If you are a liberal, or liberal-leaning person and you haven't publicaly condemned President Obama for the address he is going to make to school kids in a few hours...go ahead and push yourself away from the computer, get into your car, drive to the nearest tattoo parlor, and brand yourself with the word "Hypocrite" somewhere on your body. I prefer the forehead, or at least some place visible.
Why? You know why.
Because if you can sit there and say that you wouldn't be up in arms if President Bush, or if McCain had won Vice-President Palin, were going to address school lids, you're lying and you're fooling yourself into believing that you have some modicum of fairness in your body.
So...if you are a liberal and have concerns about a politician giving a speech to elementary school kids, or if you have taken a step back and realized that you'd be mortified if George Bush or Sarah Palin were going to address elementary school kids...then kudos...you're consistent.
Let's say we leave politics out of the hands of 8-year-olds, hmmm? Any address to school kids is over the line, even the seemingly large scaled back version the President plans to deliver. Let parents be responsible for teaching their kids the importance of a good education. And for goodness sake, let's NOT tell them that their education will dictate the future of our country. Aren't they under enough pressure and stress as it is? Let's let kids be kids. Let them learn...and worry about duty to country when the mature.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Arrogance...
Arrogance is the reason given by people throughout the world for their disdain of the United States. Nevermind our kindness in rushing aid to war torn countries, aid to earthquake ravaged nations, aid to diseased continents, aid to the very countries that hate us. It's our arrogance that people focus on.
It's our "Arrogance" that our President is trying to change in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The greatest country in the history of the world, the shimmering city on the hill, the country that all others look to emulate......there's reason for a certain amount of "arrogance" as long as we remain true to our humble origins as displayed in our overwhelming generosity throughout this country.
Yet it's our Arrogance that remains, despite extreme measures taken to change outward appearances, that will be our downfall.
For we believe that because we are the United States, things that fail miserably fail elsewhere will easily succeed here. Universal Health Care is a travesty in Canada and England. High court justices in those countries agree that while there is universal coverage, there is NOT access. Canadians have to wait 4 months the even see a specialist doctor!! The British stack patients in Emergency Rooms so much so that Ambulances sometimes wait for hours just to offload a patient!!!
But noooo....we'll be able to do it, no problem, right? Nevermind that those countries function partially because they have the United States to be the one innovate in the health care field. There's no innovation in Universal Health Care countries. Are we planning on farming out medical innovation to India now too???
Government run transportation...or more specifically the automotive industry. Has anyone seen a Russian made car? Everyone in that country must have someone in the family who is a mechanic to even keep their cars on the road. Their cars are like something out of the 1970's. There's no technology. There's no safety standards. It's the government that's making the cars, they don't need safety standards the safety is implied, right?
Cap and Trade?? Seriously?? It's a joke in Europe. They've used it for years. The system is corrupt and it has done nothing to affect global warming...even temperatures throughout Europe. But someone our Cap and Trade is going to work? Somehow this tax, which is what it really is...it's a tax on companies who create energy who will then pass that tax on to their consumers...isn't going to filter it's way down to us and raise our expenses???
Does our government really think that these proven and time tested systems...proven to fail...are suddenly going to start working just because it's the United States?????
The answer is...Yes...yes they do. Because they are too out of touch with reality...too Arrogant...to think otherwise.
It's our "Arrogance" that our President is trying to change in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The greatest country in the history of the world, the shimmering city on the hill, the country that all others look to emulate......there's reason for a certain amount of "arrogance" as long as we remain true to our humble origins as displayed in our overwhelming generosity throughout this country.
Yet it's our Arrogance that remains, despite extreme measures taken to change outward appearances, that will be our downfall.
For we believe that because we are the United States, things that fail miserably fail elsewhere will easily succeed here. Universal Health Care is a travesty in Canada and England. High court justices in those countries agree that while there is universal coverage, there is NOT access. Canadians have to wait 4 months the even see a specialist doctor!! The British stack patients in Emergency Rooms so much so that Ambulances sometimes wait for hours just to offload a patient!!!
