in the coverage he is getting in the media. That is his goal, to get people stirred up on both sides so they don't deal with the real issues. They spend so much time talking about what he said that they do not see what he is doing - classical magician - misdirection.
According to Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Well Trump's Tweets certainly fit the description.
The question is, what do you do about it? I thought the best thing was to call him out, line by line and show the falsehoods. The problem is after over 10,000 false statements, there is too much time wasted making corrections.
So here is what I think the media should do - take a page out of Seinfeld, just say when quoting the President for example: He said "Yada, Yada, Yada." Because nothing he seems to say has any value whatsoever - so why give him attention? He is just like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
The most important rule - don't feed trolls!
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Won't get fooled again
Once again the American population has been fooled. The headlines following the release of the Muller report should have been. "Proven that Russia interferes in our election process by manipulating social media. President duped into thinking he has a mandate." but instead the headlines read "No Collusion". Order # 3015-2017 was titled "Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters." Robert Mueller was charged to investigate that plus any links between the Russian government and any individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. Implicit in that is the President, but not explicit. Some people related to the president were convicted of crimes, mostly lying to investigators. But why would you lie if you did nothing wrong? I think that is the most puzzling question. Could the plot be so Machiavellian as to deliberately obstruct justice knowing that obstruction is hard to prove in the absence of a crime? I get a headache just thinking about it.
As I wrote over two years ago, I thought there was no direct conspiracy to collude, but there was a lot of jumping on the bandwagon of false statements, hyperbole and innuendo. There are many people who want their name cleared, but the only way to do that is to release the entire report. My belief is that will not happen soon without selective releases of information favorable to those chosen, or unfavorable to those not. I predict if this course is followed, then Robert Mueller will be called before Congress and then all h*ll will break loose - if he is allowed to talk. Remember there are still ongoing investigations that he was involved with and that may not allow him to speak freely. Hmmmm.
As many people are advising the President - it would be better to take your victory lap, hollow as it is, and then let it die down and go away. But like a scab, he will pick at it until it starts bleeding again. The American people have already gone back to reading about the Kardashians, Justin Beiber and their Facebook posts; which means in a year or so we will be back to the same place we were 4 years ago...
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Where have I heard this before?
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump threatened Sunday to push the government into a shutdown ahead of the coming spending deadline in September if Congress does not fund his border wall and change the nation's immigration laws. CNN 7/29/2018
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that a government shutdown “could happen” and blamed Democrats for the looming threat, claiming “they want to have illegal immigrants pouring into the country, bringing with them crime."
NBC 12/6/2017
PHOENIX — President Trump on Tuesday threatened to shut down the government over border wall funding, said the North American Free Trade Agreement is likely to be terminated and signaled that he was prepared to pardon former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is anathema to the Latino community. Washington Post 8/23/2017
Looming above Washington as Congress and the White House attempt to avert a funding shutdown in only five days’ time, Donald Trump’s central campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border threatens to bring the US government to a halt this week in a national display of dysfunction. The Guardian 4/23/2017
Okay - why did he not shut it down when he controlled both houses of Congress? Why did he wait until the Democrats controlled the House? Nah - could not be politics...
Sunday, December 23, 2018
How quickly they forget
Representative Mark Meadows is upset that the Democrats cannot even come up with 5 billion dollars for President Trump's "wall".
He says this is just a small number. Maybe he forgets the 1.5 TRILLION that the Republicans gave to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks.
Do you think if they had not squandered that money they may have been able to find the money for the wall?
He says this is just a small number. Maybe he forgets the 1.5 TRILLION that the Republicans gave to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks.
Do you think if they had not squandered that money they may have been able to find the money for the wall?
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mis-Simplification
People who deny climate change often look to headlines for their ammunition:
THE PLANET NOW HAS MORE TREES THAN IT DID 35 YEARS AGO
The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Conservative web site used this information to claim that we have nothing to fear from "climate change" and that getting warmer is good for our planet.
I call this mis-simplification of the information. They take a bit of information, out of context, present it with no backing data and draw a conclusion from it.
For example - the planet has more trees than it did 35 years ago. Okay - some questions:
1. Was there a reason why 35 years ago we had a dearth of trees?
2. Are the trees today equal to trees prior to 35 years ago.
3. What about 100 years ago?
4. If there are more trees - are they the same trees?
5. What does more trees mean exactly?
Even in the case of the second headline, the author of the article (A) admits that the author of the study (B) he cites, has told A to stop misquoting B!
So how do you identify mis-simplification?
1. The information comes from headlines, not a careful reading of the article
2. There information is too specific ("35 years")
3. The information is too logical - so obvious that it is hard to contradict.
Mis-simplification might is a major part of "fake news" and is being used to distract people from real issues and critical thinking.
How we convince people to recognize this? We have to them to question their own biases. That is a much more difficult problem.
THE PLANET NOW HAS MORE TREES THAN IT DID 35 YEARS AGO
The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Conservative web site used this information to claim that we have nothing to fear from "climate change" and that getting warmer is good for our planet.
I call this mis-simplification of the information. They take a bit of information, out of context, present it with no backing data and draw a conclusion from it.
For example - the planet has more trees than it did 35 years ago. Okay - some questions:
1. Was there a reason why 35 years ago we had a dearth of trees?
2. Are the trees today equal to trees prior to 35 years ago.
3. What about 100 years ago?
4. If there are more trees - are they the same trees?
5. What does more trees mean exactly?
Even in the case of the second headline, the author of the article (A) admits that the author of the study (B) he cites, has told A to stop misquoting B!
So how do you identify mis-simplification?
1. The information comes from headlines, not a careful reading of the article
2. There information is too specific ("35 years")
3. The information is too logical - so obvious that it is hard to contradict.
Mis-simplification might is a major part of "fake news" and is being used to distract people from real issues and critical thinking.
How we convince people to recognize this? We have to them to question their own biases. That is a much more difficult problem.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Supreme Agony
In watching the circus which is the hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh, the following thought struck me. For all those defending Judge Kavanaugh, with 100% certainty and how unfairly he is being treated, what about Bill Cosby? What about all the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church who were accused and convicted of abuse. What about the Hollywood producers and stars who ended up being guilty?
We are going through a period in time where past sins are being dug up and used against people. We have not yet drawn the line between what is fair and sensible and what is over the top. Certainly what was done as a teenager is different than something done as an adult. Certainly people can change and correct their faults. As a Catholic, redemption is the key part of our beliefs. However, redemption has a price. Honest admission of failings, expressing contrition, and leading a better life after. I get the feeling Judge Kavanaugh has done the last one, not sure about the first two.
We are going through a period in time where past sins are being dug up and used against people. We have not yet drawn the line between what is fair and sensible and what is over the top. Certainly what was done as a teenager is different than something done as an adult. Certainly people can change and correct their faults. As a Catholic, redemption is the key part of our beliefs. However, redemption has a price. Honest admission of failings, expressing contrition, and leading a better life after. I get the feeling Judge Kavanaugh has done the last one, not sure about the first two.
Saturday, September 08, 2018
How come come nobody thought of this?
There is much talk about who is the "anonymous" writer in the NYT op ed.
What about is this is a compilation of many people?
The "author" does say "we" so might that also mean that several people contributed to it?
That way all could say they did not write (the entire) it, and not implicate any one other person.
Hmmm.
UPDATE - 3 days after this someone else had the same thought - Steve Bannon -not sure I want to be in that company....
What about is this is a compilation of many people?
The "author" does say "we" so might that also mean that several people contributed to it?
That way all could say they did not write (the entire) it, and not implicate any one other person.
Hmmm.
UPDATE - 3 days after this someone else had the same thought - Steve Bannon -not sure I want to be in that company....
Saturday, September 01, 2018
Mark Twain and the new truth
It is alleged that Mark Twain said "A lie goes around the world before the truth even gets its pants on".
Whether he did or did not, he was credited with saying it.
Well I have come up with my own saying and hope to be a famous as he is.
"TRUTH FINDS ITS SEAT AT THE 50 YARD LINE."
Whether he did or did not, he was credited with saying it.
Well I have come up with my own saying and hope to be a famous as he is.
"TRUTH FINDS ITS SEAT AT THE 50 YARD LINE."
Sunday, February 04, 2018
The damage is done
Update 2/17/2018 - From what I have found out, Carter Page's surveillance started in October 2016. It was renewed 3 times for 3 months each so unless it was renewed unknown to us, the surveillance ended in October 2017. So if he was not currently under surveillance when the memo came out, they would claim that no unmasking took place. I still wonder if finding out anyone was under surveillance so close to the ending of the surveillance was damaging, but technically, it is not unmasking.
One thing that has not been addressed with the release of the "Carter Page" memo, is that in unmasking Carter Page as the person who was being surveilled, this ended any information that was forthcoming from the surveillance. Now, it might be that the information was already winding down, or that his identification was out there to the point that the information being gathered was not longer trustworthy; in fact could have been already been purposely misleading. The fact is, now that Carter Page has been "unmasked", no more information will be coming from this investigation.
One thing that has not been addressed with the release of the "Carter Page" memo, is that in unmasking Carter Page as the person who was being surveilled, this ended any information that was forthcoming from the surveillance. Now, it might be that the information was already winding down, or that his identification was out there to the point that the information being gathered was not longer trustworthy; in fact could have been already been purposely misleading. The fact is, now that Carter Page has been "unmasked", no more information will be coming from this investigation.
Saturday, January 06, 2018
One year down
Okay,
Here is my quick review of the President Trump's first year in office.
1. Supreme Court Nominee - Here the President really owes a debt of gratitude to Mitch McConnell. If McConnell did not take the risk of delaying the nomination of President Obama's nominee (remember Garland?), then there would be no nomination to make.
2. Economy - like it our not, 2017 was still President Obama's. The Dow came from almost nothing (6400 in 2009), to end up at 19,887 in 2017. It is just crossed 25000 as I write this, but my opinion is that it is overvalued and due for a correction. Will companies buy back stock keep it high? Tune in during 2018.
3. Jobs - for 2017, we see the same problem as the last 8 years - jobs that are created are either highly skilled or minimum wage and not enough workers to fill the first scenario. With the college bubble about to bust (a correction in tuition), I think companies should spend some of their saved tax money, not to invest in machinery, but to invest in training centers for the workers they need.
4. I do not see any problem with controlling immigration and protecting our borders. The "my way or the highway" attitude hurts more than helps. The Republicans know they need to turn many non-citizens into good taxpaying citizens, but after demonizing them for so long, how do they get to that point? DACA will be the first turning point.
5. Foreign Policy. The President has some good people who are being compromised by the 3am Tweets and other outbursts. Then you wonder how many good people are being forced to say things they don't want to. An example is Nikki Haley's "we are taking names" comments at the UN. If the administration does not have the courage of their convictions to take some criticism, you wonder if they are right. The "It is my ball and if you don't play by my rules I am going home" is a childish attitude.
And that is all I will comment on. Happy New Year
ChrisZ
Here is my quick review of the President Trump's first year in office.
1. Supreme Court Nominee - Here the President really owes a debt of gratitude to Mitch McConnell. If McConnell did not take the risk of delaying the nomination of President Obama's nominee (remember Garland?), then there would be no nomination to make.
2. Economy - like it our not, 2017 was still President Obama's. The Dow came from almost nothing (6400 in 2009), to end up at 19,887 in 2017. It is just crossed 25000 as I write this, but my opinion is that it is overvalued and due for a correction. Will companies buy back stock keep it high? Tune in during 2018.
3. Jobs - for 2017, we see the same problem as the last 8 years - jobs that are created are either highly skilled or minimum wage and not enough workers to fill the first scenario. With the college bubble about to bust (a correction in tuition), I think companies should spend some of their saved tax money, not to invest in machinery, but to invest in training centers for the workers they need.
4. I do not see any problem with controlling immigration and protecting our borders. The "my way or the highway" attitude hurts more than helps. The Republicans know they need to turn many non-citizens into good taxpaying citizens, but after demonizing them for so long, how do they get to that point? DACA will be the first turning point.
