EIN News says, "NATO Brass Plans for Limited Role in Post-Gadhafi Libya Mission NATO planners are drawing up options for a possible NATO role in Libya after the civil war in the North African nation ends, officials said Wednesday. (theglobeandmail.com)".
That may sound good to the Obama administration and even the US public in general, but let's remember that with the winning of the war against Qaddafi, the rebels are victorious and have on-site power, as opposed to the remoteness of NATO.
If I were a rebel, I would say thanks to NATO for having helped, but now go away, we don't need you anymore, unless you want to dump more money on us. Thanks for the first billion dollars.
I guess the rebels now have Obama by the groin. He either gives them more money, which I heard he plans to do, in order to save face, or bow out to take a more subservient attitude.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Is Killing Gadhafi Supporters a Humanitarian Effort?
EIN News says, "Fresh Fighting Erupts Between Libya Rebels, Regime Fresh fighting erupted in Tripoli on Tuesday hours after Moammar Gadhafi's son turned up free to thwart Libyan rebel claims he had been captured, a move that seems to have energized forces still loyal to the embattled regime. (nwsource.com)".
I almost cry when I think that Obama has dumped almost $1 billion of my money into this operation, 40% of which is a loan that I now have an obligation to repay.
We still don't know who the rebels are or what their agenda is. From what I can see on TV news, they are a mob not only intent on killing the Qaddafi supporters but also generally destroying the city of Tripoli. This seems similar to the riots, which had been taking place in London. $1 billion to support a mob just because we don't like Obama for having been involved in a plane crash killing Americans? Humans being what they are, can easily waste a lot of assets because of a negative emotion.
The other really disconcerting aspect is that Congress lets Obama get away with this ridiculous destruction of our economy.
I almost cry when I think that Obama has dumped almost $1 billion of my money into this operation, 40% of which is a loan that I now have an obligation to repay.
We still don't know who the rebels are or what their agenda is. From what I can see on TV news, they are a mob not only intent on killing the Qaddafi supporters but also generally destroying the city of Tripoli. This seems similar to the riots, which had been taking place in London. $1 billion to support a mob just because we don't like Obama for having been involved in a plane crash killing Americans? Humans being what they are, can easily waste a lot of assets because of a negative emotion.
The other really disconcerting aspect is that Congress lets Obama get away with this ridiculous destruction of our economy.
Monday, August 22, 2011
More Borrowed Money to You to Libya under the Guise "Humanitarian Aid"?
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Pres. Obama is going to continue throwing US borrowed money at Libyan rebels. If you agree with this please tell me why. If you don't agree, what are you going to do about it?
An administrative spokesman said we will continue to supply funds to the rebels on the basis of humanitarian support. What a laugh! Who are the innocents that we are trying to protect? More money to rebels means they kill more Qaddafi supporters. Does that describe the definition of humanitarian aid?
Randy,
Pres. Obama is going to continue throwing US borrowed money at Libyan rebels. If you agree with this please tell me why. If you don't agree, what are you going to do about it?
An administrative spokesman said we will continue to supply funds to the rebels on the basis of humanitarian support. What a laugh! Who are the innocents that we are trying to protect? More money to rebels means they kill more Qaddafi supporters. Does that describe the definition of humanitarian aid?
New Agenda for Rep. Neugebauer
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter. I was impressed especially with the first paragraph where you said you were listening to Texans speaking out about the federal government’s impact on creating jobs. As I understand your job, you not only supposed to listen, you're supposed to take some kind of action. What do you doing to stop the federal government from destroying jobs as they have been doing.
Neal Boortz said on the radio this morning that in a specific period of time government regulatory agencies increased their budgets 16%, while the same time the GNP increased 3%. No way you could stop this or turn it around?
House Republicans are whistling in the dark with their budget proposals, as long as the deck is loaded against them with a preponderance of Marxist Democrats with opposing points of view. Past time to stop playing a game and get on with some other aspect of progress. That would involve some innovative thought, much like Pres. Obama has used to bypass Congress on other things he wanted passed, such as the dream act and similar activities, wherein he uses Executive Order.
Forget the idea of encouraging small business owners to share their opinions and views on the federal government’s impact on the economy.. All small business owners and even the rest of us know the answer to that one . Let's forget the lamentations and sympathy groups and get on with the business of cracking the heads of government regulators.
