One of the easiest things Romney could do when elected to help fix the government is when the Cabinet level jobs are empty, don’t fill them. Allow the head of the EPA, DOE, Dept. of Education to resign and then don’t fill those positions. Start eliminating positions and having appointees resign from the previous administration and then don’t fill the positions.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Posted by hanson807 on August 22, 2012
Posted by hanson807 on April 30, 2011
is getting wider and wider. We are moving into a time when most of the gulf between the democrat party and the republican party has no compromise or if it does it is the negative definition of compromise. To expose or make vulnerable.
We have been going around in this country about taxes since the federal income tax started in 1862. Our president says that lower taxes for wealthy Americans is unfair. And if you go to the Huffington Post you will find Sam Stein telling you that passing a massive spending bill like health care was actually a tax credit for the middle class and most people according to some targeted quotes beleive their taxes are fair. Of course that was in April before the CBO and everyone else came out with a bit of honesty and owned up to the health care bill as being an increased tax burden. But all of this begs the question, by whose definition of fairness? Is it fair that 45% of the population pay no federal income tax what so ever? Who is that fair too? Secondly, if they aren’t paying any income tax what so ever, how could it appear unfair to this group is someone is paying 25-34% of their income as taxes? It also begs the question, what is the proper course for our government to take? If you beleive in the constitution, the federal government has no right to take control of healthcare. So here is where the compromise can’t be had. Either you beleive that the government has the right to control healthcare, or you don’t. The answer is there is no middle ground. You are on one side or the other.
This is but one split. There is a split between government control and no government control. Either you want more control or you want less. If you don’t want the government in the Auto industry, they fact that they only control GM is not bipartisan, you just lost and they gained control.
The difference between a communist regime and a fascist regime, in my opinion, is how it came into power.I believe that fascist regimes come to power via an election and communist through the over throw of a government. Currently we have a regime who is taking over banking, heavy industry and now the medical industry and insurance industry. There is no middle ground for people like me. A little control is more control than I think the government ought to have. Secondly, who are these people who are taking control? The current president has never run a business in his life nor has he worked for anyone but governmental entities. The people he hires are in the same boat with most working for law firms or consulting firms whose main business is how to interact with the government. Some would call these business men but they were just in a private sector job figuring out how to bilk the government. They didn’t produce a product of any sort.
One has to think about why our country was founded as it was. The idea was a government that did a few necessary evils. It talked to foreign governments as our representatives. They had courts to settle disputes and punish those who deprived others of property or life. The rest of living was left up to the citizens and the government had nothing to do with it.
As time marched on we added stuff like education. Who could possibly argue that children shouldn’t be educated and that this education is a contribution to society. There is no advantage to having an uneducated society in a free society. We added mine safety, we added a labor relations board and a war department. All sounded like or were advertised as things we simply couldn’t live without. Then as time marched on we added stuff like social security and medicare and medicaid advertised as being necessary to support the poor and elderly. But the amounted to a move on the part of federal government to gain more control. All of this pushed the federal government further and further into control of every day life.
What we have now is people having to ask uneducated, unqualified bureaucrats for permission to work on, drill or modify their own property. Who are the people at the EPA and what are their qualifications? Currently the head of the EPA is Lisa Jackson. In her adult life she has never worked for anyone but the government. She has never owned a business or worked for a company. Right out of college she went to work for the government. Business has to talk to her before they get to make a decision. How is she qualified to make a decision that effects a company and its employees? She has always been a government employee. Think about that for a second. She has more control than most of the CEO’s who have paid her salary for her entire career. They didn’t get to make bad decisions and if they did they were still stuck paying her. Then the EPA steps up and claims the responsibility of regulating CO2. That amounts to a control over every single business in the country from farming to delivering flowers. And what is the right that she has? She has the right of your private property up to and including your lawn mower which emits CO2. No thanks and that is not in the constitution.