5. Foreign Policy. The President has some good people who are being compromised by the 3am Tweets and other outbursts. Then you wonder how many good people are being forced to say things they don't want to. An example is Nikki Haley's "we are taking names" comments at the UN. If the administration does not have the courage of their convictions to take some criticism, you wonder if they are right. The "It is my ball and if you don't play by my rules I am going home" is a childish attitude.
And that is all I will comment on. Happy New Year
ChrisZ
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
All over but he shouting
After living through this play twice before, I seem to know how it ends.
At first there are a lot of happy people who have maybe $20.00 more dollars in their pockets each week, but then after a few years they realize that the creep in fees, local taxes, increases in cable bills and cell phone plans, end up costing much more.
Then the retirement plans get cut, the roads get worse and it costs even more to get an education. Eventually, people realize it was a stupid idea, and make steps to fix it.
Just when it is starting to work, people get greedy again and are sold anotehr bill of goods.
Then the cycle starts again....
At first there are a lot of happy people who have maybe $20.00 more dollars in their pockets each week, but then after a few years they realize that the creep in fees, local taxes, increases in cable bills and cell phone plans, end up costing much more.
Then the retirement plans get cut, the roads get worse and it costs even more to get an education. Eventually, people realize it was a stupid idea, and make steps to fix it.
Just when it is starting to work, people get greedy again and are sold anotehr bill of goods.
Then the cycle starts again....
Saturday, December 09, 2017
All we have to fear is fear itself
What drives people? I am proposing that people are all driven by two opposite emotions: Pride and Fear.
Pride, or Ego, does not allow us to be wrong - it does not allow us to be objective. It makes us deny evidence. It gives us privilege, defined by us.
Fear is the opposite, but with the same effect - it shapes our beliefs and does not allow us to accept things that force us to change - we are afraid of change because it means we have to have put an effort into meeting this change - at our core, we do not like change.
The true response is humility, the desire to search for truth, even it it does not fit with our preconceived notions. This means changing your beliefs when presented with evidence to the contrary.
We will never be able to completely take emotion out of our actions, nor be able to understand everything put before us. We are capable of making informed decisions, and the more people who make informed decisions, the more possible the the group decision will be correct.
Pride, or Ego, does not allow us to be wrong - it does not allow us to be objective. It makes us deny evidence. It gives us privilege, defined by us.
Fear is the opposite, but with the same effect - it shapes our beliefs and does not allow us to accept things that force us to change - we are afraid of change because it means we have to have put an effort into meeting this change - at our core, we do not like change.
The true response is humility, the desire to search for truth, even it it does not fit with our preconceived notions. This means changing your beliefs when presented with evidence to the contrary.
We will never be able to completely take emotion out of our actions, nor be able to understand everything put before us. We are capable of making informed decisions, and the more people who make informed decisions, the more possible the the group decision will be correct.
Friday, November 03, 2017
What a 180 - Makes my head spin....
Today President Beamed on how he was right and the election was rigged.
Except - he was not referring to the Democratic Primary - he was referring to the General Election:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-fact-check-rigged-election-voter
‘Rigged election’
“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD.” – 16 October, Twitter
“Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naïve!” – 17 October, Twitter
“So many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is very, very common.” – 17 October, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Do people have such short memories that they are this easily fooled?
Except - he was not referring to the Democratic Primary - he was referring to the General Election:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/donald-trump-fact-check-rigged-election-voter
‘Rigged election’
“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD.” – 16 October, Twitter
“Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naïve!” – 17 October, Twitter
“So many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is very, very common.” – 17 October, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Do people have such short memories that they are this easily fooled?
Saturday, October 14, 2017
The most $%$#@ I have heard - today
Steve Forbes was on a panel show on Fox. the panel was of 4 men and 2 women - all but one of the panel (a man) was solidly in the Trump camp.
A the end of the segment, and at a point where no one could respond - Steve Forbes let out with this winner "I should not have to buy an insurance policy that covers pregnancy." I am surprised that the women on the panel did not jump out of their seats and attack him. What a %^%$# statement. Does he not understand how insurance works? Did he not have children himself? Does he not have a mother? Should the women not have to pay into a policy that covers prostate exams? Should middle age people not have to pay into a policy that covers Alzheimers?
The ACA tried to level the playing field but stating the minimum coverage that treats us all like individual human beings. We band together as a society to provide health care for everyone. The ambulance driver does not ask for your insurance card in an accident. The emergency room doctor does not ask if his services are covered by your plan. Do you want to get to the point where the police do not come to your house because you opted out of burglar protection on your taxes?
When we think about what these people are saying, we realize that we are being sold down the river by people who just wish to line their pockets.
Chris
A the end of the segment, and at a point where no one could respond - Steve Forbes let out with this winner "I should not have to buy an insurance policy that covers pregnancy." I am surprised that the women on the panel did not jump out of their seats and attack him. What a %^%$# statement. Does he not understand how insurance works? Did he not have children himself? Does he not have a mother? Should the women not have to pay into a policy that covers prostate exams? Should middle age people not have to pay into a policy that covers Alzheimers?
The ACA tried to level the playing field but stating the minimum coverage that treats us all like individual human beings. We band together as a society to provide health care for everyone. The ambulance driver does not ask for your insurance card in an accident. The emergency room doctor does not ask if his services are covered by your plan. Do you want to get to the point where the police do not come to your house because you opted out of burglar protection on your taxes?
When we think about what these people are saying, we realize that we are being sold down the river by people who just wish to line their pockets.
Chris
Sunday, October 01, 2017
Tom Price resigns from post - mirrors requested
I don't need to write - just to report:
Under pressure from Trump, Price resigns as health secretary over private plane uproar.
"I certainly don't like the optics," Trump told reporters as he headed for the presidential helicopter Marine One, en route to a weekend stay at his golf club in New Jersey. "I'm not happy, I can tell you that. I'm not happy."
Can someone please buy the President a mirror?
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=20322092#editor/target=post;postID=738009036454706782
Under pressure from Trump, Price resigns as health secretary over private plane uproar.
"I certainly don't like the optics," Trump told reporters as he headed for the presidential helicopter Marine One, en route to a weekend stay at his golf club in New Jersey. "I'm not happy, I can tell you that. I'm not happy."
Can someone please buy the President a mirror?
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=20322092#editor/target=post;postID=738009036454706782
Sunday, September 24, 2017
The Next Great Bubble
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Chris's Words of Wisdom (WOW)
“This country will collapse economically, when the government cannot pay for the seemingly reasonable demands of the people .”
ChrisZ
I wrote this over 8 years ago - the next bubble will be the government bubble - what we are seeing this year in CT, IL and many other states.
My claim is that the state budgets are not allowed to expand and CONTRACT, like they do in normal business. This is why government jobs always have to lag behind jobs in private industry. For example:
Geno Auriemma is a great coach, but he should not be making 2 million dollars a year at UCONN. His salary should have been capped at around $500,000. "Then he would have left UCONN!" Right, and someone would have taken his place. "But we would have not won all those championships!" Maybe, maybe not; but winning championships just led to more spending and increased taxes.
Teachers salaries and pensions should be phased out and moved to IRA's. Current teachers with pensions should have them adjusted to current economic conditions. No one group should be guaranteed isolation from the ups and downs of the economy and still be paid more than the average worker with the same skills.
Companies who lay off people because it is cheaper to deploy robots and pay unemployment, should be taxed extra for replacing people in the first place. Technology is driving the economy and making a small group of people wealthier, with out any concern for the collateral damage in their wake. You cannot claim protection against third world competitors while making record profits....
I give these as examples - not to pick on any person or group - every person is looking out for their own good. Nothing wrong with that unless they look at the world as a unlimited salad bar. The world is closer to a zero sum game, than an win/win or infinite sum game.
ChrisZ
Chris's Words of Wisdom (WOW)
“This country will collapse economically, when the government cannot pay for the seemingly reasonable demands of the people .”
ChrisZ
I wrote this over 8 years ago - the next bubble will be the government bubble - what we are seeing this year in CT, IL and many other states.
My claim is that the state budgets are not allowed to expand and CONTRACT, like they do in normal business. This is why government jobs always have to lag behind jobs in private industry. For example:
Geno Auriemma is a great coach, but he should not be making 2 million dollars a year at UCONN. His salary should have been capped at around $500,000. "Then he would have left UCONN!" Right, and someone would have taken his place. "But we would have not won all those championships!" Maybe, maybe not; but winning championships just led to more spending and increased taxes.
Teachers salaries and pensions should be phased out and moved to IRA's. Current teachers with pensions should have them adjusted to current economic conditions. No one group should be guaranteed isolation from the ups and downs of the economy and still be paid more than the average worker with the same skills.
Companies who lay off people because it is cheaper to deploy robots and pay unemployment, should be taxed extra for replacing people in the first place. Technology is driving the economy and making a small group of people wealthier, with out any concern for the collateral damage in their wake. You cannot claim protection against third world competitors while making record profits....
I give these as examples - not to pick on any person or group - every person is looking out for their own good. Nothing wrong with that unless they look at the world as a unlimited salad bar. The world is closer to a zero sum game, than an win/win or infinite sum game.
ChrisZ
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Ego or not Ego
To be a president you have to have an ego. What motivates it is another story. Here are the presidents I remember in my lifetime:
Kennedy: Altruistic - driven by family pressure to be great
Johnson: Driven by fate - did not like Kennedy but felt he had to continue his work
Nixon: Driven by losses and a bit narcissistic - will hang on til last second
Ford: Not enough ego - fate put him there
Carter: A nice guy who really thought niceness could win
Reagan: Another altruistic guy who I believe really thought he knew best
Bush 1: His turn - not egotistical enough
Clinton: A wheeler dealer - narcissistic but practical (knew when to fold them)
Bush 2: a bit of a puppet of Cheney and the GOP - toward the end was finding his swagger.
Obama: the chosen one - altruistic - the professor
Before we come to Trump
H Clinton: My turn -I worked and slaved my but off- put up with crap and should be rewarded. Being first woman she would want to leave a legacy though.
Donald Trump - I am the best - but unlike Mohammed Ali -more talk than results - golden boy with opportunistic tendencies - everything revolves around me - willing to throw anyone under the bus if it makes him look good. Not sure he really cares about America - just that he is best for America no matter what. a Realty TV show in the White House.
That is why I did not vote for him - not that Hillary was much better - but being the first woman would have forced her to be a better president.
Trump does not care - except about himself.
Kennedy: Altruistic - driven by family pressure to be great
Johnson: Driven by fate - did not like Kennedy but felt he had to continue his work
Nixon: Driven by losses and a bit narcissistic - will hang on til last second
Ford: Not enough ego - fate put him there
Carter: A nice guy who really thought niceness could win
Reagan: Another altruistic guy who I believe really thought he knew best
Bush 1: His turn - not egotistical enough
Clinton: A wheeler dealer - narcissistic but practical (knew when to fold them)
Bush 2: a bit of a puppet of Cheney and the GOP - toward the end was finding his swagger.
Obama: the chosen one - altruistic - the professor
Before we come to Trump
H Clinton: My turn -I worked and slaved my but off- put up with crap and should be rewarded. Being first woman she would want to leave a legacy though.
Donald Trump - I am the best - but unlike Mohammed Ali -more talk than results - golden boy with opportunistic tendencies - everything revolves around me - willing to throw anyone under the bus if it makes him look good. Not sure he really cares about America - just that he is best for America no matter what. a Realty TV show in the White House.
That is why I did not vote for him - not that Hillary was much better - but being the first woman would have forced her to be a better president.
Trump does not care - except about himself.
Monday, July 24, 2017
Scoutworthy
President Trump
A Scout is:
Trustworthy, 20%
Loyal, 20%
Helpful, 40%
Friendly, 30%
Courteous, 20%
Kind, 20%
Obedient, 10%
Cheerful, 20%
Thrifty, 15%
Brave, 10%
Clean, 10%
and Reverent. 20%
Not much of a Scout
A Scout is:
Trustworthy, 20%
Loyal, 20%
Helpful, 40%
Friendly, 30%
Courteous, 20%
Kind, 20%
Obedient, 10%
Cheerful, 20%
Thrifty, 15%
Brave, 10%
Clean, 10%
and Reverent. 20%
Not much of a Scout
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Predictions and Hindsight
There is a lot of speculation on if the Russians "stole" the election for Trump. I will jump in and give you my thinking and let's see if it turns out to be true.
