Time for a new topic. Today I'm starting my Obama "PAYBAraCK METER". There is no check and balance with the new one party rule, and the media is largely in the tank for our new president. Even O'Reilly won't investigate or comment on Obama transgressions and political payoffs. It is, without any watchdog media for this administration, up to we bloggers to report on the political payoffs and corruption when/if such occurs.
For example: has anyone heard any thing about that "internal investigation" of his administration's connection to the selling of the Senate seat in Chicago ? President Obama announced he would report on "in a few days" and assured us that he was committed to "transparancy" in this new administration. That was a month ago. O'Reilly, along with the rest of the media that he accuses of being "in the tank for Obama", seems to have forgotten about it. And, by the way, Fitzgerald has gotten awfully quiet about the whole affair as well. If he wasn't prepared to indict Blagojevich for over two months, why did he have to jump out and hold a news conference last December? Very curious, don't you think? Could there have been any "PAY BAraCK" about to take place here that got derailed? Where's that "transparency"? I know there's no "transparency" so far, but I don't know if there's PAY BAraCK in this case or not yet. The media (including O'Reilly) is convinced there is no wrong doing..."cause Obama say so".
So my first official listing of PAY BAraCK the new administration is the Unions. First, the president appoints a socialist to head the NLRB. I am not ranting when I refer to Wilma Liebman as a socialist. It's simply true. One of her recent quotes before congress, in referring to unionization said " What institution will be as effective in controlling the randomness of fortune of democratic capitalism?". That's right, she doesn't believe in "democratic capitalism". After all, it creates wealth randomly, and "we" (that would be the ruling elite) need to manage who gets what wealth (a much better method of control than military control). Liebman argues forcefully to allow unionization without elections (that democracy stuff sometimes gives the wrong answer). Further, Obama has expressed favor for "cardcheck", legislation that strongly favors unions by overriding those risky democratic, secret ballot elections. Liebman is an outspoken champion of that legislation, stating that individual freedoms sometimes have to be overlooked in the interest of collectivism and social justice. Further, President Obama reversed a previous presidential order outlawing unions from requiring members to pay for political campaigns, to the candidates of the union leaderships choosing, of course (no self interest there, I suppose).
Yes, Unions...check them off, they've been paid BAraCK!
Next time the PAY BAraCK Meter will check ACORN to see if the new administration found a way to funnel some money to them (Hint...it couldn't be "earmarks" could it?)
Jan 31, 2009
Jan 25, 2009
The Water Torture
The boy has gone off the deep end here. I won't post a long retort. I don't believe in torture. U.S. law says that "water boarding " is not illegal ( I think it was allowed in the old days in my fraternity hazing, also). If you think it should be illegal, change the law (which I think Obama just did, except he allowed a waiver whenever it is necessary, what ever that means...did Bill Clinton sneak back into office while I wasn't looking?).
But criminalizing the lawful (at the time) acts of the opposing party when one party gets the power to do so, and then executing the past president for "war crimes", puts us a huge step backward to the modus operamdi of banana republics. And the reference to the Japanese leaders tried for war crimes "which included water torture" is really misleading. That's like saying a convicted serial murderer was executed for crimes that " included assault for punching a man."
But criminalizing the lawful (at the time) acts of the opposing party when one party gets the power to do so, and then executing the past president for "war crimes", puts us a huge step backward to the modus operamdi of banana republics. And the reference to the Japanese leaders tried for war crimes "which included water torture" is really misleading. That's like saying a convicted serial murderer was executed for crimes that " included assault for punching a man."
Twilight of capitalism: Brief response to Brief response
Well, it is a glimmer of hope that the boy has conceded that the capitalistic model produces a more productive economic society. He fires back forcefully, though, while retreating to areas supposedly of more interest to liberals anyway...health care and education.