The split in America is getting widder because those people like myself believe the government is taking controls it has no right too. We don’t exist to enhance, fund and serve the federal government. That was what our fore fathers disliked about a monarchy. They, as we do, existed for themselves. They could farm, go to market and buy and sell products all without the slightest involvement of the government. Today it is nearly impossible to do anything at all without the government being involved in some way shape or form. It has not improved our country. The split is with those that think the government should be doing these things. There is no middle ground.
Posted by hanson807 on May 29, 2009
Today we have people wondering if capitalism is still better than socialism because of current market issues. The government intervention in business is at an all time high, that is why we are in this bind.
I picture the ideal system as pure capitalism. The ownership of the means of production by the individual and the free trade between people. The problem is there will always be dishonest people, snake oil salesman who have to be dealt with. So we have some reglatory agencies and laws that regulate trade. A necessary evil but one that can be controlled. Also one that can get out of control.
Take for instance the car industry. It is now at the point that the government is in control of car design. They assign design. The CAFE standards set gas mileage goals. Instead of worrying about the safety of the car, the government uses it power to socially engineer the market. Never mind that they have never made a car. They now dictate the performance of the vehicles. By what standard do they make the rules? A person such as Senator Kennedy who has no engineering background and no education can dictate to the auto industry that it will make a car with a given gas mileage per pound. He doesn’t even know the physics or mechanics behind what he is ordering to be done. He just passes a law. The companies are actually fined for failing to meet the goals set by men who have never worked outside of a government job in their lives. Men who have neither the education or qualifications to make such demands, are doing so.
The FDA decides on what drugs are safe enough but how are they doing? Not every drug is safe for every user. That is true of everything. It is genetics. Some people are allergic to peanuts, do we stop growing peanuts? How is one tested for a peanut allergy? Do we test you at birth? No we don’t. We find out over time because who could possibly afford testing every new born for every food allergy? Yet we pull drugs off the market or don’t allow them to go to market because a few people get sick or can’t use the drug. I don’t advocate removing the FDA but it is now in the business of drug research and does more to hinder the release of life saving drugs then we need. Government regulation gone awry.
The thing is the government needs the business to support it. The business doesn’t need the government. The people of the United States don’t need the government to survive. We like it to do certain things so we support it with cash from our pay checks. Even Chavez, Castro and the Communist Chinese need capitalism to support their governments. There are few companies out there that would go under if the government disappeared. Our government is about to find out how it is to survive when the economy is sick. So we have gotten ourselves away from the founders dream of a country that went about its business with a small decentralized government running in the background for self defense and security. Capitalism is the real King. It drives everything including our socialist leaning current government. For those that don’t think that is true, pay attention. The next 2 years are going to be a very painful lesson.
Posted by hanson807 on April 7, 2009
Of course many here would say the Geithner would. He said he was open to the idea. So what? That isn’t what I mean. Who would back the currency? That is the little problem with a currency. It isn’t worth what you want it to be worth but what people believe it is worth. It’s value is determined by the perceived value of the people using the currency. Today, the dollar has a perceived worth because of the standing of our country. As the perception of us goes down so does the dollar. But who would lend the global money their reputation? Who would back its worth and what would that worth be? Secondly, once we agree to back the global currency we will be forced to back the IMF and the country of its choice to protect the value and backing of the currency. You ready for that?
It seems odd that a man who is supposed to be a master of monetary policy, Geithner(why would he be given that position if he wasn’t), is unable to understand why a global money would not work. There would be nothing to back this money. When you have a US dollar, the wealth of our country and the word of our people give that money its worth. We agree by our spending habits and our use of the dollar to its worth. If you bring a US dollar from over seas to here it has the same worth as one that has never left the country. This will not be true of a global dollar unless we back the global dollar with our economy. Only when people know who backs the dollar and what it is worth will they use that dollar. Maybe that is why around the world, the global money is the US dollar.
