Today the Senate voted 60-39 to pass an overhaul healthcare bill that can and will change healthcare for the worse in our country. This is the first time that such an overhaul has been passed in our nation. Medicare mostly affects older people, Medicaid mostly does poor people, but this will affect us all.
It is sad that the U.S. Legislative Branch can pass such an expensive bill that strengthens the power of government far beyond what the Constitution allows. Now nearly if not more than 70% of what government does in this country is unconstitutional. In other words illegal according to our highest order of law in this country (Constitution). This is a power grab that could put Democrats out of power come mid-term elections. They are hinging their bets on the hope that the population that is helped by this will always vote for them and thus when added with those who are already die hard democrats it could keep them in power for years to come. I'm hoping that an ignorant American population will be more intelligent than I believe and will oust them in less than one year from now.
At a time when Europe is moving towards traditional American ways of life(although a long ways to go) and away from the larger federal government controls of their nations, the United States led by the Obama Administration and his liberal friends are moving America towards what Europe has already discovered to be disasterous.
More details about the bill and what I and others who are far more intelligent than I am later.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Random Thougts
I have not blogged as often lately due to my distraction from the political landscape and my position as a head basketball coach which is time consuming and more fatiguing than I thought it would be.
I have read some interesting books of late though. One of these includes: Black Rednecks and White Liberals. The title is a bit misleading until you read the book. It is one of my favorite. I put off reading it due to the cover and title for a couple years. This proves don't judge a book by its cover. I"m reading a book about one of my favorite world leaders ever- Winston Churchill. I'm also reading a book full of letters written by our nation's founding fathers to their wives and friends. Its interesting being in the minds of some of the greatest people in our nation's history. If we all could read their letter we would all be better people and better writers.
I just read and deleted some "notes" that I had written a couple years ago on facebook when I first started the "blog" thing. I look back and realize how little I knew then, although I thought I knew a lot. I now know a lot. But I will only be successful if I can look back in a few years and read my current blog and realize I did not know a lot. (think about it).
The hardest thing to do is teach kids something that they don't learn as quickly as you learned it. We tend to judge people by our own achievements and strengths. If we judged people with our weaknesses in mind, oh how much we would love one another.
I thought John Wooden was wrong when he said he never spoke about winning and losing and only playing your best and if you do that then your always a winner. I always valued winning over everything. I hate losing. But so did John Wooden. He just viewed it from a different perspective. I coach a boys basketball team that has played about 10 games against teams that have starting lineups that average a combined 25 inches and 150 pounds in size advantage. That is like Bryan College against Duke every game. We have only played 2 games that our team could have a legit chance of winning if we had played our best. I now understand why John Wooden viewed it they way he did.
I have read some interesting books of late though. One of these includes: Black Rednecks and White Liberals. The title is a bit misleading until you read the book. It is one of my favorite. I put off reading it due to the cover and title for a couple years. This proves don't judge a book by its cover. I"m reading a book about one of my favorite world leaders ever- Winston Churchill. I'm also reading a book full of letters written by our nation's founding fathers to their wives and friends. Its interesting being in the minds of some of the greatest people in our nation's history. If we all could read their letter we would all be better people and better writers.
I just read and deleted some "notes" that I had written a couple years ago on facebook when I first started the "blog" thing. I look back and realize how little I knew then, although I thought I knew a lot. I now know a lot. But I will only be successful if I can look back in a few years and read my current blog and realize I did not know a lot. (think about it).
The hardest thing to do is teach kids something that they don't learn as quickly as you learned it. We tend to judge people by our own achievements and strengths. If we judged people with our weaknesses in mind, oh how much we would love one another.
I thought John Wooden was wrong when he said he never spoke about winning and losing and only playing your best and if you do that then your always a winner. I always valued winning over everything. I hate losing. But so did John Wooden. He just viewed it from a different perspective. I coach a boys basketball team that has played about 10 games against teams that have starting lineups that average a combined 25 inches and 150 pounds in size advantage. That is like Bryan College against Duke every game. We have only played 2 games that our team could have a legit chance of winning if we had played our best. I now understand why John Wooden viewed it they way he did.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Making the right argument
It bugs me to hear some people that I agree with on an issue debate using certain arguments. Even if they are right in their thinking and even if they have a good argument lets use the best argument possible to defeat something we do not like. Lets not argue that the new healthcare bill will drop or deplete some of the current benefits of Senior Citizens. Lets talk about the effects of healthcare on all of society in terms of rationing care and the effects on the production of new drugs and medicines. We know the rationing and lessening of production can be traced back to socialized government ran healthcare systems which do not motivate innovation of new drugs. Lets argue whether it is constitutional for the federal government to even take on such a task instead of talking about the deficit although that is a very important problem.
When arguing against gay marriage lets not only argue about the morality, but the Constitution. Does the Constitution of the U.S. say anything about marriage? No. So lets leave it up to the states. Do the state constitutions say anything about it? if not lets put it to a vote. If it is not in a constitution of any sort then judges should have zero say so. Lets not just talk about rights and equal rights and blah blah blah this is evil sin and so forth. Good argument. I believe homosexuality is not right in the eyes of God. But that argument does not work with all people. So lets educate ourselves better so that people don't close off their ears to us immediately. Lets try to debate them over on the obvious issues of Constitutions and what "rights" are truly granted in any constitution (most rights are protected and not granted since our founders believed our rights were 'inalienable' meaning cannot be created nor destroyed). Then when we have shown ourselves to not me radical theocratic then we can witness and maybe when them over on the morality issue. I'm not talking about the pulpit either. I'm all about preaching right and wrong from there. But in the public forum lets try to win as many on the issues as possible and not shun anyone out by jumping straight to the Christianity argument although I totally agree with it.
I'm just saying as Christians lets show that we love our country that God has blessed so much with and because we love it we know more about it and as Christians we read more than just the Bible because we are well rounded individuals. How many of us really do this?
When arguing against gay marriage lets not only argue about the morality, but the Constitution. Does the Constitution of the U.S. say anything about marriage? No. So lets leave it up to the states. Do the state constitutions say anything about it? if not lets put it to a vote. If it is not in a constitution of any sort then judges should have zero say so. Lets not just talk about rights and equal rights and blah blah blah this is evil sin and so forth. Good argument. I believe homosexuality is not right in the eyes of God. But that argument does not work with all people. So lets educate ourselves better so that people don't close off their ears to us immediately. Lets try to debate them over on the obvious issues of Constitutions and what "rights" are truly granted in any constitution (most rights are protected and not granted since our founders believed our rights were 'inalienable' meaning cannot be created nor destroyed). Then when we have shown ourselves to not me radical theocratic then we can witness and maybe when them over on the morality issue. I'm not talking about the pulpit either. I'm all about preaching right and wrong from there. But in the public forum lets try to win as many on the issues as possible and not shun anyone out by jumping straight to the Christianity argument although I totally agree with it.
I'm just saying as Christians lets show that we love our country that God has blessed so much with and because we love it we know more about it and as Christians we read more than just the Bible because we are well rounded individuals. How many of us really do this?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Learning on the job something I already believed...
I have had the impression that if you teach kids and expect a lot and quite frankly demand a lot, you will get a lot out of the kids as long as you explain why you expect a lot. Today's education "experts" would disagree with that notion and thus one education "expert" at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga told me to find a new hobby and give up being a teacher. I told her off and told her I disagree with the liberal mindset of teaching and we'll see how I do. Now I lost my first teaching job but the reports were that my kids liked me and well they scored higher on the standardized test than the other social studies teachers at my school and to be honest... I thought a lot of my social studies department there. So I am proud of that. I lost my job because I was tough on basketball kids most people believe. I said I would not change my mentality although I will continue to try and improve my coaching methods.
And now I have a bunch of middle school basketball players. They have not won a game in over a year and only won one or two a couple years before and have not won more than one or two for a few years now. We still have not won a game (of course we have only played three legit games). But I came down hard on these guys. I demand a lot. Throughout practice I just send the guys running all the time because they are not being productive at that time. I'm not punishing them I'm "disciplining" them. And our practices are physical now. I yell a lot. I encourage too but there is not a lot of that going on because we have not been executing what I want. But our boys are practicing and playing hard. I asked them today if they have liked recent practices because I have picked it up a notch and have gotten that much tougher. They said yes we love it.
Don't tell me today's kids are different. Don't tell me you have to be soft on these kids and can't expect a lot. That is insulting to them and I have told them that. In fact I tell them the more I yell at them the more they should feel flattered. Because that means I expect a lot from them... And lately and I believe in the future... I will be getting a lot..
And now I have a bunch of middle school basketball players. They have not won a game in over a year and only won one or two a couple years before and have not won more than one or two for a few years now. We still have not won a game (of course we have only played three legit games). But I came down hard on these guys. I demand a lot. Throughout practice I just send the guys running all the time because they are not being productive at that time. I'm not punishing them I'm "disciplining" them. And our practices are physical now. I yell a lot. I encourage too but there is not a lot of that going on because we have not been executing what I want. But our boys are practicing and playing hard. I asked them today if they have liked recent practices because I have picked it up a notch and have gotten that much tougher. They said yes we love it.
Don't tell me today's kids are different. Don't tell me you have to be soft on these kids and can't expect a lot. That is insulting to them and I have told them that. In fact I tell them the more I yell at them the more they should feel flattered. Because that means I expect a lot from them... And lately and I believe in the future... I will be getting a lot..
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Quiet Majority
Today nearly nothing makes me more angry than to hear someone say that their voice means nothing. Now this statement can be true in many instances. But when that voice is part of a major majority group who is afraid to speak up, than that "quiet majority" appears to be a minority and people in charge making decisions may decide to make the "loud minority" that appears to be the majority happy. I have explained this effect on my life just a year ago.
Most people in the country would not mind if Rush Limbaugh had owned just some 5% of the St. Louis Rams. But because that was a quiet majority and the loud minority said "NO!" the NFL pressured the other people in the group to get rid of Rush. I was watching a NFL program the other day and the music they played, licensed by the NFL, was a song from Marylin Manson. So it is ok to have a man who publicly urinates on the Bible, a book that a large majority in America form their religion from not to mention our laws are in large part based from, to have his music used for the NFL but someone who vocalizes something that many people were debating next to the water cooler can not own just 5% of one franchise?
Most people in America are against Gay marriage and recently that was proven on the Ballot in Maine a state that is not necessarily one of the more conservative states. In fact I don't know of one state where "marriage" has been allowed when put up for a vote. But in states where they allow judges and legislatures vote they often choose the side of the minority. This because that minority is the loudest.
I doubt most Americans would care if we stereotyped people at airports when checking baggage. In other words for those people who are much like the groups who have committed terrorist attacks against our nation, maybe pay closer attention to them. Most do this anyways. In fact I believe it was Jesse Jackson who has said that he is nervous walking on the side of a street in a city at night when he hears footsteps behind him... until he turns around and sees that it is a group of "white" people and he is relieved that is was not "black" people. That might sound racist but Jackson was stereotyping the situation but since he is Black himself he is not portrayed racist.
Most would not have mind if a member of the U.S. military would have reported that the recent man who murdered over a dozen people and injured nearly three dozen had said controversial statements. But many would be afraid since the man is Muslim that they would be shun down for being "racist" and those in charge are probably hesitant to investigate the situation due to the same charges. In fact there was an investigation that was going on. I wonder if that investigation was ever at all held up in delay due to not wanting to offend someone due to their religion or ethnicity? Either way I doubt the majority of Americans would have mind. But since us majority of conservative Christians choose to be silent... we look like a minority. So speak up!
Most people in the country would not mind if Rush Limbaugh had owned just some 5% of the St. Louis Rams. But because that was a quiet majority and the loud minority said "NO!" the NFL pressured the other people in the group to get rid of Rush. I was watching a NFL program the other day and the music they played, licensed by the NFL, was a song from Marylin Manson. So it is ok to have a man who publicly urinates on the Bible, a book that a large majority in America form their religion from not to mention our laws are in large part based from, to have his music used for the NFL but someone who vocalizes something that many people were debating next to the water cooler can not own just 5% of one franchise?
Most people in America are against Gay marriage and recently that was proven on the Ballot in Maine a state that is not necessarily one of the more conservative states. In fact I don't know of one state where "marriage" has been allowed when put up for a vote. But in states where they allow judges and legislatures vote they often choose the side of the minority. This because that minority is the loudest.
I doubt most Americans would care if we stereotyped people at airports when checking baggage. In other words for those people who are much like the groups who have committed terrorist attacks against our nation, maybe pay closer attention to them. Most do this anyways. In fact I believe it was Jesse Jackson who has said that he is nervous walking on the side of a street in a city at night when he hears footsteps behind him... until he turns around and sees that it is a group of "white" people and he is relieved that is was not "black" people. That might sound racist but Jackson was stereotyping the situation but since he is Black himself he is not portrayed racist.
Most would not have mind if a member of the U.S. military would have reported that the recent man who murdered over a dozen people and injured nearly three dozen had said controversial statements. But many would be afraid since the man is Muslim that they would be shun down for being "racist" and those in charge are probably hesitant to investigate the situation due to the same charges. In fact there was an investigation that was going on. I wonder if that investigation was ever at all held up in delay due to not wanting to offend someone due to their religion or ethnicity? Either way I doubt the majority of Americans would have mind. But since us majority of conservative Christians choose to be silent... we look like a minority. So speak up!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Zero-Sum Equations
Mathematics is simple- 5+3=8, Also if you have 5 blocks here, and move three of them over there, you only have 2 left here. Zero-Sum Games are easy to understand. If you use something to work on this, that means you do not have it to work on something else. That much is simple. In economics everything is a bit more complicated because economics uses things to produce wealth. So if you spend money on this it is true that you do not have that money to spend on something else but it is also true that if you spend money on something productive than wealth is created and thus everyone benefits in society.