As to world health care ratings, a lot has to do with who sets the parameters and the weighting of those parameters. For example, the World Health Organization (with an appropriate acronym), rates the U.S. health care system (among their 8 parameters) as faring very poorly in "distribution of response", while rating the U.S. #1 in "Response", but poor in "fairness". Colombia, for example, ranks above the U.S. (22 vs. 37) in WHO's rating system, largely due to its #1 rating in "fairness"...everyone gets the same cost and the same level of lousy health care! Even Roger Moore isn't flying down to Colombia for his health care (and I don't think that gastric bypass surgery he had in Cuba worked so well either).
Secondly, the grad student is right that the data shows that the U.S. rates down toward the middle of the pack in developed nations in life expectancy. But it is only 1.2 years below second place, and this is explained by gun violence. The U.S. has 4 times the average homicide rate of these countries, and almost 70% is related to guns. Homicide and suicide rates in the U.S. are about equal to the rest of the developed world when we remove gun murders and suicides. For the record...although a conservative...I am for the removal of handguns from the general public. That one act would, over time improve our health and society.
A similar situation arises in infant mortality. The leading causes in the U.S. are malformations, underweight premature births and SIDS. But a look under the surface shows that this disparity is almost entirely the result of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as extreme weight and nutrition issues by the mother. These are lifestyle issues, not the result of poor health care, or even the access to it.
As for the Cuba embargo? I have two questions for my liberal adversaries.
1) If the U.S. is not the greatest economic engine in the world, and their socialist economic system works well, why isn't Cuba just fine trading with all those socialist nations? Why are they impoverished just because they can't trade with us? They have Russia, France, Hugo Chavez, etc., etc.
2) What American president could have removed the Cuban embargo 30 years ago, but didn't, and then, while speaking in Cuba, criticized other presidents for the embargo?
As to world health care ratings, a lot has to do with who sets the parameters and the weighting of those parameters. For example, the World Health Organization (with an appropriate acronym), rates the U.S. health care system (among their 8 parameters) as faring very poorly in "distribution of response", while rating the U.S. #1 in "Response", but poor in "fairness". Colombia, for example, ranks above the U.S. (22 vs. 37) in WHO's rating system, largely due to its #1 rating in "fairness"...everyone gets the same cost and the same level of lousy health care! Even Roger Moore isn't flying down to Colombia for his health care (and I don't think that gastric bypass surgery he had in Cuba worked so well either).
Secondly, the grad student is right that the data shows that the U.S. rates down toward the middle of the pack in developed nations in life expectancy. But it is only 1.2 years below second place, and this is explained by gun violence. The U.S. has 4 times the average homicide rate of these countries, and almost 70% is related to guns. Homicide and suicide rates in the U.S. are about equal to the rest of the developed world when we remove gun murders and suicides. For the record...although a conservative...I am for the removal of handguns from the general public. That one act would, over time improve our health and society.
A similar situation arises in infant mortality. The leading causes in the U.S. are malformations, underweight premature births and SIDS. But a look under the surface shows that this disparity is almost entirely the result of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as extreme weight and nutrition issues by the mother. These are lifestyle issues, not the result of poor health care, or even the access to it.
As for the Cuba embargo? I have two questions for my liberal adversaries.
1) If the U.S. is not the greatest economic engine in the world, and their socialist economic system works well, why isn't Cuba just fine trading with all those socialist nations? Why are they impoverished just because they can't trade with us? They have Russia, France, Hugo Chavez, etc., etc.
2) What American president could have removed the Cuban embargo 30 years ago, but didn't, and then, while speaking in Cuba, criticized other presidents for the embargo?
Jan 21, 2009
Capitalism response to anon
I appreciate the response from anonymous on "The twilight of capitalism". He or she makes a reasonable argument. But I urge the writer to think through the good points made with a little deeper evaluation. This is not very well put, but very important to understand...things happen in systems. This is to say that capitalism, combined with free enterprise and democracy, produced the resources that produce the incentives that motivate research, and even more importantly, development. The commercial development of academic research is as important as the invention or innovation itself. An example is the automobile. The fact that a Frenchman invented a form of an automobile, or that Daimler invented what most view as the start of the modern automobile, is less important than the commercial production that changed lives in the economic system in America by Olds and Ford.