But noooo....we'll be able to do it, no problem, right? Nevermind that those countries function partially because they have the United States to be the one innovate in the health care field. There's no innovation in Universal Health Care countries. Are we planning on farming out medical innovation to India now too???
Government run transportation...or more specifically the automotive industry. Has anyone seen a Russian made car? Everyone in that country must have someone in the family who is a mechanic to even keep their cars on the road. Their cars are like something out of the 1970's. There's no technology. There's no safety standards. It's the government that's making the cars, they don't need safety standards the safety is implied, right?
Cap and Trade?? Seriously?? It's a joke in Europe. They've used it for years. The system is corrupt and it has done nothing to affect global warming...even temperatures throughout Europe. But someone our Cap and Trade is going to work? Somehow this tax, which is what it really is...it's a tax on companies who create energy who will then pass that tax on to their consumers...isn't going to filter it's way down to us and raise our expenses???
Does our government really think that these proven and time tested systems...proven to fail...are suddenly going to start working just because it's the United States?????
The answer is...Yes...yes they do. Because they are too out of touch with reality...too Arrogant...to think otherwise.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Taxed Enough Already parties...
I'm not sure if anyone heard about the Tea Parties held throughout the country yesterday or not, but it's interesting to see how some covered the events.
In our local area, we got two very different perspectives on the Tea Party that happened in Evansville. One local affiliate referred to them specifically as Taxed Enough Already parties, as if the TEA was an acronym. They even referred to one demonstration as being specifically about local taxes being raised in Owensboro to pay for a downtown revitalization project.
I can't speak about the Owensboro demonstration specifically, nor any other Tea Parties throughout the USA specifically, but the real overarching complaint is about big government and limitless spending. Certainly those will lead to much greater taxes down the road, but that's not the overall complaint of yesterday's movement was about. Most understood that, just like a doctor needs to stop bleeding before he can operate, our country needs to stop the spending before worring about growing taxes.
The fact that they were called Tea Parties simply refers to a large demonstration protesting a grievance, just as the original Tea Party was protesting the grievance of Taxation without representation. Referring to the Tea Parties as Taxed Enough Parties is about like saying that I'm going to Kansas City to watch the game on the Nothing But Chiefs affiliate channel.
Sure, it's neat to make a sign with a message using the letters of another word or phrase, but it's not actually the name of the event.
So I'm not sure if this local affiliate is clueless, didn't do their homework, or is misleading the people with their reporting.
Another network affiliate was more on the mark, interviewing people that referred to the out of control spending and noting that this isn't about one party, reminding people that the spending craze started with President Bush and continues to this day.
It even went to the office of our Congressman, Brad Ellsworth, who displayed similar cluelessness as that of the other affiliate when asked about his view on the matter.
He suggested that the people at these parties needed to be more specific, and that not all spending could be cut. He did, admit that there is some wasteful spending in Washington...of course he forgot to mention that he voted in favor of EVERY ONE of those spending measures. And of course, his gem of, "I'm not a fan of tea. I'm more of a Diet Mt. Dew drinker, so if they want to bring those to my office, I'd be more appreciative of it."
Brilliant. A politician who thinks that massive amounts of tea bags delivered to his office is to quench his thirst.
Who are these alien life forms working in Washington????!!!!
In our local area, we got two very different perspectives on the Tea Party that happened in Evansville. One local affiliate referred to them specifically as Taxed Enough Already parties, as if the TEA was an acronym. They even referred to one demonstration as being specifically about local taxes being raised in Owensboro to pay for a downtown revitalization project.
I can't speak about the Owensboro demonstration specifically, nor any other Tea Parties throughout the USA specifically, but the real overarching complaint is about big government and limitless spending. Certainly those will lead to much greater taxes down the road, but that's not the overall complaint of yesterday's movement was about. Most understood that, just like a doctor needs to stop bleeding before he can operate, our country needs to stop the spending before worring about growing taxes.