The Obama administration wants to talk about jobs saved or created from the stimulus package that will eventually spend over $700,000,000,000 on different projects around the nation. I wanted to write out the zeroes so you understand just how big that number is. It is true that jobs are created when that money is spent. I do not like it when conservatives on FOX NEWS or anywhere else talk about how you cannot prove that jobs were saved or exactly how many jobs were created... blah blah blah... It is true that there is no way to determine how many jobs were saved due to a stimulus package. It is also true that a President will exaggerate numbers to make his projects look better than they are. That is a story that needs to be discussed. But it is also true that jobs are created and saved...But that is beside the matter...it is not the best argument against a stimulus package or government spending money.
The government has nothing to spend unless it takes if from citizens of this country or people visiting this country. Thus $700,000,000,000 that the government spends is $700,000,000,000 less money that humans can spend for themselves. So the simple argument that we good Conservatives use should be this: Did Obama and his administration including the politicians in Washington both Democrat and Republican spend that money as wisely as we would have? That is the most important question. Instead of taxing us or going into more debt to pay for such a stimulus package could they have simply cut spending and given us the tax break so that we could have spent the money somewhere. In more simpler and straight terms... are they smarter than you and I are with out money? Can they spend your money more wisely than you can spend your own? Conservatives should make it personal in your debate!
The Obama administration wants to talk about jobs saved or created from the stimulus package that will eventually spend over $700,000,000,000 on different projects around the nation. I wanted to write out the zeroes so you understand just how big that number is. It is true that jobs are created when that money is spent. I do not like it when conservatives on FOX NEWS or anywhere else talk about how you cannot prove that jobs were saved or exactly how many jobs were created... blah blah blah... It is true that there is no way to determine how many jobs were saved due to a stimulus package. It is also true that a President will exaggerate numbers to make his projects look better than they are. That is a story that needs to be discussed. But it is also true that jobs are created and saved...But that is beside the matter...it is not the best argument against a stimulus package or government spending money.
The government has nothing to spend unless it takes if from citizens of this country or people visiting this country. Thus $700,000,000,000 that the government spends is $700,000,000,000 less money that humans can spend for themselves. So the simple argument that we good Conservatives use should be this: Did Obama and his administration including the politicians in Washington both Democrat and Republican spend that money as wisely as we would have? That is the most important question. Instead of taxing us or going into more debt to pay for such a stimulus package could they have simply cut spending and given us the tax break so that we could have spent the money somewhere. In more simpler and straight terms... are they smarter than you and I are with out money? Can they spend your money more wisely than you can spend your own? Conservatives should make it personal in your debate!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Encouragement... I think from God
Last night I went to Sequoyah High School to watch a football game in which Sequoyah was having homecoming. I was asked to go in fact here on this blog by a former student of mine... Kenny. Kenny won Homecoming King and was so excited and I too for him. I love that kid I really do. Kenny is a very hyper kid who sometimes loses control of his emotions but inside he is precious and so are many of his friends who allow him to enjoy life about as much as anyone you will ever meet. It was truly a great night for him but more so for me.
Sequoyah is the school I worked at last year that chose not to rehire me for unknown reasons. In truth I got fired but in the teaching profession they only call it "firing" if your are forced out during the school year or after you have been teaching into your fourth year. So lets call it what it was... I was fired!
During the day Friday I took something to the principal there to give my former basketball boss. When I walked into his office the Associate Principal was there and she stood up and gave me a hug. I left and walked into the guidance office to visit someone and one of the guidance counselors stood up and gave me a big hug and talked to me about what I had been up to. She said they had missed me. I went to the game that night but before getting to it went into one of the secretary's houses who's son is a friend of mine... she too gave me a hug. When going to the game I had two parents come up to me and tell me how mad they were about me not being brought back and how they thought I did a good job and I'm better for it not being there. I had students and other parents come up and hug me and tell me they miss me. Some of the students, students who are not the "cool loving" students meaning students who are in school for the main reason of getting an educating and advancing their lives and liking teacher who teach them and are not just nice, funny, cool or whatever came up and said they really missed my class and now that they have new teachers talk about how my class truly was a great class. Two fellow teachers who might have not come to the game due to weather and hunting came I believe in large part to visit and see me because they knew I was going to be there. I know for sure one went for that reason.
This weekend was a weekend of great encouragement. It reminded me of why I still go back there and visit from time to time despite not being rehired by the central office. It reminds me of why I went into teaching. For the students and teachers who are around me. You don't teach mainly for money and I don't work for the central office people making the decisions without the best intentions all the time. I work for students and good parents who care about their kids. I love those people I really do. I miss them and wish I was still there. But things happen for a reason and I love where I am. Although I'm not a full time teacher I still like it and I love being a head coach and I like the people I'm working with and for. I have had a really tough few months and I am not back to where I was before I lost my job. But I'm well on my way. It was only a few weeks ago that I was afraid I would not be back on my way for a long time maybe years and to be honest the end of my worries were no where in sight. But God works in funny ways. And the great thing is I did not even deserve it. I really don't. I'm not in the best place in my life now and need a lot of work spiritually with my faith being weakened and in many other ways. But this was one giant step forward.
Thank you Sequoyah and thank you God.
-Jess
Sequoyah is the school I worked at last year that chose not to rehire me for unknown reasons. In truth I got fired but in the teaching profession they only call it "firing" if your are forced out during the school year or after you have been teaching into your fourth year. So lets call it what it was... I was fired!
During the day Friday I took something to the principal there to give my former basketball boss. When I walked into his office the Associate Principal was there and she stood up and gave me a hug. I left and walked into the guidance office to visit someone and one of the guidance counselors stood up and gave me a big hug and talked to me about what I had been up to. She said they had missed me. I went to the game that night but before getting to it went into one of the secretary's houses who's son is a friend of mine... she too gave me a hug. When going to the game I had two parents come up to me and tell me how mad they were about me not being brought back and how they thought I did a good job and I'm better for it not being there. I had students and other parents come up and hug me and tell me they miss me. Some of the students, students who are not the "cool loving" students meaning students who are in school for the main reason of getting an educating and advancing their lives and liking teacher who teach them and are not just nice, funny, cool or whatever came up and said they really missed my class and now that they have new teachers talk about how my class truly was a great class. Two fellow teachers who might have not come to the game due to weather and hunting came I believe in large part to visit and see me because they knew I was going to be there. I know for sure one went for that reason.
This weekend was a weekend of great encouragement. It reminded me of why I still go back there and visit from time to time despite not being rehired by the central office. It reminds me of why I went into teaching. For the students and teachers who are around me. You don't teach mainly for money and I don't work for the central office people making the decisions without the best intentions all the time. I work for students and good parents who care about their kids. I love those people I really do. I miss them and wish I was still there. But things happen for a reason and I love where I am. Although I'm not a full time teacher I still like it and I love being a head coach and I like the people I'm working with and for. I have had a really tough few months and I am not back to where I was before I lost my job. But I'm well on my way. It was only a few weeks ago that I was afraid I would not be back on my way for a long time maybe years and to be honest the end of my worries were no where in sight. But God works in funny ways. And the great thing is I did not even deserve it. I really don't. I'm not in the best place in my life now and need a lot of work spiritually with my faith being weakened and in many other ways. But this was one giant step forward.
Thank you Sequoyah and thank you God.
-Jess
Friday, October 16, 2009
Some facts are irrelevant
Unfortunately a population that is ignorant on so many issues (myself included) are led to believe that certain facts mean there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Japanese people live longer than Americans and thus they must have better healthcare... That would make sense to some people but that statistic alone proves only one thing... they live longer... it does not answer why. Most experts today say it is their diet. In fact many in Japan are changing their diet to a more western approach and some in Japan are worried that there will be health problems arising from this change. It has nothing to do with Healthcare. A separate argument can be made about diets in that some in the west would rather eat comfortably like we do and live till 70 than eat like Japanese do and live till 85.
Black Americans have a higher rates of miscarriage than do whites. Blacks have less healthcare and that is why. Would this be true? Well if it is how do you explain that Mexican Americans have a lower rate of miscarriage than do whites and have less healthcare than even Blacks?
The life expectancy in Europe is longer than in America and they have government provided Universal Healthcare does this mean America should switch? Americans drive far more than Europeans this could cause that life expectancy to be much lower since we have far higher rates of death during travel. Also they walk more and thus are probably in better shape than we are so thus live longer. It is hard to judge where healthcare really causes people to live longer.
The best measure I know is where do people around the world try to get their operations done? Where are by far most medicines invented? Where are waiting times shorter? Who has the highest rated doctors? America. America. America. America. There are serious problems but lets make sure we don't allow politicians and media outlets use facts to distort the truth despite telling a truth.
Black Americans have a higher rates of miscarriage than do whites. Blacks have less healthcare and that is why. Would this be true? Well if it is how do you explain that Mexican Americans have a lower rate of miscarriage than do whites and have less healthcare than even Blacks?
The life expectancy in Europe is longer than in America and they have government provided Universal Healthcare does this mean America should switch? Americans drive far more than Europeans this could cause that life expectancy to be much lower since we have far higher rates of death during travel. Also they walk more and thus are probably in better shape than we are so thus live longer. It is hard to judge where healthcare really causes people to live longer.
The best measure I know is where do people around the world try to get their operations done? Where are by far most medicines invented? Where are waiting times shorter? Who has the highest rated doctors? America. America. America. America. There are serious problems but lets make sure we don't allow politicians and media outlets use facts to distort the truth despite telling a truth.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Loud Voices
If conservatives have a biggest weakness it is the lack of ability to express their ideas in interesting, ecstatic, easily understood fashion. Maybe conservatives do not care about their cause as much as Liberals. Maybe they are afraid to offend someone. This isn't just about politics either.
I had no intention of writing a blog entry this evening but as I was checking up on my fantasy football team I noticed a column that was written by Chris Mortensen of ESPN that the NFL players union president had either written a letter or personally spoken to the NFL commissioner about not allowing Rush Limbaugh to become an owner in the NFL. This enraged me but not in the obvious way. It reminded me of so much more. If a liberal radio host who has said 10 times as many controversial things that were 10 times as controversial, would a conservative speak up and express their dislike of the idea of that person becoming an owner. Sure I would not speak up on this issue because it does not matter what the owner's politics are. But it still brings up a good point. I do not know if the protest will carry any weight in the decision process. But it definitely could. And if the bids are equal and there was a toss up it might pressure the Rams into being sold to a different buyer.
I was not rehired at my job last year. I loved my job and the people I worked with. They did not have to give me a reason for not rehiring me. It has been a really tough 5 1/2 months for me. I had the fewest number of kids and lowest percentage of kids fail the End of Course standardized test that high school history students in Tennessee take. I believe I had the most students who had Special Individual programs as well meaning I had some tough classes to teach. This is something I take pride in because I considered the Social Studies department at my school to have been a really good department with mostly really good teachers. Our basketball team doubled our wins that year despite losing the best player on the team from the previous year. I had high ranking people in the school that supported me including my mentors and in essence the leaders in my department and athletic department. My head coaches supported me too. Yet I was not retained to teach or coach. Most believe there were some complaints from parents. There were alot of parents that supported me. I found that out later. Some spoke up after news got out that I was not going to be brought back. But from what I have been told the other parents had been louder longer. No doubt I made mistakes everyone does. but I deserved to have been rehired. I was usually the first to get to school and in many cases one of the last to leave because I was a coach in basketball and baseball. I am not angry with the school and am happy coaching at another school today. But if those wonderful supporting parents called to express support all year this would never happen to many teachers in our country. Think about it though, how often do you call or write a letter to someone about a great job being done in any aspect of life? How often to you speak up when something is done that you hate? The loudest voices in many of our churches are keeping progress from happening. There are people I know that want some changes at local organizations in which many people are upset and for good reason but they refuse to speak up and they say it is because "it won't help."
Unfortunately good parents and decent people rarely speak up being afraid of offending someone or not believing it will change anything. How much more would get done in this world if the right people spoke up. Recently it has worked on Healthcare. Maybe we should learn from that and speak up with loud voices.
I had no intention of writing a blog entry this evening but as I was checking up on my fantasy football team I noticed a column that was written by Chris Mortensen of ESPN that the NFL players union president had either written a letter or personally spoken to the NFL commissioner about not allowing Rush Limbaugh to become an owner in the NFL. This enraged me but not in the obvious way. It reminded me of so much more. If a liberal radio host who has said 10 times as many controversial things that were 10 times as controversial, would a conservative speak up and express their dislike of the idea of that person becoming an owner. Sure I would not speak up on this issue because it does not matter what the owner's politics are. But it still brings up a good point. I do not know if the protest will carry any weight in the decision process. But it definitely could. And if the bids are equal and there was a toss up it might pressure the Rams into being sold to a different buyer.
I was not rehired at my job last year. I loved my job and the people I worked with. They did not have to give me a reason for not rehiring me. It has been a really tough 5 1/2 months for me. I had the fewest number of kids and lowest percentage of kids fail the End of Course standardized test that high school history students in Tennessee take. I believe I had the most students who had Special Individual programs as well meaning I had some tough classes to teach. This is something I take pride in because I considered the Social Studies department at my school to have been a really good department with mostly really good teachers. Our basketball team doubled our wins that year despite losing the best player on the team from the previous year. I had high ranking people in the school that supported me including my mentors and in essence the leaders in my department and athletic department. My head coaches supported me too. Yet I was not retained to teach or coach. Most believe there were some complaints from parents. There were alot of parents that supported me. I found that out later. Some spoke up after news got out that I was not going to be brought back. But from what I have been told the other parents had been louder longer. No doubt I made mistakes everyone does. but I deserved to have been rehired. I was usually the first to get to school and in many cases one of the last to leave because I was a coach in basketball and baseball. I am not angry with the school and am happy coaching at another school today. But if those wonderful supporting parents called to express support all year this would never happen to many teachers in our country. Think about it though, how often do you call or write a letter to someone about a great job being done in any aspect of life? How often to you speak up when something is done that you hate? The loudest voices in many of our churches are keeping progress from happening. There are people I know that want some changes at local organizations in which many people are upset and for good reason but they refuse to speak up and they say it is because "it won't help."