Much of the funding for those academic institutions who do research comes from the private sector, which, in a capitalistic society is skewed towards results instead of politics. Further, if they were painfully honest, many researchers would admit that much motivation is derived from potential reward in a capitalist system. For example,does Anon know that Lederle Labs and other commercial companies contributed millions of dollars to fund the development of a polio vaccine? Does the writer know that the March of Dimes (encouraged by Roosevelt) gathered huge contributions from an affluent capitalistic society, and was the biggest contributor to the research on Polio? Things happen in systems.
You are, of course, right that the U.S. government is responsible for much great research. But from where did NASA get the breakthrough materials and electronic components for their rockets and space flight? And that first integrated circuit? The Nobel prize was awarded to Jack Kilby, a young engineer at Texas Instruments. He made it viable by making the individual components out of one block of material with a metal layer on top instead of discrete components. This made the integrated circuit useful (and millions of dollars for Texas Instruments). Kilby became wealthy as well, as he led the team that invented the hand held calculator at TI. Microprocessors are simply an evolution of the Integrated Circuit to put the whole CPU (central processing unit) onto a single IC chip (VSLI chip). The government contracted and sponsored much research, but the drivers were Texas Instruments, Intel (Moore) and Garret AI Research..all private enterprise firms. Things happen in systems.
Two more points for Anon to consider. Researchers don't write history. Often biased liberal arts majors write history. I believe my experiences of what happened more than someone else recreating a view of what he/she believes might have happened through the filter of their biases.
If our capitalist economic system is "200 years old" and has produced more wealth, innovation, higher standard of living, more per capita output, and a bigger middle class than any other economic system in history...should we trade it in for ...socialism that is older and proven less productive, or the failed communist (state run) economic system? What is the alternative model that has a proven track record of better economic outcomes and productivity? To paraphrase the great Churchill...it's the worst system except for all the rest of them.
Much of the funding for those academic institutions who do research comes from the private sector, which, in a capitalistic society is skewed towards results instead of politics. Further, if they were painfully honest, many researchers would admit that much motivation is derived from potential reward in a capitalist system. For example,does Anon know that Lederle Labs and other commercial companies contributed millions of dollars to fund the development of a polio vaccine? Does the writer know that the March of Dimes (encouraged by Roosevelt) gathered huge contributions from an affluent capitalistic society, and was the biggest contributor to the research on Polio? Things happen in systems.
You are, of course, right that the U.S. government is responsible for much great research. But from where did NASA get the breakthrough materials and electronic components for their rockets and space flight? And that first integrated circuit? The Nobel prize was awarded to Jack Kilby, a young engineer at Texas Instruments. He made it viable by making the individual components out of one block of material with a metal layer on top instead of discrete components. This made the integrated circuit useful (and millions of dollars for Texas Instruments). Kilby became wealthy as well, as he led the team that invented the hand held calculator at TI. Microprocessors are simply an evolution of the Integrated Circuit to put the whole CPU (central processing unit) onto a single IC chip (VSLI chip). The government contracted and sponsored much research, but the drivers were Texas Instruments, Intel (Moore) and Garret AI Research..all private enterprise firms. Things happen in systems.
Two more points for Anon to consider. Researchers don't write history. Often biased liberal arts majors write history. I believe my experiences of what happened more than someone else recreating a view of what he/she believes might have happened through the filter of their biases.
If our capitalist economic system is "200 years old" and has produced more wealth, innovation, higher standard of living, more per capita output, and a bigger middle class than any other economic system in history...should we trade it in for ...socialism that is older and proven less productive, or the failed communist (state run) economic system? What is the alternative model that has a proven track record of better economic outcomes and productivity? To paraphrase the great Churchill...it's the worst system except for all the rest of them.