First we start with the fact that then businessman Donald Trump is an astute student of humanity. His entire life has been that of exaggeration, boasting, confronting and intimidating. He knew going into the primary that he could not best the other candidates on political knowledge and world affairs so he did not even try. He played right to people's fears, anxiety and selfishness. His Twitter account and use of right-wing media such as Fox (even when it seemed to be against him he was still using it for his advantage. No conspiracy theory was off the table, no claim too outlandish, no correction unchallenged by turning back on the accuser.
Once he became the Republican candidate, people thought he would become more mature, even headed, and maybe even calm. That did not work - enter Kellyanne Conway. As per his previous persona, he doubled down with items like Hillary Clinton should be locked up, President Obama started ISIS, and that the election was already rigged against him.
Then a curious thing happened. Social media became the method by which many people got their information. Why read a newspaper when the news comes right to your phone. Why search Google when your friends are all sending you news on Facebook. Twitter allowed people to send rumors around the world before Politifact or any other fact-checking organization could respond.
People tend to believe what they want to hear and when they are bombarded by the same thing over and over and it becomes the truth - even if there is no shred of evidence.
Now enter the Russians. I do not know their reason, Maybe President Putin was mad at Hillary, maybe he wanted to help Trump, maybe he just wanted to mess with our minds. Hacking the Democrats provided no information that would last more than a 24 hour news cycle. Hacking the election machines was too daunting as it would only affect a small percentage of the votes. So they hopped on the Trump bandwagon and started flooding social media with fake stories and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that 100% of these were anti-Hillary just fueled the fire.
Now we have a perfect storm of two entities trying the same tactics and feeding off each other, and perhaps there was no direct collusion, just the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hillary Clinton was too slow or incapable of taking the fight back as she would always be firing from behind. Even the statement that the Russians were interfering, normally a statement that would infuriate any American, was not looked as just another feeble attempt to change the focus from Clinton's "crimes".
So we had the perfect storm. One that fooled the pundits and the polls. One that gave now President Trump the thought he had a mandate that he did not have. Now that he is in office, he is finding that the real world in Washington does not work like the campaign trail.
The silver lining in this debacle? If, and I believe it will be, it is shown that the Russians did play a part in upsetting our election process, people will come to the realization that they cannot blindly believe anything they hear. They will be come the ultimate cynics. This will be the beginning of a new era where people actually think and research what they hear.
Well I can hope.
First we start with the fact that then businessman Donald Trump is an astute student of humanity. His entire life has been that of exaggeration, boasting, confronting and intimidating. He knew going into the primary that he could not best the other candidates on political knowledge and world affairs so he did not even try. He played right to people's fears, anxiety and selfishness. His Twitter account and use of right-wing media such as Fox (even when it seemed to be against him he was still using it for his advantage. No conspiracy theory was off the table, no claim too outlandish, no correction unchallenged by turning back on the accuser.
Once he became the Republican candidate, people thought he would become more mature, even headed, and maybe even calm. That did not work - enter Kellyanne Conway. As per his previous persona, he doubled down with items like Hillary Clinton should be locked up, President Obama started ISIS, and that the election was already rigged against him.
Then a curious thing happened. Social media became the method by which many people got their information. Why read a newspaper when the news comes right to your phone. Why search Google when your friends are all sending you news on Facebook. Twitter allowed people to send rumors around the world before Politifact or any other fact-checking organization could respond.
People tend to believe what they want to hear and when they are bombarded by the same thing over and over and it becomes the truth - even if there is no shred of evidence.
Now enter the Russians. I do not know their reason, Maybe President Putin was mad at Hillary, maybe he wanted to help Trump, maybe he just wanted to mess with our minds. Hacking the Democrats provided no information that would last more than a 24 hour news cycle. Hacking the election machines was too daunting as it would only affect a small percentage of the votes. So they hopped on the Trump bandwagon and started flooding social media with fake stories and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that 100% of these were anti-Hillary just fueled the fire.
Now we have a perfect storm of two entities trying the same tactics and feeding off each other, and perhaps there was no direct collusion, just the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hillary Clinton was too slow or incapable of taking the fight back as she would always be firing from behind. Even the statement that the Russians were interfering, normally a statement that would infuriate any American, was not looked as just another feeble attempt to change the focus from Clinton's "crimes".
So we had the perfect storm. One that fooled the pundits and the polls. One that gave now President Trump the thought he had a mandate that he did not have. Now that he is in office, he is finding that the real world in Washington does not work like the campaign trail.
The silver lining in this debacle? If, and I believe it will be, it is shown that the Russians did play a part in upsetting our election process, people will come to the realization that they cannot blindly believe anything they hear. They will be come the ultimate cynics. This will be the beginning of a new era where people actually think and research what they hear.
Well I can hope.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Is it the method or the results?
When you were in school, you not only got credit for the right answer, but for "showing your work" which was to make sure that you did not just guess or cheat.
Both were important but in the end, if you showed you knew how to get the right answer, but did not get the right answer, you really did not know how to get it - did you? Either that or you made a stupid mistake. (My hand is up for that - a painful lesson.)
Now to today. Let's start by establishing a truth. A "leak" must be true by definition. You cannot leak something that is not true - it is just something that is made up. I cannot leak that President Trump is really 5 foot 5 inches tall, no matter how seriously or how widely published it is.
So to Representative Trey Gowdy. Here is what he said in response to Senator Charles Schumer's comment that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, be removed from that position. Note, the details of the events are not essential to the point I am going to make.
"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be interested in the authenticity and reliability of the underlying data [rather than] the means by which it was acquired," Gowdy said.
Now, Let us go back a few weeks to when Rep Gowdy was asking FBI Director James Comey about if the leak on former national security adviser Michael Flynn was being investigated.
Gowdy asked Comey to also assure the American people that the FBI is investigating the leak which led to the resignation of Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn over communications with the Russian ambassador.
"I can't," Comey responded. "But I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information. But I don't want to confirm it by saying we're investigating it. I'm sorry I have to draw that line, I just think that's the right way to be."
Gowdy shook his head in response. He said he wouldn't argue, but that he and Comey agree the release of classified information is "most definitely" a crime.
He then asked Comey to "seek authority from whomever you need to seek authority from" to assure the American people that the leak is being investigated.
Okay - which one is it - in the first case the that fact but not the method is important, in the second, the method and not the fact is more important????
Hmmmmm.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/27/trey-gowdy-chuck-schumer-devin-nunes-intelligence-wiretap-info-white-house
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/20/gowdy-presses-comey-whether-flynn-leak-will-be-investigated
Both were important but in the end, if you showed you knew how to get the right answer, but did not get the right answer, you really did not know how to get it - did you? Either that or you made a stupid mistake. (My hand is up for that - a painful lesson.)
Now to today. Let's start by establishing a truth. A "leak" must be true by definition. You cannot leak something that is not true - it is just something that is made up. I cannot leak that President Trump is really 5 foot 5 inches tall, no matter how seriously or how widely published it is.
So to Representative Trey Gowdy. Here is what he said in response to Senator Charles Schumer's comment that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, be removed from that position. Note, the details of the events are not essential to the point I am going to make.
"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be interested in the authenticity and reliability of the underlying data [rather than] the means by which it was acquired," Gowdy said.
Now, Let us go back a few weeks to when Rep Gowdy was asking FBI Director James Comey about if the leak on former national security adviser Michael Flynn was being investigated.
Gowdy asked Comey to also assure the American people that the FBI is investigating the leak which led to the resignation of Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn over communications with the Russian ambassador.
"I can't," Comey responded. "But I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information. But I don't want to confirm it by saying we're investigating it. I'm sorry I have to draw that line, I just think that's the right way to be."
Gowdy shook his head in response. He said he wouldn't argue, but that he and Comey agree the release of classified information is "most definitely" a crime.
He then asked Comey to "seek authority from whomever you need to seek authority from" to assure the American people that the leak is being investigated.
Okay - which one is it - in the first case the that fact but not the method is important, in the second, the method and not the fact is more important????
Hmmmmm.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/27/trey-gowdy-chuck-schumer-devin-nunes-intelligence-wiretap-info-white-house
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/20/gowdy-presses-comey-whether-flynn-leak-will-be-investigated
Thursday, March 23, 2017
The Technique of Diminishing Exaggerations
This was Charles Krauthammer on Fox News Network 3/22/2017
“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/krauthammer-hesitates-to-say-nunes-revelations-vindicate-trump-we-are-in-the-dark-video/#ixzz4cAHBApqd
I have corrected the quote in the bold section, to better represent what Charles said and to give some inflection to this.
In my mind, this is the Rush Limbaugh technique of Diminishing Exaggeration.
This usually goes like this:
Look at his statements
So he starts out by saying that there is an appearance.
Then he says it is for sure (definite)
Then he says it is illegal,
then he says it may not be illegal but improper.
A fair statement should have been:
There appears to be improper unmasking of American citizens
We do not have enough information to go beyond that.
But the words that will be picked up by people who have a bias are:
“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”
Hmmmmm....
"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon from his song "The Boxer"
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/paulsimon390928.html
“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/krauthammer-hesitates-to-say-nunes-revelations-vindicate-trump-we-are-in-the-dark-video/#ixzz4cAHBApqd
I have corrected the quote in the bold section, to better represent what Charles said and to give some inflection to this.
In my mind, this is the Rush Limbaugh technique of Diminishing Exaggeration.
This usually goes like this:
- Everybody is doing it
- Most people are doing it
- Many people are doing it
- I heard about a guy who did it.
Look at his statements
- There appears to have been,
- for sure
- illegal
- if not illegal, improper
So he starts out by saying that there is an appearance.
Then he says it is for sure (definite)
Then he says it is illegal,
then he says it may not be illegal but improper.
A fair statement should have been:
There appears to be improper unmasking of American citizens
We do not have enough information to go beyond that.
But the words that will be picked up by people who have a bias are:
“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”
Hmmmmm....
"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon from his song "The Boxer"
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/paulsimon390928.html
Thursday, March 09, 2017
Wikileaks and morality
It is interesting about the discussion regarding the in and out of Wikileaks as it pertains to the current administration.
Here is the bottom line - Wikileaks is neither evil or good, in the traditional sense.
Wikileaks is amoral, it does not care what it releases, it feels that EVERYTHING musty be exposed, no matter who it hurts.
That does not make it evil, but it makes it wrong.
The right of free speech is not absolute, it is always constrained by humanity.
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just because Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, does not make every religion right.
Just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom ............of the press, does not make the press always right.
And just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, goes not make all speech right.
With any freedom comes responsibility - if you do not accept the responsibility, then you cannot claim the right.
Here is the bottom line - Wikileaks is neither evil or good, in the traditional sense.
Wikileaks is amoral, it does not care what it releases, it feels that EVERYTHING musty be exposed, no matter who it hurts.
That does not make it evil, but it makes it wrong.
The right of free speech is not absolute, it is always constrained by humanity.
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just because Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, does not make every religion right.
Just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom ............of the press, does not make the press always right.
And just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, goes not make all speech right.
With any freedom comes responsibility - if you do not accept the responsibility, then you cannot claim the right.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Spicer checks WH staffers' phones for leaks, vows more searches coming
Spicer checks WH staffers' phones for leaks, vows more searches coming.
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0031055/quotes
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0031055/quotes
Monday, January 30, 2017
Funny, that is not what you said last time....
Kellyanne Conway is currently the Counselor to President Trump. I find it hard to cry too much for her lately. She is decrying the media as being biased, liers and out to get the President. Hmmmm.
In his first appearance before the press, Sean Spicer criticized the "media" for reporting that the bust of Martin Luther King had been removed from the Oval Office. He used this as proof that the "media" was out to get him. Here are the facts:
7:21 Zeke Miller tweets that the Churchill bust is back in the Oval Office
7:33 another reporter tweets that the MLK bust is gone, sourced from another reporter - not Miller (there seems to be no "Tweets" from Miller, but he might have said that in a press pool report.)