Forget the abortion act, chaplains, and defense of marriage act. You have much more important things to do. If you don't know what they are, please reread my first four paragraphs.
Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter. I was impressed especially with the first paragraph where you said you were listening to Texans speaking out about the federal government’s impact on creating jobs. As I understand your job, you not only supposed to listen, you're supposed to take some kind of action. What do you doing to stop the federal government from destroying jobs as they have been doing.
Neal Boortz said on the radio this morning that in a specific period of time government regulatory agencies increased their budgets 16%, while the same time the GNP increased 3%. No way you could stop this or turn it around?
House Republicans are whistling in the dark with their budget proposals, as long as the deck is loaded against them with a preponderance of Marxist Democrats with opposing points of view. Past time to stop playing a game and get on with some other aspect of progress. That would involve some innovative thought, much like Pres. Obama has used to bypass Congress on other things he wanted passed, such as the dream act and similar activities, wherein he uses Executive Order.
Forget the idea of encouraging small business owners to share their opinions and views on the federal government’s impact on the economy.. All small business owners and even the rest of us know the answer to that one . Let's forget the lamentations and sympathy groups and get on with the business of cracking the heads of government regulators.
Forget the abortion act, chaplains, and defense of marriage act. You have much more important things to do. If you don't know what they are, please reread my first four paragraphs.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Solving US Unemployment
When we talk about US unemployment, we are talking about jobs, which is uppermost in the news these days. Roughly 10% of the potential working population is without a job. For the person without a job, it means available spending money less than what he would have if he were employed. The reduction is not great, because he is now receiving employment compensation from the people. The fact that continued unemployment compensation is questionable, because of a potentially bankrupt government, is a bit of a worry but not immediately so.
Now let's take a look at availability of goods and services. On a worldwide basis, there seems to be no shortage of goods or services for people who need, want, appreciate, and could use them. For example, I have two air-conditioners. Why would I need another? Could someone else use another air-conditioner? Perhaps, but maybe not. Maybe they like a higher temperature. Maybe they don't want to increase their electric bills. Maybe it would eliminate an excuse to spend a week or two at the shore.
Perhaps a member of some tribe in central Africa should have a new computer. But what would he do with it? He may want it because it looks pretty, but it is likely that he would have no concept of how to use it. Even if he did, how would he power it? How would he connect to the Internet? One might say all that is true, but the converse is to look at the great opportunities for developing education, electricity production, etc.. While all of that is also true,where would this person obtain the money to buy the computer, obtain his education to use it and pay his electric bill? It is likely that he couldn't. Then, someone must give it to him as a gift. This would also have its disadvantages in that subsequent gifts would eventually run out, as the donor becomes unable to handle the increasing quantity of gifts. This would result in developing an entitlement attitude, which likely will result in bloodshed, because the person receiving begins eventually loses sense of appreciation and develops an animosity to the donor.
Sounds kind of hopeless, doesn't it? But wait, it can appear to get worse.
Going back to worldwide availability of goods and services, we presently seem to be in approximate balance, with respect to supply and ability to pay. In all probability, availability of goods and services probably exceeds the ability of customers to purchase. Take a look at the multitude of cereal brands in the supermarket and the vitamin shelves. For Americans, there is an excess of products and services to purchase.
Let's now suppose that we make some kind of an arrangement where the 10% unemployed are now put to work producing goods and services. This will increase availability of goods and services by roughly 10%. For what purpose? We already have enough goods and services. One can say that that we should export these goods and services to the populations in other countries which have an insufficiency. But how will those potential customers be able to pay? Likelihood is they can't and we now resort to gift giving. But how long can it continue? Our country is already in deficit spending.
Another aspect is that eliminating the 10% US unemployment would not necessarily increase goods and services in the US by that amount, but would reduce imports so that the same amount of goods and services would be available here. This means that we would be trading jobs. Production workers in Guatemala and South Korea would then become unemployed, as their jobs would be taken over by Americans. This would be exactly the reverse of what has been taking place over the past 10 to 20 years. How would we feel about making a Guatemalan unemployed? Would our compassion allow it?
What's the bottom line? Follow two of life's rules. First take care of the number one guy. That's you. As your facilities and compassion allow, then take care of others. The second rule is Quid pro quo, which means something for something. That is, when you give to the underprivileged, expect something in return, either personally or to society. Follow these two rules, beware of usurpers, and the world will take care of itself.