Jan 19, 2009
The Water Torture
"The United States does not torture." The American people and the rest of the world listened to this evasive refrain on dozens of occasions, along with President Bush's vague allusions to new "tough", "alternative" tactics. Given what we now know about the Bush administration's use of "waterboarding", a.k.a the water torture, such proclamations can only be seen as contempt for American ideals, human rights and the rule of law, and an insult to our intelligence, dressed in the language of Orwellian newspeak.
The practice of restraining a victim with the head inclined downward, a cloth stuffed in his mouth, and pouring water down his breathing passages, goes back all the way to the Spanish Inquisition:
Waterboarding was used by the Nazi Gestapo, and the Japanese, during WWII. Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo was hanged for war crimes which included waterboarding. Many lower-ranking Japanese officers were also sentenced. Waterboarding was used by the infamous Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia. It has been recognized as torture, and illegal, by U.S. generals going back to the Vietnam War.
Waterboarding is torture, and torture is wrong, according to countless politicians, legal experts, U.S. military officials, psychologists, journalists, veterans, etc. [2-6]. Wouldn't you know it, it's wrong even when we use it on really bad people. Here are the reasons, as if they bear repeating:
I know it sounds corny, but I really do love America. That's why it agonizes me to see the U.S. embrace dark-age barbarism, lies and deceit at the highest levels of its democratic institutions.
One strength of our fragile democracy is the possibility for self-correction and positive change. The American public did see through the Bush administration's lies and successfully pressured Bush to (sort of) ban torture in mid-2007. The public supported two candidates in the 2008 elections who both opposed water torture (John McCain having been himself a victim of torture). On Thursday, President-elect Obama's pick for Attorney General, Eric Holder, said unequivocally at a Congressional hearing that waterboarding is torture.
But Bush's attorney general refused to investigate interrogators who employed waterboarding, and Dick Cheney has repeatedly defended the practice. Bush, Cheney, and other officials explicitly condoned and authorized the use of waterboarding on multiple documented occasions. [8]
This is no small matter: waterboarding is a war crime. Japanese officers and generals were jailed for use of the practice on American soldiers in WWII. Ordinary American citizens are investigated, tried, and jailed every day for crimes that are far less serious. Are elected officials, and their appointees, above U.S. and international law?
In my opinion, it is not enough to merely end the practice of waterboarding. If we as Americans have any integrity, not to mention concern for the future well-being of American POW's, George W. Bush and all responsible parties ought to stand trial for war crimes.
References:
[1] History of Torture Throughout the Ages, by George Ryley Scott, 2005
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
[7] Vanity Fair, 2007
[8] CIA Tactics Endorsed in Secret Memos, 2008
The practice of restraining a victim with the head inclined downward, a cloth stuffed in his mouth, and pouring water down his breathing passages, goes back all the way to the Spanish Inquisition:
Often in combination with the rack was applied the “torture of water”. This was generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual. The victim, while pinioned on the rack, was compelled to swallow water, which was dropped slowly on a piece of silk or fine linen placed in his mouth. This material, under pressure of the water, gradually glided down the throat, producing the sensation experienced by a person who is drowning. A variation…was to cover the face…upon which the water was poured slowly, running into the mouth and nostrils and hindering or preventing breathing almost to the point of suffocation. [1]It is not, in fact, simulated drowning. It is actual drowning--albeit slow and controlled, and halted before actual death. All the usual drowning symptoms occur, including spasms, vomiting, water entering the lungs, panic, etc. Years later, victims often find themselves waking from sleep in panic, with the sensation of not being able to breathe.
Waterboarding was used by the Nazi Gestapo, and the Japanese, during WWII. Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo was hanged for war crimes which included waterboarding. Many lower-ranking Japanese officers were also sentenced. Waterboarding was used by the infamous Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia. It has been recognized as torture, and illegal, by U.S. generals going back to the Vietnam War.