8:14 Miller tweets that the MLK bust is still there
8:41 Miller tweets that he has confirmed with White house aide that the MLK bust is in the Oval Office.
Now Miller claimed the bust was obscured by a door and a secret service agent. I did not believe that until I saw this:
MLK bust is on the left - Churchill is on the right. (actually, this might have been taken earlier and the bust on the right might be Lincoln. The picture above MLK sometimes shows the Statue of Liberty.)
Now this is sloppy reporting if they noticed that the Churchill bust was there and did not ask the aide if the MLK bust had been replaced. But if Miller thought he saw it with his own eyes, then he would not have asked. So let's assume he was looking for a gotcha moment and screwed up, then apologized.
Let's compare this to:
On Wednesday November 2, 2016, FOX News anchor Bret Baier announced that according to unnamed sources, the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton which “will continue to likely an indictment.”
This was picked up by then Candidate Trump and blasted out over many conservative websites.
This was amplified on November 3, even while other news outlets were debunking the claim. Even Baier himself walked back the claim on Thursday but that did not stop people on Friday from repeating the claim, 48 hours later.
Baier even apologized. - even though he did not fully back down.
How does this relate to Ms Conway?
“The damage is done to Hillary Clinton,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC’s Brian Williams on Friday. (11/3)
Funny, this was 24 hours, not 2 before a correction was made. There was no apology to Ms Clinton by Brett Baier as was demanded by Sean Spicer from Zeke Miller to Donald Trump. In fact Ms Conway doubled down and stood by the report even after it had been walked back. There was no backing down by candidate Trump, he doubled down also.
For President Trump, Ms Conway or Sean Spicer, to express outrage at bad reporting is the ultimate in hypocrisy, seeing as "Alternative Facts" such as the FOX News report, helped him win the election - but they saw nothing wrong with it.
1/30/2017
Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/mlk-bust-oval-office/
http://morninganswerchicago.com/2017/01/21/reporters-jump-chance-report-fake-news-mlk-bust-removed-oval-office/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/03/bret-baier-serving-mouthpiece-unknown-sources-fbi-stories/214269
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/conway-on-fox-clinton-indictment-story-the-damage-is-done.html
http://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour-with-Brian-Williams (
In his first appearance before the press, Sean Spicer criticized the "media" for reporting that the bust of Martin Luther King had been removed from the Oval Office. He used this as proof that the "media" was out to get him. Here are the facts:
7:21 Zeke Miller tweets that the Churchill bust is back in the Oval Office
7:33 another reporter tweets that the MLK bust is gone, sourced from another reporter - not Miller (there seems to be no "Tweets" from Miller, but he might have said that in a press pool report.)
8:14 Miller tweets that the MLK bust is still there
8:41 Miller tweets that he has confirmed with White house aide that the MLK bust is in the Oval Office.
Now Miller claimed the bust was obscured by a door and a secret service agent. I did not believe that until I saw this:
Can you see either?
MLK bust is on the left - Churchill is on the right. (actually, this might have been taken earlier and the bust on the right might be Lincoln. The picture above MLK sometimes shows the Statue of Liberty.)
Now this is sloppy reporting if they noticed that the Churchill bust was there and did not ask the aide if the MLK bust had been replaced. But if Miller thought he saw it with his own eyes, then he would not have asked. So let's assume he was looking for a gotcha moment and screwed up, then apologized.
Let's compare this to:
On Wednesday November 2, 2016, FOX News anchor Bret Baier announced that according to unnamed sources, the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton which “will continue to likely an indictment.”
This was picked up by then Candidate Trump and blasted out over many conservative websites.
This was amplified on November 3, even while other news outlets were debunking the claim. Even Baier himself walked back the claim on Thursday but that did not stop people on Friday from repeating the claim, 48 hours later.
Baier even apologized. - even though he did not fully back down.
How does this relate to Ms Conway?
“The damage is done to Hillary Clinton,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC’s Brian Williams on Friday. (11/3)
Funny, this was 24 hours, not 2 before a correction was made. There was no apology to Ms Clinton by Brett Baier as was demanded by Sean Spicer from Zeke Miller to Donald Trump. In fact Ms Conway doubled down and stood by the report even after it had been walked back. There was no backing down by candidate Trump, he doubled down also.
For President Trump, Ms Conway or Sean Spicer, to express outrage at bad reporting is the ultimate in hypocrisy, seeing as "Alternative Facts" such as the FOX News report, helped him win the election - but they saw nothing wrong with it.
1/30/2017
Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/mlk-bust-oval-office/
http://morninganswerchicago.com/2017/01/21/reporters-jump-chance-report-fake-news-mlk-bust-removed-oval-office/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/03/bret-baier-serving-mouthpiece-unknown-sources-fbi-stories/214269
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/conway-on-fox-clinton-indictment-story-the-damage-is-done.html
http://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour-with-Brian-Williams (
Sunday, January 29, 2017
The True - False Fallacy
I propose there is a theory that we subscribe to that if something is not true, it has to be false.
Now you say of course if A=1 and B=2 then A+B cannot equal 5.
But if I said that A is between 1 and 5 and B is between -3 and +3, then A + B could be anywhere from -2 to +8 and still be correct.
So if we take two statements:
1. All people unemployed and on welfare are lazy.
2. Businesses eliminate jobs due to government regulation.
At first you may say that they are unrelated and you can hold that each statement may be true or that each statement may be false.
The problem is that in saying that a statement is either true or false, you then limit yourself to possibilities between the two.
For example, there might be reasons other than government regulations, why companies lay people off. Automation, cost cutting, lack of sales, etc. These people who are laid off are not lazy if they lost the job not due to anything they did or did not due. The skills that they had may not be valuable anymore in the workplace. Therefore there are people who are unemployed and on welfare who are not lazy, just do not have the skills to ind a job.
In this case one of the solutions is better education and retraining. However, either one of the statements by themselves will not lead to this conclusion; only by assuming they are not strictly true or false.
Now there are people who are on welfare and are lazy, and some people might lose jobs due to regulation. If these cases are the majority of instances, you deal with them differently than if they are a small subset. If most people on welfare are lazy, then you look for ways to tie welfare into motivation, rather than education.
For example, let us look at the statement "If you car burns oil, the engine is defective".
If your car burns a quart of oil every 3000 miles, you tend to just add oil and accept that. On the other hand, if you car uses a quart of oil every 50 miles, you rebuild the engine or buy another car. The solution is different depending on the degree of the problem.
Ford got into trouble with the Pinto, because they calculated that the design of the car could result in fatalities, but that the cost of the fix would be more than the cost of the lawsuits. On the other hand, some people said that even one death was too much. So if you had to design the car so that nobody ever, could get killed in the car, the price would be so high that nobody could afford it. Neither solution is reasonable. Ford should have spent built the car to a higher standard. and not just calculated a cost, once they were aware of an issue.
So instead of looking at a statement that it is EITHER True or False, accept that there may be cases where the statement contains a degree of truth and make decision related to the degree.
1/29/2017
Now you say of course if A=1 and B=2 then A+B cannot equal 5.
But if I said that A is between 1 and 5 and B is between -3 and +3, then A + B could be anywhere from -2 to +8 and still be correct.
So if we take two statements:
1. All people unemployed and on welfare are lazy.
2. Businesses eliminate jobs due to government regulation.
At first you may say that they are unrelated and you can hold that each statement may be true or that each statement may be false.
The problem is that in saying that a statement is either true or false, you then limit yourself to possibilities between the two.
For example, there might be reasons other than government regulations, why companies lay people off. Automation, cost cutting, lack of sales, etc. These people who are laid off are not lazy if they lost the job not due to anything they did or did not due. The skills that they had may not be valuable anymore in the workplace. Therefore there are people who are unemployed and on welfare who are not lazy, just do not have the skills to ind a job.
In this case one of the solutions is better education and retraining. However, either one of the statements by themselves will not lead to this conclusion; only by assuming they are not strictly true or false.
Now there are people who are on welfare and are lazy, and some people might lose jobs due to regulation. If these cases are the majority of instances, you deal with them differently than if they are a small subset. If most people on welfare are lazy, then you look for ways to tie welfare into motivation, rather than education.
For example, let us look at the statement "If you car burns oil, the engine is defective".
If your car burns a quart of oil every 3000 miles, you tend to just add oil and accept that. On the other hand, if you car uses a quart of oil every 50 miles, you rebuild the engine or buy another car. The solution is different depending on the degree of the problem.
Ford got into trouble with the Pinto, because they calculated that the design of the car could result in fatalities, but that the cost of the fix would be more than the cost of the lawsuits. On the other hand, some people said that even one death was too much. So if you had to design the car so that nobody ever, could get killed in the car, the price would be so high that nobody could afford it. Neither solution is reasonable. Ford should have spent built the car to a higher standard. and not just calculated a cost, once they were aware of an issue.
So instead of looking at a statement that it is EITHER True or False, accept that there may be cases where the statement contains a degree of truth and make decision related to the degree.
1/29/2017
Sunday, October 16, 2016
How do I get through to people?
Trump expresses his great financial ability and knowledge.
He "lost" $916 million in 1995.
The money is not lost, It is not around here waiting to be found.
The crazy thing about this is that are winners and losers in this deal.
The winners are the guys who got paid. These people may feel that they were taken care of. Someday favors may be called in.
The losers are the people who did not get paid and will not get paid.
The losers are the people who no longer have jobs, but cannot claim their lack of income as"losses".
The losers include the government who does not get the tax income for the next years.
And remember, Trump was able to take this business deduction because people like him made donations to the politicians, who wrote the tax laws. The average person does not have the ability to change the tax laws, so cannot deduct the excess medical bills, the damage to his house not covered by insurance, or the loss in his 401K due to manipulation of the stock market.
These deductions go to people who say, without them they would not take risks. Except the game is rigged to prevent the risks from being risks at all.
He "lost" $916 million in 1995.
The money is not lost, It is not around here waiting to be found.
The crazy thing about this is that are winners and losers in this deal.
The winners are the guys who got paid. These people may feel that they were taken care of. Someday favors may be called in.
The losers are the people who did not get paid and will not get paid.
The losers are the people who no longer have jobs, but cannot claim their lack of income as"losses".
The losers include the government who does not get the tax income for the next years.
And remember, Trump was able to take this business deduction because people like him made donations to the politicians, who wrote the tax laws. The average person does not have the ability to change the tax laws, so cannot deduct the excess medical bills, the damage to his house not covered by insurance, or the loss in his 401K due to manipulation of the stock market.
These deductions go to people who say, without them they would not take risks. Except the game is rigged to prevent the risks from being risks at all.
Sunday, May 01, 2016
Don't send a Thank you e-mail.
I get enough e-mails that I don't need a seperate one just to say thank you.
Include it in you next e-mail to me.
Include it in you next e-mail to me.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
2 Years And What Has Changed
A quote from the May 2015 issue of "Fast Company":
Stow your iPhone
"I try to hide, go dark. It's a great ritual to unplug for three hours and delete five apps on my phone-so I can stop. Phones are designed to be addictive."
John Maeda, Design partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufiled & Byers
Stow your iPhone
"I try to hide, go dark. It's a great ritual to unplug for three hours and delete five apps on my phone-so I can stop. Phones are designed to be addictive."
John Maeda, Design partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufiled & Byers
Monday, May 27, 2013
Brain Strain
A local pastor forgets the menu at a church event he set up. A radio DJ says Labor Day when he means Memorial Day. A TV weather man says July instead of June. A National News show gives the wrong winner of a NASCAR race. Isolated incidents? Normally I would say yes, but I wonder if something bigger is afoot. Electronics are rewiring our brains. Smart phones, tablets, instant messaging, e-mails, web pages, blogs (even this one?) and videos are affecting the way we think. For example, we don't know how to spell anymore, we wait for the computer to correct our spelling. We don't remember phone numbers, we rely on the look up in our smartphones. (Of course we have so many more to keep track of, how could we remember them all.) We zone out to an overload of videos, rather that letting out brains relax and rebuild after a long day. We make more mistakes, waste more time, get less sleep.