The fact that they were called Tea Parties simply refers to a large demonstration protesting a grievance, just as the original Tea Party was protesting the grievance of Taxation without representation. Referring to the Tea Parties as Taxed Enough Parties is about like saying that I'm going to Kansas City to watch the game on the Nothing But Chiefs affiliate channel.
Sure, it's neat to make a sign with a message using the letters of another word or phrase, but it's not actually the name of the event.
So I'm not sure if this local affiliate is clueless, didn't do their homework, or is misleading the people with their reporting.
Another network affiliate was more on the mark, interviewing people that referred to the out of control spending and noting that this isn't about one party, reminding people that the spending craze started with President Bush and continues to this day.
It even went to the office of our Congressman, Brad Ellsworth, who displayed similar cluelessness as that of the other affiliate when asked about his view on the matter.
He suggested that the people at these parties needed to be more specific, and that not all spending could be cut. He did, admit that there is some wasteful spending in Washington...of course he forgot to mention that he voted in favor of EVERY ONE of those spending measures. And of course, his gem of, "I'm not a fan of tea. I'm more of a Diet Mt. Dew drinker, so if they want to bring those to my office, I'd be more appreciative of it."
Brilliant. A politician who thinks that massive amounts of tea bags delivered to his office is to quench his thirst.
Who are these alien life forms working in Washington????!!!!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Does the Law of Biogenesis prove Creationism?
That's a great question, but I'm not pondering that deeply at this point. What I'm interested in is if the Law of Biogenesis aids in proving that abortion is murder. Believe it or not, I heard this from Kathy Ireland, of all people, and it is a rock solid arguement.
At the moment of conception, DNA, the genetic blueprint of human life, is there. The sex of the unborn child is determined at conception. Blood type is determined at conception.
People arguing against life beginning at conception will say it's just a clump of cells...that it's not really a baby yet. But as Mrs. Ireland asked, aren't we all just clumps of cells?
You and I are clumps of cells. We look like what adult humans are supposed to look like. At conception, that "clump of cells" looks like what humans are supposed to look like after conception. We know it is life because it continually grows and changes.
But why do we scientifically know it's human? Because of the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life and that each species reproduces only its own kind or type.
Now some argue that if, scientifically, all life comes from preexisting life, then there must have been a Creator to create the first life. But again, I've not explored my thoughts on that enough here.
My concern is as it relates to abortion. If, according to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life, and each species only produces its own kind, and things such as DNA, Blood type, and sex are determined at conception...then it sounds absolutely reasonable that aborting anything after conception, which by scientific law is human, is murder of a human.
Again, the argument that if it is done early enough it's ok because it is just a "clump of cells" that doesn't even look like a human just doesn't hold water. Just as a fetus doesn't look like an infant and an infant doesn't look like a teenager and a teenager doesn't look like a senior...they all look exactly how they are supposed to look at that particular stage of development.
Neither does the argument that it can't live and breathe on it's own hold water. A newborn can't take care of itself either, aside from breathing. It can't feed itself, bathe itself, etc. It's dependent...just as all humans are from the moment of conception, scientifically speaking of course, until they can venture out into the world on their own. Even then humans are largely dependent on others for much of their life, and indeed even into death.
At the moment of conception, DNA, the genetic blueprint of human life, is there. The sex of the unborn child is determined at conception. Blood type is determined at conception.
People arguing against life beginning at conception will say it's just a clump of cells...that it's not really a baby yet. But as Mrs. Ireland asked, aren't we all just clumps of cells?
You and I are clumps of cells. We look like what adult humans are supposed to look like. At conception, that "clump of cells" looks like what humans are supposed to look like after conception. We know it is life because it continually grows and changes.