Waterboarding is torture, and torture is wrong, according to countless politicians, legal experts, U.S. military officials, psychologists, journalists, veterans, etc. [2-6]. Wouldn't you know it, it's wrong even when we use it on really bad people. Here are the reasons, as if they bear repeating:
- Torture is a violation of fundamental human rights.
- Torture does not yield reliable information.
- Torture sets the wrong precedent, endangering our own soldiers.
Zubaydah was stabilized at the nearest hospital, and the F.B.I. continued its questioning using its typical rapport-building techniques. An agent showed him photographs of suspected al-Qaeda members until Zubaydah finally spoke up, blurting out that "Moktar," or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had planned 9/11. He then proceeded to lay out the details of the plot. America learned the truth of how 9/11 was organized because a detainee had come to trust his captors after they treated him humanely.The torture of Zubaydah, and thus the end of getting any reliable information from him, is just one in a mountain of sad examples over the past eight years, in which the Bush administration has demonstrated its disregard for human rights, international law, and reality.
It was an extraordinary success story. But it was one that would evaporate with the arrival of the C.I.A's interrogation team. At the direction of an accompanying psychologist, the team planned to conduct a psychic demolition in which they'd get Zubaydah to reveal everything by severing his sense of personality and scaring him almost to death.
This is the approach President Bush appeared to have in mind when, in a lengthy public address last year, he cited the "tough" but successful interrogation of Zubaydah to defend the C.I.A.'s secret prisons, America's use of coercive interrogation tactics, and the abolishment of habeas corpus for detainees. He said that Zubaydah had been questioned using an "alternative set" of tactics formulated by the C.I.A. This program, he said, was fully monitored by the C.I.A.'s inspector general and required extensive training for interrogators before they were allowed to question captured terrorists.
...The tactics were a "voodoo science," says Michael Rolince, former section chief of the F.B.I.'s International Terrorism Operations. [7]
I know it sounds corny, but I really do love America. That's why it agonizes me to see the U.S. embrace dark-age barbarism, lies and deceit at the highest levels of its democratic institutions.
One strength of our fragile democracy is the possibility for self-correction and positive change. The American public did see through the Bush administration's lies and successfully pressured Bush to (sort of) ban torture in mid-2007. The public supported two candidates in the 2008 elections who both opposed water torture (John McCain having been himself a victim of torture). On Thursday, President-elect Obama's pick for Attorney General, Eric Holder, said unequivocally at a Congressional hearing that waterboarding is torture.
But Bush's attorney general refused to investigate interrogators who employed waterboarding, and Dick Cheney has repeatedly defended the practice. Bush, Cheney, and other officials explicitly condoned and authorized the use of waterboarding on multiple documented occasions. [8]
This is no small matter: waterboarding is a war crime. Japanese officers and generals were jailed for use of the practice on American soldiers in WWII. Ordinary American citizens are investigated, tried, and jailed every day for crimes that are far less serious. Are elected officials, and their appointees, above U.S. and international law?
In my opinion, it is not enough to merely end the practice of waterboarding. If we as Americans have any integrity, not to mention concern for the future well-being of American POW's, George W. Bush and all responsible parties ought to stand trial for war crimes.
References:
[1] History of Torture Throughout the Ages, by George Ryley Scott, 2005
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
[7] Vanity Fair, 2007
[8] CIA Tactics Endorsed in Secret Memos, 2008
Brief Response to 'Twilight of Capitalism'
This is highly unorthodox! It was my turn to start a new debate topic! :)
I don't blame you, TOM. (Short for The Old Man). I should have made a post by now.
