Freedom of speach is one of our most charished rights and yet, when missused without consideration of its consequences that might effect the lives of other innocent people, it can be a curse.
It looked like another frustrated American, fed up with the outrageous extremists, foolishly used his freedom of speech to make a movie against the leader of the Muslems. This led to an uprising in which 50 innocent people were killed. Further investigation reveals that the movie maker was much less than an upstanding citizen. However, freedom in a demcracy is freedom for all, and abuses like this simply have to be chalked up to the high cost of freedom.
Our only defense against such abuse is education; education not only from the schools but from the Churches, and from the homes and from each other.
In a democracy we have the responsibility to be our brother's keeper; to understand that our freedom ends where the other persons freedom begins.
We must learn to respect each other and when we disagree we must do so without being disagreeable,
Friday, September 28, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
REACTION TO FED RESERVE PURCHASE OF SECURITIES
Yesterday's Blog on the Federal Reserve's buying of Securities stimulated (or provoked) a number of comments. Some are presented below:
This was a simple bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
A needed stimulus; stead and manageable!
A needed stimulus, but too lttle too late!
Another Democrat trick to increase the debt!
Will start a currency war with foreign nations !
Another attempt to ease the pain!
More wasteful use of funds!
This was a simple bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
A needed stimulus; stead and manageable!
A needed stimulus, but too lttle too late!
Another Democrat trick to increase the debt!
Will start a currency war with foreign nations !
Another attempt to ease the pain!
More wasteful use of funds!
Friday, September 14, 2012
FEDERAL RESERVE TO BUY SECURITIES
The Sec of Treas and the Federal Reserve came up with the same plan some time ago with a 600B stimulus that many felt was too little, but it may have been too much too quick for foreign currency to handle. However the "gradual" stimulus may more acceptable. The View from 2217 of this plan was expressed last month in a Blog on 8/15 and the view remains the same today.
An excerpt from the 8/15 Blog is presented below:
If deams could come true the Federal Reserve could gradualy issue dollars to pay off debtors, devaluating the dollar and causing inflation that would increase prices which would also increase wages and taxes, all born fairly by consumers and businesses alike in the purchase of goods and services..
Real Estate and Capital Wealth would retain their value through appreciation. The only losses would come from large amounts of uninvested dollars in corporations and banks. (and also of course, cash horded under mattresses)
Higher prices would be offset by corresponding higher wages and business would not be effected. The possibility of low income consumers unable to save for down payment on a first home could be offset by government backed, low interest, capped mortgages that could also help small business entrepreneurs in need of capital for start-up and/or expansion.
Any change would be opposed by those satisfied with the statis quo. Even if the tax break for the top 1% was ended, it wouldn't be much of a hardship for them. However, massive cuts in entitlements and health care would tragically reduce the standard of living level for millions of middle class with millions of the poor living at a third world level. Continued cuts in education would greatly jeopardize our future leadership role in the world. Neglect in maintaining the infrastructure and public service will impede progress and result in choas. The budget challenges today are astronomical!
The effect on foreign trade would vary according to the financial adjustments made by the countries involved, but basically prices on imported goods would be higher with lower prices on exported goods. This would be good for our economy as this would promote more demand for domestic goods. Admittedly, this may reduce profits for outsourced domestic corporations.
If you think that the doubling of prices and wages would never happen, consider the prices and wages from 1960 to 2000 and we still surived.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
ABORTION
The abortion issue is very difficult to negotiate. If one is convinced that there is a life anytime before actual birth, one can make the valid assumption that abortion is murder and that there shoud be a law against abortion.
The problem is that there are different beliefs about when life begins , and also many believe that there are acceptable conditions for taking a life. (ie. execution for premeditated murder of two or more people for example or sacrificing the life of a mother to save the child at birth.)
If one were to approach this issue from the concept of Freedon, one might see abortion in a different light. Freedom means no restrictions unless you interfere with the freedom of another. Consequently, a law to restrict abortion before birth will restrict the rights of those that believe life doesn't begin until birth. Failure to pass a law to prevent abortion does not interfere with the freedom of either group, (those believing that life starts before birth and those believing that life starts at birth). Both groups would be free to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. Failure to pass a law to make abortion illegal preserves the freedom of both groups.