Unfortunately good parents and decent people rarely speak up being afraid of offending someone or not believing it will change anything. How much more would get done in this world if the right people spoke up. Recently it has worked on Healthcare. Maybe we should learn from that and speak up with loud voices.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Rush Limbaugh
I have never written about Rush Limbaugh in any of my blogs and I don't ever remember even mentioning him in a blog. Recently Rush has teamed up with another very rich man to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. Rush grew up I believe in Kansas City where he also got his start as a radio personality. Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio host in the history of radio. He has between 15-20 million listeners each week which is incredible. I am not going to talk much about my personal like of Rush Limbaugh. Most who read this know me and know where I stand on him. But I also love Pardon the Interruption on ESPN but recently Michael Wilbon has really disturbed me with what I consider a reconsideration of an opinion when one NFL player of the NY Giants came out against Rush Limbaugh. Originally Wilbon was seemed excited about the prospects of Rush and even said that most of his opinions are probably shared by other owners. Then after this player spoke up the very next day his tone changed and he seemed as if he hated Rush.
I would like to first hear from that player of the Giants how many times he has actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't mean hear a 20 second clip that is shown on MSNBC or some TV talk show or overhear some other players talk about him. How many times has he actually sat down and listened to Rush on radio? I doubt very much maybe never. How does he know what Rush Limbaugh thinks about him or other Black people. I have never heard Rush say anything that should be offensive to all Black people in the nation. He has said some things about certain cultures of certain Black communities but he has also said things about White cultures in different places, and about different races around the world. Walter Williams fills in and hosts his radio show sometimes when Rush is out and unable to do so. Walter Williams is a Black college professor at George Mason University. If Rush was racist or a "bigot" as Wilbon said would a Black person fill in for him? I doubt it unless that person hated himself and his race.
It is unfortunate that ONLY Liberals are those who are considered so pro-Black or African American in this country. Rush Limbaugh denounces policies that have destroyed many families including many Black families because many government policies were designed to help inner-city families mostly Black families. Read my past blog entries on Rent Control and you will see where well intended policies passed by politicians that Michael Wilbon would never call a bigot and would probably like, have in fact destroyed many black families by in forcing them to move due to a lack of low cost housing being developed. It is unfortunate that on many college campuses well qualified Black Students are looked down upon because of the stereotype that is in place due to government laws such as Affirmative Action that allows many unqualified people (in many cases minorities) to go to colleges they would not be able to get into without the law. Then almost all Black students are effected despite many being just as qualified or even more qualified than the White student looking down upon them.
If Rush had his way many of these unfortunate stories would not exist. Taxes would be much lower and more low income people would have jobs. I hate it when people redicule someone even though they have never actually listened to the man talk. And I guarantee you that if you were on the air 15 hours a week for over 20 years... you would have at one point accidentally said something that might not sound polite and worse yet... you might not actually believe. But should you be hated for the rest of your life for it?
I would like to first hear from that player of the Giants how many times he has actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't mean hear a 20 second clip that is shown on MSNBC or some TV talk show or overhear some other players talk about him. How many times has he actually sat down and listened to Rush on radio? I doubt very much maybe never. How does he know what Rush Limbaugh thinks about him or other Black people. I have never heard Rush say anything that should be offensive to all Black people in the nation. He has said some things about certain cultures of certain Black communities but he has also said things about White cultures in different places, and about different races around the world. Walter Williams fills in and hosts his radio show sometimes when Rush is out and unable to do so. Walter Williams is a Black college professor at George Mason University. If Rush was racist or a "bigot" as Wilbon said would a Black person fill in for him? I doubt it unless that person hated himself and his race.
It is unfortunate that ONLY Liberals are those who are considered so pro-Black or African American in this country. Rush Limbaugh denounces policies that have destroyed many families including many Black families because many government policies were designed to help inner-city families mostly Black families. Read my past blog entries on Rent Control and you will see where well intended policies passed by politicians that Michael Wilbon would never call a bigot and would probably like, have in fact destroyed many black families by in forcing them to move due to a lack of low cost housing being developed. It is unfortunate that on many college campuses well qualified Black Students are looked down upon because of the stereotype that is in place due to government laws such as Affirmative Action that allows many unqualified people (in many cases minorities) to go to colleges they would not be able to get into without the law. Then almost all Black students are effected despite many being just as qualified or even more qualified than the White student looking down upon them.
If Rush had his way many of these unfortunate stories would not exist. Taxes would be much lower and more low income people would have jobs. I hate it when people redicule someone even though they have never actually listened to the man talk. And I guarantee you that if you were on the air 15 hours a week for over 20 years... you would have at one point accidentally said something that might not sound polite and worse yet... you might not actually believe. But should you be hated for the rest of your life for it?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Some Bad Luck
I believe luck is where preparation meets opportunity. Good luck happens to those who prepare and eventually have opportunity to have good luck. Lets look at some of the bad luck in recent years for the Tennessee Vols Football Team. Take a look at the recruiting classes that Tennessee has signed in recent years. Go back some four years and take a look at the recruits.
I hear this talk about Fulmer not leaving Kiffin with a lot of talent but then you look at our recruiting classes and you would believe that we would have a top ten team. Take a look at the names and the rankings on Rivals.com. Look at all the 5-star athletes that have not panned out and the 4-star players that can't get on the field. It would appear that Tennessee has had some really bad luck recently. Fulmer has signed people like Chris Donald and Brent Vinson and Walter Fisher and remember that short stunt with Kevin Oneal the JUCO WR? He was suppose to be a stud. These guys were 5-star athletes that never panned out. Is that bad luck? What about Crompton who was nearly a 5-star QB, much higher raking than Erik Ainge was out of high school and yet despite the hatred of Ainge by some of my friends out there... who would not fast for a week to have him back leading the Offense of Tennessee. So many players have not become what we thought they would be. It hurts me so much I love Tennessee Football.
Could any other preparation taken place to change this? If we had those players pan out and the other 4-star Offensive Lineman we signed when Jacques McClendon was signed become as good as he has would we not be a top 10 team? Its a thought. Does this happen to all colleges? I think. SO how do you prepare for that? Anyone who has any ideas please comment. I think Kiffin's staff is doing the one thing you can do. Sign as many studs as possible and hope some pan out. That is why they are signing so many people in the same position. Hoping that if some do not pan out... maybe others will.
I was bored and decided to write something that was not about the most interesting subject in the world.... Economics... Just kidding
I hear this talk about Fulmer not leaving Kiffin with a lot of talent but then you look at our recruiting classes and you would believe that we would have a top ten team. Take a look at the names and the rankings on Rivals.com. Look at all the 5-star athletes that have not panned out and the 4-star players that can't get on the field. It would appear that Tennessee has had some really bad luck recently. Fulmer has signed people like Chris Donald and Brent Vinson and Walter Fisher and remember that short stunt with Kevin Oneal the JUCO WR? He was suppose to be a stud. These guys were 5-star athletes that never panned out. Is that bad luck? What about Crompton who was nearly a 5-star QB, much higher raking than Erik Ainge was out of high school and yet despite the hatred of Ainge by some of my friends out there... who would not fast for a week to have him back leading the Offense of Tennessee. So many players have not become what we thought they would be. It hurts me so much I love Tennessee Football.
Could any other preparation taken place to change this? If we had those players pan out and the other 4-star Offensive Lineman we signed when Jacques McClendon was signed become as good as he has would we not be a top 10 team? Its a thought. Does this happen to all colleges? I think. SO how do you prepare for that? Anyone who has any ideas please comment. I think Kiffin's staff is doing the one thing you can do. Sign as many studs as possible and hope some pan out. That is why they are signing so many people in the same position. Hoping that if some do not pan out... maybe others will.
I was bored and decided to write something that was not about the most interesting subject in the world.... Economics... Just kidding
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
18% unemployment among young people
Yesterday an economic report showing that 18% of young people looking for a job were unemployed. Notice it says "looking for a job." one in five young people who want a job can not find one. It is not a surprise to me knowing the current situation we have in our nation and the laws that are in place to help that 18 percent as well. You say "What Jess"? What does the laws that are in place to help them got to do with the situation? It have everything to do with it... It is causing it!
Wages is a cost to an employer. The employer pays rent, wages, interest, capital, etc... Wages is by far the highest cost to most employers. In other words the pay that a person gets is a cost to the employer. If vehicles had a new tax put on them that raised the price what would be the consumers reaction? If you said buy fewer vehicles then go to the front of the class your right as Professor Walter Williams would say at George Mason University. The same is true to employers. If the cost of wages goes up then he will buy less and instead save that money or buy more capital (machines) as a substitute for it.
With minimum wages recently rising to well above $7.00/hr the cost to employers is significant. When talking about a company that employs 100,000 employees and 90,000 work at minimum wage, the price to the employer per hour of work has increased over $180,000/hr. That is well over $1,000,000/day if those employees are working 8 hour shifts. It is understandable that those employees would love high wages and we would love them to have them. But why not make it $12.00/hr if $7.50 is good? The fact is the market (employee/employer) is in the best position to decide how much pay is needed to do a job. If the employee wants more he can ask for it the employer can deny or comply. If enough employees believe they are worth more then the employer will have to comply or will risk losing his/her workforce. But when government takes that job then bad decisions can come about without the cost being seen... until the news comes on and reports: "18% unemployment among young people" who typically work at those low wages.
Wages is a cost to an employer. The employer pays rent, wages, interest, capital, etc... Wages is by far the highest cost to most employers. In other words the pay that a person gets is a cost to the employer. If vehicles had a new tax put on them that raised the price what would be the consumers reaction? If you said buy fewer vehicles then go to the front of the class your right as Professor Walter Williams would say at George Mason University. The same is true to employers. If the cost of wages goes up then he will buy less and instead save that money or buy more capital (machines) as a substitute for it.
With minimum wages recently rising to well above $7.00/hr the cost to employers is significant. When talking about a company that employs 100,000 employees and 90,000 work at minimum wage, the price to the employer per hour of work has increased over $180,000/hr. That is well over $1,000,000/day if those employees are working 8 hour shifts. It is understandable that those employees would love high wages and we would love them to have them. But why not make it $12.00/hr if $7.50 is good? The fact is the market (employee/employer) is in the best position to decide how much pay is needed to do a job. If the employee wants more he can ask for it the employer can deny or comply. If enough employees believe they are worth more then the employer will have to comply or will risk losing his/her workforce. But when government takes that job then bad decisions can come about without the cost being seen... until the news comes on and reports: "18% unemployment among young people" who typically work at those low wages.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Freedoms???
A comment that was left on an old blog yesterday and a recent news story that has made some recent headlines has awaken a very important topic that I want to point out to people. Everyone always talks about how it is America where we have the freedom to protest, speak, free religion, etc. But I do not understand where the bases of that argument comes from. I believe it is great that in America we allow freedom of religion and speech and press, etc. But there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us those freedoms. Everyone says "Yes there is!! it is called the Bill of Rights!" Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the freedom to do this or that?? You will not find it.
What you will find is that Congress shall make no law restricting... The Constitution limits government and what the FEDERAL government can or cannot do. The Federal government cannot throw you into jail for disagreeing with its government. But that does not mean you can stand up in school and rant about the evils of whatever and think that you have the "right" to do that and should not be stopped. That would be ridiculous to think that you can disrupt anything at anytime. Two boys were asked to leave a Minor League baseball game recently because they refused to stand up during "God Bless America". I don't care what race these boys were or if they were girls or of a different religion. They had the right to do that. They have the right to sit down and not stand up during the pledge of allegiance or anything else. But the Minor League baseball club as a private organization also has the right to force them to leave the stadium and never come back.
When we think of rights we always think of the individual or this "I" idea. But businesses have rights too. They are not granted in the Constitution but endowed by our Creator. CEO's might be overpaid at some industries but that corporation has the right to pay their CEO whatever they want. You, nor I, nor Uncle Sam should be allowed to do anything about it.
So please stop calling into radio shows about how America is great because we have the freedom of expression blah blah blah blah blah.... Tell me something I don't know... America is also great because a private business owner has just as many rights to throw you out of his stadium for disrespecting our country and can pay their employees whatever he or she wants. Then you can tell that employer to shove it where the sun does not shine and not work there if you would like as well. That my friends is what makes America so great.
What you will find is that Congress shall make no law restricting... The Constitution limits government and what the FEDERAL government can or cannot do. The Federal government cannot throw you into jail for disagreeing with its government. But that does not mean you can stand up in school and rant about the evils of whatever and think that you have the "right" to do that and should not be stopped. That would be ridiculous to think that you can disrupt anything at anytime. Two boys were asked to leave a Minor League baseball game recently because they refused to stand up during "God Bless America". I don't care what race these boys were or if they were girls or of a different religion. They had the right to do that. They have the right to sit down and not stand up during the pledge of allegiance or anything else. But the Minor League baseball club as a private organization also has the right to force them to leave the stadium and never come back.
When we think of rights we always think of the individual or this "I" idea. But businesses have rights too. They are not granted in the Constitution but endowed by our Creator. CEO's might be overpaid at some industries but that corporation has the right to pay their CEO whatever they want. You, nor I, nor Uncle Sam should be allowed to do anything about it.