Brief response:
The fact that the U.S. has the highest GDP (aside from exceptional cases of small, resource-rich nations) is indeed interesting. The fact that many important inventions have come from the U.S. is also interesting. Nevertheless, what I said about European systems in terms of healthcare, education, and the middle class remains true. It's not clear to me how the adoption of better public healthcare or education practices would have prevented such triumphs as the Moon-landing, for example. And surely the two world wars which devastated all the major powers, sparing only the U.S. and its massive global military, with its bases in the oil-rich Middle East (replacing the British ones), contributed to the 1900's being an "American century".
As for Cuba...who said anything about Cuba? I wasn't advocating Cuban-style policy or economics. But I will concede that the continuing, half-century-long trade embargo against Cuba is a great example of how restrictions on free trade can devastate a nation economically and socially. In this case, those were the intended effects. (See the American Society for Internal Medicine for a report on how the U.S. embargo has affected healthcare in Cuba)
I don't blame you, TOM. (Short for The Old Man). I should have made a post by now.
Brief response:
The fact that the U.S. has the highest GDP (aside from exceptional cases of small, resource-rich nations) is indeed interesting. The fact that many important inventions have come from the U.S. is also interesting. Nevertheless, what I said about European systems in terms of healthcare, education, and the middle class remains true. It's not clear to me how the adoption of better public healthcare or education practices would have prevented such triumphs as the Moon-landing, for example. And surely the two world wars which devastated all the major powers, sparing only the U.S. and its massive global military, with its bases in the oil-rich Middle East (replacing the British ones), contributed to the 1900's being an "American century".
As for Cuba...who said anything about Cuba? I wasn't advocating Cuban-style policy or economics. But I will concede that the continuing, half-century-long trade embargo against Cuba is a great example of how restrictions on free trade can devastate a nation economically and socially. In this case, those were the intended effects. (See the American Society for Internal Medicine for a report on how the U.S. embargo has affected healthcare in Cuba
Jan 18, 2009
Twilight of capitalism
I can't help but notice all the references Eric uses. I guess that's what grad students do, research and see what data and other people say. History is sure different when one is the reference, and experienced what was happening, as opposed to reading what someone else says happened. Nonetheless, here are a couple of data points that might interest those who think that socialism is a better system. The GDP per capita ranks output per citizen. The only few countries ranked above the U.S. are very small, economically inconsequential ones like Brunei, Luxomborg or Qatar. The lone socialist state in the top ten is Norway, a few spots above the U.S. But Norway is there for the same reasons some Arab states rank high...a population smaller than Ohio and the world's 4th largest exporter of oil (not to mention gas).
GDP per Capita Rank (top 150 )
GDP per Capita Rank (top 150 )
U.S. 6
United Kingdom 16
Belgium 19
Germany 21
France 23
Italy 25
...and Roger Moore's Utopia, Cuba? It is unranked as it doesn't make the top 150. That's right, capitalism and free enterprise is the most productive system in the world and produces the most output per person, even after being hamstrung by our government's steady drift toward socialism and the scourge of the most litigious society in the world.
Secondly, from where did the most innovation, the most productive inventions and developments come? From commercial development of the automobile to flight to TV to the computer to the telephone to plastics to the integrated circuit to the polio vaccine to the tractor to the microprocessor to the first nuclear power reactor to the laser to the mobile phone to global positioning systems to DNA...it was America. The United States had more than 60% of all patents issued in the world in the decade I was your age (1967 to 1977). The U.S agriculture system is the most productive in the world (even slowed down by government subsidies to not produce). And, ...who were those guys who landed on the moon?
Do you remember staying at a hotel in Rochester, Minnesota on one of your basketball roadtrips? Do you remember seeing the entourage of the Shah of Iran, one of the richest men ion the world, as he was being treated across the street at the Mayo clinic for his cancer? He wasn't on his way to Cuba.
When were the golden years of capitalism and free enterprise in America? I lived a lot of them in the twentieth century...commonly known as "the American century".