While the right of a woman to choose may not please everyone, it may be a fair solution in which the freedom of all parties is not restricted by law.
The problem is that there are different beliefs about when life begins , and also many believe that there are acceptable conditions for taking a life. (ie. execution for premeditated murder of two or more people for example or sacrificing the life of a mother to save the child at birth.)
If one were to approach this issue from the concept of Freedon, one might see abortion in a different light. Freedom means no restrictions unless you interfere with the freedom of another. Consequently, a law to restrict abortion before birth will restrict the rights of those that believe life doesn't begin until birth. Failure to pass a law to prevent abortion does not interfere with the freedom of either group, (those believing that life starts before birth and those believing that life starts at birth). Both groups would be free to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. Failure to pass a law to make abortion illegal preserves the freedom of both groups.
While the right of a woman to choose may not please everyone, it may be a fair solution in which the freedom of all parties is not restricted by law.
AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON
There is an artificial person, created by law, that is dominating the US Economy. This person has no heart, no soul, no conscience and no morals. He is a complete slave and has been responsible for the greatest economic progress the world has ever seen.
This artifical person has been taken over by CEO's that have absolutely no personal liability for their actions. As a result, the CEOs have acted without responsibility and have caused financial diseaser in which millions of hard working, honest people have lost their jobs and their homes. These CEO's have taken high risk gambles with some making unbelievable fortunes while many of those owning the Artificial Person and those working for the Artifical Person have lost nearly everything.
This practice of gambling with other people's wealth to make a personal gain led the way for people to use money they didn't have to make personal purchases they couldn't afford. Unlike CEO's however, the people do not have the limited personal liability that the arificial person provides, and this irresponsible action brought home foreclosures and bankruptcy for many.
Clountless numbers of laws and regulations have been enacted to curb the Artificial Person's actions but they were ineffective because the Artificial Person does not contriol his actions; his actions are controlled by the CEO who has limited personal liability and there is little motivation for the CEO to change his mode of operation to make that big gain that might come from a high risk gamble.
It is obvious that the way to gain more responsible action from the Artificial Person is to remove the limited liability provision for the CEO and make the CEO responsible for his own actions. This most likely will reduce the number of huge gains but it will probably also reduce the number of failures. This may also result in a reduction of the too big to fail corporations and increase the number of smaller corporations as well as the number of people employed. It looks like a no bainer. Remove the limited personal liability for the CEO's that control the Artificial Persons and reduce the number of Artificial Person's failures.
This artifical person has been taken over by CEO's that have absolutely no personal liability for their actions. As a result, the CEOs have acted without responsibility and have caused financial diseaser in which millions of hard working, honest people have lost their jobs and their homes. These CEO's have taken high risk gambles with some making unbelievable fortunes while many of those owning the Artificial Person and those working for the Artifical Person have lost nearly everything.
This practice of gambling with other people's wealth to make a personal gain led the way for people to use money they didn't have to make personal purchases they couldn't afford. Unlike CEO's however, the people do not have the limited personal liability that the arificial person provides, and this irresponsible action brought home foreclosures and bankruptcy for many.
Clountless numbers of laws and regulations have been enacted to curb the Artificial Person's actions but they were ineffective because the Artificial Person does not contriol his actions; his actions are controlled by the CEO who has limited personal liability and there is little motivation for the CEO to change his mode of operation to make that big gain that might come from a high risk gamble.
It is obvious that the way to gain more responsible action from the Artificial Person is to remove the limited liability provision for the CEO and make the CEO responsible for his own actions. This most likely will reduce the number of huge gains but it will probably also reduce the number of failures. This may also result in a reduction of the too big to fail corporations and increase the number of smaller corporations as well as the number of people employed. It looks like a no bainer. Remove the limited personal liability for the CEO's that control the Artificial Persons and reduce the number of Artificial Person's failures.
