There are absolutely no surprises with Clinton, 4 more years of a carbon copy of Obama's left wing agenda: more regulation (of everything), more assaults on freedom of religion (kill it!!), more taxes, more government (except for a poorly funded, strangled, castrated military) and a more entrenched federal bureaucracy. Plus, Hillary will continue Obama's nationally polarizing disdain for opponents (known to this administration as "enemies"). Obamacare will collapse and taxpayers will be forced to pay for a single payer plan. 100% predictable.
Trump is certainly far from predictable, but "talks the talk" and offers plausible alternatives. Most important, he takes our security seriously.
Then, last, but by no means least, there are "The Supreme's", governing from the bench. Filling the current empty seat can't be held off for 4 years. It's Clinton vs Trump. An enduring legacy that could last 20 + years.
The choices couldn't be clearer.
RepubliCAN of Maine supports the current Republican candidate and any candidates who endorse the Republican candidate running for President.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Are We Witnessing The Fall of the US?
The Trump/Clinton phenomenon in our current American political scene is a fascinating one. My view is that it is more fascinating, if one steps back from the admittedly colorful players and looks a bit deeper. What on earth is going on? Has the US gone mad? Has the whole country succumbed to the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"? I wanted to share a few thoughts that may be too extensive, but it is hard to be concise about this complex topic. At the risk of boring, herewith are my thoughts"
Regarding the interesting times in which we live - and they are indeed interesting! - it is very challenging to sort it all out and to make sense of the "noise and confusion", as well as the competing views about the state of the nation. Are we in good shape, or on the brink? The press/media deluge us with many highly colored, 'ad hominem' tabloid dramas. Everything seems reduced to polarized contests between good guys and bad, or bad guys and bad guys. All of this colorful coverage never seems to ask why - or why now?
Being in the throes of reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I am inclined to think (after Gibbon) that our present (US election) symptoms portend something bigger than two decadent personages competing for the US presidency. There seems to be a huge socio-cultural shift in the US (and the world) that goes beyond mere elections. The outcome of this US election (or any election) is unlikely to alter the socio-cultural trajectory that we are on. One factor, social media, alters (smashes?) all sorts of "boundaries" and reaches all sorts of people. Social media involve everyone in public discourse, if they feel so inclined. Suddenly, people who have never spoken "in public" have a "soap box" and their opinions appear as comments in electronic fora. Mobs can be put together electronically, and they can be motivated to take action. It has to require a certain toughness (hardness?) of character to play politics in this highly visible, highly volatile game.
Edward Gibbon saw the loss of "civic virtue" as the central cause of the Romans' "decline and fall". It played out in many ways getting worse over time. There was the adoption of an increasingly soft, luxurious lifestyle, the loss of patriotism and a shift from public service as a form of highly regarded duty, to public service as personal opportunity for material advancement. In the declining days of the Roman empire, those who could avoid military service for themselves, or their children, did so. Initially, they yielded military service to the lower classes; then, used mercenaries to spare Roman lives. Religion and family life were given lip service, but were a less powerful force in the state.
For us, as for the Romans, there has been the growing problem of effectively governing a huge - and ever growing - increasingly diverse country. The size, scope and complexity of the issues urgently needing to be dealt with, challenge the political structure and functioning of our federal republic. The US Constitution, designed when we were a recently liberated collection of small former English colonies with a relatively homogeneous anglo saxon population, is stretched to the breaking point. Consensus on anything is hard (nearly impossible?) to achieve, and conflict gets increasingly polarized. President Obama has "experimented" with bypassing Congress and ruling by presidential decree on a number of pressing issues, like immigration. It is arguably a clear violation of our Constitution; it sets dangerous precedents, it changes the constitutional foundation of our rule of law. It solves problems, but… at what cost? And it guarantees challenge in the courts as to its constitutionality. Might one see this sort of presidential move is as a baby step towards future presidential autocracy, dictatorship, Caesarian power? Were similar sorts of dynamic forces at play in Rome on the eve of Julius Caesar.