Jan 10, 2009
Business as Usual
The Old Man, with his decades of experience in business and his Harvard degree in business and his lifelong obsession with business, knows a little more about business than I do. His well-reasoned arguments on the current bailouts have me shaking, I admit, in my ignorant liberal boots.
Rather than disagree with him outright, and therefore risk blowing my cover as someone who has a rudimentary understanding of economics, I’ll rely on Rule #5 and agree with the Old Man substantially.
For example, I agree that performance should be rewarded. That is why I am so surprised to hear the “fading” European systems written off so casually. When it comes to healthcare, education, and strengthening the middle class, the fact is we are getting our asses kicked by those evil socialists. The results of comparative studies over the years have become monotonous: “The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries” [1]. “
I am also confused by the notion that this is the twilight of capitalism. When exactly was the golden age of free-market capitalism, when government, business, and public welfare were not entangled (for better or for worse)?
Was it during the 1980’s, when campaigns of state-sponsored terror were used to encourage the people of Central and South America to remain open to
Maybe it was earlier—like when the Federal Reserve was created to interfere with those wonderful free-market processes called panics and depressions. It certainly could not have been at the turn of the 20th century, when the public was duped into supporting war with
The current bailout, it seems to me, is just a continuation of the historical trend. This time, elites suffered major losses and a civil war broke out over our tax dollars; hence the furious coverage in corporate-owned media over who-gets-what. And this time, the disparity between enacted policy and the popular will was especially noticeable.
The move towards universal healthcare, in my opinion, follows the same basic pattern except that in this case business interests happened to converge with the public interest. A majority of (wicked, socialist) Americans have favored universal healthcare for years. That’s partly because 18,000 of us have been dying per year due to lack of coverage [4]. But democracy is only possible now, because enough factions of private interests—including the automakers—have finally noticed that they spend “twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries” [1] with which they compete. (That is one reason GM has higher labor costs than
References:
[1] BMJ (formerly British Journal of Medicine), 2008. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
[2]
[3] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2007. http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm
[4]
Jan 8, 2009
How to view and post comments
Do you think Freyguy is right, or do you think The Old Man has got it all wrong? Whatever your views, we want to hear your opinion!
Participating in the discussion is easy. First, find a post you want to comment on. The post will begin with a header like this:
_____________________________________
Important Advice on posting comments
Participating in the discussion is easy. First, find a post you want to comment on. The post will begin with a header like this:
_____________________________________
Oct 31, 2009
Response to "Obamacare 2"
Posted by Freyguy at 7:18 AM 6 comments
_____________________________________
Click on any of those links. Now you can scroll down to see all the comments that have been posted. At the bottom of the page, a friendly white box has appeared. Type something like "Nailed it again, Freyguy!" in the box. Finally, hit the Post Comment button. Response to "Obamacare 2"
Posted by Freyguy at 7:18 AM 6 comments
_____________________________________
Important Advice on posting comments
- Write it in a word processor, first. Sometimes, when you hit the Post Comment button, an error occurs and your comment is lost forever. Avoid this catastrophe by writing and saving in something like Notepad, Wordpad, or Microsoft Word. Then copy and paste into the comment box. Can't paste into the box? If you're using Firefox, try Internet Explorer. Or, click the Preview button, then click Edit, and it should let you paste now.
- Take credit for your brilliant ideas. The best way to keep track of who's-who is to select Name/URL from the Comment as dropdown menu. Just type your name or a pen name--no need for a URL.
Jan 3, 2009
The Twilight of Capitalism
It is amazing to me that our country's slow drift toward socialism accelerated so noticeably during the term of a supposed conservative president. I'm talking about the ridiculous bailouts, and the growing list of financial institutions, businesses, state governments and advocacy groups lining up for a government handout. The cost will easily pass a trillion dollars, and that doesn't count the coming Obama socialization of health care. Now banks, the auto industry and health care will be managed by the Congress that oversees an insolvent social security program, a bankrupt Fannie Mae mortgage business, and presides over a huge government budget deficit. This is not to mention the "growing out of control" medicare/medicaid programs.