That being said, it begs the question: Why would Geithner and Obama want to destroy our credibility and make the US dollar worthless? Why would they even suggest for a second that we use anything other than a US dollar as the trade standard? What is their global view of the United States, that they would be willing to scrap our dollar for another? It shows disrespect for our country and its worth. It shows that they have no idea what our country is worth and that they have no idea how economies work. It shows they have no admiration and show no difference to America over any other country in the world. It shows the real agenda of the Obama administration is to tear down America and become subservient to other countries.
Posted by hanson807 on January 6, 2009
We have some news from Ford, Chrysler and Toyota. Hmm. American and Japanese auto makers can’t seem to sell cars. Oil prices are dropping like a rock. One has to wonder why China and India aren’t buying more oil. China according to some is set to surpass the US economy in 2035. Problem is, they rely on the US purchasing cheap products. Currently, our economic down turn has caused them some issues. The question is are we learning?
People have been predicting the down fall of the US since we began. In the 60’s the predicted America would lose to Russia. Lately, they have been predicting an end to American dominance and even our break up. The keep getting it wrong. But that doesn’t stop our politicians from seeing the wisdom in the ways of these scholars. They just take their cue from the Russian five year plan. Now, amazingly, our government has finally come to its senses and seen the wisdom of the four year plan. Of course he has made a few revisions and is now considering some tax cuts. So when it gets bad enough, it does appear that he may let you keep more of your money. He actually acknowledges that increasing taxes will hurt the economy and hurt jobs. The problem is, he doesn’t yet acknowledge that he can little if anything to help the economy. His one option is to attempt to get the government out of the way. But his supporters don’t get it. They think the government can spend us out of a recession. The problem with the great depression comparison is the war that followed did something for America. The war didn’t just get factories up and running and get people employed, it gave them confidence in their country. Currently, we lack that. The liberals have been talking down the economy since 2002.
In 2004 we had huge growth. But we had people to remind us it was still not good and we were in trouble. Bernadke even pointed out that the public preception about policies and the economy have a huge effect on the economy in 2004. He warned that if lost it would cost us. He discussed the rising cost of oil and what it would mean. The drum beat of dire economic indicators went on. No amount of good news could over come the bad reporting. The bad reports based on ancedotal evidence eventually convinced enough people the were doing bad that people lost confidence in our economy.
Do you question the idea that the confidence in our country is a serious issue? You should question anything anyone says, so lets take a look at history. A study by ABC in 2002. Also you will remember Jimmy Carter’s speech about confidence. Interesting that he saw that people had lost confidence in their government and we were doing poorly. Unfortunately, he got cause and effect backwards. It wasn’t that we were doing poorly and lost confidence in our government, we lost confidence in our government and that caused us to do poorly. What led to it?</p
Supposedly we got out of the depression because of WW II. Well we just finished a war in Vietnam, we should have been doing well. But unlike WW II, the Vietnam war created a deep divide in our country. Those for it and those against it. The press took sides against the war and continually reported atrocities that didn’t happened and always spoke of the enemy in glowing terms. The convinced those who were naive enough that we were the bad guy. People like Bill Ayers of the Weatherundergound commited terrorist acts against our country, we had the black panthers terrorizing people in the name of racial equality, we attempted to bring soldiers to trial every chance we got for imaginary war crimes. How can you have confidence in your country when you think its the bad guy.
Wow. Just like now. Black panthers intimidating people at polling stations. Millions of youths beleive we wrongly went into Iraq, the press sides with the terrorists against us and some of the politicians do as well. McDermott actually visisted Saddam just months before the war.
We have lost confidence in our government so consequently, we have no confidence in our financial system. They are linked, you can’t have one without the other. As they try and bail out the financial situation we see our hard earned money being handed out by the government with little or no discretion we can precieve. If something isn’t done to restore the faith in the government we aren’t going to recover soon. People who are wary of the government aren’t going to spend, they are going to save and be thrifty fearing the worst. The confidence that has to be restored will take a decade. We just spent eight years tearing it down. The liberals spent 8 years telling everyone that Bush was taking away their rights and started a war by lying to us. So what did they think? That half the people of the US who voted for Bush would appreciate that? Obama has his work cut out. But I predict that he will inherit the same kind of situation that Carter did and we will end up in the same place.
