http://preservelenoxmountain.org/
The following is in response to a video of a presentation Dr. Ben Luce made at Monument Mountain (Found on the above link to Preserve Lenox Mountain) to a friend Scott Sawyer who still lives in the area where I grew up. Scott and I have been communicating about wind turbines via Facebook.
Hey Scott,
Great presentation on the fallacy of wind power and especially visuals on the "High impact" of creating infrastructure to the sites and the final impact of seeing these turbines along the ridge line. I thought it was ironic the position Texas commanded on the chart showing which state could produce the most. Not only does Texas play a big role in oil and gas but it is tops on the ability to generate wind power!
Ben Luce was very balanced on his presentation, facts, understanding of the balance between need, ability and political and economic reality. He made a resounding "no way" argument to wind turbines. I thought he went off the rails when he began to promote solar power over wind. Yes, solar is excellent in mitigating the negatives of wind generation but as for solving the need for more electrical generation to meet growing needs I think he is as wrong as those proposing wind generation. My philosophy is people are not going to go backwards. The great increase in America's power consumption cannot be mitigated by "weatherization" and "efficiency." American's are not going to give up their laptops, Ipads, Kindles, Iphones, Smart Phones, Facebook, Google, Netflix etc. This is where the consumption is occurring - powering and charging of electronic devices and the enormous consumption by server farms like Facebook, Google and Netflix. The evidence I see is social networking, cloud computing and large corporations providing online selling, services and streaming are growing exponentially and into the future as far as anyone can predict. I also believe there is a revolution of personal servers, not computers, coming where many homes will use these servers to secure proprietary rights to their writing, photographs, music, movies and personal information. These proprietary rights and security are currently under attack from "Big Media" through their attempts to regulate, via legislation, ISP's and large server users like Facebook to root out copyright infringement. Personal servers and virtual private networks will insure individual control, privacy, security and avoid entanglement with these laws by bypassing these corporations. So by my prognosticating the future of conservation of electricity is doomed by the future skyrocketing upward trend of consumption.
My last point I would like to make is: like so many other great ideas of protecting and preserving the environment and resources - it is a fools errand. People wrapped up in doing their part will install their solar panels and reduce their consumption from the grid. But what happens to the electricity they have saved? Is it set aside for them for a later date, or has the power company slowed down the turbines and not produce that small amount? Of course not, it was gobbled up immediately by someone else who wanted it or sent to another power company who wanted it to sell. It really was not saved at all. We especially can see that now as we read reports about gasoline being exported to other countries because American's are not consuming as much. What! you mean they don't slow down production or store it for a later date? Outrageous all our conserving are going to someone else. Like the early economy cars the Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin were soon abandoned when people realized they were not making an impact on the 1970's fuel shortage and what they were actually doing was tolerating horrible cars for a lost cause. So to the solar panels and wind turbines will be left in disrepair when those who have committed themselves to conservation or alternative energies realize they are just living inconveniently.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Is-the-Knowledge-System-Broken
Claire Berlinski - Ricochet "Is the Knowledge System Broken"
"When that paper ceases to be reliable, when it no longer functions as a signal for collateral, as an enforceable guarantee, a credible assurance, or a reasonable measure of risk, then — Whoosh! — private credit vanishes. Just as your identity does when you step up to the immigration counter and discover you’ve lost your passport."
"That’s what happened when the subprime crisis exploded. The derivatives that financed the nonperforming sub-prime mortgages were rapidly losing value, threatening to cause a run on the banks because there was — and remains— so little property knowledge about them."
I like the word "Whoosh!" It is a great descriptor for the devaluation of my own home! I had several posts to Claire on Ricochet I will share here.
So I have two more points the first a prediction - warning, the second a solution to the current horde of toxic assets.
We have yet to see non-high risk homeowners abandoning their homes. These are families who still have great stable jobs, who are affluent and continue to pay their mortgage. But what they have is a monthly mortgage payment for a home worth $1.5 million but is now worth $600,000.00. They will come to realize they were scammed by the overvaluation of housing. They will realize they will never see their home rise back to $1.5 million (Since the valuation was a scam in the first place). The idea of walking into their mortgage company and asking for a refinance to a $600.000.00 level would be smiled up on or laughed at. So what to do - abandon their down payment from their previous house sale - stop paying their mortgage and save what they would have paid for a fairly substantial down payment, abandon their home - laughing at the mortgagee as they are left holding another useless home and bid their time till they can buy a correctly valued $600,000.00 home?