So please stop calling into radio shows about how America is great because we have the freedom of expression blah blah blah blah blah.... Tell me something I don't know... America is also great because a private business owner has just as many rights to throw you out of his stadium for disrespecting our country and can pay their employees whatever he or she wants. Then you can tell that employer to shove it where the sun does not shine and not work there if you would like as well. That my friends is what makes America so great.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Baseball and Economics
A couple weeks ago I was watching the Atlanta Braves and heard a very interesting statement that the Braves Organization had made that.. well struck the economics nerve in my body (running throughout my entire body). Post season is around the corner and the rosters can expand for post-season purposes. The Braves usually call up a couple pitchers and catcher from Triple A and then maybe a utility infielder and possible outfielder. But at this point in the season they had only brought up the first three. The announcers then explained that during these economic times (where the Braves revenue is not what it use to be) that they can not afford to bring up the amount of players they would like. That was not the end of the statement. He said that due to the increase in the minimum major league baseball salary that they could not afford to bring those players up.
That is really sad to me a former baseball player that at one point going into college had aspirations of playing minor league baseball and if all goes well maybe having that rare some say 10% shot at playing major league baseball. 10% because that is the percentage of minor leaguers that ever get to suit up in the "Big Show" or major league team. A couple players missed out on this chance not because of bad economic times but because major league baseball and the players unions etc.. do not know enough about economics that they make rules that do not allow the market to adjust to current economic turmoil. Those players being left off of any major league team due to this would probably be willing to come up for a raise of ZERO. They would take the league minimum that was in effect in the 80's. But they do not have that choice. They have to be paid the league minimum or can not play. That is sad but yet that happens everyday.
The National minimum wage is over 7 dollars. Many businesses do not think that certain employees are worth over 7 dollars so they do not hire those prospective employees. We complain that they can afford it but they care only about profits. That is true but with so many businesses barely staying out of red ink and others losing jobs don'y you think they might have a point. Most people being paid minimum wage come from middle class families and are children that would like to work and maybe afford a car to drive around instead of the family automobile. Yet politicians ruin their chances everyday with careless political laws that the population as a whole likes because they know so little about economics. Our unemployment rate would not be this high if a person who was laid off could be hired for $4.00/hr. You might say "he is worth more". Well let him or her make that decision but telling the employer "thanks for the offer but shove it..." Or the person might say to his wife "I found a temporary job till I can get my old one back when the economy recovers. At least we can afford food without food stamps."
That is really sad to me a former baseball player that at one point going into college had aspirations of playing minor league baseball and if all goes well maybe having that rare some say 10% shot at playing major league baseball. 10% because that is the percentage of minor leaguers that ever get to suit up in the "Big Show" or major league team. A couple players missed out on this chance not because of bad economic times but because major league baseball and the players unions etc.. do not know enough about economics that they make rules that do not allow the market to adjust to current economic turmoil. Those players being left off of any major league team due to this would probably be willing to come up for a raise of ZERO. They would take the league minimum that was in effect in the 80's. But they do not have that choice. They have to be paid the league minimum or can not play. That is sad but yet that happens everyday.
The National minimum wage is over 7 dollars. Many businesses do not think that certain employees are worth over 7 dollars so they do not hire those prospective employees. We complain that they can afford it but they care only about profits. That is true but with so many businesses barely staying out of red ink and others losing jobs don'y you think they might have a point. Most people being paid minimum wage come from middle class families and are children that would like to work and maybe afford a car to drive around instead of the family automobile. Yet politicians ruin their chances everyday with careless political laws that the population as a whole likes because they know so little about economics. Our unemployment rate would not be this high if a person who was laid off could be hired for $4.00/hr. You might say "he is worth more". Well let him or her make that decision but telling the employer "thanks for the offer but shove it..." Or the person might say to his wife "I found a temporary job till I can get my old one back when the economy recovers. At least we can afford food without food stamps."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Don't Ruin the Ted Kennedy Legacy
I am not a fan of Ted Kennedy. I do not want to hide that fact. I am sad when anyone passes away and it is sad when that person is a high profile figure that has served his country. I am not blogging to speak of the disagreements I had with Ted Kennedy most of which are based on his unconstitutional thinking and socialist leaning tendencies. Ok that is enough of that. His life is a testament though to something great about America.
America's healthcare has many faults. Most of those faults have to do with government regulation that does not allow a true free market to exist. You know its one of those "healthcare is so important we can not allow it to go unregulated in the free market" type deals. The fact is that most things in the unregulated free market is what we Americans like best. Ted Kennedy had the best healthcare available. He was given many choices of healthcare to choose from when he became a U.S. Senator. He was not forced on one plan nor was he in a position where his private insurance companies had to worry about competing with a public option that had no profit incentive and thus could charge lower prices and eventually force businesses to drop health coverage or sign all their workers up on the public option. Kennedy had the very best to choose from.
I know he sponsored and fought for a public healthcare option. But in his old age I bet he did not use Medicare services. No, he had the best privatized care. Healthcare is not something that our leaders honestly believe will better all our lives. It is a way to get more control of our lives and spread wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Ted Kennedy would have never chosen a public option over private health insurance. Do not use his name to push this reform through. I know he championed it, I know he supported it, I know universal healthcare was one of his big causes. But this is a case of "do as I DO not as I SAY" moment. His life is a testament to choices not socialized medicine despite him praising and supporting such reform. We should honor his passing by explaining what he "did" not what he has "said". And what he did was CHOOSE the best private healthcare you can find.
... Lets build on that
America's healthcare has many faults. Most of those faults have to do with government regulation that does not allow a true free market to exist. You know its one of those "healthcare is so important we can not allow it to go unregulated in the free market" type deals. The fact is that most things in the unregulated free market is what we Americans like best. Ted Kennedy had the best healthcare available. He was given many choices of healthcare to choose from when he became a U.S. Senator. He was not forced on one plan nor was he in a position where his private insurance companies had to worry about competing with a public option that had no profit incentive and thus could charge lower prices and eventually force businesses to drop health coverage or sign all their workers up on the public option. Kennedy had the very best to choose from.
I know he sponsored and fought for a public healthcare option. But in his old age I bet he did not use Medicare services. No, he had the best privatized care. Healthcare is not something that our leaders honestly believe will better all our lives. It is a way to get more control of our lives and spread wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Ted Kennedy would have never chosen a public option over private health insurance. Do not use his name to push this reform through. I know he championed it, I know he supported it, I know universal healthcare was one of his big causes. But this is a case of "do as I DO not as I SAY" moment. His life is a testament to choices not socialized medicine despite him praising and supporting such reform. We should honor his passing by explaining what he "did" not what he has "said". And what he did was CHOOSE the best private healthcare you can find.
... Lets build on that
Monday, August 17, 2009
Taxes on the Wealthy = Taxes on Everyone
Let me assure you I believe that wealthy individuals should pay more taxes in this county than do poor individuals, lower class, middle class, or upper middle class. This would be true under almost any tax system including the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, a progressive income tax, regressive income Tax, etc... But lets keep in mind that politicians love votes and they are going to try and tax the fewest people they can so that those who do not pay taxes are more inclined to vote for them. To operate this huge government that minority of people chosen must be those that those politicians love to declare as "rich". This is possible due to our ignorance of economics in our country. Let me explain or better yet allow Neal Boortz to explain.
The link below is a little longer read than most of my blog entries. I want to assure you that if you read this you will understand in the fullest why raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing especially during a time like this. You will also learn who is truly looked upon as "rich" and will learn that most of those "rich" are in fact not rich. Enough of the amateur...
This Link will give you the real life deal
The link below is a little longer read than most of my blog entries. I want to assure you that if you read this you will understand in the fullest why raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing especially during a time like this. You will also learn who is truly looked upon as "rich" and will learn that most of those "rich" are in fact not rich. Enough of the amateur...
This Link will give you the real life deal
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Pre-existing Conditions=Discrimination=Good Thing
One of the complaints about our current healthcare system in the country (I have plenty of mine own) is that insurance companies discriminate. They do this by not allowing individuals with pre-existing conditions to have immediate healthcare coverage. This has led to the President to push for a Public Option (which will lead to universal healthcare and more than likely a single paying system) for government paid (taxpayer paid) insurance plans. This argument has been met with very little resistance on the part of other politicians and individuals. Yes healthcare overhaul has met a lot of resistance but this destructive language against insurance companies for discriminating has not been met with resistance. Why?
Most Americans do not love ture freedom and independence. Americans today hear a President say something that sounds kind and compassionate and they just love it and never give it much thought. But God forbid we actually listen to him and force insurance companies to not be allowed to discriminate on these conditions. This is one of the most anti-freedom statements a person can make. Lets face it, why should I be responsible to pay for or more importantly why should an insurance company not be allowed to choose who they want to insure and not. Since when should government have the right to deny a private company to choose who they work with and don't. The sad thing is that we have come so far left in this country that no one even gives it thought. If a person with pre-existing conditions is given insurance due to government forcing the insurance company to undertake that risk, those costs will simply be spread out throughout the pool of other people who have insurance. In other words, we without pre-existing conditions will be forced to pay for those with those conditions.
A company should be allowed to charge what they want to whom they want if that person is in agreement on receiving health insurance from that company. That company should also be allowed to not insure a person if they feel it is too much of a risk. The Solution is to allow people to pay different amounts for their insurance based on the agreement with that insurance company. If a person who smokes a pack a day, drinks a pack a day, and is 80 pounds over weight comes in and wants insurance, they should be allowed. That company should also be allowed to charge that person what they want including more than the non-drinking, non-smoking, and healthy person. The healthy person does not cost that company as much so they should not be forced to pay as much. This will also motivate people to take care of themselves as it could save them thousands in premiums each year. No more fat police just make people pay for what they cost. When you spread it out, there is no motivation to conserve and in this case be healthy.
If that person is not able to afford insurance just as older people might not be able to afford it because it is more expensive with the obvious more costs, then private companies such as churches should be allowed to help them afford their insurance. There are many other reforms we can make now that can fix many of these problems and in fact make health insurance cheaper. The answer is not a communist-dictator like idea of forcing people to pay and take care of other people whether the person is an individual or a company that would rather not insure them. Where have our freedoms gone? More importantly, where has our common sense gone where people object to this in the first place?
Most Americans do not love ture freedom and independence. Americans today hear a President say something that sounds kind and compassionate and they just love it and never give it much thought. But God forbid we actually listen to him and force insurance companies to not be allowed to discriminate on these conditions. This is one of the most anti-freedom statements a person can make. Lets face it, why should I be responsible to pay for or more importantly why should an insurance company not be allowed to choose who they want to insure and not. Since when should government have the right to deny a private company to choose who they work with and don't. The sad thing is that we have come so far left in this country that no one even gives it thought. If a person with pre-existing conditions is given insurance due to government forcing the insurance company to undertake that risk, those costs will simply be spread out throughout the pool of other people who have insurance. In other words, we without pre-existing conditions will be forced to pay for those with those conditions.
A company should be allowed to charge what they want to whom they want if that person is in agreement on receiving health insurance from that company. That company should also be allowed to not insure a person if they feel it is too much of a risk. The Solution is to allow people to pay different amounts for their insurance based on the agreement with that insurance company. If a person who smokes a pack a day, drinks a pack a day, and is 80 pounds over weight comes in and wants insurance, they should be allowed. That company should also be allowed to charge that person what they want including more than the non-drinking, non-smoking, and healthy person. The healthy person does not cost that company as much so they should not be forced to pay as much. This will also motivate people to take care of themselves as it could save them thousands in premiums each year. No more fat police just make people pay for what they cost. When you spread it out, there is no motivation to conserve and in this case be healthy.
If that person is not able to afford insurance just as older people might not be able to afford it because it is more expensive with the obvious more costs, then private companies such as churches should be allowed to help them afford their insurance. There are many other reforms we can make now that can fix many of these problems and in fact make health insurance cheaper. The answer is not a communist-dictator like idea of forcing people to pay and take care of other people whether the person is an individual or a company that would rather not insure them. Where have our freedoms gone? More importantly, where has our common sense gone where people object to this in the first place?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why I love Economics and most people do not
Economics is believed to be a very difficult subject and concept to grasp and thus very few people can stand it much less like or love it. The Praxis exams that teachers must pass in order to earn certification to teach a subject in high school are not hard. But the economics test is by many standards the hardest if not by far the hardest. I took it two weeks ago. I agree and I know a lot more about economics than most people and in fact most economics teachers even those who have been teaching it for years.
When we teach economics we teach the complicated parts of it first and try to apply it to real life. That is not the correct method. It confuses people and they quit and lose interest. Economics is not the study of graphs and big words like so many teachers teach. Call me a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder if that is done on purpose by our education establishment. You say why would they do that? The more economics you understand the less government and bureaucracy you like. Our education system is exactly that in fact and thus most economist hate the way our education system is ran in the U.S.A. The less you know the less you will hate it.
Economics is simply the study of the efficient allocation (spreading out) of scare resources (obviously there is not an unlimited supply of stuff) which have alternative uses (those resources can be used on different things). That is not too complicated. It simply says this: When a resource or good is used for X, just because a benefit comes about does not mean it is the most efficient allocation of that good. If 100,000,000 million dollars is spent on teaching sex education in schools and the pregnancy rate drops 1 percent with very little if any drop in STD's most would say "just one life is worth saving!" "There is not price on life." That is not true. The cost of 100,000,000 million dollars spent on Sex education is not 100,000,000 million dollars. That is paper representing value. But the "COST" is that thing in which you did not spend the 100,000,000 million on that you could have if chosen. In other words if the 100,000,000 million could have hired more police officers or built more prisons to house sex offenders and thieves and murders, how many more lives could have been saved or helped than it being spent on sex education?
Many economist are considered "uncompassionate" So many are in fact that the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is used today by many politicians who want republicans and conservatives to care more about people like say liberals do. But it is the economist that cares more because he wants the most people to benefit from the money spent.