Monday, September 10, 2012
THE DEMOCRAT CONVENTION
The Democrat Convention had an unusual number of high powered speakers this year led by former President, Bill Clinton, and current Presdent, Barack Obama. President Obama himself admited that the progress over the past three and a half years has been slow, But, the spiriling down turn has been stopped and the economy is now headed in the right direction. No great promises for a speedy recovery were given, but a pledge to aid the middle class and to give an equal opporunity for all Americans to achieve the American Dream was the message to America.
History tells us that promises mean very little in a political campaign. Actually, few specific promises were made except the following:
Democrats will repeal the extra tax benefits for the top 1%; while Repulicans will not.
Republicans will repeal Universal Health Insurance; while Democrats will not.
Republicans will drastically cut aid to Government sponsored programs including Education, Government Services and liberal programs to the poor and disadvantaged ; while Democrats will support these programs.
Republicans will attempt to repeal abortion, gay rights and immigration laws while Democrats will stick with their action on these issues.
The choice is clearly Democrat or Republican, with both candidates an excellent model for their party.
Romney comes from a wealthy family and has high family morals. He will promote the polices of the Bush/Cheney Adminisration.
Obama comes form a lower middle class family and has high family morals. He will promote the policies of the Clinton Administation.
The choice is yours!
History tells us that promises mean very little in a political campaign. Actually, few specific promises were made except the following:
Democrats will repeal the extra tax benefits for the top 1%; while Repulicans will not.
Republicans will repeal Universal Health Insurance; while Democrats will not.
Republicans will drastically cut aid to Government sponsored programs including Education, Government Services and liberal programs to the poor and disadvantaged ; while Democrats will support these programs.
Republicans will attempt to repeal abortion, gay rights and immigration laws while Democrats will stick with their action on these issues.
The choice is clearly Democrat or Republican, with both candidates an excellent model for their party.
Romney comes from a wealthy family and has high family morals. He will promote the polices of the Bush/Cheney Adminisration.
Obama comes form a lower middle class family and has high family morals. He will promote the policies of the Clinton Administation.
The choice is yours!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
OFF TO A GOOD START!
The first Political Convention has started and you have to feel good to be an American! The first speaker focused on Love; the second on Respect. Both speakers were standard barriers for family values. The candidate for president, and the president he is trying to deseat, are both prime examples of the highest family values. Both parties are dedicated to preserving "the American Dream." It looks like we might have a sane debate on the real issues between the two party approaches to do what is best for America. Praise God!
A little shadow has started to creep into the picture on the second night when a speaker who is supposed to represent the Prince of Love and Respect, diluted the fundamental differences in the religions of the two candidates in an attempt to gain political points. This was inappropriate and has no place in this campaign. Hopefully this speaker and his views can be dismissed and forgotten.
The fundamental basic issue is "The American Dream;" its definition and the strategy to be used to achieve that dream. Both candidates are near perfect examples of their parties definition of the American Dream, and their strategies for achieving this dream should be the focus of the debate. Politically, the dream is based on the accumulation of wealth and materialistic goods.
The Republican Dream is to let everyone be all he or she is capable of being. The Government should not aid or restrict this pursuit. Individual rights are parimount. The extreme contention is that it is a contest, no holds barred and their moral values should be a mandate for all . The more moderate view is that everyone has an "equal chance" and if successful,
there is a moral responsibility to give some assistance to help the less fortunate who have worked hard and played the game.
The facts are that financial success cannot be achieved without assistance from the government. Our society has become complex and interdependent so that no one is completely self sufficient and they must depend upon the government and others for survival.
It is also a fact that it is a proud and highly competitive society completely
committed to the free business enterprise system. The society also includes a segment that wants rewards without the work and effort reqired to gain these rewards.
The Democratic Dream is to make the American Dream available to everyone. The Government should enforce an equal playing field for all players and provide basic survival needs for those who don't catch the brass ring. This includes rules and regulations for the game and entitlements for the "also rans."