But why do we scientifically know it's human? Because of the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life and that each species reproduces only its own kind or type.
Now some argue that if, scientifically, all life comes from preexisting life, then there must have been a Creator to create the first life. But again, I've not explored my thoughts on that enough here.
My concern is as it relates to abortion. If, according to the scientific Law of Biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life, and each species only produces its own kind, and things such as DNA, Blood type, and sex are determined at conception...then it sounds absolutely reasonable that aborting anything after conception, which by scientific law is human, is murder of a human.
Again, the argument that if it is done early enough it's ok because it is just a "clump of cells" that doesn't even look like a human just doesn't hold water. Just as a fetus doesn't look like an infant and an infant doesn't look like a teenager and a teenager doesn't look like a senior...they all look exactly how they are supposed to look at that particular stage of development.
Neither does the argument that it can't live and breathe on it's own hold water. A newborn can't take care of itself either, aside from breathing. It can't feed itself, bathe itself, etc. It's dependent...just as all humans are from the moment of conception, scientifically speaking of course, until they can venture out into the world on their own. Even then humans are largely dependent on others for much of their life, and indeed even into death.
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Better Understanding Of Our Founding...
As I study more and more on the Founding Fathers and the founding of our country, it becomes increasingly obvious that we are woefully and almost neglectfully mistaught/undertaught about this great country.
It's blatantly clear, by merely reading our Founding Father's words, that they firmly believed that this experiment called democracy would only work if we were a moral and virtuous people based on religious values. They believed that our unalienable rights came from God, not from men.
They believed, and I now see how true this is, that we would begin to wain once we began electing immoral leaders.
But what I currently find fascinating, is their vision of far right versus far left. It's no where near our current vision of conservative versus liberals. Their far right was Anarchy (No Law) and their far left was Tyranny (Ruler's Law). And in the middle, was how we were founded...on People's Law.
Interestingly enough, our first national constitution, The Articles of Confederation was too far right. It was clear, in 1787, that things were beginning to come apart quickly for this country. Each state was vastly different from the next, and the too thinly composed national government was borderline no government at all....aka near Anarchy.
So the Constitutional Convention of 1787, convened, and new laws were debated. When the convention was over, our new historical document was created.
But what the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew, is that they couldn't go too far left...they couldn't approach Tyranny's Ruler's Law.
So the brilliant part of our new Constitution, and what most people currently misunderstand about the rights given to govern us in this great nation, is the Bill or Rights, our first 10 Amendments, were promises given to the States, by our newly forming national government foundation.
The States were the first consideration of our new government, not the individual peoples....because our nation is a respecter of laws, not a respecter of people. The newly proposed federal government, which had to be ratified by each of the States, were making a promise to the States that they wouldn't restrict speech, or tell a State what it's recognized religion must be. It was promising the States that once tried of a crime, that the national government wouldn't terrorize the citizens of the States by trying them again and again.
This was the brilliance of our founding. Our founders realized that the minimal role a government played in our lives, the better. They understood that the national government should play the most minimal role in citizens lives, and that only small doses of increasing influence and power should be given to the States, then slightly more to municipals, and slightly more to townships, leaving the vast majority of power and freedom at the Family and then Individual's hands.
It seems rather clear, that this country is now far left, based on our founding perspective. The power ladder described above is nearly flipped upside down...with less power and influence in our own hands, and the national government running our lives. No, we're not living in completely Tyrannical times, obviously. But ask yourself if our Founding Fathers, who created a document with promises to the States that it wouldn't infringe on it's rights to govern it's peoples, would even remotely recognize the government structure we have today.
It's blatantly clear, by merely reading our Founding Father's words, that they firmly believed that this experiment called democracy would only work if we were a moral and virtuous people based on religious values. They believed that our unalienable rights came from God, not from men.
They believed, and I now see how true this is, that we would begin to wain once we began electing immoral leaders.