I love economics for many reasons. One reason is that I love I just absolutely love.... being right. LOL Most of my friends would argue that I always think I'm right. I can't argue there that is an accurate assumption about me. But so does everyone else believe that their always right. But economics opens the window for knowledge that can only be grasped through economic analysis. I have learned more in the last four years about society than I did in the first 22 of my life. Economic analysis is what I use to make most of my opinions.. and because of that... I believe I am right usually. It is not being cocky... it is economics that allows for it.
P.S. If you want to understand economics buy just two books. I promise they are easy reads and this complicated subject will be made much easier.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell
You will understand economics and your views on so much will change I guarantee it.
When we teach economics we teach the complicated parts of it first and try to apply it to real life. That is not the correct method. It confuses people and they quit and lose interest. Economics is not the study of graphs and big words like so many teachers teach. Call me a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder if that is done on purpose by our education establishment. You say why would they do that? The more economics you understand the less government and bureaucracy you like. Our education system is exactly that in fact and thus most economist hate the way our education system is ran in the U.S.A. The less you know the less you will hate it.
Economics is simply the study of the efficient allocation (spreading out) of scare resources (obviously there is not an unlimited supply of stuff) which have alternative uses (those resources can be used on different things). That is not too complicated. It simply says this: When a resource or good is used for X, just because a benefit comes about does not mean it is the most efficient allocation of that good. If 100,000,000 million dollars is spent on teaching sex education in schools and the pregnancy rate drops 1 percent with very little if any drop in STD's most would say "just one life is worth saving!" "There is not price on life." That is not true. The cost of 100,000,000 million dollars spent on Sex education is not 100,000,000 million dollars. That is paper representing value. But the "COST" is that thing in which you did not spend the 100,000,000 million on that you could have if chosen. In other words if the 100,000,000 million could have hired more police officers or built more prisons to house sex offenders and thieves and murders, how many more lives could have been saved or helped than it being spent on sex education?
Many economist are considered "uncompassionate" So many are in fact that the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is used today by many politicians who want republicans and conservatives to care more about people like say liberals do. But it is the economist that cares more because he wants the most people to benefit from the money spent.
I love economics for many reasons. One reason is that I love I just absolutely love.... being right. LOL Most of my friends would argue that I always think I'm right. I can't argue there that is an accurate assumption about me. But so does everyone else believe that their always right. But economics opens the window for knowledge that can only be grasped through economic analysis. I have learned more in the last four years about society than I did in the first 22 of my life. Economic analysis is what I use to make most of my opinions.. and because of that... I believe I am right usually. It is not being cocky... it is economics that allows for it.
P.S. If you want to understand economics buy just two books. I promise they are easy reads and this complicated subject will be made much easier.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell
You will understand economics and your views on so much will change I guarantee it.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Most important part of healthcare in this blog
In the past I have written blogs about our healthcare system while also laying out some alternatives that I believe would make our system cheaper, more efficient, and more productive. Yet last night I believe I had a revelation on why so few have embraced a conservative libertarian view of healthcare while that view has so helped America be prosperous in other economic activity throughout Her history. I will now attempt to explain this revelation:
Barack Obama used the example of a child having Leukemia and not having the insurance to pay for the proper procedures in dealing with this awful disease. Besides the fact that an emergency room is not allowed to turn away any emergency in this country it is true that without proper insurance people will not have available to them some of the procedures that can save a person's life. It is an emotional situation to say the least. Economics is not about emotion or compassion but the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. In other words, it studies the best way to make available to the most people resources that are valuable to human beings. Does this mean all resources? No but the study of the BEST way of allocating these resources. While some still will not have access to those benefits.. it guarantees that MORE people will have it with correct economic decisions than do under other ways of making those decisions such as using Obama's plan-GOVERNMENT to allocate those resources.
There will always be stories of those who are not helped by this system but it is impossible to count the amount of people who would be affected under a system that we don't currently use. That is unless we study the systems of other countries. Far more people do not have access to basic services and extreme procedures in countries where the government to whatever extent runs the healthcare system. But I have seen conservatives use this argument before and yet it seems to not work. So last night this revelation appeared to me. Our lack of history knowledge does not allow Americans to be happy with the advances our society has made. Who cares that 100 years or 50 and in some cases just a couple decades ago these procedures that are available now were not even known of then. But yet today we expect every human to have a right to those procedures. The problem with people having a right to anything is that it takes away the profit motive of developing newer and better procedures. This is why the United States invents over 85% of all new medicines and procedures. Our companies have a profit motive to make better things and more efficient. In other government ran places those motives do not exist. Today we want more and more and more and to a point that a very good politician can make speeches and possible persuade us into believing that government can do a better job. But in countries where government does this there is not innovation motive.
As sad as it is that some people do not have healthcare and that costs are rising and hurting people. Our system while having many problems is the only reason that these current procedures that some people can not get... are available to begin with. When will conservatives rise up and explain to people that there are other ways to help these people and that destroying the system that has created these wonderful things is not the correct way.
Barack Obama used the example of a child having Leukemia and not having the insurance to pay for the proper procedures in dealing with this awful disease. Besides the fact that an emergency room is not allowed to turn away any emergency in this country it is true that without proper insurance people will not have available to them some of the procedures that can save a person's life. It is an emotional situation to say the least. Economics is not about emotion or compassion but the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. In other words, it studies the best way to make available to the most people resources that are valuable to human beings. Does this mean all resources? No but the study of the BEST way of allocating these resources. While some still will not have access to those benefits.. it guarantees that MORE people will have it with correct economic decisions than do under other ways of making those decisions such as using Obama's plan-GOVERNMENT to allocate those resources.
There will always be stories of those who are not helped by this system but it is impossible to count the amount of people who would be affected under a system that we don't currently use. That is unless we study the systems of other countries. Far more people do not have access to basic services and extreme procedures in countries where the government to whatever extent runs the healthcare system. But I have seen conservatives use this argument before and yet it seems to not work. So last night this revelation appeared to me. Our lack of history knowledge does not allow Americans to be happy with the advances our society has made. Who cares that 100 years or 50 and in some cases just a couple decades ago these procedures that are available now were not even known of then. But yet today we expect every human to have a right to those procedures. The problem with people having a right to anything is that it takes away the profit motive of developing newer and better procedures. This is why the United States invents over 85% of all new medicines and procedures. Our companies have a profit motive to make better things and more efficient. In other government ran places those motives do not exist. Today we want more and more and more and to a point that a very good politician can make speeches and possible persuade us into believing that government can do a better job. But in countries where government does this there is not innovation motive.
As sad as it is that some people do not have healthcare and that costs are rising and hurting people. Our system while having many problems is the only reason that these current procedures that some people can not get... are available to begin with. When will conservatives rise up and explain to people that there are other ways to help these people and that destroying the system that has created these wonderful things is not the correct way.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Worst Thing to do Right Now!
The American GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which is the sum of all products produced and sold in a given year is large. Only 10% of this GDP is kept as profits by companies. That is of all the trillions of dollars spent on goods (11-12 trillion) only 1 dollar for every 10 spent is kept as profit. I believe this is Gross Profit (profits before paying wages and variable costs such as electric bills) but it might very will be Net Profits which is the profit after those payment. Either way while we hear about the millions and billions of profits companies make in reality their profit margin is quite small. When costs go up they have one of three options. They can reduce dividend pay outs to stock holders which hurts their future investments, they can cut technology investment (this makes production more productive, efficient, and thus cheaper for the future by using machines, or finally they can cut workers or as we hear it - lay workers off.
Now, over 60 percent of costs and in fact for most companies well over 70% of costs to companies are paid in wages to workers. This is the largest cost to a employer. Thus when the economy slows guess what is the most efficient cut to make? If you said worker cuts then you can head to the front of the class as Professor Walter Williams use to say to his students when sitting in the front of the class was in fact a privilege to students. Well guess what happens on July 24 while businesses are struggling (meaning mostly having trouble paying wages and already laying workers off)? If you said oh wait that is the date set for Minimum wage to rise to $7.25 then once again move to the front of the class. Now for you usual blog readers of mine who should be amateur economist by now... what do you think that means for the future? I hope you said more layoffs of workers. Yes even if jobs are eventually created as the economy revives, fewer jobs will be created due to this major hike in minimum wage. I predict more jobs continue to be loss and unemployment could rise to as high as 11% or more.
For you minimum wage workers, good luck on keeping your job
Now, over 60 percent of costs and in fact for most companies well over 70% of costs to companies are paid in wages to workers. This is the largest cost to a employer. Thus when the economy slows guess what is the most efficient cut to make? If you said worker cuts then you can head to the front of the class as Professor Walter Williams use to say to his students when sitting in the front of the class was in fact a privilege to students. Well guess what happens on July 24 while businesses are struggling (meaning mostly having trouble paying wages and already laying workers off)? If you said oh wait that is the date set for Minimum wage to rise to $7.25 then once again move to the front of the class. Now for you usual blog readers of mine who should be amateur economist by now... what do you think that means for the future? I hope you said more layoffs of workers. Yes even if jobs are eventually created as the economy revives, fewer jobs will be created due to this major hike in minimum wage. I predict more jobs continue to be loss and unemployment could rise to as high as 11% or more.
For you minimum wage workers, good luck on keeping your job
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Unexpected Consequences
Unexpected Consequences are serious bi-products of decisions made that are not only unexpected but in many cases tied unseeingly to those decisions. In other words its hard to link those consequences to the decision and thus easier to make more bad decisions. If politicians create these consequences but the public does not see the link... they are not more likely to vote him or her out of office.
One of the most common argument made by people who favor bailouts for individuals that are going to lose their home if government (meaning tax payer) does not pitch in and help is that their loss will cause property values to dwindle and thus it is to your benefit that we bail those people out who made bad decisions. So in practical use it looks like this: You rent an apartment because you believed that you did not have the money to buy your dream house thus conserving for your future. However someone your age in the same situation does buy that house and come to find out they cannot afford that house so the government wants to use your tax dollars to help that person so that it does not hurt your property value in the future. This probably now seems immoral to be put that way but beyond that it also creates unintended consequences. In the future more people will make dumb decisions because they A) feel cheated to have had to bail out the person the last time this happened and B) I know if I can't afford it there is a good chance government will bail me out this time. Therefore the amount of people making bad decisions rises. This once shorterm problem is now gigantic and affects many million in the country. We are currently going through this in our present day economy. If no bailout in the first place... probably better decision making in the future by all people.
The other day there was two police chases that ended in car crashes in which people were severely injured and taken to the hospital. There was some news stations debating whether police should even pursue such thieves since they can result in other people being hurt on the highways due to these high speed chases. That is ridiculous on surface but lets look at the unintended consequences that could be caused by this. If a thief knows he or she will not be pursued after a hit and run or stealing a vehicle or committing some other crime then more theives will be willing to go into this practice as the chances of them getting away with it grows. What I would recommend is that if a person commits a crime like this they should take him or her out as soon as possible. yes there is a chance that the criminal might be hurt and possibly an innocent bystander although less likely than when the chase has reached well over a hundred mph. However if a criminal knows that within minutes of being pursued they are going to be taken out automatically.. they are probably going to be fewer criminals in the future taking those risks.
There are many many more examples that I have mentioned in past posts. I also recommend reading some of Thomas Sowell's writings on this. But remember costs are not just present. Costs of decisions made by politicians and individuals grow in the future if they create unintended consequences even if those consequences are unforeseen
One of the most common argument made by people who favor bailouts for individuals that are going to lose their home if government (meaning tax payer) does not pitch in and help is that their loss will cause property values to dwindle and thus it is to your benefit that we bail those people out who made bad decisions. So in practical use it looks like this: You rent an apartment because you believed that you did not have the money to buy your dream house thus conserving for your future. However someone your age in the same situation does buy that house and come to find out they cannot afford that house so the government wants to use your tax dollars to help that person so that it does not hurt your property value in the future. This probably now seems immoral to be put that way but beyond that it also creates unintended consequences. In the future more people will make dumb decisions because they A) feel cheated to have had to bail out the person the last time this happened and B) I know if I can't afford it there is a good chance government will bail me out this time. Therefore the amount of people making bad decisions rises. This once shorterm problem is now gigantic and affects many million in the country. We are currently going through this in our present day economy. If no bailout in the first place... probably better decision making in the future by all people.
The other day there was two police chases that ended in car crashes in which people were severely injured and taken to the hospital. There was some news stations debating whether police should even pursue such thieves since they can result in other people being hurt on the highways due to these high speed chases. That is ridiculous on surface but lets look at the unintended consequences that could be caused by this. If a thief knows he or she will not be pursued after a hit and run or stealing a vehicle or committing some other crime then more theives will be willing to go into this practice as the chances of them getting away with it grows. What I would recommend is that if a person commits a crime like this they should take him or her out as soon as possible. yes there is a chance that the criminal might be hurt and possibly an innocent bystander although less likely than when the chase has reached well over a hundred mph. However if a criminal knows that within minutes of being pursued they are going to be taken out automatically.. they are probably going to be fewer criminals in the future taking those risks.
There are many many more examples that I have mentioned in past posts. I also recommend reading some of Thomas Sowell's writings on this. But remember costs are not just present. Costs of decisions made by politicians and individuals grow in the future if they create unintended consequences even if those consequences are unforeseen
Thursday, July 9, 2009
I can get everyone a job that wants one... just read and find out
Here is my recommendation for creating a job for every single American that wants a job. Actually I have several options. Congress should pass a law outlawing all machine use. That way to make up for what machines do, people will be needed. Here is another one. Lets just bring back the draft and draft everyone that does not have a job and force them to serve in the military whether they are all needed or not. Or better yet not to put them in danger (plus I'd rather many people who are jobless not to be in our wonderful military) we can simply have the government pay for people to do what my dad use to warn he would have me do if I was a smart-elic to my mother... We could pay people to dig holes and then re-fill them in.