How do we fix this? We need to step away from the electronic devices and let our brains recover. We need to find other ways of work that help our brains, not tax them. As I come up with more ideas I will publish them, but for now I need to go for a bike ride...
ChrisZ
How do we fix this? We need to step away from the electronic devices and let our brains recover. We need to find other ways of work that help our brains, not tax them. As I come up with more ideas I will publish them, but for now I need to go for a bike ride...
ChrisZ
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Surprise, Surprise, Suprise
"Due to doping allegations at the time, SCA initially refused to pay Armstrong $5 million in bonus money that Tailwind Sports, the owner of Armstrong's U.S. Postal team, had promised him if he won a sixth Tour title in 2004. Tailwind Sports took out insurance coverage with SCA."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-armstrong-lawsuit-idUSBRE91615Y20130207
Okay - let me get this right - One company waives 5 million dollars in front of someone and then is surprised that this person may have cheated to win. Hmmmmm.
ChrisZ
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-armstrong-lawsuit-idUSBRE91615Y20130207
Okay - let me get this right - One company waives 5 million dollars in front of someone and then is surprised that this person may have cheated to win. Hmmmmm.
ChrisZ
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Timing is everything
For some reason there is a push to reinstate the draft. While it might be a good idea, it has missed its mark. The time to do that was while we were in the middle of two wars in the early 2000's. Right now, with fiscal problems and winding down the existing war, there is no money or time to train extra recruits.
One thing it would do is to spread the load of the military around and by that get more families involved. Right now the military is almost an exclusive club, with may people not even knowing someone serving. Out of sight, our of mind means most people do not care what is happening around the world.
My question is would the draft provide the best talent we need? The job of the military has changed from quantity to quality and the training is more intense and costly today, would a draft provide us with better people as we tap into those who might not consider a military career?
My bottom line is if you want to put together a youth service program - great - just make sure you can pay for it. But to re institute the draft at this time does not make any sense.
ChrisZ
One thing it would do is to spread the load of the military around and by that get more families involved. Right now the military is almost an exclusive club, with may people not even knowing someone serving. Out of sight, our of mind means most people do not care what is happening around the world.
My question is would the draft provide the best talent we need? The job of the military has changed from quantity to quality and the training is more intense and costly today, would a draft provide us with better people as we tap into those who might not consider a military career?
My bottom line is if you want to put together a youth service program - great - just make sure you can pay for it. But to re institute the draft at this time does not make any sense.
ChrisZ
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Real Job Killing Policy
The real elephant in the room:
Help no longer wanted - Republican American 2/1/2013
The Republicans and Democrats can argue till they are blue in the face about whose policies are killing jobs, but the real answer is in the article - Technology.
In recent history, we have had a similar change in our society, during the Industrial Revolution, when people left farming to go work in the factories. The problem this time is that there is no alternative for people whose jobs disappear as the new jobs are for robots!
Short term, both the Republicans and the Democrats know that increased taxes and government spending will ease the transition, but the question still is "What work will the majority of people do that creates value?"
This is the question we need to be asking - this will also be what drives government health care (even if run by private companies with will be highly regulated) or will we decide to accept 10+ unemployment as normal and just keep paying people who cannot find work? NOT!
Chris Z
Help no longer wanted - Republican American 2/1/2013
The Republicans and Democrats can argue till they are blue in the face about whose policies are killing jobs, but the real answer is in the article - Technology.
In recent history, we have had a similar change in our society, during the Industrial Revolution, when people left farming to go work in the factories. The problem this time is that there is no alternative for people whose jobs disappear as the new jobs are for robots!
Short term, both the Republicans and the Democrats know that increased taxes and government spending will ease the transition, but the question still is "What work will the majority of people do that creates value?"
This is the question we need to be asking - this will also be what drives government health care (even if run by private companies with will be highly regulated) or will we decide to accept 10+ unemployment as normal and just keep paying people who cannot find work? NOT!
Chris Z
Saturday, November 24, 2012
We are wealthy
Standing on a street corner - watching cars go by, I realized we are a wealthy country. The age, quality and condition of our cars shows that. For the most part we have very new cars in very good condition. The "rust buckets" and smoking junk I remember in my youth have pretty much been replaced by very efficient safe transportation. But at what cost? One of the reasons we are in the predicament we are in today is that most of these nice cars are on credit, borrowed against a future that is not materializing. 30 years ago, you borrowed for a new car, gambling in a sense that inflation would increase the value of your house, the wages your were paid, while making the dollars you paid to your bank cheaper. However, with inflation at a standstill, wages frozen or dropping and house values plummeting, this system is no longer working. My feeling is that the cars will start to fall apart, the air conditioners will stop working, cell phones sales will slow down... or maybe we are so addicted to these items that we will stop investing in the future to pay for the present.
ChrisZ
ChrisZ
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Achievement
Pros and Cons
Pro - You can be anything in life you want to be
Con - You cannot be everything in life you want to be
ChrisZ
Pro - You can be anything in life you want to be
Con - You cannot be everything in life you want to be
ChrisZ
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Were's Woodward
40 years since Watergate - where are the investigative journalists? Fast and Furious - surely someone in the press can work on finding out the truth. Wall Street meltdown? Why are we not flooded with stories from the inside. Health care law - by now someone could have read it and told us what is in it.
People are lazy - why do I have to do all the work for them?
ChrisZ
PS - Here is one that is getting alot of flack: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
People are lazy - why do I have to do all the work for them?
ChrisZ
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Health Care Debate
I am watching a debate on health care and want to give you two things to think about. When thinking about then remember virtually all health care is arranged through your work and private instance (like when you buy auto insurance) is virtually non-existent).
Preexisting conditions - this show compared preexisting conditions to a rickety old house vs a new house. The proper analogy is you loose your house and the insurance company for your new employer refuses to cover you because you have high blood pressure or are overweight. This would be like the auto insurance companies only deciding that you cannot have coverage after having an accident, whether it was your fault or not. Having more people in the insurance pool is the purpose of spreading the risk around.
Keeping kids on insurance until they are 26. The reason for this is not to soak insurance companies, but rather to insure a group that is not in the job place. Right now, these people get thrown of their parents policy at 21 and unless they are able to get student insurance, often work part time or minimum wage jobs were they cannot get insurance. Both of my children are are under 26 but have found a way to be insured, but if they were unemployed then how would they get coverage? This is not free, the parents have to have them on a family policy and and pay extra. Since young people have lower claims for the most part this is where insurance companies may be making more money - money that can balance out the older population.
So think twice when you here people talking about health care reform and how some of these changes are detrimental the people they are trying to help.
BTW: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1
ChrisZ
Preexisting conditions - this show compared preexisting conditions to a rickety old house vs a new house. The proper analogy is you loose your house and the insurance company for your new employer refuses to cover you because you have high blood pressure or are overweight. This would be like the auto insurance companies only deciding that you cannot have coverage after having an accident, whether it was your fault or not. Having more people in the insurance pool is the purpose of spreading the risk around.
Keeping kids on insurance until they are 26. The reason for this is not to soak insurance companies, but rather to insure a group that is not in the job place. Right now, these people get thrown of their parents policy at 21 and unless they are able to get student insurance, often work part time or minimum wage jobs were they cannot get insurance. Both of my children are are under 26 but have found a way to be insured, but if they were unemployed then how would they get coverage? This is not free, the parents have to have them on a family policy and and pay extra. Since young people have lower claims for the most part this is where insurance companies may be making more money - money that can balance out the older population.
So think twice when you here people talking about health care reform and how some of these changes are detrimental the people they are trying to help.
BTW: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1
ChrisZ
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Who volunteers?
Now that I am on the road working, it has given me a new perspective on who volunteers.
When I was a Cub Scout leader, Little League coach, Religious Education teacher, I was always frustrated in getting more volunteers. I think I have the answer.
In the 50's and 60's most people workedm either in factories or offices. They worked normal 9 - 5 jobs and were home for dinner. This was the peak time for volunteers. People worked 40 hour weeks and had spare time.
Today, with downsizing and technology, people are working odd hours and are always reachable. People cannot dedicate the time to volunteering when they don't know when they will have free time.
We are either going to have to change our expectations on traditional volunteer jobs, or change our economic system to accommodate them. Ironically, it was predicted that by this time we would all be working less than 40 hours and flex time would allow us to participate more in activities serving our communities.
Stop and think about when you were growing up and will your children and grand children have the same experiences.
Chris Z
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Why there is more oil drilling
Times Article:
"And not just here. Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota."
"At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show."
"How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand."
The higher the price of oil, and the more stable that price is, the more technology and investments will go find that oil that was either abandoned or perceived too expensive to recover.
ChrisZ
"And not just here. Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota."
"At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show."
"How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand."
The higher the price of oil, and the more stable that price is, the more technology and investments will go find that oil that was either abandoned or perceived too expensive to recover.
ChrisZ
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Peak oil or Peak Economy
After reviewing the statistics on oil reserves and prices, I want to put forth the the following observation:
If US oil production peaked in the 70's, that probably meant that our control over oil ended shortly after that - probably after the fall of the Shah of Iran. With the loss of control over the price of oil, came the world economic competition we find ourselves in now. Thus the US "Golden Age" might have passed with this event.
"But we are not out of oil - what about all the oil that is still in the ground?" There is more oil in the ground, and technology will allow us to recover more and more of that - the question is at what price. With many other countries having greater known reserves of conventional oil, it is hard to justify spending the money to drill or extract our own oil, unless there was a strategic reason like a world war or embargo (this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve).
Right now energy costs are taking a greater toll of the middle class budget. Energy cost affect everything from food, to transportation to wages. The upper class has seen wages and other income climb faster than energy costs so they have not been as affected. So you can add energy costs to the problems today, along with the decline in unions, technology changes and international competition. All are related and inseparable.
We will of course attain a sense of balance. That balance will be a new reality of what makes someone prosperous and economically comfortable. The struggle will be between forces trying to decide if this balance is natural or has to be legislated.
ChrisZ
If US oil production peaked in the 70's, that probably meant that our control over oil ended shortly after that - probably after the fall of the Shah of Iran. With the loss of control over the price of oil, came the world economic competition we find ourselves in now. Thus the US "Golden Age" might have passed with this event.
"But we are not out of oil - what about all the oil that is still in the ground?" There is more oil in the ground, and technology will allow us to recover more and more of that - the question is at what price. With many other countries having greater known reserves of conventional oil, it is hard to justify spending the money to drill or extract our own oil, unless there was a strategic reason like a world war or embargo (this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve).
Right now energy costs are taking a greater toll of the middle class budget. Energy cost affect everything from food, to transportation to wages. The upper class has seen wages and other income climb faster than energy costs so they have not been as affected. So you can add energy costs to the problems today, along with the decline in unions, technology changes and international competition. All are related and inseparable.
We will of course attain a sense of balance. That balance will be a new reality of what makes someone prosperous and economically comfortable. The struggle will be between forces trying to decide if this balance is natural or has to be legislated.
ChrisZ
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The lost art of communication
As technology gives us more ways to talk to each other, I wonder if it is having just the opposite. Instant messaging, e-mails, texting, Facebook - maybe the only technology that actually enhances communication is face to face conversation like Skype and Facetime.
Consider the other forms of communication - words with no sound, no meaning, no inflection. No reading of the other person's facial expression or body language. How much misinterpretation comes from reading an e-mail and assuming you understand the person's intentions.
As we text and twitter, we are in such a hurry to get our message out, that we don't spend the time to choose the correct words, or write in complete sentences so that we can properly communicate.
How are you using the new tools to communicate? Are they having the intended effect?
Consider the other forms of communication - words with no sound, no meaning, no inflection. No reading of the other person's facial expression or body language. How much misinterpretation comes from reading an e-mail and assuming you understand the person's intentions.
As we text and twitter, we are in such a hurry to get our message out, that we don't spend the time to choose the correct words, or write in complete sentences so that we can properly communicate.