There is the problem of taxation. Who gets taxed? For what? For whose benefit? Huge disputes: "bread and circuses" vs "my wealth". How are the rich and poor to be accommodated? Compromise is increasingly fraught in an Internet age when there is no place to hide for long. With social media onlookers wanting to see EVERYTHING, previously backroom political disputes disputes, where things got sorted out privately, today, with Internet players "supervising" can become a war against "enemies"; not a compromise between opponents in the course of parliamentary processes.
Like the later Rome described by Gibbons our population has become increasingly diverse. Roman citizenship became a near universal in the Roman Empire with a noticeable impact on previously shared values and standards of civic virtue. One of our political problems is with the social integration of immigrants, who are arriving too fast to allow for the "melting pot" to "melt" them into an American identity of any sort. More turmoil, more social unrest, no common values, more fragmentation more splits. There is also the variable economic impact of immigrants on lower middle and working class US citizens. Industrialists love them as cheap labor, non-union labor and make a virtue of "diversity". Native workers see them as lowering the price of labor; thereby, lowering their standard of life, etc. Free trade is a similar issue. Apart from slogans that market diversity, for whose benefit does it work and how?
Rome was able to integrate foreign religions into their existing pantheon of gods. The US handles this problem by the promotion of of "politically correct", which tends to supersede religion. All religions are of less importance than social "rights" - even if these "rights" challenge freedom of religion. Government enforcement of social rights is in danger of becoming the new "state religion".
Into this caldron of turmoil, we inject two extremely defective candidates for presidency. Are they the result of the complex recipe for the "stew" that we've been cooking? Who but a severely compromised person would subject themselves to the human torture of being the center of a US presidential campaign? On a much larger scale, it resembles the politics of so-called "banana republics"! How it will end is impossible to say, but the actual election of either candidate is worrying. Can the US Constitution prevail despite dysfunction of the head of one of the three branches of government?
I may not have all of the "moving parts" in this scenario in the correct proportions, but I would suggest that any assessment that looked at these- or alternative dynamics might be of some interest, and worthy of thought.
Regarding the interesting times in which we live - and they are indeed interesting! - it is very challenging to sort it all out and to make sense of the "noise and confusion", as well as the competing views about the state of the nation. Are we in good shape, or on the brink? The press/media deluge us with many highly colored, 'ad hominem' tabloid dramas. Everything seems reduced to polarized contests between good guys and bad, or bad guys and bad guys. All of this colorful coverage never seems to ask why - or why now?
Being in the throes of reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I am inclined to think (after Gibbon) that our present (US election) symptoms portend something bigger than two decadent personages competing for the US presidency. There seems to be a huge socio-cultural shift in the US (and the world) that goes beyond mere elections. The outcome of this US election (or any election) is unlikely to alter the socio-cultural trajectory that we are on. One factor, social media, alters (smashes?) all sorts of "boundaries" and reaches all sorts of people. Social media involve everyone in public discourse, if they feel so inclined. Suddenly, people who have never spoken "in public" have a "soap box" and their opinions appear as comments in electronic fora. Mobs can be put together electronically, and they can be motivated to take action. It has to require a certain toughness (hardness?) of character to play politics in this highly visible, highly volatile game.
Edward Gibbon saw the loss of "civic virtue" as the central cause of the Romans' "decline and fall". It played out in many ways getting worse over time. There was the adoption of an increasingly soft, luxurious lifestyle, the loss of patriotism and a shift from public service as a form of highly regarded duty, to public service as personal opportunity for material advancement. In the declining days of the Roman empire, those who could avoid military service for themselves, or their children, did so. Initially, they yielded military service to the lower classes; then, used mercenaries to spare Roman lives. Religion and family life were given lip service, but were a less powerful force in the state.