But what I currently find fascinating, is their vision of far right versus far left. It's no where near our current vision of conservative versus liberals. Their far right was Anarchy (No Law) and their far left was Tyranny (Ruler's Law). And in the middle, was how we were founded...on People's Law.
Interestingly enough, our first national constitution, The Articles of Confederation was too far right. It was clear, in 1787, that things were beginning to come apart quickly for this country. Each state was vastly different from the next, and the too thinly composed national government was borderline no government at all....aka near Anarchy.
So the Constitutional Convention of 1787, convened, and new laws were debated. When the convention was over, our new historical document was created.
But what the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew, is that they couldn't go too far left...they couldn't approach Tyranny's Ruler's Law.
So the brilliant part of our new Constitution, and what most people currently misunderstand about the rights given to govern us in this great nation, is the Bill or Rights, our first 10 Amendments, were promises given to the States, by our newly forming national government foundation.
The States were the first consideration of our new government, not the individual peoples....because our nation is a respecter of laws, not a respecter of people. The newly proposed federal government, which had to be ratified by each of the States, were making a promise to the States that they wouldn't restrict speech, or tell a State what it's recognized religion must be. It was promising the States that once tried of a crime, that the national government wouldn't terrorize the citizens of the States by trying them again and again.
This was the brilliance of our founding. Our founders realized that the minimal role a government played in our lives, the better. They understood that the national government should play the most minimal role in citizens lives, and that only small doses of increasing influence and power should be given to the States, then slightly more to municipals, and slightly more to townships, leaving the vast majority of power and freedom at the Family and then Individual's hands.
It seems rather clear, that this country is now far left, based on our founding perspective. The power ladder described above is nearly flipped upside down...with less power and influence in our own hands, and the national government running our lives. No, we're not living in completely Tyrannical times, obviously. But ask yourself if our Founding Fathers, who created a document with promises to the States that it wouldn't infringe on it's rights to govern it's peoples, would even remotely recognize the government structure we have today.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Who Are You, Congressman Ellsworth?!?
I wonder if you remember who you are, Congressman Ellsworth. Former Vanderburgh County Sherrif. One who upholds laws. One who looks out for people. One who protects people. Not certain people...all people.
Yet, with a vote of Yea, you have either gone against all that you once stood for, or shown what you really stand for.
With one action, you supported the decision that it was ok for the government to single out a group of people for retribution.
With one action, you stood by idly, thereby condoning the fact that it is ok to threaten not just the lives of a single group of people, but their husbands, their wives, their children....and not just with the threat of monetary harm, but physical harm.
For if you try to argue that it couldn't be foreseen that physical harm would come to the families of AIG members who received bonuses, whom Congressman Frank and Attorney General Andrew Quomo demanded be made known, then you are not mentally fit to hold the office you current hold.
Anyone who has the ability to look one mere step into the future can easily and reasonably predict that harm would befall those AIG bonus recipients once their names are made public.
And anyone...ANYONE...who participates in the active or benign actions of allowing that to happen is a complete and utter shame....and completely unworthy of representing the people of this great nation.
Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth, for your yes vote last week, allowing for 90% taxes on past money earned! Shame on you for not being a leader that one expects from a former Vanderburgh County Sherrif and begging, nay admonishing your colleagues for propagating enough anger to want to cause harm to these innocent citizens! Shame on you for not upholding your previous swarn duty to protect the people....regardless of creed of affluency! Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth!!!
Then again, perhaps you have no shame.
Yet, with a vote of Yea, you have either gone against all that you once stood for, or shown what you really stand for.
With one action, you supported the decision that it was ok for the government to single out a group of people for retribution.
With one action, you stood by idly, thereby condoning the fact that it is ok to threaten not just the lives of a single group of people, but their husbands, their wives, their children....and not just with the threat of monetary harm, but physical harm.