Posted by hanson807 on December 21, 2008
as most people call it, lying. Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton should tell us their sources or just own up to not having any and making it up. It doesn’t take much investigating to find just a few holes in their story. There is this gem of a statement: “As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming.” The problem is, persons from the Bush administration were at congressional hearings where, in 2004 Barney Frank and other senators were defending the actions of these bad lenders. We aren’t talking about hear say, we are talking about live video of the democrats supporting the lending habits of Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines. Each of the republicans and regulators speaking foretold of the problems we were going to face. And the democrats even said it was a 1992 housing act that was the start of this housing issue. So with irrefutable video evidence that Bill Clinton attempted to fix the problem as well but failed.
So maybe that just isn’t enough proof. But Blue Collar Muse did a little investigation too. There are actual sources that can be checked. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by Bush and it was supposed to stop the kind of book keeping that Frank Raines was doing. Enron was another democrat government sponsered scheme where people lost millions. Pass laws then put your friends in control of the market. Notice that if the and only if the government gets involved, can you steal really big sums of money. Then of course we have Senator Schummer(D-New York) who actually saw these accounting practices hurting the US and suggested we ditch them and go to wise ways of foreign governments. Unfortunately, Sarbanes-Oxley_Act had begun to do its damage as it revealed that there were many companies who weren’t on the up and up. Frank Raines, Barney Frank and Chuck Schummer knew of one in particular. Barney apparently had a romance with one of the executives while he voted against legislation to regulate them. Our three reporters from the NYT failed to uncover any of that. Heck, that would require them to actually research with some cumbersome tool like google. All they attribute the failure to is Bush, so no actual fact checking is required apparently.
It takes but a short review of the articles written by all three to see their ideology. They are fairly hard left, play extremely fast and loose with facts and do a fairly poor job of reporting anything that is outside their belief system. In short, they are democrat hacks posing as journalists using the medium of the NYT to display how they fail. Of course, that passes for journalism anymore. Let’s disect a short piece on Bush and war where Sheryl Gay Stolberg tells this whooping lie: “But Mr. Bush, most experts agree, has taken the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level, by trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan.” I know peoples memories are short but just to clear a few things up, Japan was not a democracy before WW II. The Nicarguan Contras were helped by the US and the first thing they did was restore the freedom of the press and have an election. So apparently, only looking at two occasions in the past, I easily found two examples of helping countries without a history of democracy establish a democracy. Of course it took like 3 minutes, why would she take three minutes to find out she is lying when she can print something that makes Bush look bad? Because having a journalism degree is like saying, “I couldn’t pass any difficult classes so I had to do something”. The fact is, they don’t want to admit their party, the democrat party, gained the most financially from the housing market debacle. They democrat party was trying to pass laws to get people who shouldn’t have house loans, loans. They protested and intimidated firms that didn’t lend money to incredibly high risk people. Currently Wells Fargo is one of only a few who can claim they didn’t get caught up in the sub-prime market. Let’s not forget Chris Dodd who got a sweet heart deal from Countrywide. It’s CEO way back in 2003 knew about the government’s hand in mortgages which stretched well before Bush was even a govenor.
In the leap to critize Bush, they have dropped all pretense in going after those who are truly responsible for the housing problem. Of course, that is because the answer is them.
Posted by hanson807 on December 18, 2008
Today we find out that Hellen Jones-Kelly has resigned from her position. She was the one who released information about “Joe the Plumber”. She made a statement: “This decision comes after a time of pause, in which I realize that I continue to be used as a political postscript, providing a distraction from urgent state priorities,”. This statement says a lot. It says that she, and those she works for, are disappointed that someone made a big deal over using government time and files to release information about a citizen. It says she doesn’t understand that her actions were completely out of line and violate the tenants of a free society. It shows she believes that her actions were not in anyway wrong, and she doesn’t understand how big a problem it truely is. She, as a government official, researched information not available to the general public and released that information based on her own political views. And to her, its just a little distracting.