For us, as for the Romans, there has been the growing problem of effectively governing a huge - and ever growing - increasingly diverse country. The size, scope and complexity of the issues urgently needing to be dealt with, challenge the political structure and functioning of our federal republic. The US Constitution, designed when we were a recently liberated collection of small former English colonies with a relatively homogeneous anglo saxon population, is stretched to the breaking point. Consensus on anything is hard (nearly impossible?) to achieve, and conflict gets increasingly polarized. President Obama has "experimented" with bypassing Congress and ruling by presidential decree on a number of pressing issues, like immigration. It is arguably a clear violation of our Constitution; it sets dangerous precedents, it changes the constitutional foundation of our rule of law. It solves problems, but… at what cost? And it guarantees challenge in the courts as to its constitutionality. Might one see this sort of presidential move is as a baby step towards future presidential autocracy, dictatorship, Caesarian power? Were similar sorts of dynamic forces at play in Rome on the eve of Julius Caesar.
There is the problem of taxation. Who gets taxed? For what? For whose benefit? Huge disputes: "bread and circuses" vs "my wealth". How are the rich and poor to be accommodated? Compromise is increasingly fraught in an Internet age when there is no place to hide for long. With social media onlookers wanting to see EVERYTHING, previously backroom political disputes disputes, where things got sorted out privately, today, with Internet players "supervising" can become a war against "enemies"; not a compromise between opponents in the course of parliamentary processes.
Like the later Rome described by Gibbons our population has become increasingly diverse. Roman citizenship became a near universal in the Roman Empire with a noticeable impact on previously shared values and standards of civic virtue. One of our political problems is with the social integration of immigrants, who are arriving too fast to allow for the "melting pot" to "melt" them into an American identity of any sort. More turmoil, more social unrest, no common values, more fragmentation more splits. There is also the variable economic impact of immigrants on lower middle and working class US citizens. Industrialists love them as cheap labor, non-union labor and make a virtue of "diversity". Native workers see them as lowering the price of labor; thereby, lowering their standard of life, etc. Free trade is a similar issue. Apart from slogans that market diversity, for whose benefit does it work and how?
Rome was able to integrate foreign religions into their existing pantheon of gods. The US handles this problem by the promotion of of "politically correct", which tends to supersede religion. All religions are of less importance than social "rights" - even if these "rights" challenge freedom of religion. Government enforcement of social rights is in danger of becoming the new "state religion".
Into this caldron of turmoil, we inject two extremely defective candidates for presidency. Are they the result of the complex recipe for the "stew" that we've been cooking? Who but a severely compromised person would subject themselves to the human torture of being the center of a US presidential campaign? On a much larger scale, it resembles the politics of so-called "banana republics"! How it will end is impossible to say, but the actual election of either candidate is worrying. Can the US Constitution prevail despite dysfunction of the head of one of the three branches of government?
I may not have all of the "moving parts" in this scenario in the correct proportions, but I would suggest that any assessment that looked at these- or alternative dynamics might be of some interest, and worthy of thought.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Ulterior Motives Beyond Equality - Do All Lives Matter
The rationale for
the separate minority awards and scholarships is that minorities were
under-represented or overlooked. When Hattie McDaniel broke the color barrier
at the Academy Awards, receiving top honors for Best Supporting Actress in her
role as Mammy in "Gone With The Wind," no one seriously thought
"Negroes" would be regular future recipients in 1939. Hattie,
however, could not be ignored. One could make the case that for decades the
separate awards and scholarships were appropriate. But we have come so far with
integration (even electing and reelecting a Black president [actually
half-Black]) that people are barely conscious of differences - unless that
attention is imposed upon people.
I'll make one
example, and see if you agree: After baseball became integrated and became
well-staffed with Black, Latino, Asian and Caucasian players - based entirely
upon their performance value to a team, do we still need a "Negro Baseball
League?" I submit that many of these relics, such as the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), are no longer needed
to promote equality, rather to keep the wounds of the past open for some other
gain or reparation, and they have been co-opted by the political left to
exploit past grievances for contemporary political gain.