For if you try to argue that it couldn't be foreseen that physical harm would come to the families of AIG members who received bonuses, whom Congressman Frank and Attorney General Andrew Quomo demanded be made known, then you are not mentally fit to hold the office you current hold.
Anyone who has the ability to look one mere step into the future can easily and reasonably predict that harm would befall those AIG bonus recipients once their names are made public.
And anyone...ANYONE...who participates in the active or benign actions of allowing that to happen is a complete and utter shame....and completely unworthy of representing the people of this great nation.
Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth, for your yes vote last week, allowing for 90% taxes on past money earned! Shame on you for not being a leader that one expects from a former Vanderburgh County Sherrif and begging, nay admonishing your colleagues for propagating enough anger to want to cause harm to these innocent citizens! Shame on you for not upholding your previous swarn duty to protect the people....regardless of creed of affluency! Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth!!!
Then again, perhaps you have no shame.
Timothy Geithner...
I'm rather torn about this man. I think there's lots of things he could be doing better. And it certainly says something about him, the administration, and the job he faces, that he can't get a single secretary hired to work for him in over 2 months...five people have bowed out after initially being interested in working with Treasury Secretary Geithner.
But let's be clear: Timothy Geithner should NOT be fired or resign, based on two months of work. Calls for or speculation to the contrary are misguided, at best.
Remember, this was "the best man for the job". Who else is there????
Ok, some may say their 5th grader can give better speeches than the man, with less of a deer-in-the-headlights look than the "best man" in the nation to be Treasury Secretary. Some may say that he's a tax cheat. Some may say he's a gambler and that we can't afford to gamble with taxpayer money.
Well those are the exact same reasons that I felt he shouldn't be Treasure Secretary in the first place. But since not enough other people cared to call their Senators back then and demand that he not be confirmed, we are stuck with him. And let's be serious, it's not like he's going to go out and pursue policies that are opposite President Obama. This is the exact kind of change we called for, right? Right???
No? Are you sure you didn't mandate a complete 180 degree shift in our country's future when you voted for Barack Obama??? Didn't you get the memo? Cause that's how he and the rest of the liberals in Washington took it in November.
I digress.
Whether or not I agree with Timothy Geithner or his mere presence in the office of the Treasury, he must be allowed to have a reasonable amount of time, in this large of an undertaking, to perform. Can that exact amount of time be all it takes to send this country onto a course it will never recover from? Possibly. But that's the risk we took with President Obama.
If we're concerned, the first line of questions we need to be asking is why the administration can't get the man some help! Why are all those people bowing out before even being offered a job??? Are they all tax cheats? Do none of them want to be part of a strategy that could bankrupt the country?? What? What is the problem up there folks? Does the need to be on Jay Leno supersede the need to get the most important, and unelected, department in the country fully staffed during this "country's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Not my words...President Obama's words.
So if your thinking Timothy Geithner should get the ax...just stop. Instead, first stand up and demand the man get some help for crying out loud. Then demand for more transparency from the most powerful and unelected department in government. And then...then if there are things that frighten you...then you can call for change...but first call for change in policy...before a change in leadership.
But let's be clear: Timothy Geithner should NOT be fired or resign, based on two months of work. Calls for or speculation to the contrary are misguided, at best.
Remember, this was "the best man for the job". Who else is there????
Ok, some may say their 5th grader can give better speeches than the man, with less of a deer-in-the-headlights look than the "best man" in the nation to be Treasury Secretary. Some may say that he's a tax cheat. Some may say he's a gambler and that we can't afford to gamble with taxpayer money.
Well those are the exact same reasons that I felt he shouldn't be Treasure Secretary in the first place. But since not enough other people cared to call their Senators back then and demand that he not be confirmed, we are stuck with him. And let's be serious, it's not like he's going to go out and pursue policies that are opposite President Obama. This is the exact kind of change we called for, right? Right???
No? Are you sure you didn't mandate a complete 180 degree shift in our country's future when you voted for Barack Obama??? Didn't you get the memo? Cause that's how he and the rest of the liberals in Washington took it in November.