You might think I'm an idiot but I'm really not. I'm just acting like the Obama administration. You say how? There are two ways government can get GDP to rise and thus create jobs according to basic economic text books. We can increase government spending or lower taxes. Now all your basic economic books will tell you that government spending will raise GDP faster than lowering taxes because a percentage of that tax break will be saved by the American individual getting the tax break thus not being used in our economy. This while every dollar of the government spending will be spent in the economy. There is only one problem...
How do we know if government is spending money on things that Americans want and need? Government might build a bridge and put hundreds to work but if that bridge is going to be used by 100 people a day and employ lets say 100 people to build, it might not be worth the cost of 200 million dollars to build that bridge. That means 2 million dollars was spent on each job. Is that really helping the economy other than those 100 people? Government can spend money and create "Green" jobs but if those jobs are not efficient jobs that help create "WEALTH" then it is a waste of resources.
Do you trust millions of Americans who know exactly what they need to improve their lives using their money the way they want to. Or do you trust some government official or "czar" spending that money on what he or she thinks the economy needs? A supermarket has 60,000 items in it that tens of millions of people had a part in getting there when you take into account every single job that is needed to get those items to the store. Do you think a government official could run our supermarkets? It would be impossible for one individual or a group of government officials to have all the information needed to do so.
I would much rather spend my own money!
You might think I'm an idiot but I'm really not. I'm just acting like the Obama administration. You say how? There are two ways government can get GDP to rise and thus create jobs according to basic economic text books. We can increase government spending or lower taxes. Now all your basic economic books will tell you that government spending will raise GDP faster than lowering taxes because a percentage of that tax break will be saved by the American individual getting the tax break thus not being used in our economy. This while every dollar of the government spending will be spent in the economy. There is only one problem...
How do we know if government is spending money on things that Americans want and need? Government might build a bridge and put hundreds to work but if that bridge is going to be used by 100 people a day and employ lets say 100 people to build, it might not be worth the cost of 200 million dollars to build that bridge. That means 2 million dollars was spent on each job. Is that really helping the economy other than those 100 people? Government can spend money and create "Green" jobs but if those jobs are not efficient jobs that help create "WEALTH" then it is a waste of resources.
Do you trust millions of Americans who know exactly what they need to improve their lives using their money the way they want to. Or do you trust some government official or "czar" spending that money on what he or she thinks the economy needs? A supermarket has 60,000 items in it that tens of millions of people had a part in getting there when you take into account every single job that is needed to get those items to the store. Do you think a government official could run our supermarkets? It would be impossible for one individual or a group of government officials to have all the information needed to do so.
I would much rather spend my own money!
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Do Nothing Approach
With Americans lack of history knowledge and especially economic illiteracy, it is political suicide for an American President or Congressman to get elected on the promise of doing nothing. We believe that these representatives are suppose to vote and make laws that benefit their constituents. Yet their job is to abide by the Constitution and make laws that are the framework for our nation. Yet today over 60 percent of what congress does is unconstitutional. Doing nothing would be much better.
If Congress and the President did nothing we would not be having the current housing crisis. We would not have a massive debt that is held by foreign countries. We would not have billions spent on pork barrel projects. Lobbyist would be out of a job. Inflation would be much lower, housing would be cheaper with less regulation, credit wold be easier to get right now, and thus the stock market would be in better shape. With a do nothing congress taxes would be less than one half of what they are, a man could start a small business in one day not work on it for half a year and pay enormous costs to do so. Electricity and gas prices would be much lower because of the use of Nuclear Energy and the increased production of oil.
So why is it political suicide for politicians to go to office and promise all these things? The reason is simple but yet complex. Years of brainwashing in colleges and by politicians with the help of the media and more importantly the Judicial Branch has programmed our minds to be very dependent human beings. I was hanging out with some friends and one of them said "I can't wait to get my free health insurance." What he was saying is "ha ha ha your going to pay for my health insurance." He loves the fact that he does not have to pay for it. Wouldn't anyone? Yes unless that person understood what government healthcare is like in other countries and understands the economics about it and the fact that it is unconstitutional. These things take time to teach and in a school system ran by politicians and unions that would prefer us NOT to know these things, they do not get taught.
Its sad but it all goes back to the failure of our education system. Well failure to us not to the politicians and unions running our education system.
If Congress and the President did nothing we would not be having the current housing crisis. We would not have a massive debt that is held by foreign countries. We would not have billions spent on pork barrel projects. Lobbyist would be out of a job. Inflation would be much lower, housing would be cheaper with less regulation, credit wold be easier to get right now, and thus the stock market would be in better shape. With a do nothing congress taxes would be less than one half of what they are, a man could start a small business in one day not work on it for half a year and pay enormous costs to do so. Electricity and gas prices would be much lower because of the use of Nuclear Energy and the increased production of oil.
So why is it political suicide for politicians to go to office and promise all these things? The reason is simple but yet complex. Years of brainwashing in colleges and by politicians with the help of the media and more importantly the Judicial Branch has programmed our minds to be very dependent human beings. I was hanging out with some friends and one of them said "I can't wait to get my free health insurance." What he was saying is "ha ha ha your going to pay for my health insurance." He loves the fact that he does not have to pay for it. Wouldn't anyone? Yes unless that person understood what government healthcare is like in other countries and understands the economics about it and the fact that it is unconstitutional. These things take time to teach and in a school system ran by politicians and unions that would prefer us NOT to know these things, they do not get taught.
Its sad but it all goes back to the failure of our education system. Well failure to us not to the politicians and unions running our education system.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is America Different?
Remember the story about American Soldiers committing atrocities and torturing Iraqi Prisoners at Abu Ghraib? In fact right now go google "Abu Ghraib". The top link is Wikipedia report of abuse scandals. Everyone remembers it.
Interesting the historical word for atrocities and torture would usually relate to the gouging of eyes, ripping off of fingernails, whipping, acid baths, screw drivers into muscles, etc. The pictures of prisoners who were rescued from Japanese POW camps were weighing around 100 pounds while being disease infested and nearly starving to death. But these "atrocities" were soldiers making Iraqi prisoners get naked around each other in front of women (whom they are not to be naked around according to their religion). They were on dog leashes or simulated sexual acts. The worse things was being urinated on or maybe hit with a rifle in the groin. Are those from a historical standpoint considered atrocities? I would say not. Neither are they right or should their actions be condoned. But "Torture"? NO!
In other cultures prisoners are tortured to near death. The recently released Chinese "terrorist" that were released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda talked about how much better they were treated in Cuba by Americans than they are their own government. In fact if they were sent back to China they would have surely been killed by their own government. Yet terrorist commit the most evil acts you can imagine and your hard pressed to find other Muslims condemning their acts. Don't get me wrong by no means am I saying that All Muslims are evil or terrorist. There are lots of great Muslim people. But where are the majority of them condemning their acts. Yet when Americans do things that are far from those extremes they are condemned by the U.S. media and politicians, and are usually put on trial and sentenced to punishment that is not justified when put into context.
These Iraqi terrorist have killed and tortured many of these soldiers fellow soldiers. Put yourself in their place and lets say your best friend was killed by them. Would you be tempted to embarrass and irritate many of the prisoners? Yes of course. Does it make it right to do? No. But in America we strongly condemn our few soldiers who commit these acts. But to call them atrocities or torture is just stupid. In fact the only truly stupid thing these soldiers did as Walter William once wrote was allow people to photograph their actions. That truly was stupid.
America is in fact different. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like that. But lets put into context our actions. We are a great country and different!
Interesting the historical word for atrocities and torture would usually relate to the gouging of eyes, ripping off of fingernails, whipping, acid baths, screw drivers into muscles, etc. The pictures of prisoners who were rescued from Japanese POW camps were weighing around 100 pounds while being disease infested and nearly starving to death. But these "atrocities" were soldiers making Iraqi prisoners get naked around each other in front of women (whom they are not to be naked around according to their religion). They were on dog leashes or simulated sexual acts. The worse things was being urinated on or maybe hit with a rifle in the groin. Are those from a historical standpoint considered atrocities? I would say not. Neither are they right or should their actions be condoned. But "Torture"? NO!
In other cultures prisoners are tortured to near death. The recently released Chinese "terrorist" that were released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda talked about how much better they were treated in Cuba by Americans than they are their own government. In fact if they were sent back to China they would have surely been killed by their own government. Yet terrorist commit the most evil acts you can imagine and your hard pressed to find other Muslims condemning their acts. Don't get me wrong by no means am I saying that All Muslims are evil or terrorist. There are lots of great Muslim people. But where are the majority of them condemning their acts. Yet when Americans do things that are far from those extremes they are condemned by the U.S. media and politicians, and are usually put on trial and sentenced to punishment that is not justified when put into context.
These Iraqi terrorist have killed and tortured many of these soldiers fellow soldiers. Put yourself in their place and lets say your best friend was killed by them. Would you be tempted to embarrass and irritate many of the prisoners? Yes of course. Does it make it right to do? No. But in America we strongly condemn our few soldiers who commit these acts. But to call them atrocities or torture is just stupid. In fact the only truly stupid thing these soldiers did as Walter William once wrote was allow people to photograph their actions. That truly was stupid.
America is in fact different. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like that. But lets put into context our actions. We are a great country and different!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Different Regulations=same ole problems
The Obama administration, just like any other great political administration, is taking proactive steps in fixing the financial system in our nation. To put in context, the economy is in a serious recession that began under the Bush administration and is continuing even through the stimulus era of increased government spending. I have already explained why I hate stimulus packages whether put together by Republicans or Democrats in past posts. But today the administration is going to fix the problems with more centralized regulation.
I have not read the full details but instead of having many different regulatory agencies, the federal reserve and the Treasury Secretary will have ultimate power on regulation. No more doubt on who has the power to punish people for making bad loans. Actually that sentence should be written "reward people for making bad loans and punishing those who do not." The reason being is that government regulators require a bank to make a certain amount of loans to people whom that political party or government official might want to make happy.
In reality we need less regulation and quite nearly none whatsoever. I take that back we need the most efficient regulation of all time. That being the regulation that the free market naturally puts on banks. If banks make bad risky loans to people who can not repay them, the government does not bail them out or help. The bank loses as well as the borrower. If government would stop forcing or pressuring financial institutions to make risky loans, and secondly stop giving them safety nets, then financial institutions will make decisions that would only benefit them. Which is- make good loans at affordable interest rates so they can compete with other loaning institutions while not making lots of risky loans to people who will not be able to repay them. Will fewer people be able to buy a house? The answer is yes. The percentage will lower by a couple at most few percentage points in the long run. The good news is you don't have a artificially inflated markets that causes inflation of home values and then a drop that bottoms out to a point where every persons property and house's value dissipates. Thus causing the entire economy to go into a recession of not depression.
Solution: Federal Government do only what the Constitution gives you authority to do. Meaning only about 35% of what you currently do. Furthermore, allow states to set whatever laws and regulations they want. I believe within a few years states that let the free market work will see its people and companies flourishing with prosperity. Then other states will follow suit and our entire nation will use the system that works best. Very light regulation, strong laws though, with free markets doing most of the regulation. Instead we have one giant fascist federal government making a mockery of the Constitution of the United States.
I have not read the full details but instead of having many different regulatory agencies, the federal reserve and the Treasury Secretary will have ultimate power on regulation. No more doubt on who has the power to punish people for making bad loans. Actually that sentence should be written "reward people for making bad loans and punishing those who do not." The reason being is that government regulators require a bank to make a certain amount of loans to people whom that political party or government official might want to make happy.
In reality we need less regulation and quite nearly none whatsoever. I take that back we need the most efficient regulation of all time. That being the regulation that the free market naturally puts on banks. If banks make bad risky loans to people who can not repay them, the government does not bail them out or help. The bank loses as well as the borrower. If government would stop forcing or pressuring financial institutions to make risky loans, and secondly stop giving them safety nets, then financial institutions will make decisions that would only benefit them. Which is- make good loans at affordable interest rates so they can compete with other loaning institutions while not making lots of risky loans to people who will not be able to repay them. Will fewer people be able to buy a house? The answer is yes. The percentage will lower by a couple at most few percentage points in the long run. The good news is you don't have a artificially inflated markets that causes inflation of home values and then a drop that bottoms out to a point where every persons property and house's value dissipates. Thus causing the entire economy to go into a recession of not depression.
Solution: Federal Government do only what the Constitution gives you authority to do. Meaning only about 35% of what you currently do. Furthermore, allow states to set whatever laws and regulations they want. I believe within a few years states that let the free market work will see its people and companies flourishing with prosperity. Then other states will follow suit and our entire nation will use the system that works best. Very light regulation, strong laws though, with free markets doing most of the regulation. Instead we have one giant fascist federal government making a mockery of the Constitution of the United States.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
a country of ignorant people
Liberals are brilliant to the point that they began to dismantle our traditional American heritage many decades ago. If a country of people are uneducated on economics and American history, they might believe anything. I tend to concentrate on economics in this blog.
It is hard for me to express my displeasure of the Obama administration's growth into our lives with the takeover of GM, the introduction of czars that will control aspects of the economy, and now the greater regulation of tobacco and the getting close to huge overhaul of our healthcare in America. The reason it is hard is that most Americans do not understand the bases of an argument because their knowledge of simple economics (in my opinion the most important school subject after basic English and Math) is so poor. How can I argue against well intended policies that sound good if the American people do not know the cost associated with the growth of government despite good intentions.
Pay Czar? Please read my past blogs about CEO pay. There you will learn why it is so dangerous to allow the government to manipulate the market pay of CEO's no matter how many millions they make when YOU don't think they are worth it.
I have also written past blogs about Healthcare and why free markets have worked so well there. I give examples of government healthcare in other nations as well.