The modern welfare
state was created to get and keep minorities in the Democrat party. Lyndon
Johnson was famously quoted as saying: "I'll have those niggers voting
Democrat for the next 200 years." Keeping people in a victim class and in
government dependency hurts as much, if not more, than segregation. The need
for parallel race recognition awards ended a long time ago.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Ebola: Public Health Practice vs post modern politics
Traditionally, public health practice looks at any epidemic in terms of levels of prevention: primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. For a successful battling of an epidemic all three types of prevention activities are needed, if possible. Primary prevention is the notion of an absolute prevention of new cases (reducing incidence), using whatever methodologies are available. A vaccination program - when vaccine exists- is one excellent example of primary prevention. Eliminating infected water or food sources is another tactic for food or water borne infections. Isolating or strictly localizing infected persons is yet another classic preventive approach, which aims at halting further spread of the disease.
Secondary prevention is treating actual, existing, known cases of the disease and conducting the treatment in such a manner as to prevent spread of the illness from the known cases of the illness to those around them, in contact with them: family, friends, caregivers, children. The aim here is to reduce the prevalence by reducing the numbers of sick by early treatment and intervention- and thereby eliminating spread of the disease to the extent possible.
Tertiary prevention is reducing the pools of disability and dysfunctions that may result in people who have recovered from the infectious stage of the illness, but who retain secondary damage, dysfunction or disability. It is commonly thought of as "rehabilitation" from secondary (non-infectious) disabling effects of an illness (such as paralysis in polio).
In all of its activities public health aims at keeping the public well and functioning. It is what is called a "population oriented approach" defining populations at risk and intervening in the ways noted above. It works for the greater good of the "at risk" population, and to do so it must have medical control over those who can cause contamination/infection of those who are potential victims of the epidemic.
This classic public health approach is at odds with the rampant, "I have a right", personal rights of the post-modern generation. Officials must minutely titrate risk/benefit so as to avoid offending politically. In the present Ebola epidemic there are larger, always latent political issues: the epidemic is in a "black African country" (watch out for the "race card"), there are national interests vs the liberal fear that we don't want to appear "nationalistic". We have elements in the country (US) that believes passionately in "diversity" and in the myth of "the international community". The liberal concern is "what will our neighbors think".
So public health becomes "political health" and our leaders try to cut things as close as possible to protect individualistic rights, feminist rights in the face of potential contagion. Is it better to exhibit "politically correct" 'bona fides' than to protect our huge population from death? Today's Portland Press Herald has multiple reportages, editorials, opinions about Ebola is a near perfect demo of the liberal interpretation of the issue and the problems for partisan political purposes. Since the epidemiology of Ebola, or any viral disease, is not a precise matter, the mantra of "only if you have contact with body fluids" gets repeated again and again. But viruses are prone to change genetically over the course of an epidemic, and human resistance/immunity is highly variable.
Does the Ebola virus know that the US President will only allow it to cause disease via body fluids? What about used Kleenexes, door knobs, cutlery, dinner plates, clothing wash basins, bath tubs, towels, face cloths? And ... which body fluids: spray from coughing and sneezing, sputum, sweat, feces?
The question for the US public is: How safe do we want to be? How much risk of medical danger can we tolerate? Is being scrupulously politically correct more important to everyone than getting a potentially deadly disease? Look what the military is recommending. Look at other countries.
Secondary prevention is treating actual, existing, known cases of the disease and conducting the treatment in such a manner as to prevent spread of the illness from the known cases of the illness to those around them, in contact with them: family, friends, caregivers, children. The aim here is to reduce the prevalence by reducing the numbers of sick by early treatment and intervention- and thereby eliminating spread of the disease to the extent possible.
Tertiary prevention is reducing the pools of disability and dysfunctions that may result in people who have recovered from the infectious stage of the illness, but who retain secondary damage, dysfunction or disability. It is commonly thought of as "rehabilitation" from secondary (non-infectious) disabling effects of an illness (such as paralysis in polio).
In all of its activities public health aims at keeping the public well and functioning. It is what is called a "population oriented approach" defining populations at risk and intervening in the ways noted above. It works for the greater good of the "at risk" population, and to do so it must have medical control over those who can cause contamination/infection of those who are potential victims of the epidemic.