Further, there is no evidence that these irresponsible giveaways will accomplish anything, other than to reward and perpetuate the conduct that turned a cyclical downturn into an economic crisis. Henry Paulson has engineered handing out $350 billion to financial institutions so far, and three months later there is no loosening of credit for businesses or consumers...in fact, it's gotten worse (although I hear that Henry's friends in "the Hamptons" feel better). Handing out $7 billion to PNC paid for them to buy National City Bank for $5.6 billion (and now both banks are restricting credit). Bailout money did help Citi Group continue their efforts to raise $8 billion for a middle eastern country (why not raise it for themselves, and not take taxpayer money?), and pay $35 million severance to an executive so he could buy a $23 million apartment in NYC. (I suppose Henry's spin is that the government prevented one more person from becoming homeless...how noble). But are any of you average people out there feeling better off now that Henry (authorized by our Congress) has handed out $35o billion of your tax dollars?
So now the government owns part of the largest banks and the largest insurance company, and has its' eyes on "helping" the American automotive companies manage to success. But once again, there is no link to pay for performance...i.e. the auto companies (and their unions) don't have to do anything other than say they will cease to exist and promise to do better. This is similar to the financial institution bailouts...no performance required and none received (I guess it did work by that measure). By the way, we should all understand that this is a Union bailout, not an auto company bailout. The U.S. auto companies pay roughly twice the hourly wage plus benefits rate that the Japanese car companies do (in the U.S.).
Why not reward performance? For example...for banks to get bailout money (to ease the credit crunch) they have to increase lending (to creditworthy businesses and consumers)....the auto companies and Unions have to come up with an agreement that restructures them to be competitive before they get bailout money...instead of giving them a pile of money and hoping it will turn out better.
Here we are at the twilight of capitalism and free enterprise; the system that created the most powerful economic society in world history, trying to emulate the ever fading European model of socialism.
Further, there is no evidence that these irresponsible giveaways will accomplish anything, other than to reward and perpetuate the conduct that turned a cyclical downturn into an economic crisis. Henry Paulson has engineered handing out $350 billion to financial institutions so far, and three months later there is no loosening of credit for businesses or consumers...in fact, it's gotten worse (although I hear that Henry's friends in "the Hamptons" feel better). Handing out $7 billion to PNC paid for them to buy National City Bank for $5.6 billion (and now both banks are restricting credit). Bailout money did help Citi Group continue their efforts to raise $8 billion for a middle eastern country (why not raise it for themselves, and not take taxpayer money?), and pay $35 million severance to an executive so he could buy a $23 million apartment in NYC. (I suppose Henry's spin is that the government prevented one more person from becoming homeless...how noble). But are any of you average people out there feeling better off now that Henry (authorized by our Congress) has handed out $35o billion of your tax dollars?
So now the government owns part of the largest banks and the largest insurance company, and has its' eyes on "helping" the American automotive companies manage to success. But once again, there is no link to pay for performance...i.e. the auto companies (and their unions) don't have to do anything other than say they will cease to exist and promise to do better. This is similar to the financial institution bailouts...no performance required and none received (I guess it did work by that measure). By the way, we should all understand that this is a Union bailout, not an auto company bailout. The U.S. auto companies pay roughly twice the hourly wage plus benefits rate that the Japanese car companies do (in the U.S.).
Why not reward performance? For example...for banks to get bailout money (to ease the credit crunch) they have to increase lending (to creditworthy businesses and consumers)....the auto companies and Unions have to come up with an agreement that restructures them to be competitive before they get bailout money...instead of giving them a pile of money and hoping it will turn out better.
Here we are at the twilight of capitalism and free enterprise; the system that created the most powerful economic society in world history, trying to emulate the ever fading European model of socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)