How are you using the new tools to communicate? Are they having the intended effect?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Trip to Chicago Auto Show
Things I learned from my trip to the Chicago Auto Show:
1. Metra stations - you do pay for parking - $1.50 a day - remember your parking number
2. Train stations are not open on weekends for the most part so you end up buying tickets on the train (weekend pass is $7.00 in 2012)
3. Buses are tough to understand - Chicago streets are no like NYC - I looked for the AutoShow shuttle and followed the crowd - $2.25 (exact change for the bus unless you get a transit card. NOW I find out the CTA machine was in the Metra Ticket area in Union Station. You can order on line - just need to order 10 days in advance.
4. After show, the shuttle is at one of the gates underneath - don't go outside and try to find the bus.
5. The ride home on the train - get there early to get a seat down in the lower level.
1. Metra stations - you do pay for parking - $1.50 a day - remember your parking number
2. Train stations are not open on weekends for the most part so you end up buying tickets on the train (weekend pass is $7.00 in 2012)
3. Buses are tough to understand - Chicago streets are no like NYC - I looked for the AutoShow shuttle and followed the crowd - $2.25 (exact change for the bus unless you get a transit card. NOW I find out the CTA machine was in the Metra Ticket area in Union Station. You can order on line - just need to order 10 days in advance.
4. After show, the shuttle is at one of the gates underneath - don't go outside and try to find the bus.
5. The ride home on the train - get there early to get a seat down in the lower level.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
D$@&/:?(:/
Curse words are nothing new. The problem today is that they are used so commonly that they lose their meaning and just become obnoxious.
During the 60's and 70's certain words had an enhanced effect. When they were used, you realized the seriousness of their use. Now, these 4 letter words are thrown out like salt on the ice, random and more than is probably needed.
As words losse their meaning, something else has to take it's place. I am not sure the physical violence is directly related, but once at a loss for words,
Maybe the only thing left is physical.
During the 60's and 70's certain words had an enhanced effect. When they were used, you realized the seriousness of their use. Now, these 4 letter words are thrown out like salt on the ice, random and more than is probably needed.
As words losse their meaning, something else has to take it's place. I am not sure the physical violence is directly related, but once at a loss for words,
Maybe the only thing left is physical.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Hot Air strikes again
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/30/another-obama-donor-convicted-of-fraud/
From a news story:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/senior-managers-of-gdc-acquisitions-holding-company-charged-in-brooklyn-ny-with-bank-fraud-conspiracy-99138264.html
"This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes."
From a news story:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/senior-managers-of-gdc-acquisitions-holding-company-charged-in-brooklyn-ny-with-bank-fraud-conspiracy-99138264.html
"This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes."
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
The New(est) Party
We have the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, the Conservative Party and many others (yes, even the American Communist Party). Now we have two more, one maturing and one just getting started.
The Tea Party has been around for a few years. It seems to have started out with the cry, "What about me!" (1) and has morphed into more specific creeds. Constitutionality. smaller government, less taxes. It has not been absorbed by the Republican Party but rather attached more like a Siamese Twin.
The 99 Percent Movement is just starting out. It's rallying cry is "What about me!" - wait - where have I heard that before?? It is coming from the Left but it is not happy any more with the establishment left, just as the Tea Party is not happy with the establishment Right.
So what do we have? I think the initial movement on both sides is a reaction from the radical right and left. As the movements mature, they tone down the rhetoric and develop game plans. As this gets out they start picking up people who are are closer to the center. All movements by their nature become more centrist in order to keep attracting new followers. Where will the 99 Percent end up? I don't know - but I do know they need a better name.
==============================================
(1) For those who think the Tea Party is not the "about me" party - here are some links to peruse - two from definitely conservative sites. Rick Santelli's (former hedge fund manager) rant asks "who wants to pay for your neighbors mortgage, who has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" Well if you got rich on taking your neighbor's money when YOU knew he could not pay his bills, then maybe you should.....he was railing against the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan - not the stimulus by the way. Ironically, if the government had focused on solving the mortgage problem, maybe jobs would have appeared and we would not be in this mess today...
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/258258/short-history-tea-parties
Look at the signs on this site:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/a-tax-day-tea-party-cheat-sheet-how-it-all-started/
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/slate_v/2010/11/the_history_of_the_tea_party_in_four_minutes.html
The Tea Party has been around for a few years. It seems to have started out with the cry, "What about me!" (1) and has morphed into more specific creeds. Constitutionality. smaller government, less taxes. It has not been absorbed by the Republican Party but rather attached more like a Siamese Twin.
The 99 Percent Movement is just starting out. It's rallying cry is "What about me!" - wait - where have I heard that before?? It is coming from the Left but it is not happy any more with the establishment left, just as the Tea Party is not happy with the establishment Right.
So what do we have? I think the initial movement on both sides is a reaction from the radical right and left. As the movements mature, they tone down the rhetoric and develop game plans. As this gets out they start picking up people who are are closer to the center. All movements by their nature become more centrist in order to keep attracting new followers. Where will the 99 Percent end up? I don't know - but I do know they need a better name.
==============================================
(1) For those who think the Tea Party is not the "about me" party - here are some links to peruse - two from definitely conservative sites. Rick Santelli's (former hedge fund manager) rant asks "who wants to pay for your neighbors mortgage, who has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" Well if you got rich on taking your neighbor's money when YOU knew he could not pay his bills, then maybe you should.....he was railing against the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan - not the stimulus by the way. Ironically, if the government had focused on solving the mortgage problem, maybe jobs would have appeared and we would not be in this mess today...
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/258258/short-history-tea-parties
Look at the signs on this site:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/a-tax-day-tea-party-cheat-sheet-how-it-all-started/
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/slate_v/2010/11/the_history_of_the_tea_party_in_four_minutes.html
Sunday, September 18, 2011
If I hear this one more time....
I am getting tired of hearing "The wealthy already pay too much in taxes - most people pay nothing at all....."
Okay, the wealthy do pay most of the FEDERAL income taxes in this country. Never mind that when it comes to disposable income, most people who consider themselves middle class pay more taxes that the wealthy, when you throw in sales, payroll, state, property and other misc taxes.
But forget about that. How do we get the tax burden off of the wealthy and back on the middle class where the numbers are much larger? Well, let's say that there are 140 million tax payers (returns) in 2008. The top 1 percent equal about 1.4 million of this. That leaves 138.6 million others. Now let's assume the top 1% pay $392.1 billion in income tax paid in 2008. If you were to take 50 million of the others and they had to just equal the $392.1 billion, that would mean they would have to pay $7840 in taxes. In going back to the 2010 tax tables, that means an adjusted income of $45,000. Now assuming normal deductions, that would be about $55,000 in income for an individual. That is about $26. per hour. So if you want the wealthy to stop paying to much, all you have to do is create 50 million jobs that pay over $26. per hour. More that three and a half times the minimum wage.
Got any ideas???
ChrisZ
Okay, the wealthy do pay most of the FEDERAL income taxes in this country. Never mind that when it comes to disposable income, most people who consider themselves middle class pay more taxes that the wealthy, when you throw in sales, payroll, state, property and other misc taxes.
But forget about that. How do we get the tax burden off of the wealthy and back on the middle class where the numbers are much larger? Well, let's say that there are 140 million tax payers (returns) in 2008. The top 1 percent equal about 1.4 million of this. That leaves 138.6 million others. Now let's assume the top 1% pay $392.1 billion in income tax paid in 2008. If you were to take 50 million of the others and they had to just equal the $392.1 billion, that would mean they would have to pay $7840 in taxes. In going back to the 2010 tax tables, that means an adjusted income of $45,000. Now assuming normal deductions, that would be about $55,000 in income for an individual. That is about $26. per hour. So if you want the wealthy to stop paying to much, all you have to do is create 50 million jobs that pay over $26. per hour. More that three and a half times the minimum wage.
Got any ideas???
ChrisZ
The Basis of the Economy
Some people question why I feel there should be higher taxes on the wealthy, even if temporarily.
Well try to follow this:
For years we have been an ultra-consumer society. We bought beyond our means. Some of this was greed, some of this was advertising. Some of it was trying to keep up with the Joneses. Some was pushed on us (remember one way were supposed to react after 9/11 was to go out and keep buying things like nothing had happened...) and some we brought upon ourselves (I deserve a new car).
So we kept spending. We ran up credit card debt, home equity debt, we even borrowed from our 401K to make ends meet. Yes the economy did well - but it was all based on a bill that had to come due soon. So, the companies had their money - right from the bank - but where did the bank get it? From the IOUs that we gave them. When the day of judgment came and we decided we didn't want to spend anymore, the house of cards came down. When we decided to keep that car one more year and not buy a new one, auto sales dropped. When we decided the house we were in was big enough, new home sales stopped. When we decided to stay home rather than go out to eat, restaurant sales slowed. In each business, less sales equaled less workers needed. Less workers means less people with money and less sales. And the spiral begins.
Now when does it stop? When all the debt accumulated gets paid down, written off, or blown away. When people, not businesses, feel comfortable in spending money again and then instead of a downward spiral, you have a climbing flight.
Now how can the wealthy help? Well the reason they have the money is that we traded it for debt. Now depending on who you feel is right or wrong will determine your solution to the problem. But anyway you look at it, if money does not move from the wealthy to the debtors, the economy will not grow. How and why is not for this post. But somehow we have to figure out how to do it.
ChrisZ
Well try to follow this:
For years we have been an ultra-consumer society. We bought beyond our means. Some of this was greed, some of this was advertising. Some of it was trying to keep up with the Joneses. Some was pushed on us (remember one way were supposed to react after 9/11 was to go out and keep buying things like nothing had happened...) and some we brought upon ourselves (I deserve a new car).
So we kept spending. We ran up credit card debt, home equity debt, we even borrowed from our 401K to make ends meet. Yes the economy did well - but it was all based on a bill that had to come due soon. So, the companies had their money - right from the bank - but where did the bank get it? From the IOUs that we gave them. When the day of judgment came and we decided we didn't want to spend anymore, the house of cards came down. When we decided to keep that car one more year and not buy a new one, auto sales dropped. When we decided the house we were in was big enough, new home sales stopped. When we decided to stay home rather than go out to eat, restaurant sales slowed. In each business, less sales equaled less workers needed. Less workers means less people with money and less sales. And the spiral begins.
Now when does it stop? When all the debt accumulated gets paid down, written off, or blown away. When people, not businesses, feel comfortable in spending money again and then instead of a downward spiral, you have a climbing flight.
Now how can the wealthy help? Well the reason they have the money is that we traded it for debt. Now depending on who you feel is right or wrong will determine your solution to the problem. But anyway you look at it, if money does not move from the wealthy to the debtors, the economy will not grow. How and why is not for this post. But somehow we have to figure out how to do it.
ChrisZ
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Solyndra - Putting the Puzzle together
I am still trying to put together the pieces of this puzzle together but here is what people want me to believe:
The President - in an attempt to reward one of his campaign donors, forces the DOE to loan 500 million taxpayer dollars to a company that they know will go bankrupt, thus costing the government (taxpayers) and the investors (campaign donor) millions of dollars of losses. This will discredit the Solar Energy Industry, and at the same time end up giving tax credits to the (campaign donor) who's fortune derives from the oil industry.
How Machiavellian! And you claim that the President is a Socialist Liberal, when this proves in fact that he is a capitalistic stooge! Wow!
Here are some things to watch for:
"Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors - Madrone Partners LP and Kaiser's Argonaut Ventures I LLC - stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated.
The two firms gave Solyndra a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.
Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation. Through Argonaut, the foundation holds a 39 percent stake in Solyndra.
George Kaiser, chairman of BOK Financial Corp., raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.
Madrone Partners is affiliated with the Walton family, descendants of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. Rob Walton, the eldest son of Sam Walton, contributed $2,500 last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=592&articleid=20110917_49_E1_WASHIN711341
So $69 million is ahead of the $535 million of taxpayers money. Should no be a problem with a company that might be worth a at least $500 million - right? Not if the first companies buy the full assets under a fire sale which might happen. This needs to be followed - not to find any scandal, but rather to see how money makes money and tries to make a silk purse out of a sows ear....