This classic public health approach is at odds with the rampant, "I have a right", personal rights of the post-modern generation. Officials must minutely titrate risk/benefit so as to avoid offending politically. In the present Ebola epidemic there are larger, always latent political issues: the epidemic is in a "black African country" (watch out for the "race card"), there are national interests vs the liberal fear that we don't want to appear "nationalistic". We have elements in the country (US) that believes passionately in "diversity" and in the myth of "the international community". The liberal concern is "what will our neighbors think".
So public health becomes "political health" and our leaders try to cut things as close as possible to protect individualistic rights, feminist rights in the face of potential contagion. Is it better to exhibit "politically correct" 'bona fides' than to protect our huge population from death? Today's Portland Press Herald has multiple reportages, editorials, opinions about Ebola is a near perfect demo of the liberal interpretation of the issue and the problems for partisan political purposes. Since the epidemiology of Ebola, or any viral disease, is not a precise matter, the mantra of "only if you have contact with body fluids" gets repeated again and again. But viruses are prone to change genetically over the course of an epidemic, and human resistance/immunity is highly variable.
Does the Ebola virus know that the US President will only allow it to cause disease via body fluids? What about used Kleenexes, door knobs, cutlery, dinner plates, clothing wash basins, bath tubs, towels, face cloths? And ... which body fluids: spray from coughing and sneezing, sputum, sweat, feces?
The question for the US public is: How safe do we want to be? How much risk of medical danger can we tolerate? Is being scrupulously politically correct more important to everyone than getting a potentially deadly disease? Look what the military is recommending. Look at other countries.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Baby It’s Cold Outside, And It’s Expensive
Today, the RGA released this: Baby It’s Cold Outside, And It’s Expensive
But If Mike Michaud Had His Way, It Would Be Worse
“Maine, like many other parts of the country, has been gripped by freezing weather and soaring heating costs. If Mike Michaud had his way, the cost to heat your home would be even more expensive. In June 2009, Michaud voted to pass Cap & Trade, a national energy tax that would have been like increasing Mainers’ personal income taxes by 15%, costing the average household an additional $1,761 per year and would have caused an increase in electricity prices by 90%. Maine can’t afford Mike Michaud’s failed policies.”
Facts: Barack Obama said “Under My Plan Of A Cap And Trade System, Electricity Rates Will Necessarily Skyrocket.” According To An Analysis By The Heritage Foundation, Gas Prices Would Increase 58%.
.
To find out more about what Governor Paul LePage can do for you and the state visit his Facebook page.
But If Mike Michaud Had His Way, It Would Be Worse
“Maine, like many other parts of the country, has been gripped by freezing weather and soaring heating costs. If Mike Michaud had his way, the cost to heat your home would be even more expensive. In June 2009, Michaud voted to pass Cap & Trade, a national energy tax that would have been like increasing Mainers’ personal income taxes by 15%, costing the average household an additional $1,761 per year and would have caused an increase in electricity prices by 90%. Maine can’t afford Mike Michaud’s failed policies.”
Facts: Barack Obama said “Under My Plan Of A Cap And Trade System, Electricity Rates Will Necessarily Skyrocket.” According To An Analysis By The Heritage Foundation, Gas Prices Would Increase 58%.
.
To find out more about what Governor Paul LePage can do for you and the state visit his Facebook page.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Saturday Night Live: A Series of Unfortunate Events – for Obama
NBC
The following is an adress of the President of the United States – the controvery surrounding the funeral of Nelson Mandela. Feeling like Lemony Snicket and a Series of Unfortunate Events. Michelle Obama was upset. Shaking hands with the Cuban President and finally there was the sign language interpreter…….
SNL does a great job.
The video: NBC
The following is an adress of the President of the United States – the controvery surrounding the funeral of Nelson Mandela. Feeling like Lemony Snicket and a Series of Unfortunate Events. Michelle Obama was upset. Shaking hands with the Cuban President and finally there was the sign language interpreter…….
SNL does a great job.
