For those worried that the federal government is full of inefficient bureaucrats spinning in endless loops of paperwork, never really getting anything done, you may now rest easy. The agencies of government really are able to come through when the chips are down and make a decision of crushing importance when needed. For instance, the Federal Communications Commission has decided to fine ABC for indecency on one of its premier prime time television series. With a thumb of the pulse of American decency, the FCC has decided that a nude scene in ABC's prime time series NYPD Blue has crossed the line and ABC will have to pay a fine of $ 1.4M for their lapse in judgement.
Wait a minute, what is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is that the NYPD Blue episode in question ran in 2003, during the first George W Bush Administration, when Donald Rumesfeld was still Secretary of Defense and the Atlanta Braves still were contenders to win a world series. Well, that is impressive. The FCC has finally passed judgement on the decency of television episode that ran 4 years ago, in a series that ended 3 years ago. If that is not effective, good government, then what is? I wonder how many man-hours were spent on this monumental decision? Did they start contemplating "action" right after ABC ran the episode or did they have to ponder their next move, for a year or two before mounting their crusade to save American culture, from a television episode that everyone forgot about, like 3 and a half years ago.
Relevant, good government like this really inspires me, makes me want to serve the best interests of humanity. I mean, if the FCC come come to this kind of a blockbuster decision in 4 short years, imagine what each and everyone of us could do to better mankind over that same period of time. Besides the inspirational value of this decision, this also makes me wonder, what are these same people working on right now? What other obscure, long since forgotten television tidbit is under review?
I also wonder, are the action-oriented FCC employees getting a tax rebate? The reason I ask is that if the goal of the stimulus package is to get money back into the economy, the FCC circus clowns should have a decision about how to spend their rebate checks by the end of the decade. Of course by then, they probably will have lost the checks anyway.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
I have a Question
I know nothing about celebrities, but I will pose the question anyway. Why did the Olsen twin who was friends with the Brokeback Mountain actor who died last week feel like she had to make a statement to clarify their relationship? I think it is sad that she had to make a public statement to clear up rumors that were swirling. I feel bad for these folks that live their lives under a microscope. Why should she have to explain her relationship with this guy to anyone?
So, people who did not pay any taxes are getting a rebate. I would like to know, what was the total in taxes paid in tax year 2006 by people who will be getting rebates. How much money did they send to Uncle Sam in federal income taxes. I would then like to know how much in "rebate" money is being sent out. Then, I would like to see which sum is greater. Finally, since so many Americans are getting tax rebates, whether they actually paid any payroll taxes or not and since the rebates are phased out as income levels increase to people who pay the bulk of the taxes in the United States, won't the rebate further skew the percentage of the tax revenues provided by the upper income brackets? BTW, the answer is "yes".
So when the tax-raising ninnies who are running for president talk about soaking "the rich", just remember, they are already soaking wet and they just got a little wetter.
So, people who did not pay any taxes are getting a rebate. I would like to know, what was the total in taxes paid in tax year 2006 by people who will be getting rebates. How much money did they send to Uncle Sam in federal income taxes. I would then like to know how much in "rebate" money is being sent out. Then, I would like to see which sum is greater. Finally, since so many Americans are getting tax rebates, whether they actually paid any payroll taxes or not and since the rebates are phased out as income levels increase to people who pay the bulk of the taxes in the United States, won't the rebate further skew the percentage of the tax revenues provided by the upper income brackets? BTW, the answer is "yes".
So when the tax-raising ninnies who are running for president talk about soaking "the rich", just remember, they are already soaking wet and they just got a little wetter.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Big Oil Boys, How dumb can they be?
You know you are doing a bad job of public relations when Hugo Chavez makes you look bad. The big oil companies are recording record profits while we are all living with $ 3.00 a gallon gas prices. I can understand the arguments on both sides of the equation in terms of whether the oil companies are simply reaping the rewards of their investments and leveraging the laws of supply and demand or whether they are greedily gouging the public and taking advantage of the current market conditions that are for the moment tilted strongly in their favor.
What I cannot understand is how the big oil companies are letting a 2-bit despot like Hugo Chavez make them look bad. While the US oil companies are busy tallying their current quarterly earnings, Chavez has, with the help of several empty-headed US celebrities, won a public relations coup by being the only big oil company giving away heating oil to low income citizens of the United States! How bad must one be at public relations to get body slammed by a money grabbing, property seizing, election fixing commie?