Christians like the fact that government regulates some things. Tobacco use, prostitution, seat belts, helmets on bikes, etc... Many conservatives love those regulations too. I hate them. I don't think government should regulate parts of our lives that do not affect other people. I disagree with doing the many of the things that government outlaws. But giving it the right to prohibit or regulate the use thereof could give government the go ahead on other things. What if you went into a restaurant and ordered a dessert and the waiter said "I'm sorry but according to new government standards, you have already reached your calorie limit". You think that sounds crazy but they already outlawed different ways to make food at restaurants. McDonald's went away with the "Super Size" due to lawsuits, etc...
If government takes over healthcare you better believe to keep cost down they will prohibit your liberty to eat what you want when you want it and how much of it you can have.
Solution: More education with less government involvement = more economics without agenda. The more a person knows and understands economics, the less government they usually want. It hurts government to teach about economics. In other words government is smart to keep us dumb. Lets not let them keep doing it to us.
It is hard for me to express my displeasure of the Obama administration's growth into our lives with the takeover of GM, the introduction of czars that will control aspects of the economy, and now the greater regulation of tobacco and the getting close to huge overhaul of our healthcare in America. The reason it is hard is that most Americans do not understand the bases of an argument because their knowledge of simple economics (in my opinion the most important school subject after basic English and Math) is so poor. How can I argue against well intended policies that sound good if the American people do not know the cost associated with the growth of government despite good intentions.
Pay Czar? Please read my past blogs about CEO pay. There you will learn why it is so dangerous to allow the government to manipulate the market pay of CEO's no matter how many millions they make when YOU don't think they are worth it.
I have also written past blogs about Healthcare and why free markets have worked so well there. I give examples of government healthcare in other nations as well.
Christians like the fact that government regulates some things. Tobacco use, prostitution, seat belts, helmets on bikes, etc... Many conservatives love those regulations too. I hate them. I don't think government should regulate parts of our lives that do not affect other people. I disagree with doing the many of the things that government outlaws. But giving it the right to prohibit or regulate the use thereof could give government the go ahead on other things. What if you went into a restaurant and ordered a dessert and the waiter said "I'm sorry but according to new government standards, you have already reached your calorie limit". You think that sounds crazy but they already outlawed different ways to make food at restaurants. McDonald's went away with the "Super Size" due to lawsuits, etc...
If government takes over healthcare you better believe to keep cost down they will prohibit your liberty to eat what you want when you want it and how much of it you can have.
Solution: More education with less government involvement = more economics without agenda. The more a person knows and understands economics, the less government they usually want. It hurts government to teach about economics. In other words government is smart to keep us dumb. Lets not let them keep doing it to us.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Environment vs Human Life- Victory Environment
Today the Environment just got another big victory over human life as the Obama administration has forced cars to get 42 mpg by 2016. Read this link to learn more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/wid=18298287
What most of us do not understand is that cost must be accounted for in any decision we make in life no matter how small a decision. The cost: To get cars that kind of gas mileage will cost businesses money to invest into technology that people do not want. This means less money spent on making cars that people want which means less cars being made and fewer jobs open to people in the car making business. Further, the cost of each car will go up as more money is needed to invest into research for this huge hike in gas mileage. Fewer people can afford a car and thus more jobs loss as demand for cars lessens now with the hike in price.
So Jess... what about lives being lost? What is the easiest way to make a car get better gas mileage? Its simple... make the car weigh less. Use more lighter materials and not the strong metals that make a car more sturdy and thus safer. More plastic that will crush more easily and lead to more deaths on the highway when accidents happen. It is a sad truth that in order for us to stop global warming in which many scientist doubt, and even more scientist who believe in global warming but believe the effects of it are far less harmful than what many environmentalist want us to believe, lives have to be ruined and worse- lost.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/wid=18298287
What most of us do not understand is that cost must be accounted for in any decision we make in life no matter how small a decision. The cost: To get cars that kind of gas mileage will cost businesses money to invest into technology that people do not want. This means less money spent on making cars that people want which means less cars being made and fewer jobs open to people in the car making business. Further, the cost of each car will go up as more money is needed to invest into research for this huge hike in gas mileage. Fewer people can afford a car and thus more jobs loss as demand for cars lessens now with the hike in price.
So Jess... what about lives being lost? What is the easiest way to make a car get better gas mileage? Its simple... make the car weigh less. Use more lighter materials and not the strong metals that make a car more sturdy and thus safer. More plastic that will crush more easily and lead to more deaths on the highway when accidents happen. It is a sad truth that in order for us to stop global warming in which many scientist doubt, and even more scientist who believe in global warming but believe the effects of it are far less harmful than what many environmentalist want us to believe, lives have to be ruined and worse- lost.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Inside story of Outside the Lines
I like the ESPN show "Outside The Lines". This past week they ran a good special on the Preakness (second biggest horse race of the year), held at PIMLICO track in Maryland. There was a part of this story though that bothered me that no one talks about. Remember when it was embarrassing for young girls and boys to talk about sex. Well it has so been justified that you are made fun of if you don't openly discuss it in eighth grade. Well the same is true for the size of government. Today when Outside the Lines does a special story about government takeover of private property no one blinks an eye.
PIMLICO is a privately owned race track that is not making money unless it is hosting that one race a year- The Preakness. The track is believed to be too big and out of date. There are now potential buyers of this track who want to buy it but use it for something else. Maybe something that makes money and provides a desired service to the area. However, the state of Maryland would not allow this to happen because of tradition. Somehow the memory of the Baltimore Colts leaving Maryland had an impact on the decision. So government should now have the right to take property because of tradition even if it is an out of business tradition? Traditionally Milk men brought milk to our houses. Should government not allow grocery stores to sell milk because of that tradition? Our founding fathers played the wonderful sport of Cricket. Should we not allow new sports like Baseball, football, and basketball to come about because people might find them more interesting than cricket?
Look it sounds small to most of you. Many of you might even agree with the decision. But if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people are not desiring to go watch horse racing at the track that hosts the Preakness, why should they be forced to pay for it simply because once a year that one race gets a lot of attention that the local government likes. It is sad that our government can do things that only communist and socialist governments did in the past while claiming that our economy is still built around capitalism. I'm tired of government ruling our lives I wish there were many millions of others that felt the same way.
PIMLICO is a privately owned race track that is not making money unless it is hosting that one race a year- The Preakness. The track is believed to be too big and out of date. There are now potential buyers of this track who want to buy it but use it for something else. Maybe something that makes money and provides a desired service to the area. However, the state of Maryland would not allow this to happen because of tradition. Somehow the memory of the Baltimore Colts leaving Maryland had an impact on the decision. So government should now have the right to take property because of tradition even if it is an out of business tradition? Traditionally Milk men brought milk to our houses. Should government not allow grocery stores to sell milk because of that tradition? Our founding fathers played the wonderful sport of Cricket. Should we not allow new sports like Baseball, football, and basketball to come about because people might find them more interesting than cricket?
Look it sounds small to most of you. Many of you might even agree with the decision. But if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people are not desiring to go watch horse racing at the track that hosts the Preakness, why should they be forced to pay for it simply because once a year that one race gets a lot of attention that the local government likes. It is sad that our government can do things that only communist and socialist governments did in the past while claiming that our economy is still built around capitalism. I'm tired of government ruling our lives I wish there were many millions of others that felt the same way.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Swine Flu Economics
Today on my way to school I heard an interesting statistic. over 30,000 people die each year from the flu. Not this new hot exciting Swine flu thing but the normal flu. Up to this point one person has died of the swine flu. It brought me to a very important economic concept that I addressed with my classes today.
I believe I saw where the Obama administration is going to promise some $1.5 billion to fight this new flu "epidemic". Which brings up a very interesting rarely asked question: Where does this money come from? More importantly, what are the alternative cost of doing this? In other words what is not getting $1.5 billion because the government is spending it on this new hot issue? Economics is the efficient allocation of scare resources which have alternative uses. When resources are used in one area they are not in another. Is that $1.5 billion better used to fight this disease that is according to most experts somewhat contained and is not that serious yet? Or could it have been spent in a better place? What if it was used to do more research on cancer? Or what if it was to be used to build better and newer roads and bridges that are safer and save more lives than it will fighting Swine Flu.
In the early 1980's a small incident on a airport runway led to the death of an infant that was on the plane in his or her mom's lap. The small collision caused the baby to fly out of its mom's hands and was killed on impact. The government along with the airlines pledged to fix the problem and required special seats to be used for small children. This device saved one child every eight years according to a group of economist. But those same economist estimated that it killed 8 other people. You say how? The cost of this law or new policy was that the parent had to purchase an extra plane ticket. Instead they might not purchase it if they now think it is cheaper to drive instead. Now how many of those trips would result in wrecks and how many of those wrecks would result in casualties? Those economist estimated about 8 people died over the next eight years after the new policy was passed.
How many people could die because of some headline news story disease is getting politicians to move resources from important big problems that effect many people to try and fix this small problem that happens to be newsworthy. I'm not saying I disagree with the Obama decision I have not researched it. I am saying that we need to hesitate and think about these things before getting excited about trying to fix a problem. Remember there are cost and benefits to decisions not just benefits.
I believe I saw where the Obama administration is going to promise some $1.5 billion to fight this new flu "epidemic". Which brings up a very interesting rarely asked question: Where does this money come from? More importantly, what are the alternative cost of doing this? In other words what is not getting $1.5 billion because the government is spending it on this new hot issue? Economics is the efficient allocation of scare resources which have alternative uses. When resources are used in one area they are not in another. Is that $1.5 billion better used to fight this disease that is according to most experts somewhat contained and is not that serious yet? Or could it have been spent in a better place? What if it was used to do more research on cancer? Or what if it was to be used to build better and newer roads and bridges that are safer and save more lives than it will fighting Swine Flu.
In the early 1980's a small incident on a airport runway led to the death of an infant that was on the plane in his or her mom's lap. The small collision caused the baby to fly out of its mom's hands and was killed on impact. The government along with the airlines pledged to fix the problem and required special seats to be used for small children. This device saved one child every eight years according to a group of economist. But those same economist estimated that it killed 8 other people. You say how? The cost of this law or new policy was that the parent had to purchase an extra plane ticket. Instead they might not purchase it if they now think it is cheaper to drive instead. Now how many of those trips would result in wrecks and how many of those wrecks would result in casualties? Those economist estimated about 8 people died over the next eight years after the new policy was passed.
How many people could die because of some headline news story disease is getting politicians to move resources from important big problems that effect many people to try and fix this small problem that happens to be newsworthy. I'm not saying I disagree with the Obama decision I have not researched it. I am saying that we need to hesitate and think about these things before getting excited about trying to fix a problem. Remember there are cost and benefits to decisions not just benefits.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Wrongful Assumptions
Today I attended Sweetwater area church service instead of traveling downtown Knoxville to attend my home church of Faith Promise. It got me to thinking so much that I still don't know the direction of this current post.
I would argue I have nothing against the church but I would be lying. I feel that so many of our churches are stuck in their old fashion ways that they are one of the main reasons we are losing our young people today. I looked around and can tell you that only one of the 6 ushers who took up the offering (and had to sit on the front row) kept their mind on the message. I know this because my mind was wondering around. Many of them were falling asleep or starring off in the distance. Many others in the church were doing the same. I bet many of them would condemn my church and yet they attend church and get nothing out of it. It got me to thinking how at my church I never see anyone falling asleep or even losing focus. Now in defense I rarely look around because I am so into the service as well. I love my church.
So many churches refuse to change and accomodate the current culture into their worship of an up-to-date, modern savior. They never even give adapting to the current environment a thought. They believe that good christians must where suits and preach messages that have three points that explain a specific verse of the Bible while singing music from the late 19th and early 20th century.
This along with a recent reading of my brother's blog got me to thinking about how Americans do the same with our government. The government wants to outlaw discrimination when private companies should have the right to do so if they choose. They are even sticking their noses in on MLB and now the BCS of college football. I believe I read where it was now up to 70 percent. You say what Jess? 70 percent of what our federal government does is not found anywhere in the Constitution. If 75% of our congress wants the federal government to participate in this action then ammend the Constitution first.
American citizens have allowed the government to get so large for so long that they don't even think about changing its ways. We never stop and think about whether this is the best course of action or whether government should even be involved to begin with. Maybe Christian and Americans alike should take a step back and begin evaluating the church and government's mission before choosing a path and not giving it a second thought.
I would argue I have nothing against the church but I would be lying. I feel that so many of our churches are stuck in their old fashion ways that they are one of the main reasons we are losing our young people today. I looked around and can tell you that only one of the 6 ushers who took up the offering (and had to sit on the front row) kept their mind on the message. I know this because my mind was wondering around. Many of them were falling asleep or starring off in the distance. Many others in the church were doing the same. I bet many of them would condemn my church and yet they attend church and get nothing out of it. It got me to thinking how at my church I never see anyone falling asleep or even losing focus. Now in defense I rarely look around because I am so into the service as well. I love my church.
So many churches refuse to change and accomodate the current culture into their worship of an up-to-date, modern savior. They never even give adapting to the current environment a thought. They believe that good christians must where suits and preach messages that have three points that explain a specific verse of the Bible while singing music from the late 19th and early 20th century.
This along with a recent reading of my brother's blog got me to thinking about how Americans do the same with our government. The government wants to outlaw discrimination when private companies should have the right to do so if they choose. They are even sticking their noses in on MLB and now the BCS of college football. I believe I read where it was now up to 70 percent. You say what Jess? 70 percent of what our federal government does is not found anywhere in the Constitution. If 75% of our congress wants the federal government to participate in this action then ammend the Constitution first.