The video: NBC
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Give me the numbers! Or does the administration really know what is going on?
OK, OK, I know. I've been hammering on the first big lie we were told about the health care program: "You can keep your plan." Now that the plan has been "implemented" and we know the POTUS lied to us, let's move on to Lie #2, shall we?? What fun!
Lie #2: "We won't know until mid-November how many people have signed up."
Uh...people? THIS IS A BIGGER LIE THAN THE FIRST LIE.
Here's why, and I will try to 'splain in simple terms, without getting too technical:
When you are at a web site where you "sign up" for anything (healthcare, free membership, a contest, a survey...virtually anything you have to "sign up" for), then you, a real person, become a "record" in a database.
In ALL database programs (with zero exception), a fundamental concept in database management and the FIRST THING any database reveals is....get this....how many records (i.e. how many people) there are in the database!! There is NO WAY TO NOT KNOW THIS. I could stop right here, but I will explain.
Let's give the feds the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the 36 states who started exchanges also need to feed that information to the feds, which could slow things down a little, but we would be talking about a lag time of hours to possibly one day.
Each state will have its own person on staff called a "database administrator" (db admin). Even if these individual db admins all have to report separately, still no big deal. The federal db admin sends one group email to the state db admins and says, "I need your figures tomorrow." Each state db admin, in approximately one minute of logging on to his or her computer, can have that information and email it to the fed db admin.
On the fed's end, once every state has reported, a lowly clerk with an adding machine adds those reported numbers together, and presto! They have a total.
Actually, they probably are using a "dashboard" to keep this information in real-time. A dashboard in a business or in a government program is similar to the gauges on your car's dashboard. The same as your car tracks mph and/or rpm and other "performance" factors, a dashboard in a business or government program might follow a dozen or more metrics. For example, it might track how many people visited the site, how long they were at the site, how many people created an account, how many signed up for insurance, etc. etc.
Now, I would be disappointed if I learned that the feds spent $93 million with CGI (the company that built the site) on a website that did not include a dashboard. However, I don't think I would be totally surprised, either.
Soooo, with a dashboard, they know all this information instantly in real- time. Without a dashboard, and even with all states reporting separately, the compiled information is always going to be less than 24 hours away from being available.
I'm sorry to break the news to you, cupcake, but they are lying to you. Again.
BOHICA.
This was originally written by Pierre Briere to find out more on him - see what he has to say on Facebook.
Lie #2: "We won't know until mid-November how many people have signed up."
Uh...people? THIS IS A BIGGER LIE THAN THE FIRST LIE.
Here's why, and I will try to 'splain in simple terms, without getting too technical:
When you are at a web site where you "sign up" for anything (healthcare, free membership, a contest, a survey...virtually anything you have to "sign up" for), then you, a real person, become a "record" in a database.
In ALL database programs (with zero exception), a fundamental concept in database management and the FIRST THING any database reveals is....get this....how many records (i.e. how many people) there are in the database!! There is NO WAY TO NOT KNOW THIS. I could stop right here, but I will explain.
Let's give the feds the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that the 36 states who started exchanges also need to feed that information to the feds, which could slow things down a little, but we would be talking about a lag time of hours to possibly one day.
Each state will have its own person on staff called a "database administrator" (db admin). Even if these individual db admins all have to report separately, still no big deal. The federal db admin sends one group email to the state db admins and says, "I need your figures tomorrow." Each state db admin, in approximately one minute of logging on to his or her computer, can have that information and email it to the fed db admin.
On the fed's end, once every state has reported, a lowly clerk with an adding machine adds those reported numbers together, and presto! They have a total.
Actually, they probably are using a "dashboard" to keep this information in real-time. A dashboard in a business or in a government program is similar to the gauges on your car's dashboard. The same as your car tracks mph and/or rpm and other "performance" factors, a dashboard in a business or government program might follow a dozen or more metrics. For example, it might track how many people visited the site, how long they were at the site, how many people created an account, how many signed up for insurance, etc. etc.