I do not think that anyone is "owed" heating oil and I certainly do not want the US government in the oil distribution business even if it is for low income families. However, just how obtuse are the executives at Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, and Aamaco for missing an opportunity to make their companies look good, help some people who need it, and create a general image of big oil as a good corporate citizen at a time when everyone and their Aunt Tillie is pissed about the price of gasoline? If anyone ever had an underhanded beach ball pitched to them just waiting to be knocked out of the park this is the chance. All I see is the big oil fat cats getting fatter, while Hugo Chavez takes a handoff from dumb-ass Sean Penn and does an end-run on them. Sometimes I wonder how these guys ever find their way to the office in the morning.
What I cannot understand is how the big oil companies are letting a 2-bit despot like Hugo Chavez make them look bad. While the US oil companies are busy tallying their current quarterly earnings, Chavez has, with the help of several empty-headed US celebrities, won a public relations coup by being the only big oil company giving away heating oil to low income citizens of the United States! How bad must one be at public relations to get body slammed by a money grabbing, property seizing, election fixing commie?
I do not think that anyone is "owed" heating oil and I certainly do not want the US government in the oil distribution business even if it is for low income families. However, just how obtuse are the executives at Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, and Aamaco for missing an opportunity to make their companies look good, help some people who need it, and create a general image of big oil as a good corporate citizen at a time when everyone and their Aunt Tillie is pissed about the price of gasoline? If anyone ever had an underhanded beach ball pitched to them just waiting to be knocked out of the park this is the chance. All I see is the big oil fat cats getting fatter, while Hugo Chavez takes a handoff from dumb-ass Sean Penn and does an end-run on them. Sometimes I wonder how these guys ever find their way to the office in the morning.
Thoughts on the Economic Slowdown
So everyone is nervous that the economy is slipping into a recession if it has not already. Now everyone, including the democrats are suggesting economic stimulus packages that put more money into the hands of US citizens through tax rebates, tax cuts, or both. Hmmm, when we want to get the economy rolling we lower taxes, we get money into private hands...why is this a good idea now, versus always? If we placed a perpetual bet on growing the economy through lower taxes and more money in the pockets of the consumers, wouldn't we be better off? Seems too easy. Maybe that is why it is so difficult for those in Washington to comprehend.
I had a very good client of mine give me some excellent advice early in my career. He said "bring me projects that are financial no-brainers, because I can usually get those right". Lower taxes is a no-brainer, but Washington rarely gets it right.
BTW, if someone didn't pay any taxes, how can they get a rebate? What is being rebated? I guess a rebate to someone who never paid into the system to begin with is Washington's term for a gift.
As lower taxes seem to be the universal remedy for a slowing economy, it seems to me that higher taxes, like big corporate spending during the economic boom cycle, is simple government over spending. In the private sector that is called corporate mismanagement and greed. In government circles it is called "investing in our future". However, if we were really investing we would see a return once in a while?
I had a very good client of mine give me some excellent advice early in my career. He said "bring me projects that are financial no-brainers, because I can usually get those right". Lower taxes is a no-brainer, but Washington rarely gets it right.
BTW, if someone didn't pay any taxes, how can they get a rebate? What is being rebated? I guess a rebate to someone who never paid into the system to begin with is Washington's term for a gift.
As lower taxes seem to be the universal remedy for a slowing economy, it seems to me that higher taxes, like big corporate spending during the economic boom cycle, is simple government over spending. In the private sector that is called corporate mismanagement and greed. In government circles it is called "investing in our future". However, if we were really investing we would see a return once in a while?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Can Anyone really Survive...a Recession?!?!
World stocks routed on fears for economy – This was a Yahoo Finance headline today
I guess everyone in the news media is cognizant that if a recession hits (versus slow growth) that every human will be instantly vaporized….or at least we will all be destitute for years to come. Holy mackerel, has anyone in the media ever heard of a recession before? I can distinctly recall 3 in my working career. Does any business writer understand that we have endured recessions in each of the last decades and that after each recession, the economic output and market valuations of the United States roared past the previous record highs? Does anyone get it that recession is a normal, albeit unpleasant, aspect of the business cycle?