I digress.
Whether or not I agree with Timothy Geithner or his mere presence in the office of the Treasury, he must be allowed to have a reasonable amount of time, in this large of an undertaking, to perform. Can that exact amount of time be all it takes to send this country onto a course it will never recover from? Possibly. But that's the risk we took with President Obama.
If we're concerned, the first line of questions we need to be asking is why the administration can't get the man some help! Why are all those people bowing out before even being offered a job??? Are they all tax cheats? Do none of them want to be part of a strategy that could bankrupt the country?? What? What is the problem up there folks? Does the need to be on Jay Leno supersede the need to get the most important, and unelected, department in the country fully staffed during this "country's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Not my words...President Obama's words.
So if your thinking Timothy Geithner should get the ax...just stop. Instead, first stand up and demand the man get some help for crying out loud. Then demand for more transparency from the most powerful and unelected department in government. And then...then if there are things that frighten you...then you can call for change...but first call for change in policy...before a change in leadership.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Serious Conversation About AIG (and others)...
All I've heard recently is how outraged everyone is about AIG paying bonuses or Northern Trust having big parties featuring Sheryl Crow and such. Let's understand something here; I'm no fan of AIG, but are we really asking a business to stop acting like a business here? Is anyone asking Government to stop acting like government during this crisis??
The argument here is that it is taxpayer money that is being used, so the companies should be restricted on how they use the money. Wait a second. You mean you want a company that "acted irresponsibly" to the point of bankruptcy to suddenly begin to act responsibly?? Would that be like asking a government that looked the other way leading up to the biggest financial crisis in a generation to suddenly make sure that everything is on the up-and-up? Meanwhile appointee after appointee has tax issues, the finance and banking committees have no idea what happened with the first half of the first bailout, otherwise known as TARP, and the President is saying exactly what he excoriated John McCain for saying 6 months ago, when the economy was much better than it is now. Outrageous!
So let's be clear about AIG, and how it got to where it is today, or at least where it was, before the taxpayers gave them $180 Billion and 80% ownership in the failing company. It was making risky investments. Highly risky investments. But so was the entire lineup of Wall Street. If your competitors are making money and profits hand over fist in the derivative market, and you don't get into that market, your company is going to suffer in the eyes of investors and Wall Street. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a business...which the main purpose of is to make profits.
It's almost like the reverse of a gas pricing war. I'm sure you've experienced that in your town at one point or another. One gas station wants to own the market. To do that, they must put other gas stations out of business...which is to say, lower their prices so much that all the customers come to them instead of competitors. Well, the competitors, at least one of them, doesn't want to go out of business, so they lower their prices to match...and the war is on. They keep lowering their prices against each other, trying to get more customers and put the other company out of business, so that when they are the only gas station in the area, they can recoup the losses by raising their prices back, and then some.
So if AIG's competitors are making insane profits by investing in some exotic derivative market, they'd be in trouble if they didn't do the same thing because no one would want to invest in a company who isn't making money.
The problem is, just as with a gas pricing war, eventually you reach the point of no return. All the companies need to come to their senses at the same time, or face bankruptcy. That, or someone has to be willing to lose customers(investors) and profits in the short term hoping that the other company that acted irresponsibly will have to go out of business due to incompetence and they can eventually get the customers and profits back.
Unfortunately, that takes a long term vision, and by design, many companies don't think in the long term, particularly when they don't fully see the riskiness of the short term profits or when they are getting pounded by competition.
So if you give companies that are acting irresponsibly and haven't felt the pain of consequences of lack of vision free money, do you really think they are going to change their ways? If you give an alcoholic, who hasn't said they will stop drinking or hit rock bottom, a thousand dollars, are they suddenly not going to go buy alcohol??
The correct answer is, NO. So you don't give companies free money....you don't give an alcoholic a thousand dollars...you let them fail...for their own good. That's just common sense!