This is not the first person who this has happened too. Linda Tripp was a government employee who filled out a rather lengthy security clearance, only to have portions leaked during the Bill Clinton affair. Again the problem seems to be that the officials don’t see anything wrong with doing this. Nor does the democrat party have an issue with releasing information on people they don’t like. These kind of tactics are not acceptable to a free people. They just don’t realize this or they don’t care. These people are roasted over asking the wrong question or exposing something that they want to keep hidden. By all accounts, the response from the individuals involved in the release is that they are upset that they are being bothered for doing something like this. They beleive their motives trump any rules and that the rules simply don’t apply to them.
Currently we have another fantastic example in Illinois. Blagojevich got the idea that he could act this way from somewhere. Why do these people think this way and why do we elect these idiots? I think they beleive they are now some sort of Royalty and get to set and break the rules as they see fit. Harry Reid doesn’t like the unwashed masses. Pelosi doesn’t want people making bad statements about her so she has a plan to silence dissent. Although we elect these people to run the government, they think we elected them as something more. Our government, and the officials in it need a big reminder of who works for who. If we don’t watch it, these losers will do anything and everything. We should be prosecuting that woman from Ohio and we should make sure Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi don’t go back to Washington as an elected government official. I don’t care if they elect another democrat to fill those positions but its obvious that these people take power for granted.
Posted by hanson807 on December 16, 2008
or dance and sing to the gods. This is what Paulson and others on the hill are doing today. If you watch the stock market, it went up on his announcements. But why? Are people not losing their jobs? Are people just real sure that they will have a job? Because if the answer to those is no, the next question is tough to answer. Why do they care if the rate is cut, are they going to borrow money when they think they are going to lose their job?
For too long these guys have had the illusion that they are actually in control of the economy. They sit down and have meetings about how to make it better. They say go left and it went left and they were left with an illusion of control. Well, they said go left this time and it went right. News Flash: They aren’t really driving it. There are 300 million people in this country and they make choices as consumers. They make these choices based on some budget that matters to them. If they are afraid their budget is going to get cut, they aren’t going to borrow money, buy new cars or buy a house. That is what drives the economy. Not some little guy in an office some where. Don’t believe me, think I’m wrong? Here is an easy test. Where are you going for lunch? Who made that decision?
They remind me of the ancient shaman who danced around a fire singing for rain, when it rained they did it right and were happy. When it didn’t they stood around and wondered what they did wrong.
Posted by hanson807 on December 12, 2008
Seems like a simple question. Lend the car companies money so they can continue to operate. Question is, why? According to Barney Frank its so the workers don’t starve. He says he is bothered by the lack of leadership and Bush. After all, Barney Frank lead the effort to reform lending practices. His boy friend and him lead the changes that have tanked the housing market, so why not have Barney lead the charge on tanking the car industry too? Does anyone other than me find it just a bit ironic that Bush opposed increased pollution controls because of cost? Oh wait, that was Bush I in 1990. Certainly that doesn’t apply today.
We keep hearing tails of how the Unions have trashed the auto industry. But I don’t see how paying over 2.2 billion for workers who aren’t working could possibly affect GM. The union agreed to make concessions, in 2011. Of course that doesn’t mean much. The Union contract runs out in 2011 and you can bet the negotiations will not include a drop in pay at that time. There were a few principled politicians during the debate, Claire McCaskill said she wouldn’t vote on it unless they removed a provision that was for a raise in pay for federal judges. Now I’m just sure that is the only unadvertised special in the bill.