Maybe there are too many reporters who cut their teeth during the run up to the Y2K spending frenzy and the internet bubble who have read about realistic expected rates of return, but secretly, in their heart of hearts they really do think the 19% returns year after year is the norm. While no one looks forward to a recession, and I was not convinced there would be one in 2008 until every media outlet jumped on the doom and gloom bandwagon, the reality is that recessions are a time for economic and corporate cleansing. Companies that grew too fast and too fat over the last expansion trim their excesses and refocus on activity that yields the highest return. Prices of “things” that had gotten out of balance reset such that any given market is closer to a state of equilibrium.
Recessions happen, no one likes them, but smart business make good investments during recessions and come out much stronger. I am not sure I can stand the media run up to this self fulfilling prophesy of Recession 2008. I almost wish that we could declare it started, so we can be done with the headlines about the world coming to an end.
By the way...I am not big on predictions (though my LSU wins the National Championship was totally on the money) I predict that if we do slide into recession, thanks in part to the media frenzy, that if a democrat wins the presidential election, the economic news will shift dramatically until we can declare that Hilliary or Obama has pulled us out of the republican economic quagmire. I further predict that if one of the democratic hopefuls makes it to the White House and raises taxes and increases entitlements as much as they are promising on the campaign stump, we will have yet another recession and a nasty one at that. Economies work better when they are left alone. Hilliary and Obama seemed determined to "level the playing field" by making everyone poorer through a smaller and less efficient private sector. Talk about a headline for Yahoo Finance...that will never be written.
I guess everyone in the news media is cognizant that if a recession hits (versus slow growth) that every human will be instantly vaporized….or at least we will all be destitute for years to come. Holy mackerel, has anyone in the media ever heard of a recession before? I can distinctly recall 3 in my working career. Does any business writer understand that we have endured recessions in each of the last decades and that after each recession, the economic output and market valuations of the United States roared past the previous record highs? Does anyone get it that recession is a normal, albeit unpleasant, aspect of the business cycle?
Maybe there are too many reporters who cut their teeth during the run up to the Y2K spending frenzy and the internet bubble who have read about realistic expected rates of return, but secretly, in their heart of hearts they really do think the 19% returns year after year is the norm. While no one looks forward to a recession, and I was not convinced there would be one in 2008 until every media outlet jumped on the doom and gloom bandwagon, the reality is that recessions are a time for economic and corporate cleansing. Companies that grew too fast and too fat over the last expansion trim their excesses and refocus on activity that yields the highest return. Prices of “things” that had gotten out of balance reset such that any given market is closer to a state of equilibrium.
Recessions happen, no one likes them, but smart business make good investments during recessions and come out much stronger. I am not sure I can stand the media run up to this self fulfilling prophesy of Recession 2008. I almost wish that we could declare it started, so we can be done with the headlines about the world coming to an end.
By the way...I am not big on predictions (though my LSU wins the National Championship was totally on the money) I predict that if we do slide into recession, thanks in part to the media frenzy, that if a democrat wins the presidential election, the economic news will shift dramatically until we can declare that Hilliary or Obama has pulled us out of the republican economic quagmire. I further predict that if one of the democratic hopefuls makes it to the White House and raises taxes and increases entitlements as much as they are promising on the campaign stump, we will have yet another recession and a nasty one at that. Economies work better when they are left alone. Hilliary and Obama seemed determined to "level the playing field" by making everyone poorer through a smaller and less efficient private sector. Talk about a headline for Yahoo Finance...that will never be written.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The most Selfish Act
My job requires that I spend a fair amount of time on the road. It has become apparent to me that there are many lousy drivers on the road. Maybe they aren't lousy drivers but they are certainly reckless drivers. They drive well over the speed limit, they weave in and out of highway traffic, and they follow way too close to the driver in front of them. I don't care how good your reflexes are, if you are travelling at 75 mph and less than ten feet off the bumper of the car in front of you...your are creating a dangerous situation for yourself and everyone else on the road, which gets to my point.