Will it hurt? Of course. Will it possibly hurt innocent people? Quite possibly. But at least you aren't flushing money down the toilet. At least you have something to work with if and when the lessons of failure are learned.
So please...spare me the feigned outrage over AIG paying bonuses to executives. That's what companies do. And if you aren't competent enough to restrict those kind of actions as a contingency to giving out free money...well, then your the United States Government...an incompetent body who has no understanding of how business is run and has very little common sense.
Did you know that the US Taxpayer isn't even 1st in line to recoup money if one of these bailout companies still fails?????? Congress didn't even put the taxpayer at the front of the line when giving companies bailout money! That's outrageous!!
The argument here is that it is taxpayer money that is being used, so the companies should be restricted on how they use the money. Wait a second. You mean you want a company that "acted irresponsibly" to the point of bankruptcy to suddenly begin to act responsibly?? Would that be like asking a government that looked the other way leading up to the biggest financial crisis in a generation to suddenly make sure that everything is on the up-and-up? Meanwhile appointee after appointee has tax issues, the finance and banking committees have no idea what happened with the first half of the first bailout, otherwise known as TARP, and the President is saying exactly what he excoriated John McCain for saying 6 months ago, when the economy was much better than it is now. Outrageous!
So let's be clear about AIG, and how it got to where it is today, or at least where it was, before the taxpayers gave them $180 Billion and 80% ownership in the failing company. It was making risky investments. Highly risky investments. But so was the entire lineup of Wall Street. If your competitors are making money and profits hand over fist in the derivative market, and you don't get into that market, your company is going to suffer in the eyes of investors and Wall Street. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a business...which the main purpose of is to make profits.
It's almost like the reverse of a gas pricing war. I'm sure you've experienced that in your town at one point or another. One gas station wants to own the market. To do that, they must put other gas stations out of business...which is to say, lower their prices so much that all the customers come to them instead of competitors. Well, the competitors, at least one of them, doesn't want to go out of business, so they lower their prices to match...and the war is on. They keep lowering their prices against each other, trying to get more customers and put the other company out of business, so that when they are the only gas station in the area, they can recoup the losses by raising their prices back, and then some.
So if AIG's competitors are making insane profits by investing in some exotic derivative market, they'd be in trouble if they didn't do the same thing because no one would want to invest in a company who isn't making money.
The problem is, just as with a gas pricing war, eventually you reach the point of no return. All the companies need to come to their senses at the same time, or face bankruptcy. That, or someone has to be willing to lose customers(investors) and profits in the short term hoping that the other company that acted irresponsibly will have to go out of business due to incompetence and they can eventually get the customers and profits back.
Unfortunately, that takes a long term vision, and by design, many companies don't think in the long term, particularly when they don't fully see the riskiness of the short term profits or when they are getting pounded by competition.
So if you give companies that are acting irresponsibly and haven't felt the pain of consequences of lack of vision free money, do you really think they are going to change their ways? If you give an alcoholic, who hasn't said they will stop drinking or hit rock bottom, a thousand dollars, are they suddenly not going to go buy alcohol??
The correct answer is, NO. So you don't give companies free money....you don't give an alcoholic a thousand dollars...you let them fail...for their own good. That's just common sense!
Will it hurt? Of course. Will it possibly hurt innocent people? Quite possibly. But at least you aren't flushing money down the toilet. At least you have something to work with if and when the lessons of failure are learned.
So please...spare me the feigned outrage over AIG paying bonuses to executives. That's what companies do. And if you aren't competent enough to restrict those kind of actions as a contingency to giving out free money...well, then your the United States Government...an incompetent body who has no understanding of how business is run and has very little common sense.
Did you know that the US Taxpayer isn't even 1st in line to recoup money if one of these bailout companies still fails?????? Congress didn't even put the taxpayer at the front of the line when giving companies bailout money! That's outrageous!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