Another part of the why question is what do the legislators know that the American people don’t? Six in 10 don’t want them bailed out. So why do more than half the politicians want it? Aren’t they supposed to represent our interests? Maybe we see if for what it is, a preservation of the UAW and not the auto industry. Maybe most people think the union has had its day, now it just hurts us. In general, it doesn’t seem like the union folk understand that the auto industry is in a real bad situation. They seem to think they shouldn’t have to take a pay cut while their factories close. They seem to have lost track of who signs their paycheck. The union may have negotiated the pay, but the car company actually has to pay. If they are bankrupt, they can’t get their wages. They don’t even want to cut their wages because of it would change their standard of living. This isn’t a new thing for American Auto workers, heck Michael Keaton stared in a movie about it, Gung ho, in 1986. So we have seen the train wreck coming. We actually packed a lunch, laid out a blanket and got a good seat. It’s like they think if they just hold out, it will get better. Actually, if they hold out it will. We won’t be reading about how they aren’t going to negotiate. There won’t be anyone left to negotiate with. The auto companies are going bankrupt.
My old adage about divorce applies here as well. Better a horrible ending, then unending horror. Let them fail. They earned it. Someone will make cars again. We will survive.
Posted by hanson807 on December 7, 2008
but no one does anything about it. Classic Mark Twain. Now we have “Climate Scientists” informing us although this was a cool year, we still have global warming. We have Al gore with a new advertisement attacking clean coal. Wow a total fabrication. Maybe with should go with his miracle renewables, where he mentions the clean coal as a good alternative. He talks about the unlimited energy that comes from the sun. Isn’t that special. Solar cells that don’t exist and wind mills that don’t exist are better than clean coal that doesn’t exit which is better than nuclear power which is available now as you read this.
So at the heart of the CO2 argument we have increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Well lets look at this claim a little deeper. After all we should have the facts. Not some puesdo science from a C student in journalism from Harvard. Carbon dioxide levels in our current atmosphere are about 385 ppm. So it is nearly 0.04% or .0004 of the atmosphere. Of course some say that it has increased over the last 500,000 – 650,000 years but I’m sceptical and would like to see the air sample from 650,000 years ago. No goofy guesses based on ice core data. When you read the source papers you realize they have to make a lot of assumptions that are spacious to relate the CO2 concentration of a permiable substance like water to what the concentration was 650,000 years ago. You would have to assume that CO2 gas would not migrate through permiable ice for 650 centuries. I’m not willing to take that jump. But lets stick with the .04% for just a sec. The supposed issue is the absorbtion of black body radiation. It aborbs energy but only really in 3 energy bands and really only at lower altitudes. Wow, we could sit down and calculate the contribution or attempt to anyhow. But here is a reality check that sort of dings this entire hyphothesis. We, that means all us humans are made of carbon. All the trees are made of carbon and the grass too. That means that the black body radiation absorption would affect all of us. Then the case would be that all carbon life forms are causing global warming, just by being carbon life forms. So the more vegetation we have, the more global warming we will have. So even if we planted a ton of trees to sequistor the CO2, it will still add to global warming because the Carbon in them will absorb the black body radiation. Hmm.
Then we can talk about wind mills and how we are going to free ourselves by building more. Well gosh. How many more? Since we are currently leading the world in wind production we have a lot to live up too. Maybe we can get it close to nuclear power. Sure, last year they spent billions erecting new wind mills but collectivelly they generate less energy than they are rated for, usually 30-40 of rated so the total amount added was 2700 MW rated or 810 Mw to 1080 Mw actual output. Then they have to give Tax Credits or they aren’t affordable. A single nuclear power plant today is going to be rated for 2500 MW and it actually provides its rated output. That means they would have to triple production or about 6500 MW’s of wind mills to equal one nuclear reactor. Thats going to be attractive. Maybe we can paint stuff on the towers so they look nice because we are going to have a lot of them to look at. Biggest production wind mill is 1.5 MW, so that is 4300 plus. At 3.9 million a piece, that’s 25.4 Billion. That doesn’t even include routine maintenance. All to attempt to meet production of one nuclear plant. How much carbon will be needed to make each wind mill? Who knows but I’m sure its a big number. The C student doesn’t explain this. He should give his lecture from behind a curtain.