Reckless driving, speeding well in excess of the posted limit is one of the most selfish acts I see in our society today. I really do not care if someone wants to drive in a reckless manner. If you want to drive in a way that makes it likely you will drive off a cliff or slam into a tree at 70 mph, it's not my business. I think it is sad that someone does not value their life and their relationships enough to ensure that they do not kill themselves on the nations highways, but if driver chooses to endanger their own lives through reckless and careless driving there is little I can do about it. If the only ones potentially hurt by such poor driving decisions were the drivers themselves I would have no issue. However, their driving decisions endanger me, my family, and my friends. On a crowded highway with heavy traffic, a single reckless driver can take out a lot of people who are driving responsibly and minding their own business. This is why I think that the reckless driving I see everyday I am on the highways is one of the most selfish acts in modern society. If you want to drive in a manner that puts your life at risk, go ahead. If you want to drive too fast around a curve and fly off the road down a cliff, then you alone have to live with your poor judgement. When you drive in a manner that not only endangers your life but mine, am outraged and find such decisions to be from people of the lowest character.
BTW, while I have not kept an official tally, I think the casualty insurance companies have it right when they make young male drivers pay more for their car insurance. When I see truly reckless driving practices, the odds are 80% or greater that the person behind the wheel is under 30 and male.
Reckless driving, speeding well in excess of the posted limit is one of the most selfish acts I see in our society today. I really do not care if someone wants to drive in a reckless manner. If you want to drive in a way that makes it likely you will drive off a cliff or slam into a tree at 70 mph, it's not my business. I think it is sad that someone does not value their life and their relationships enough to ensure that they do not kill themselves on the nations highways, but if driver chooses to endanger their own lives through reckless and careless driving there is little I can do about it. If the only ones potentially hurt by such poor driving decisions were the drivers themselves I would have no issue. However, their driving decisions endanger me, my family, and my friends. On a crowded highway with heavy traffic, a single reckless driver can take out a lot of people who are driving responsibly and minding their own business. This is why I think that the reckless driving I see everyday I am on the highways is one of the most selfish acts in modern society. If you want to drive in a manner that puts your life at risk, go ahead. If you want to drive too fast around a curve and fly off the road down a cliff, then you alone have to live with your poor judgement. When you drive in a manner that not only endangers your life but mine, am outraged and find such decisions to be from people of the lowest character.
BTW, while I have not kept an official tally, I think the casualty insurance companies have it right when they make young male drivers pay more for their car insurance. When I see truly reckless driving practices, the odds are 80% or greater that the person behind the wheel is under 30 and male.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Solving the Healthcare "Crisis"...really not that hard
Want to solve the healthcare crisis? I don't think it is that hard. How about a dramatic increase in the heathcare service sector that goes back to good old fashioned "fee for service". A doctor's office has a set fee for a checkup, sick child, sprained ankle, black eye, stitch up a cut. I have the option to go to whomever I choose, based on their cost and my perception of the quality of their work.
Competition keeps pricing at market rates rather than billing an anonymous third party 50 bucks for a couple of tylenol. Every person has catastrophic coverage for major events and catastrophic can be defined at different levels of cost for different people based on a variety of factors.
There is enough money in the system to make this work today when I look at the money individuals pump into the system, the money employers are paying, as well as government funding. Money is not the problem. The problem is lack of incentive to get the best value for the dollar, lack of competition to keep prices in check, and the money flows for 80%+ of healthcare costs coming from behind the scenes, anonymous insurance companies.
This really isn't that difficult of a problem, to solve. However, it becomes intractable when folks expect healthcare or see it as a right instead of something that they need to provide for themselves, like food, water, and clothes...which are just as critical to sustaining life as health care. The free market can solve the healthcare problem, if we will let a free market work its magic. Unconvinced? Look at the quality of the care and the cost over time for optional, non-covered medical procedures like laser eye surgery. The market has improved the procedure dramatically while decreasing the cost over time. The market works. Why we don't let it solve this problem is a mystery. A lot of problems are hard. This isn't one of them.
Competition keeps pricing at market rates rather than billing an anonymous third party 50 bucks for a couple of tylenol. Every person has catastrophic coverage for major events and catastrophic can be defined at different levels of cost for different people based on a variety of factors.
There is enough money in the system to make this work today when I look at the money individuals pump into the system, the money employers are paying, as well as government funding. Money is not the problem. The problem is lack of incentive to get the best value for the dollar, lack of competition to keep prices in check, and the money flows for 80%+ of healthcare costs coming from behind the scenes, anonymous insurance companies.