American citizens have allowed the government to get so large for so long that they don't even think about changing its ways. We never stop and think about whether this is the best course of action or whether government should even be involved to begin with. Maybe Christian and Americans alike should take a step back and begin evaluating the church and government's mission before choosing a path and not giving it a second thought.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
When the Obvious is wrong
This blog is hard to post because about 90% of my readers (probably mostly conservative) will disagree with it. But with all due respect who are YOU to decide what is "fair" for company executives to be paid?
It angers me when all I hear is how people are so mad that AIG executives are getting huge bonuses when they in fact are one of the big reasons our economy is in the dump. I agree that they made some terrible mistakes and that their management should be punished. But let the owners of the company (stockholders) make those decisions. First for you who are reading this blog and have not read many of my past postings, you must read my blogs on CEO pay from many many months ago. With that in context, executives of the largest companies in the world make millions for a reason and so they should if the market calls for it. At the same time, contracts for these executives are sometimes considered "unfair" because to get these highly coveted executives requires huge payments or they will miss out on the best available leaders for the company. Keep in mind that sometimes bonuses are due regardless of a companies success in a given year.
Most importantly, if Government did not bail out these companies every time they made bad decisions, these companies would not reward executives who made terrible business decisions. But if the American federal government is going to give them our tax dollars, why should they not partially use that money to pad their own pockets when knowing that they soon are going to be let go? The solution- government stay out and let these businesses fail and if enough fail, stockholders might decide to pay closer attention to decisions being made and thus executives will not make stupid decisions that put their companies in trouble.
The reason it angers me is that politicians know how stupid we are and will cater to our feelings of anger towards executives and demand instead that they not get those bonuses. We then get excited because those politicians hear our complaints and are working so hard for us! The only problem is that the real PROBLEM is not being solved. That is, government stop standing by these companies and stop bailing them out and these over paid bonuses will not happen. Our attention is turned to the emotional issues of millions of dollars being paid to executives when it is the billions and eventually trillions of dollars that the government will spend to "fix" this economy when they are responsible in fact for causing the problems that needs to be fixed!
The other issues can not be explained so easily. But if you read my blogs from time to time you will know that economics is about costs and benefits. And even if you were to agree that government has gotten this one right and that these executives should not be allowed to receive these bonuses, there is a cost to government making those decisions. If government makes that decision why not other decisions? WHat about healthcare? What jobs are to be created? Prices of goods? That sounds like Socialism. Look at the countries that are socialistic. Is that what you want to live like? The cost of capitalism is that sometimes the free market might get it wrong. But the benefit of Capitalism and Free Markets is that it gets it right far more times than government does.
It angers me when all I hear is how people are so mad that AIG executives are getting huge bonuses when they in fact are one of the big reasons our economy is in the dump. I agree that they made some terrible mistakes and that their management should be punished. But let the owners of the company (stockholders) make those decisions. First for you who are reading this blog and have not read many of my past postings, you must read my blogs on CEO pay from many many months ago. With that in context, executives of the largest companies in the world make millions for a reason and so they should if the market calls for it. At the same time, contracts for these executives are sometimes considered "unfair" because to get these highly coveted executives requires huge payments or they will miss out on the best available leaders for the company. Keep in mind that sometimes bonuses are due regardless of a companies success in a given year.
Most importantly, if Government did not bail out these companies every time they made bad decisions, these companies would not reward executives who made terrible business decisions. But if the American federal government is going to give them our tax dollars, why should they not partially use that money to pad their own pockets when knowing that they soon are going to be let go? The solution- government stay out and let these businesses fail and if enough fail, stockholders might decide to pay closer attention to decisions being made and thus executives will not make stupid decisions that put their companies in trouble.
The reason it angers me is that politicians know how stupid we are and will cater to our feelings of anger towards executives and demand instead that they not get those bonuses. We then get excited because those politicians hear our complaints and are working so hard for us! The only problem is that the real PROBLEM is not being solved. That is, government stop standing by these companies and stop bailing them out and these over paid bonuses will not happen. Our attention is turned to the emotional issues of millions of dollars being paid to executives when it is the billions and eventually trillions of dollars that the government will spend to "fix" this economy when they are responsible in fact for causing the problems that needs to be fixed!
The other issues can not be explained so easily. But if you read my blogs from time to time you will know that economics is about costs and benefits. And even if you were to agree that government has gotten this one right and that these executives should not be allowed to receive these bonuses, there is a cost to government making those decisions. If government makes that decision why not other decisions? WHat about healthcare? What jobs are to be created? Prices of goods? That sounds like Socialism. Look at the countries that are socialistic. Is that what you want to live like? The cost of capitalism is that sometimes the free market might get it wrong. But the benefit of Capitalism and Free Markets is that it gets it right far more times than government does.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
History of Prayer
It is amazing to me when I step back and study the surface of history about how much our forefathers and ancestors used prayer during some of the most important times of our nation's history. George Washington would not have become our first President nor a president at all if he had not survived the escape from New York to Trenton, New Jersey at the beginning of the American Revolution. He thanked God for a so called "Wind Miracle" that he prayed about for allowing this to take place.
When our Constitution was being developed in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin asked for everyone to take some time to pray at the convention when it looked like it might collapse. This was not a short pre-meal like prayer but a few days of prayer and worship. He said "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Just before the single largest ground invasion in our nation's history on foreign soil, Franklin Roosevelt prayed in his radio address for the brave men who were about to land on the beaches of Normandy.
Today in our time of Economic turmoil, our President does not call upon our nation to pray. There are no radio addresses or speeches made in congress to take a few days of prayer for our nation and its leader. There is only call for government to do more to help our economy although it is that same government that has screwed up our economy with bailouts and laws that have promoted and incentivize banks to make bad loans to people who can not pay them back. Instead how about the Church rising and praying that our leaders will get some backbone to stop growing government and instead allow the market(the decisions of thousands of companies and millions of consumers) to put financial institutions out of business who make bad decisions. Stop protecting companies and banks so that they are willing to risk failure knowing that government will help them and then one day they all collapse at once taking us into an economic recession such as we have now that could lead to near depression valleys. I personally do not believe we will see a great depression again because the Great Depression was based on the lively hood of so many people during that time. We are so blessed today with great things that even during the worst of times, people have luxuries that could never be considered depressing.
I'm asking our President Barack Obama to call upon our nation to pray and stop telling me about how the same entity that has nearly destroyed our prosperous economy is going to now fix it. Lets pray that we elect politicians that will stop passing laws in order to impress voters but do things that help our nation in the long run even if it does nothing to get them re-elected in the short run.
When our Constitution was being developed in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin asked for everyone to take some time to pray at the convention when it looked like it might collapse. This was not a short pre-meal like prayer but a few days of prayer and worship. He said "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Just before the single largest ground invasion in our nation's history on foreign soil, Franklin Roosevelt prayed in his radio address for the brave men who were about to land on the beaches of Normandy.
Today in our time of Economic turmoil, our President does not call upon our nation to pray. There are no radio addresses or speeches made in congress to take a few days of prayer for our nation and its leader. There is only call for government to do more to help our economy although it is that same government that has screwed up our economy with bailouts and laws that have promoted and incentivize banks to make bad loans to people who can not pay them back. Instead how about the Church rising and praying that our leaders will get some backbone to stop growing government and instead allow the market(the decisions of thousands of companies and millions of consumers) to put financial institutions out of business who make bad decisions. Stop protecting companies and banks so that they are willing to risk failure knowing that government will help them and then one day they all collapse at once taking us into an economic recession such as we have now that could lead to near depression valleys. I personally do not believe we will see a great depression again because the Great Depression was based on the lively hood of so many people during that time. We are so blessed today with great things that even during the worst of times, people have luxuries that could never be considered depressing.
I'm asking our President Barack Obama to call upon our nation to pray and stop telling me about how the same entity that has nearly destroyed our prosperous economy is going to now fix it. Lets pray that we elect politicians that will stop passing laws in order to impress voters but do things that help our nation in the long run even if it does nothing to get them re-elected in the short run.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Government smarter than 300 million people???
When analyzing what our Constitution tells our government to do and thinking about what our government really does there is only one conclusion that a person can come up with. Government officials in Washington, including the over 500 congressmen, President, V.P., and all the President's staff, believe they are smarter than 300 million Americans in this country. They propose stimulus packages that are suppose to "create jobs". Except these jobs are being created where these officials feel they should be created not where the free market (the spending of over 300 million Americans) believe they should be created. Lets look at this.
Do you think if instead of $800 billion being spent on all the different programs the Obama administration have laid out was given to the American people, that we would spend that money on the same things these government officials have proposed? Do you think we would have spent that money on STD prevention programs, Honey Bee Insurance, Safe Sex for Gays, Buildings being upgraded, etc...
Government is suppose to work for us not the other way around. I for one believe that government needs to stay out of the economy and stop inflating credit so that people who do not deserve homes buy homes, buy homes that are too expensive for them, and then when interest rates rise, they lose their homes, home prices fall in the area, and credit tightens, banks fail, etc... Where if bad loans had not been loaned in the first place this episode would never have happened. Government caused this mess and now they believe they are entitled to fix it?? Makes a lot of sense... NOT! Lets cut our losses, lower government spending, let the market correct (meaning home prices adjust cheaper than they are because they went up too high to begin with) and then not make this mistake again. The recession will end just as fast that way as it will with government simply transferring funds from the American people to areas they believe this money should be spent in order to "stimulate" the economy. The American people will have to pay more for goods due to inflation after this money is put into our economy. Thus either way you look at it, we are paying for this 800 billion. Not to mention when we have to pay off our debt eventually. It makes me sick to believe that our government is doing what Communist Russia did when it could not even feed their own people.
Do you think if instead of $800 billion being spent on all the different programs the Obama administration have laid out was given to the American people, that we would spend that money on the same things these government officials have proposed? Do you think we would have spent that money on STD prevention programs, Honey Bee Insurance, Safe Sex for Gays, Buildings being upgraded, etc...
Government is suppose to work for us not the other way around. I for one believe that government needs to stay out of the economy and stop inflating credit so that people who do not deserve homes buy homes, buy homes that are too expensive for them, and then when interest rates rise, they lose their homes, home prices fall in the area, and credit tightens, banks fail, etc... Where if bad loans had not been loaned in the first place this episode would never have happened. Government caused this mess and now they believe they are entitled to fix it?? Makes a lot of sense... NOT! Lets cut our losses, lower government spending, let the market correct (meaning home prices adjust cheaper than they are because they went up too high to begin with) and then not make this mistake again. The recession will end just as fast that way as it will with government simply transferring funds from the American people to areas they believe this money should be spent in order to "stimulate" the economy. The American people will have to pay more for goods due to inflation after this money is put into our economy. Thus either way you look at it, we are paying for this 800 billion. Not to mention when we have to pay off our debt eventually. It makes me sick to believe that our government is doing what Communist Russia did when it could not even feed their own people.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Switch in Power
Due to basketball coaching and history teaching, I have had far less time to consider writing on my blog. But now that we are just a couple days away from a new President I figure its about time now.
The sad thing is that the American people have voted for a man who will continue so many of the policies that President Bush pushed for. More government spending on socialized medicine, more spending on education, just simply more government. That is why I find it humerous that everyone thinks change is about to happen. President Bush passed a stimulus package, he has made government bigger and quicker than most other presidents, and now Obama will simply continue that. Funny how people get really excited about "change" when I see very little coming..
Actually I do see some change coming. Funny thing is that it is in the area in which George Bush was best and that is fighting terrorism. Our nations reputation around the world is tarnished because we have a President that said enough is enough, your either for us or your for the terrorist. He meant what he said for the most part. His actions has kept another terrorist attack from happening on our homeland and has greatly reduced the capability of one of the most dangerous terrorist groups ever- Al Queda. Many terrorist plots have been foiled and most experts are amazed that we have not been attacked since. I would hope that when Obama gets in office and sees this that he will not drastically back off of the Bush foreign policy.
Funny thing about it, I think we will change his views a bit. Once he gets in that position and speaks to our security agencies and military, I think he will continue our foreign policy for the most part. I mean seriously, its a principle we learn early on in our lives- You don't try to fix what is not broken.
The sad thing is that the American people have voted for a man who will continue so many of the policies that President Bush pushed for. More government spending on socialized medicine, more spending on education, just simply more government. That is why I find it humerous that everyone thinks change is about to happen. President Bush passed a stimulus package, he has made government bigger and quicker than most other presidents, and now Obama will simply continue that. Funny how people get really excited about "change" when I see very little coming..
Actually I do see some change coming. Funny thing is that it is in the area in which George Bush was best and that is fighting terrorism. Our nations reputation around the world is tarnished because we have a President that said enough is enough, your either for us or your for the terrorist. He meant what he said for the most part. His actions has kept another terrorist attack from happening on our homeland and has greatly reduced the capability of one of the most dangerous terrorist groups ever- Al Queda. Many terrorist plots have been foiled and most experts are amazed that we have not been attacked since. I would hope that when Obama gets in office and sees this that he will not drastically back off of the Bush foreign policy.
Funny thing about it, I think we will change his views a bit. Once he gets in that position and speaks to our security agencies and military, I think he will continue our foreign policy for the most part. I mean seriously, its a principle we learn early on in our lives- You don't try to fix what is not broken.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Why History
Just two days off of Christmas Break and I was almost in a rage at school. It was not as bad as that sounds but something was said that made me angry. I was not mad at a particular student although it was a particular student who said it(one of my good students too). We were discussing life on the frontier for a cowboy when this student spoke up about how he or she will never use this in their life. That is something almost every student says at one point in their life I'm sure I have in fact. But it struck a core with me. Schools today can not force a child to salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Many kids today do not care about their country beyond what it does for themselves. Learning history is about having a respect for what has happened to create the country that allows you to live freely and prosper. For that we all use history every day of our lives. So many kids today are being raised to love themselves and what this country can do for them and not what they can do for this country. For that I'm sorry and I'm worried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