Now let's take a look at availability of goods and services. On a worldwide basis, there seems to be no shortage of goods or services for people who need, want, appreciate, and could use them. For example, I have two air-conditioners. Why would I need another? Could someone else use another air-conditioner? Perhaps, but maybe not. Maybe they like a higher temperature. Maybe they don't want to increase their electric bills. Maybe it would eliminate an excuse to spend a week or two at the shore.
Perhaps a member of some tribe in central Africa should have a new computer. But what would he do with it? He may want it because it looks pretty, but it is likely that he would have no concept of how to use it. Even if he did, how would he power it? How would he connect to the Internet? One might say all that is true, but the converse is to look at the great opportunities for developing education, electricity production, etc.. While all of that is also true,where would this person obtain the money to buy the computer, obtain his education to use it and pay his electric bill? It is likely that he couldn't. Then, someone must give it to him as a gift. This would also have its disadvantages in that subsequent gifts would eventually run out, as the donor becomes unable to handle the increasing quantity of gifts. This would result in developing an entitlement attitude, which likely will result in bloodshed, because the person receiving begins eventually loses sense of appreciation and develops an animosity to the donor.
Sounds kind of hopeless, doesn't it? But wait, it can appear to get worse.
Going back to worldwide availability of goods and services, we presently seem to be in approximate balance, with respect to supply and ability to pay. In all probability, availability of goods and services probably exceeds the ability of customers to purchase. Take a look at the multitude of cereal brands in the supermarket and the vitamin shelves. For Americans, there is an excess of products and services to purchase.
Let's now suppose that we make some kind of an arrangement where the 10% unemployed are now put to work producing goods and services. This will increase availability of goods and services by roughly 10%. For what purpose? We already have enough goods and services. One can say that that we should export these goods and services to the populations in other countries which have an insufficiency. But how will those potential customers be able to pay? Likelihood is they can't and we now resort to gift giving. But how long can it continue? Our country is already in deficit spending.
Another aspect is that eliminating the 10% US unemployment would not necessarily increase goods and services in the US by that amount, but would reduce imports so that the same amount of goods and services would be available here. This means that we would be trading jobs. Production workers in Guatemala and South Korea would then become unemployed, as their jobs would be taken over by Americans. This would be exactly the reverse of what has been taking place over the past 10 to 20 years. How would we feel about making a Guatemalan unemployed? Would our compassion allow it?
What's the bottom line? Follow two of life's rules. First take care of the number one guy. That's you. As your facilities and compassion allow, then take care of others. The second rule is Quid pro quo, which means something for something. That is, when you give to the underprivileged, expect something in return, either personally or to society. Follow these two rules, beware of usurpers, and the world will take care of itself.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Another Socialistic Rant from the American Chemical Society
Rudy Baum is again on his Communistic/Socialistic rant. For those who may not be familiar with Rudy, he is the Chief Editor of Chemical and Engineering News, the face-piece magazine of the American Chemical Society. We don't know what Rudy calls himself, but it is clear from his writings that he is a dyed in the wool Communist/Socialist. Since the ACS keeps him on as Editor in Chief, it is also apparent that the ACS similarly has these Socialistic leanings.
In the July 18 issue of C&E News, Rudy presented an editorial entitled "What Kind of Nation?". That is merely a title, since his editorial actually concerns the US debt ceiling and future budgets.
He starts out by saying that it's not about freedom. He says the European nations have a social welfare system more developed than that of the US and yet they are more free. We all know that Western Europe has become strongly socialistic, and Rudy apparently thinks that is a great development.
More specifically, Rudy is now bemoaning the fact that the House of Representatives cut the Food and Drug Administration budget by $87 million. This is a 10% cut, with the remaining budget almost 3/4 of $1 billion per year. There's no question that food safety is important to the American public, but the American public also has some responsibility in what they purchase and what they eat. There is such a thing as a market force. If word gets around that Company A's product seems to be less safe than Company B's, Company A will soon be out of business through decreased sales. A socialistic government seems to ignore that fact. Rudy supports his rant against the cut by saying that 28,000 more people will end up in the hospital in 3,000 will die. With his great intuition, apparently he is able to collect these facts by ignoring that those people to whom he refers, are likely to be mostly sick and in process of dying anyhow.