This really isn't that difficult of a problem, to solve. However, it becomes intractable when folks expect healthcare or see it as a right instead of something that they need to provide for themselves, like food, water, and clothes...which are just as critical to sustaining life as health care. The free market can solve the healthcare problem, if we will let a free market work its magic. Unconvinced? Look at the quality of the care and the cost over time for optional, non-covered medical procedures like laser eye surgery. The market has improved the procedure dramatically while decreasing the cost over time. The market works. Why we don't let it solve this problem is a mystery. A lot of problems are hard. This isn't one of them.
Monday, January 7, 2008
College Football...Having it my way
I am not a fan of having the BCS Championship game this far away from New Year's day. After New Year's I quickly get out of college football mode...partly because my Cavaliers season is always over by New Year's day at the latest. Tonight is the BCS championship game and I am just out of the college football frame of mind. I am already thinking about next year's team, wrapping up the current recruiting class, and watching college basketball. I know this is all about advertising dollars and sponsorship money, so I doubt this will change. However, if I were king and could set the date for the BCS championship, I think the evening of January 2nd would be the date. I would smatter all the BCS bowls across January 1st and 2nd with an 8:00 kick for the title game.
Speaking of the BCS, I may be one of the few that feel this way, but I have no interest whatsoever in a playoff system for college football. I think the NCAA would be nuts to implement such a system. College football receives billions of dollars worth of free publicity and public mind share with a completely convoluted and seemingly arbitrary system to pick the teams for a championship game...like the one in place today. The arguments, complaints, and caterwauling are nationwide when BCS selections are announced. Strident discussions and high-pitched arguments over the selected teams, omitted teams, the BCS system...what could be better? At the end of the day, it is just college football. What better topic for bar room chatter and lunchtime debate. I think a definitive playoff system would take half of the fun out of college football for the average fan.
I am going with LSU tonight. I know it is easy to claim in retrospect, but I went with the Gators last year against OSU. I think the SEC remains the best college football conference, probably followed by the Pac-10. I think the Big-10 is behind the evolutionary curve in college football. The power game is out. Speed, Spread, and Special Teams...that is what wins today. LSU should win this on talent alone, although the biggest worry I have about OSU is that they have an axe to grind after they got beat last year in a game in which they were heavily favored. I still think that LSU speed will carry the day.
BTW, if I were king, while I would do a lot of things not related to college football, I would move the date of the Virginia/Virginia Tech game to the Saturday before Thanksgiving rather than the Saturday after Thanksgiving. I think that the home game on a Saturday when many students are still out on break detracts from the game atmosphere. If I were king I would also make all the VPI players who are "Apparel Management" majors sit out one quarter of every game when they play UVa.
One last college football note. FSU suspended a truckload (over 30) players caught up in a cheating scandal prior to the Music City Bowl. I bet you can't name the class the payers were taking that was so difficult they had to cheat. If you said "History of Online Music" move to the head of the class. You have to be kidding me! First, there is a class on the history of online music? Second, I am pretty sure I could get an "A" on that exam right now, not having ever taken the class. How long is that history afterall, maybe 7 years? I know that is alot of history to have to cam into a full college semester. Maybe there is a history of online apparel management class that FSU and VPI can share...on line.
Speaking of the BCS, I may be one of the few that feel this way, but I have no interest whatsoever in a playoff system for college football. I think the NCAA would be nuts to implement such a system. College football receives billions of dollars worth of free publicity and public mind share with a completely convoluted and seemingly arbitrary system to pick the teams for a championship game...like the one in place today. The arguments, complaints, and caterwauling are nationwide when BCS selections are announced. Strident discussions and high-pitched arguments over the selected teams, omitted teams, the BCS system...what could be better? At the end of the day, it is just college football. What better topic for bar room chatter and lunchtime debate. I think a definitive playoff system would take half of the fun out of college football for the average fan.
I am going with LSU tonight. I know it is easy to claim in retrospect, but I went with the Gators last year against OSU. I think the SEC remains the best college football conference, probably followed by the Pac-10. I think the Big-10 is behind the evolutionary curve in college football. The power game is out. Speed, Spread, and Special Teams...that is what wins today. LSU should win this on talent alone, although the biggest worry I have about OSU is that they have an axe to grind after they got beat last year in a game in which they were heavily favored. I still think that LSU speed will carry the day.
BTW, if I were king, while I would do a lot of things not related to college football, I would move the date of the Virginia/Virginia Tech game to the Saturday before Thanksgiving rather than the Saturday after Thanksgiving. I think that the home game on a Saturday when many students are still out on break detracts from the game atmosphere. If I were king I would also make all the VPI players who are "Apparel Management" majors sit out one quarter of every game when they play UVa.