The two main issues that will be the focus of the debates will be taxes and
spending cuts. The problem of taxes is the least complex and easiest to solve, but the most difficult to sell. The reality is that everyone must pay taxes and possibility that those that have a bigger share of the wealth may have to pay a bigger share of their income, at least until the debt is brought under control. The thought that increasing business production to gain more revenue thus gaining more taxes may backfire when the problem is that many consumers have purchased more than they can pay for now, and the over supply will simply extend the recovery period.
There may be also a need for a change in attitudes. The American Dream might have to include more than just accumulating wealth. Family values and morals may have to be expanded to include human values and morals. We may have to return to the old standard of fair play; and the way you play the game is just as important as winning.
The issue of cutting costs is the most difficult problem. Cutting waste and corruption is the most difficult to solve because both are difficult to find. Just eliminating spending without considering what the spending is for could be counter productive. Funding for such items as Education, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, Fire Protection, Infrastucture, Financial Services, etc are survival costs and necessary for any chance of economic recovery. Cutting Government costs just to have a smaller government could be parimount to cutting off your foot so that you can run faster.
Private Business Enterprise is a major part of the American Dream and is the most equitable way to distribute materialistic wealth, but it is not the sole solution for economic prosperity. The key is Government leadership from the President and members of Congress, from all political parties.
An issue that may have to be addressed to keep vital necessites affordable is the switch of some businesses from the private sector to the non profit sector, or at least a combining of these businesses in both sectors as we do in the area of Education. One of those areas could be health care, including insurance for health care.
Regardless of which party gains power, it is highly unlikely that all or many of the probems will be solved in the near future, but we will survive. If the Democrats gain power, the government will take a bigger share of the profit for those making $200,000 to $250,000 per year, and the working Middle Class will have a mixed living standard with those making $20,000 to $30,000 and those that are unemployed struggling but able to survive. Unemployment will ease quicker with needed teachers, policemen, government service workers becoming immediately employed.
If the Republicans take power some of the higher level investors will become richer but some will fail and loose. There will be chaos, confusion and the possibility of a longer depression. Some of the Middle Class will prosper, but most of the Middle class will live at a lower economic level with the poor and unemployed at the poverty level in dire straits.
The rationale for this is based on the principles of supply and demand and the free private business enterprise system. Business can only profitably produce what can be consumed and paid for. Over supply will cause loss and unemployment. There will always be winners and loosers but in a weak economy the number of winners will be less and the number of loosers will be more which results in more unemployment. Just increasing business increases supply which decreases the value of the supply and will decrease the income and profit which will postpone and lengthen the recovery. If the government increases the supply of money through payment to teachers, policemen and other government workers that are needed to provide the environment for business to grow and survive, the excess supply will be consumed and eventually, if prudent and efficient action is regulated by the government, a normal balance of supply and demand may return.
With multiple forces involved, rules and regulations must be provided. CEO's for example should not gamble with other people's money and take unreasonable risks in the hope of gaining a bigger bonus. If CEO's were personably liable for their gambles there would be more gains and fewer losses. Since CEO's are not personally liable for their actions, there must be rules and regulations to protect investors. (If we didn't have rules and regulations on food prioduction, how many Americans would be poisened each year? Without law enforcement, how many more crimes would be committed and how many more scams would there be?)_Would you watch a ball game without officials to enforce the rules and regulations?
Make my day! Rip this apart!
A little shadow has started to creep into the picture on the second night when a speaker who is supposed to represent the Prince of Love and Respect, diluted the fundamental differences in the religions of the two candidates in an attempt to gain political points. This was inappropriate and has no place in this campaign. Hopefully this speaker and his views can be dismissed and forgotten.
The fundamental basic issue is "The American Dream;" its definition and the strategy to be used to achieve that dream. Both candidates are near perfect examples of their parties definition of the American Dream, and their strategies for achieving this dream should be the focus of the debate. Politically, the dream is based on the accumulation of wealth and materialistic goods.
The Republican Dream is to let everyone be all he or she is capable of being. The Government should not aid or restrict this pursuit. Individual rights are parimount. The extreme contention is that it is a contest, no holds barred and their moral values should be a mandate for all . The more moderate view is that everyone has an "equal chance" and if successful,
there is a moral responsibility to give some assistance to help the less fortunate who have worked hard and played the game.