Now, I would be disappointed if I learned that the feds spent $93 million with CGI (the company that built the site) on a website that did not include a dashboard. However, I don't think I would be totally surprised, either.
Soooo, with a dashboard, they know all this information instantly in real- time. Without a dashboard, and even with all states reporting separately, the compiled information is always going to be less than 24 hours away from being available.
I'm sorry to break the news to you, cupcake, but they are lying to you. Again.
BOHICA.
This was originally written by Pierre Briere to find out more on him - see what he has to say on Facebook.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The White is Playing with Childhood Memories
The
White House took a $1 million dollar hit because of budget cuts. $1
million dollars is all that is standing between the citizens of this
country and being able to visit the White House.
Currently
the White House spends the following on 'essentials'
- $100,000 for a dog trainer
- $300,000 for three calligraphers
The
White House budget amounts to $500 million a year. Of this the tours
is budgeted at $4.3 million. The cuts as a result of the sequester
amount to $350,000 - $50,00 less than the cost of the dog trainer and
three calligraphers.
To put
it into perspective. The Capitol Visitors Center is taking a $2
million dollar hit. The Capitol though continues to offer visits
despite these cuts. Are these cuts really a result of the sequester
or are they a way for the White House to politicize the cuts
resulting from the sequester? Think of it this way. What will impact
the American public react to more? Cuts on aid to such countries like Egypt, Pakistan
or the Sudan? Or stopping visits to the White House?
Cuts
to countries will have little or no media impact on the public. Not very dramatic. Yet on the other hand –
limiting or eliminating visits to the White House will. That has media
impact. I remember going as a kid to visit the White House - it has a lasting impression. President
Obama has decided to deprive the children of this nation of a
potentially life long memory – because of the sequester. President
Obama will tell us that closure of the White House is a result of the
Republicans.
Let
the President know that you are upset by the fact that visits to the
White House are being eliminated. Is it more important for the
President to continue his Golf outings then for our children to be
able to visit the White House - let us remember that the White House is our house. It is self serving of the President to
cancel visits to the White House. It is also the President playing
politics and trying to force his oppositions hand. Let him know you
are not happy.
The
President can be emailed here.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I was channeling Republican Mitt Romney – Obama is quoted – or was he?
At a campaign speech given at Kent State University on Wednesday September 26, 2012 President Obama was quoted as saying that he was in favor of outsourcing US jobs. It was quickly stated that the President had misspoke. Or did he?
The fact that the President's policies of higher taxation and regulation, of Obama care and blocking aspects of energy production is forcing the exportation of US jobs. Exactly what he had accused Romney of doing.
Take the following outsourcing examples:
Since 2010 the US has been exporting an estimated 30,000 middle class jobs to China and other countries - per month. Is it any wonder that we – as a nation – have seen the disintegration of middle class families? The policies that Obama supports is making it more expensive for US firms to do business in the US. Other nations are more than willing to take those jobs from us.
The fact that the President's policies of higher taxation and regulation, of Obama care and blocking aspects of energy production is forcing the exportation of US jobs. Exactly what he had accused Romney of doing.
Take the following outsourcing examples:
- Fisker – the electric-car company was to use part of its $529 million federal stimulus loan guarantee to build a manufacturing facility. This facility was going to create and support 500 or so jobs. The plant was built in Finland instead of in Delaware.
- GM who is owned by the US taxpayer is required to share the taxpayer-subsidized technology it has created with our competitors in China. This is considered the cost of doing business with China.
- GM has also agreed to giving the technology that goes into every Cadillac to its competitor and partner in China
- China was allowed to place a 30% tariff on excavators made by Caterpillar and other US heavy equipment manufacturers. This forced these companies to build plants in China. Part of the cost was giving away the technology behind the machinery.
Since 2010 the US has been exporting an estimated 30,000 middle class jobs to China and other countries - per month. Is it any wonder that we – as a nation – have seen the disintegration of middle class families? The policies that Obama supports is making it more expensive for US firms to do business in the US. Other nations are more than willing to take those jobs from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)