One last college football note. FSU suspended a truckload (over 30) players caught up in a cheating scandal prior to the Music City Bowl. I bet you can't name the class the payers were taking that was so difficult they had to cheat. If you said "History of Online Music" move to the head of the class. You have to be kidding me! First, there is a class on the history of online music? Second, I am pretty sure I could get an "A" on that exam right now, not having ever taken the class. How long is that history afterall, maybe 7 years? I know that is alot of history to have to cam into a full college semester. Maybe there is a history of online apparel management class that FSU and VPI can share...on line.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Trouble for Clinton
Hilliary has an historic tightrope to walk if she hopes to get the democratic presidential nomination and ultimately become president of the United States. She has one of the highest, if not the highest "will not vote, ever" ratings in history. Polls show ranges of 44-48% of the voting population of the United States that would not vote for Hilliary Clinton under any circumstance. So she has a very thin margin for error in her campaign which I think has been the basis of her undoing. Net/net - she cannot afford to make many people mad.
If the polling data is close to accurate, and it has been consistent over the past 12-18 months, Hilliary wipes 44-48% of prospective voters off the table as soon as she becomes the democratic nominee. So she is working with only 52-56% of the electorate with which to carve out a presidential victory. Realizing these numbers, she has been working very hard to work every side of an issue and take as many positions as possible on most every issue. It is my opinion that this has hurt her badly.
Now, let's be fair, any candidate for president has some percentage of voters who would not vote for them under any circumstance, so no candidate is ever addressing the full population in trying to win votes. However, Hilliary has such a large anti-Hilliary base that she has very little wiggle room and in her effort to make no mistakes, she has made the largest one of the campaign...waging the campaign that does not offend, that is malleable, and can be construed to meet most any constituent position. This has been a huge strategic error, and one that came to head in the "driver's licences for illegals" issue raised in one of the many pre-primary season debates. I have no idea what Hilliary really thinks about this issue. I have no idea what she thinks about many issues. I know appearance she want to project, but I don't know what she really thinks, what she believes, what she is about...other than she wants to be president as badly as anyone has ever wanted that job.
However, wanting to be president is not a qualification for being president. Hilliary may still win the prize she so zealously covets, but I think she would have a better chance of winning genuine support and actually winning over some of the "under no circumstance" crowd...if she let folks know who she is, what she believes, and why. She needs to make it real however, and not a poll-tested position. What does she really thing about the war on terror, taxes, illegal immigration? If she has solid positions and good ideas, she may surprise a lot of folks and herself with the reaction. However, if she keeps her current course and speed, banking on polls to establish her positions and working every angle she may have more trouble ahead. If she cannot let the voters know what she really thinks versus what she wants us to think she thinks, she either must not trust herself or must be hiding something. Neither of these conclusions is one that is helpful if one wants to be president.
If the polling data is close to accurate, and it has been consistent over the past 12-18 months, Hilliary wipes 44-48% of prospective voters off the table as soon as she becomes the democratic nominee. So she is working with only 52-56% of the electorate with which to carve out a presidential victory. Realizing these numbers, she has been working very hard to work every side of an issue and take as many positions as possible on most every issue. It is my opinion that this has hurt her badly.
Now, let's be fair, any candidate for president has some percentage of voters who would not vote for them under any circumstance, so no candidate is ever addressing the full population in trying to win votes. However, Hilliary has such a large anti-Hilliary base that she has very little wiggle room and in her effort to make no mistakes, she has made the largest one of the campaign...waging the campaign that does not offend, that is malleable, and can be construed to meet most any constituent position. This has been a huge strategic error, and one that came to head in the "driver's licences for illegals" issue raised in one of the many pre-primary season debates. I have no idea what Hilliary really thinks about this issue. I have no idea what she thinks about many issues. I know appearance she want to project, but I don't know what she really thinks, what she believes, what she is about...other than she wants to be president as badly as anyone has ever wanted that job.