There will be incompetence and criminality if you look for it. It will not rise to the level of an Enron or TRW (if it does it shows that businessmen are the most ego oriented people [It can't happen to me!] and that we need more regulation not less.)
So keep watching and take it all in but don't expect it to prove anything - on either side.
ChrisZ
The President - in an attempt to reward one of his campaign donors, forces the DOE to loan 500 million taxpayer dollars to a company that they know will go bankrupt, thus costing the government (taxpayers) and the investors (campaign donor) millions of dollars of losses. This will discredit the Solar Energy Industry, and at the same time end up giving tax credits to the (campaign donor) who's fortune derives from the oil industry.
How Machiavellian! And you claim that the President is a Socialist Liberal, when this proves in fact that he is a capitalistic stooge! Wow!
Here are some things to watch for:
"Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors - Madrone Partners LP and Kaiser's Argonaut Ventures I LLC - stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated.
The two firms gave Solyndra a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.
Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation. Through Argonaut, the foundation holds a 39 percent stake in Solyndra.
George Kaiser, chairman of BOK Financial Corp., raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.
Madrone Partners is affiliated with the Walton family, descendants of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. Rob Walton, the eldest son of Sam Walton, contributed $2,500 last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=592&articleid=20110917_49_E1_WASHIN711341
So $69 million is ahead of the $535 million of taxpayers money. Should no be a problem with a company that might be worth a at least $500 million - right? Not if the first companies buy the full assets under a fire sale which might happen. This needs to be followed - not to find any scandal, but rather to see how money makes money and tries to make a silk purse out of a sows ear....
There will be incompetence and criminality if you look for it. It will not rise to the level of an Enron or TRW (if it does it shows that businessmen are the most ego oriented people [It can't happen to me!] and that we need more regulation not less.)
So keep watching and take it all in but don't expect it to prove anything - on either side.
ChrisZ
Sunday, August 07, 2011
A Place to Start
They say the longest journey begins with the first step. Everyone is looking for that ONE idea to fix the economy. The partisan bickering is keeping us from accomplishing anything. So let's set up some guidelines for National Policy:
The priorities of any law should be:
1. National Defense
2. Immediate Environmental Damage
3. American Economy (jobs)
All expenditures that don't meet these criteria should be suspended (not repealed) for 5 years.
All elected officials will take a 10% salary cut - I know this is mostly symbolic to them but isn't that the definition of what symbolic is?
There will be a temporary tax surcharge on those making over $500,000.
$500,000 +1%
$1,000,000 + 2%
10,000,000 +3%
Capitol Gains for individuals will go up to the level of income tax for individuals in 3, 1 year steps.
Capitol Gains for business owned by more than 3 people will drop 5% and a tax credit issued for the amount put back into the business to employ workers - not to buy machines.
Money for the arts will be cut to the amount it does not directly employ people and at a rate no more than $100,000 per worker. This is no money to employ a $1,000,000 head of a non profit art organization.
Home interest deduction is to be caped at $25,000 per year per family.
Medical deduction capped at 8% of income with no minimum.
The Military budget will be cut by 20% and 50% of that money put aside for the health care of our current and past servicemen and women.
Taxpayers will have to pay Social Security taxes on the first $150,000 of salary up from the current $107,000, and all income is calculated against your SS earnings limit. The government has to freeze borrowing against the SS fund and start returning 1% per year to the fund.
Able-bodied welfare recipients will be required to spend up to 50% (20 hours) per week performing assigned work. The government will have the ability to overrule union regulations as long as the additional workers do not affect the working hours of the existing workers too less that 40 hours. Any company that hires a person currently on welfare would be eligible for a tax credit for one year, up to the amount the person would have received in welfare had they stayed on. The person would be subject to all the responsibilities of any other employee - so special consideration.
This is just a start of what can be done - we need people with ideas to get us out of this problem, not fight over who got us in.
ChrisZ
The priorities of any law should be:
1. National Defense
2. Immediate Environmental Damage
3. American Economy (jobs)
All expenditures that don't meet these criteria should be suspended (not repealed) for 5 years.
All elected officials will take a 10% salary cut - I know this is mostly symbolic to them but isn't that the definition of what symbolic is?
There will be a temporary tax surcharge on those making over $500,000.
$500,000 +1%
$1,000,000 + 2%
10,000,000 +3%
Capitol Gains for individuals will go up to the level of income tax for individuals in 3, 1 year steps.
Capitol Gains for business owned by more than 3 people will drop 5% and a tax credit issued for the amount put back into the business to employ workers - not to buy machines.
Money for the arts will be cut to the amount it does not directly employ people and at a rate no more than $100,000 per worker. This is no money to employ a $1,000,000 head of a non profit art organization.
Home interest deduction is to be caped at $25,000 per year per family.
Medical deduction capped at 8% of income with no minimum.
The Military budget will be cut by 20% and 50% of that money put aside for the health care of our current and past servicemen and women.
Taxpayers will have to pay Social Security taxes on the first $150,000 of salary up from the current $107,000, and all income is calculated against your SS earnings limit. The government has to freeze borrowing against the SS fund and start returning 1% per year to the fund.
Able-bodied welfare recipients will be required to spend up to 50% (20 hours) per week performing assigned work. The government will have the ability to overrule union regulations as long as the additional workers do not affect the working hours of the existing workers too less that 40 hours. Any company that hires a person currently on welfare would be eligible for a tax credit for one year, up to the amount the person would have received in welfare had they stayed on. The person would be subject to all the responsibilities of any other employee - so special consideration.
This is just a start of what can be done - we need people with ideas to get us out of this problem, not fight over who got us in.
ChrisZ
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Raise you hand if you agree
Well we are 2 1/2 years into President Obama's term.
What has he and his administration done right:
1. Pretty much reestablished our credibility or at least acceptability around the world.
2. Got Osama bin Laden and working on dismantling Al Qaeda.
3. Rescued the American car manufacturers.
4. Gotten health care reform going (although see below)
5. Gotten serious discussion going on the economy.
Now, what he has done wrong:
1. Gave health care to Congress to screw up - so instead of a national health care plan supported by a national sales tax, we end up with a convoluted system balancing on a future Supreme Court ruling on the individual mandate.
2. Took his eye off the tax code - When the Bush tax cuts expired, he should have changed the brackets and raised taxes on the top earners. This would not have solved the deficit (although it would help) but would have restored faith in the average man that the President is not just a puppet of corporations and Wall Street.
Instead, we will end up in the same place we started, with the rich getting richer though no effort on their part.
3. Gave in on the stimulus and did not direct enough money to reforming he housing crisis. The little tax break that dominated 1/3 of the stimulus did nothing, and the money to infrastructure did little on the money spent per job created chart. We forget that today, infrastructure repairs are done with big machinery and not many laborers.
So what can he do in the second part of his term?
If he lets the deficit ceiling deal go off without a plan to increase revenue from the wealthy and the big corporations, then he is doomed. How do you cut social services, when so many of your constituents need to be on them???
What we need is a 5 and 10 year plan, that can be modified as we go along, in order to reinvent our economy to what will be needed in the technology age.
He will have to open up a discussion of immigration - he has to take a bold step in 2012 whether it helps or hurts his election changes.
He needs to bring a substantial number of soldiers home (disclaimer - I have a son who should be deployed in 2012 - I would stick to this even if he ended up in Montana....) and reduce the amount we are spending on foreign wars and end the hidden costs. We are still losing many brave, young men and women and too many are coming back injured. Maybe some of the money form the higher taxes on the wealthy can be invested in our returning veterans, as they have made it possible for this increased wealth.
ChrisZ
What has he and his administration done right:
1. Pretty much reestablished our credibility or at least acceptability around the world.
2. Got Osama bin Laden and working on dismantling Al Qaeda.
3. Rescued the American car manufacturers.
4. Gotten health care reform going (although see below)
5. Gotten serious discussion going on the economy.
Now, what he has done wrong:
1. Gave health care to Congress to screw up - so instead of a national health care plan supported by a national sales tax, we end up with a convoluted system balancing on a future Supreme Court ruling on the individual mandate.
2. Took his eye off the tax code - When the Bush tax cuts expired, he should have changed the brackets and raised taxes on the top earners. This would not have solved the deficit (although it would help) but would have restored faith in the average man that the President is not just a puppet of corporations and Wall Street.
Instead, we will end up in the same place we started, with the rich getting richer though no effort on their part.
3. Gave in on the stimulus and did not direct enough money to reforming he housing crisis. The little tax break that dominated 1/3 of the stimulus did nothing, and the money to infrastructure did little on the money spent per job created chart. We forget that today, infrastructure repairs are done with big machinery and not many laborers.
So what can he do in the second part of his term?
If he lets the deficit ceiling deal go off without a plan to increase revenue from the wealthy and the big corporations, then he is doomed. How do you cut social services, when so many of your constituents need to be on them???
What we need is a 5 and 10 year plan, that can be modified as we go along, in order to reinvent our economy to what will be needed in the technology age.
He will have to open up a discussion of immigration - he has to take a bold step in 2012 whether it helps or hurts his election changes.
He needs to bring a substantial number of soldiers home (disclaimer - I have a son who should be deployed in 2012 - I would stick to this even if he ended up in Montana....) and reduce the amount we are spending on foreign wars and end the hidden costs. We are still losing many brave, young men and women and too many are coming back injured. Maybe some of the money form the higher taxes on the wealthy can be invested in our returning veterans, as they have made it possible for this increased wealth.
ChrisZ
Friday, June 10, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Chris's Law #1
Chris's Law # 1 is:
Never update the Operating System a computer comes with. You will never recover the time involved in increased productivity. If you need a new operating system, you need a new computer.
Never update the Operating System a computer comes with. You will never recover the time involved in increased productivity. If you need a new operating system, you need a new computer.
Friday, November 05, 2010
How do you create wealth?
There was a post on another site on how wealth is created.
Well, let's try MY explanation:
Wealth = Money x Time x Effort x Knowledge
Now the neat thing about Money, Time, Effort and Knowledge is that it does not have to be yours!
A business owner makes money off the effort of others. A stock broker uses knowledge to make money for others. Someone who inherits money and invests it over time also can become wealthy.
The problem that I see is what if people don't have access to the basic formula. If someone does not have access to knowledge then they cannot develop wealth. Or if some one has special access to money, they are ahead of the game. Too much of today's economic war is keeping people from the tools to create wealth, rather than improving your own situation.
The old saw that money makes money is probably truer today than ever before. The question is how do we restore the balance so everyone at least has access to the formula. If we admit that is not possible, where do we go from here?
ChrisZ
Well, let's try MY explanation:
Wealth = Money x Time x Effort x Knowledge
Now the neat thing about Money, Time, Effort and Knowledge is that it does not have to be yours!
A business owner makes money off the effort of others. A stock broker uses knowledge to make money for others. Someone who inherits money and invests it over time also can become wealthy.
The problem that I see is what if people don't have access to the basic formula. If someone does not have access to knowledge then they cannot develop wealth. Or if some one has special access to money, they are ahead of the game. Too much of today's economic war is keeping people from the tools to create wealth, rather than improving your own situation.
The old saw that money makes money is probably truer today than ever before. The question is how do we restore the balance so everyone at least has access to the formula. If we admit that is not possible, where do we go from here?
ChrisZ
Friday, October 22, 2010
The NPR Story
Maybe you have heard about Juan Williams being fired from NPR. Maybe you are wondering what the fuss is or maybe you are infuriated about it. Maybe a little background would help.
But first, a quiz:
1. How much money does NPR get directly from the Government?
a. 100%
b. 60 %
c. 20 %
d. 2 %
2. How many companies was Juan Williams working for?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. More than 3
3. NPR does not allow it's workers to criticize the government?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Fox News never fires anyone for what they say.
a. Yes
b. No
Okay, a little background on NPR. It was created in 1970 after the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It is a both privately and publicly funded although the majority of it's funding now comes from members and corporate donations. Federal monies comes to about 2% of NPR's direct annual budget. Because member stations pay a fee to NPR, and they are sometimes funded through government grants, this figure is debated. More information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
Now Juan Williams was a contract worker, although he was not solely employed by NPR. He also worked for FOX, wrote newspaper columns and also was an author. Under his contract, NPR could fire him if they felt he breached their code of ethics, and since he had been warned before about statements on FOX, it seems that this was legal.