Rudy's second rant is against cutting budgets for state parks. He says the parks will close and people will no longer have access to them. Baloney! State parks can charge admission fees directly to the public in the same manner as most entertainment enterprises, such as sporting events and amusement parks. If the public doesn't want to lay out funds for entrance fees, it is obvious that it is not that much interested. Government should not be telling people what they should be attending by some kind of subsidization making it look like it's a free entrance, when in fact they have paid through the nose through taxes.
Rudy's last rant is against a House Committee's bill that terminates funding for the James Web Space Telescope. The JWST was supposed to be a replacement for the Hubble telescope. The original budget was $5 billion. It is now $1.5 billion over budget and up to three years behind schedule. Rudy says that's not uncommon for such projects. My point of view is that if proposers of projects cannot estimate their costs within 30+ percent, they should not bother to make an estimate. However, I suspect that the original $5 billion budget was intentionally placed at the low end, in a deceptive maneuver to gain approval and with the assumption that once the project is going, it would be easier to gain additional funding. Congratulations to the Subcommittee for their bill. I personally like the pictures from the Hubble telescope, and it would be nice to obtain better pictures from the JWST, but after all they are just pictures, and we can't afford it.
Rudy's final comment is that the US is not broke. He is correct in that statement, but more accurately should say that the US is not broke yet. When the government spends $4 billion more per day than its income, without any hope of a significant change, it is only a matter of time before we will be broke. He says we are losing faith in the future and unwilling to protect our citizens from bad food and substandard drugs, invest in the infrastructure and continue to advance science. I agree to that but only because Rudy, the US President, and Congress apparently do not understand money.
In the July 18 issue of C&E News, Rudy presented an editorial entitled "What Kind of Nation?". That is merely a title, since his editorial actually concerns the US debt ceiling and future budgets.
He starts out by saying that it's not about freedom. He says the European nations have a social welfare system more developed than that of the US and yet they are more free. We all know that Western Europe has become strongly socialistic, and Rudy apparently thinks that is a great development.
More specifically, Rudy is now bemoaning the fact that the House of Representatives cut the Food and Drug Administration budget by $87 million. This is a 10% cut, with the remaining budget almost 3/4 of $1 billion per year. There's no question that food safety is important to the American public, but the American public also has some responsibility in what they purchase and what they eat. There is such a thing as a market force. If word gets around that Company A's product seems to be less safe than Company B's, Company A will soon be out of business through decreased sales. A socialistic government seems to ignore that fact. Rudy supports his rant against the cut by saying that 28,000 more people will end up in the hospital in 3,000 will die. With his great intuition, apparently he is able to collect these facts by ignoring that those people to whom he refers, are likely to be mostly sick and in process of dying anyhow.
Rudy's second rant is against cutting budgets for state parks. He says the parks will close and people will no longer have access to them. Baloney! State parks can charge admission fees directly to the public in the same manner as most entertainment enterprises, such as sporting events and amusement parks. If the public doesn't want to lay out funds for entrance fees, it is obvious that it is not that much interested. Government should not be telling people what they should be attending by some kind of subsidization making it look like it's a free entrance, when in fact they have paid through the nose through taxes.
Rudy's last rant is against a House Committee's bill that terminates funding for the James Web Space Telescope. The JWST was supposed to be a replacement for the Hubble telescope. The original budget was $5 billion. It is now $1.5 billion over budget and up to three years behind schedule. Rudy says that's not uncommon for such projects. My point of view is that if proposers of projects cannot estimate their costs within 30+ percent, they should not bother to make an estimate. However, I suspect that the original $5 billion budget was intentionally placed at the low end, in a deceptive maneuver to gain approval and with the assumption that once the project is going, it would be easier to gain additional funding. Congratulations to the Subcommittee for their bill. I personally like the pictures from the Hubble telescope, and it would be nice to obtain better pictures from the JWST, but after all they are just pictures, and we can't afford it.
Rudy's final comment is that the US is not broke. He is correct in that statement, but more accurately should say that the US is not broke yet. When the government spends $4 billion more per day than its income, without any hope of a significant change, it is only a matter of time before we will be broke. He says we are losing faith in the future and unwilling to protect our citizens from bad food and substandard drugs, invest in the infrastructure and continue to advance science. I agree to that but only because Rudy, the US President, and Congress apparently do not understand money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