However, wanting to be president is not a qualification for being president. Hilliary may still win the prize she so zealously covets, but I think she would have a better chance of winning genuine support and actually winning over some of the "under no circumstance" crowd...if she let folks know who she is, what she believes, and why. She needs to make it real however, and not a poll-tested position. What does she really thing about the war on terror, taxes, illegal immigration? If she has solid positions and good ideas, she may surprise a lot of folks and herself with the reaction. However, if she keeps her current course and speed, banking on polls to establish her positions and working every angle she may have more trouble ahead. If she cannot let the voters know what she really thinks versus what she wants us to think she thinks, she either must not trust herself or must be hiding something. Neither of these conclusions is one that is helpful if one wants to be president.
Presidential Kids
I am not a big celebrity watcher (understatement) but it is hard to not see and hear some of the top tier celebrity gossip in our society. I am glad that I have no clue what Chelsea Clinton is doing. I know she went to a swanky private school in DC (Sidwell Friends I think) and then to one of the top notch universities...that is about it. I am also glad that I have no idea what the Bush twins are doing these days. I heard that one of them recently got engaged, but that may be more of a local than a national story. I am glad all 3 of these presidential kids are pretty much out of the media spotlight. I am sure there is gossip out there, but it seems that the press has chosen the right path in not making their every action a headline in celebrity magazines and mind-numbing Hollywood TV shows. If someone wants the "dirt" on these ladies they are going to have to make a concerted effort to find it, which is about as good of an outcome as they can get given their famous families. These ladies did not choose to be presidential, so I am glad they at least seem to have at least a modicum of privacy. I wish them well in the their private lives, I hope I rarely hear anything about them. They seem like nice young ladies, but I really have no idea...which is how it should be.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
When did "profit" become a dirty word?
When did profits become a bad thing? If you listen to all the universal healthcare crybabies, environmental ninnies, and John Edwards, there is nothing more evil in the world than profits...and even worse..."corporate profits". When asked how any big new social program or societal tax is to be funded the answer is always tax the rich and take unjustified corporate profits. What are unjustified profits? I understand illegal profits...those achieved breaking the rules or breaking laws, but unjustified profits? In a world of free choice, who defines what profits are justifiable?
If you spend any time listening to these Utopian tower dwellers there is a limitless well of taxable or "takeable" profits that really belong to "the people". I don't think that these folks realize that without profits, nothing happens...nothing gets produced, no service is delivered, everything stops. Maybe for the few who dream up ways to spend other people's money and usurp value created by the corporate world, they would work for free or produce good just for societal benefit, however for those of us who live in the real world, profits are the motivator to work, create, invent, innovate. If the fruits of my labor are not mine, guess what, I am not going to produce anything. Why should I? Why would any rational person work hard if the benefits of their efforts were not theirs...the profits from their time not in their pockets at the end of the day? Beats me.
Maybe before the do-gooders who are so eager to fund pet programs on the backs of those who actually produce something and generate profits, maybe before they decry the profits people and corporations earn, they should stop and consider a world without profits. Oh wait, we had that already, it was the Soviet Union...and we saw how well that turned out, but they did have universal healthcare. They also had new construction that was so shoddy that the buildings fell down before they were completed. Why? No one was going to make any money (aka profit) if the building stood or fell, so guess what? It fell. So will everything we cherish if we take the profits out of our daily motivation.
Oh, have a happy and profitable new year! We are going to need it!
If you spend any time listening to these Utopian tower dwellers there is a limitless well of taxable or "takeable" profits that really belong to "the people". I don't think that these folks realize that without profits, nothing happens...nothing gets produced, no service is delivered, everything stops. Maybe for the few who dream up ways to spend other people's money and usurp value created by the corporate world, they would work for free or produce good just for societal benefit, however for those of us who live in the real world, profits are the motivator to work, create, invent, innovate. If the fruits of my labor are not mine, guess what, I am not going to produce anything. Why should I? Why would any rational person work hard if the benefits of their efforts were not theirs...the profits from their time not in their pockets at the end of the day? Beats me.
Maybe before the do-gooders who are so eager to fund pet programs on the backs of those who actually produce something and generate profits, maybe before they decry the profits people and corporations earn, they should stop and consider a world without profits. Oh wait, we had that already, it was the Soviet Union...and we saw how well that turned out, but they did have universal healthcare. They also had new construction that was so shoddy that the buildings fell down before they were completed. Why? No one was going to make any money (aka profit) if the building stood or fell, so guess what? It fell. So will everything we cherish if we take the profits out of our daily motivation.
Oh, have a happy and profitable new year! We are going to need it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)