Now, people are calling for the government to cut all funding to NPR. As above, there is very little direct funding. Indirect funding would be harder to stop, without affecting many small community radio stations. It might be interesting to know that in recent years, NPR has come under fire for being too conservative, based on money flowing in from corporate sponsors. Here is a peak at their 2008 sponsors. Note that Fox Broadcasting was a donor in the $50 - $99 thousand dollar range.
Of course Fox has had some firings also, but not so famous. They fired one of their on air staff , E.D. Hill, after comments about the President and his wife. Also fired as another commentator who might have protested too much against another FOX commentator. Mark Lamont Hill got in a "dispute" with David Horowitz and was soon gone. Guess to be on FOX your name cannot be Hill!
So, in the end, what is the result?
1. Juan Williams gets fired for something he was warned about. (my personal opinion was it was overdue)
2. NPR gets a lot of bad press at a time they are doing fund-raising.
3. Juan Williams gets $2 million dollars to stay at FOX. (I wonder how long this will last not that he does not have Liberal ties)
4. His First Amendment Rights are certainly not violated, and considering NPR's budget, he will be paid only a little less than the government money that goes directly to NPR.
What a Country!
Oh, the answers to the quiz?
1. d
2. d. (counting himself as author)
3. a. Actually a trick question - they are not to give any comment based on the section" VIII. Politics, community and outside activities" in the ethics code.
4. b.
ChrisZ
But first, a quiz:
1. How much money does NPR get directly from the Government?
a. 100%
b. 60 %
c. 20 %
d. 2 %
2. How many companies was Juan Williams working for?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. More than 3
3. NPR does not allow it's workers to criticize the government?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Fox News never fires anyone for what they say.
a. Yes
b. No
Okay, a little background on NPR. It was created in 1970 after the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It is a both privately and publicly funded although the majority of it's funding now comes from members and corporate donations. Federal monies comes to about 2% of NPR's direct annual budget. Because member stations pay a fee to NPR, and they are sometimes funded through government grants, this figure is debated. More information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
Now Juan Williams was a contract worker, although he was not solely employed by NPR. He also worked for FOX, wrote newspaper columns and also was an author. Under his contract, NPR could fire him if they felt he breached their code of ethics, and since he had been warned before about statements on FOX, it seems that this was legal.
Now, people are calling for the government to cut all funding to NPR. As above, there is very little direct funding. Indirect funding would be harder to stop, without affecting many small community radio stations. It might be interesting to know that in recent years, NPR has come under fire for being too conservative, based on money flowing in from corporate sponsors. Here is a peak at their 2008 sponsors. Note that Fox Broadcasting was a donor in the $50 - $99 thousand dollar range.
Of course Fox has had some firings also, but not so famous. They fired one of their on air staff , E.D. Hill, after comments about the President and his wife. Also fired as another commentator who might have protested too much against another FOX commentator. Mark Lamont Hill got in a "dispute" with David Horowitz and was soon gone. Guess to be on FOX your name cannot be Hill!
So, in the end, what is the result?
1. Juan Williams gets fired for something he was warned about. (my personal opinion was it was overdue)
2. NPR gets a lot of bad press at a time they are doing fund-raising.
3. Juan Williams gets $2 million dollars to stay at FOX. (I wonder how long this will last not that he does not have Liberal ties)
4. His First Amendment Rights are certainly not violated, and considering NPR's budget, he will be paid only a little less than the government money that goes directly to NPR.
What a Country!
Oh, the answers to the quiz?
1. d
2. d. (counting himself as author)
3. a. Actually a trick question - they are not to give any comment based on the section" VIII. Politics, community and outside activities" in the ethics code.
4. b.
ChrisZ
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Up is down and black is white
The new economic report came in and the job numbers were not good. Private business created 64,000 jobs and the feeling is that over 200,000 are needed each month to keep the economy going. But the interesting news is that government CUT jobs, buy over 100,000, so there was a net loss for the month. Now on one hand, some are saying what a terrible job the Democrats are doing, while calling for MORE job cuts in government. You can't have it both ways. Either cutting jobs in government is cutting spending and is a good thing; or cutting jobs is a bad thing - period.
So if you take the government jobs out - the economy gained 64,000 jobs - good.
BTW - the Stock Market was so depressed by the news that the Dow broke 11,000.......
So if you take the government jobs out - the economy gained 64,000 jobs - good.
BTW - the Stock Market was so depressed by the news that the Dow broke 11,000.......
Sunday, September 12, 2010
What do I have to do?
I am tired of repeating the mantra:
"The President did not say that passing the stimulus would keep the level of unemployment under 8 percent!"
I keep hearing it left and right. For the record. The 8 percent figure came from a report his economic advisers released in January 2009, BEFORE he was elected.
If you want more info on this - check out:
Politifact - George Will
I would not even give it a "Barely True" - I would give it a false.
The unemployment rate in February, when the stimulus passed was already at 8%
So how can the stimulus hold the rate to something lower than it already is???!!!
"The President did not say that passing the stimulus would keep the level of unemployment under 8 percent!"
I keep hearing it left and right. For the record. The 8 percent figure came from a report his economic advisers released in January 2009, BEFORE he was elected.
If you want more info on this - check out:
Politifact - George Will
I would not even give it a "Barely True" - I would give it a false.
The unemployment rate in February, when the stimulus passed was already at 8%
So how can the stimulus hold the rate to something lower than it already is???!!!
Is the Recession over?
Today on a Fox News Roundtable - Bill Kristol kept saying that it would be wrong to raise taxes during a recession. Well Bill, I have news for you, the recession is over:
Is the Recession Over?
Technically it was over last year (2009). The problem is that people feel that since unemployment is still high, that the recession is no over. Actually, lots of companies are making profits and lots of people are making insane amounts of money again. They are doing okay while many are still fighting for the few jobs out there.
Now, I am not saying that there are not problems. The concept of a jobless recovery, but its own definition is a problem. But let us not say that we can't raise taxes because we are in a recession, because that is technically not correct.
ChrisZ
Is the Recession Over?
Technically it was over last year (2009). The problem is that people feel that since unemployment is still high, that the recession is no over. Actually, lots of companies are making profits and lots of people are making insane amounts of money again. They are doing okay while many are still fighting for the few jobs out there.
Now, I am not saying that there are not problems. The concept of a jobless recovery, but its own definition is a problem. But let us not say that we can't raise taxes because we are in a recession, because that is technically not correct.
ChrisZ
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Questions for New Yorkers
1. How far does ground zero extend - 1 block? 2 blocks? 10 blocks? 100 blocks? The entire city?
2. The people we are fighting to free in Iraq and Afghanistan - what religion are they?
Thanks
2. The people we are fighting to free in Iraq and Afghanistan - what religion are they?
Thanks
Monday, July 05, 2010
The story of the economy
I will give a simple view of the current economy.
Supply and demand - with very few exceptions (fads like iPhones and Beanie Babies) supply follows demand.
For the last 20 years, the American consumer has been on a buying spree, fueled by artificially low interest rates and availability of cheap credit.
Cars, houses, consumer electronics, vacations; all purchased on credit, without a corresponding savings to back them up, led us to this economic bubble.
As we overspent the economy went into overdrive and incomes, home values, government, health care all spiralled up as no one cared about the end of free money.
Well the end has come. Jobs have been cut, salaries are frozen if not going down, home values have crashed, and next; government jobs, salaries and benefits will have to be cut to bring things back into balance.
Once that happens, and people get their savings and lifestyle back into balance, then the economy will start to properly grow.
There are new factors that will affect this however. Technology will create a problem as it displaces traditional jobs. Education and especially mathematical and scientific knowledge will be necessary for the worker of the future.
The question is, what to do about the person who cannot work and will not continue to learn.
That is for another post.
ChrisZ (10 min)
Supply and demand - with very few exceptions (fads like iPhones and Beanie Babies) supply follows demand.
For the last 20 years, the American consumer has been on a buying spree, fueled by artificially low interest rates and availability of cheap credit.
Cars, houses, consumer electronics, vacations; all purchased on credit, without a corresponding savings to back them up, led us to this economic bubble.
As we overspent the economy went into overdrive and incomes, home values, government, health care all spiralled up as no one cared about the end of free money.
Well the end has come. Jobs have been cut, salaries are frozen if not going down, home values have crashed, and next; government jobs, salaries and benefits will have to be cut to bring things back into balance.
Once that happens, and people get their savings and lifestyle back into balance, then the economy will start to properly grow.
There are new factors that will affect this however. Technology will create a problem as it displaces traditional jobs. Education and especially mathematical and scientific knowledge will be necessary for the worker of the future.
The question is, what to do about the person who cannot work and will not continue to learn.
That is for another post.
ChrisZ (10 min)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Paul Ryan Lies
I don't think I can express my feelings. It is one thing to go on Sean Hannity's show and agree with a nod and a wink, but to blatantly tell lies, or deliberately confuse people with numbers, when you are accusing others of doing the same thing is unbelievable. I guess Congressman Paul Ryan decided that if you can't educate people with logic and facts, then the only way to go is to fabrications to get them excited.
From this date on he is totally worthless in my book.
ChrisZ
From this date on he is totally worthless in my book.
ChrisZ
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Keep Geithner away from the press
Timothy Geithner is a very smart man. I believe he has worked very hard to keep the financial system afloat. Maybe in later years we will find how close we really came to a complete financial breakdown but for now I will assume that everything we did was necessary for the country.
Having said that the man should not be on TV, the radio, or quoted in the papers. He has no concept of public speaking. I just watched an interview with him on one of the Sunday shows and he either did not hear any of the questions, or he avoided them. He was very self congratulatory (which might be true - maybe he did all those things) when he needed to be more humble. He needed to give confidence and hope and what he gave was a technical dissertation.
He needs a good speech coach.
Chris Z
5 min
Having said that the man should not be on TV, the radio, or quoted in the papers. He has no concept of public speaking. I just watched an interview with him on one of the Sunday shows and he either did not hear any of the questions, or he avoided them. He was very self congratulatory (which might be true - maybe he did all those things) when he needed to be more humble. He needed to give confidence and hope and what he gave was a technical dissertation.
He needs a good speech coach.
Chris Z
5 min
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Checking in
Too little time, too many thoughts.
Random thoughts
Research, research, research - people keep sending me things that are easy to research and rebut. Don't just forward something unless you check it out first.
Government cannot create jobs - unless they are government jobs. Tax cuts don't create jobs - unless they are targeted to specific industry. So how do you create jobs? You get the economy moving by inspiring hope, trust and a purpose. When people share these feelings then jobs will come out of the woodwork.
I like term limits, I like restricted benefits for elected government service (no big pensions), I like government funded web sites for candidates (they can spend all the money they want on their own) and I would love a portable lie detector on all politicians and talk show hosts!
ChrisZ
5 min
Random thoughts
Research, research, research - people keep sending me things that are easy to research and rebut. Don't just forward something unless you check it out first.
Government cannot create jobs - unless they are government jobs. Tax cuts don't create jobs - unless they are targeted to specific industry. So how do you create jobs? You get the economy moving by inspiring hope, trust and a purpose. When people share these feelings then jobs will come out of the woodwork.
I like term limits, I like restricted benefits for elected government service (no big pensions), I like government funded web sites for candidates (they can spend all the money they want on their own) and I would love a portable lie detector on all politicians and talk show hosts!
ChrisZ
5 min
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
There is a TV commercial where your day trading skills can be improved by plotting and watching trends on stock values. My belief is that this is wrong - a capitalistic sin. People are making trades not on the intrinsic value of a stock, but rather the lemming mentality of it going up or down. No wonder we end up with overvalued stocks and ready to burst bubbles. Why we keep ending up with the rich getting richer and the rest of us with nothing to show for it - not even products of worth.
ChrisZ
ChrisZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)