The facts are that financial success cannot be achieved without assistance from the government. Our society has become complex and interdependent so that no one is completely self sufficient and they must depend upon the government and others for survival.
It is also a fact that it is a proud and highly competitive society completely
committed to the free business enterprise system. The society also includes a segment that wants rewards without the work and effort reqired to gain these rewards.
The Democratic Dream is to make the American Dream available to everyone. The Government should enforce an equal playing field for all players and provide basic survival needs for those who don't catch the brass ring. This includes rules and regulations for the game and entitlements for the "also rans."
The two main issues that will be the focus of the debates will be taxes and
spending cuts. The problem of taxes is the least complex and easiest to solve, but the most difficult to sell. The reality is that everyone must pay taxes and possibility that those that have a bigger share of the wealth may have to pay a bigger share of their income, at least until the debt is brought under control. The thought that increasing business production to gain more revenue thus gaining more taxes may backfire when the problem is that many consumers have purchased more than they can pay for now, and the over supply will simply extend the recovery period.
There may be also a need for a change in attitudes. The American Dream might have to include more than just accumulating wealth. Family values and morals may have to be expanded to include human values and morals. We may have to return to the old standard of fair play; and the way you play the game is just as important as winning.
The issue of cutting costs is the most difficult problem. Cutting waste and corruption is the most difficult to solve because both are difficult to find. Just eliminating spending without considering what the spending is for could be counter productive. Funding for such items as Education, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, Fire Protection, Infrastucture, Financial Services, etc are survival costs and necessary for any chance of economic recovery. Cutting Government costs just to have a smaller government could be parimount to cutting off your foot so that you can run faster.
Private Business Enterprise is a major part of the American Dream and is the most equitable way to distribute materialistic wealth, but it is not the sole solution for economic prosperity. The key is Government leadership from the President and members of Congress, from all political parties.
An issue that may have to be addressed to keep vital necessites affordable is the switch of some businesses from the private sector to the non profit sector, or at least a combining of these businesses in both sectors as we do in the area of Education. One of those areas could be health care, including insurance for health care.
Regardless of which party gains power, it is highly unlikely that all or many of the probems will be solved in the near future, but we will survive. If the Democrats gain power, the government will take a bigger share of the profit for those making $200,000 to $250,000 per year, and the working Middle Class will have a mixed living standard with those making $20,000 to $30,000 and those that are unemployed struggling but able to survive. Unemployment will ease quicker with needed teachers, policemen, government service workers becoming immediately employed.
If the Republicans take power some of the higher level investors will become richer but some will fail and loose. There will be chaos, confusion and the possibility of a longer depression. Some of the Middle Class will prosper, but most of the Middle class will live at a lower economic level with the poor and unemployed at the poverty level in dire straits.
The rationale for this is based on the principles of supply and demand and the free private business enterprise system. Business can only profitably produce what can be consumed and paid for. Over supply will cause loss and unemployment. There will always be winners and loosers but in a weak economy the number of winners will be less and the number of loosers will be more which results in more unemployment. Just increasing business increases supply which decreases the value of the supply and will decrease the income and profit which will postpone and lengthen the recovery. If the government increases the supply of money through payment to teachers, policemen and other government workers that are needed to provide the environment for business to grow and survive, the excess supply will be consumed and eventually, if prudent and efficient action is regulated by the government, a normal balance of supply and demand may return.
With multiple forces involved, rules and regulations must be provided. CEO's for example should not gamble with other people's money and take unreasonable risks in the hope of gaining a bigger bonus. If CEO's were personably liable for their gambles there would be more gains and fewer losses. Since CEO's are not personally liable for their actions, there must be rules and regulations to protect investors. (If we didn't have rules and regulations on food prioduction, how many Americans would be poisened each year? Without law enforcement, how many more crimes would be committed and how many more scams would there be?)_Would you watch a ball game without officials to enforce the rules and regulations?
Make my day! Rip this apart!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)