An idea for a solution:
Anyone can buy a foreclosed property with certain caveats:
Must be a conventional loan - 20% down - no mortgage insurance.
Must be a conventional loan from the mortgage company holding the foreclosure.
Can either be a 15 year or 30 year mortgage.
The mortgagee cannot bundle and sell the loan.
In return for the 20% conventional loan the Federal government will allow the buyer of said above foreclosed property a special capital gains timeline:
If sold in the first year 100% capital gains is required.
If sold in the second year 6/7 capital gains is required
If sold the third year 5/7, fourth year 4/7, fifth year 3/7, sixth year 2/7, and finally the seventh year would require 1/7 the capital gains.
The eighth year would require no capital gains if sold.
Then the ninth through fifteenth year the capital gains would rise incrementally by 1/7 till the fifteenth year 100% capital gains would have to be paid.
"When that paper ceases to be reliable, when it no longer functions as a signal for collateral, as an enforceable guarantee, a credible assurance, or a reasonable measure of risk, then — Whoosh! — private credit vanishes. Just as your identity does when you step up to the immigration counter and discover you’ve lost your passport."
"That’s what happened when the subprime crisis exploded. The derivatives that financed the nonperforming sub-prime mortgages were rapidly losing value, threatening to cause a run on the banks because there was — and remains— so little property knowledge about them."
I like the word "Whoosh!" It is a great descriptor for the devaluation of my own home! I had several posts to Claire on Ricochet I will share here.
Well if knowledge about value of property and housing is what has been lost then it might make sense to correct the "perception" of value of property and housing. It is what I call fake money. Property and housing was never worth what we were told, it was always based on inflated value based on supply and demand. Just because someone said the property was worth an amount and someone paid this amount and someone financed this amount does not make it so. So if we assume it was based on falsehoods and overinflated lies then we must assume the correct value is what it will fetch today. This is an unpleasant reality to those who claim they are experts on buying, selling, financing, brokering, predicting trends and policy on real estate since they were scammed more than most. This reminds me of the time I bought a used car and thought I had a great value, till the next day when I went to start the car to find the battery was junk and I needed to purchase a battery. Just because I believed it was valued at what I had agreed to pay did not make it so.
Following my previous post; my solution, to move away from the post-war thinking of housing as an investment up-scaling at several intervals, retirees selling to extricate themselves from their mortgage, moving where housing is cheaper and buying a bigger better home, to housing as a pre-war model. A home is to be lived in, paid off in thirty years and sold with a modest gain. The first model requires inflation and necessitates rising wages leading to boom and bust cycles, less savings for retirement and college. My standard is young families. Young families will fuel the rise in housing prices (Demand) to a certain point, but when they feel too squeezed (They begin to see housing as cutting into their families well being) they will abandon the market and cause a bust or correction. The latter denotes long incremental valuation, modest homes, stable neighborhoods, life long neighbors, planned obsolescence school life cycle, substantial life long savings for retirement and college, Now I know others are going to say post - war investments are in the home, however the miracle of compound interest is in time - changing homes and up-scaling busts long term investments.
We have yet to see non-high risk homeowners abandoning their homes. These are families who still have great stable jobs, who are affluent and continue to pay their mortgage. But what they have is a monthly mortgage payment for a home worth $1.5 million but is now worth $600,000.00. They will come to realize they were scammed by the overvaluation of housing. They will realize they will never see their home rise back to $1.5 million (Since the valuation was a scam in the first place). The idea of walking into their mortgage company and asking for a refinance to a $600.000.00 level would be smiled up on or laughed at. So what to do - abandon their down payment from their previous house sale - stop paying their mortgage and save what they would have paid for a fairly substantial down payment, abandon their home - laughing at the mortgagee as they are left holding another useless home and bid their time till they can buy a correctly valued $600,000.00 home?
An idea for a solution:
Anyone can buy a foreclosed property with certain caveats:
Must be a conventional loan - 20% down - no mortgage insurance.
Must be a conventional loan from the mortgage company holding the foreclosure.
Can either be a 15 year or 30 year mortgage.
The mortgagee cannot bundle and sell the loan.
In return for the 20% conventional loan the Federal government will allow the buyer of said above foreclosed property a special capital gains timeline:
If sold in the first year 100% capital gains is required.
If sold in the second year 6/7 capital gains is required
If sold the third year 5/7, fourth year 4/7, fifth year 3/7, sixth year 2/7, and finally the seventh year would require 1/7 the capital gains.
The eighth year would require no capital gains if sold.
Then the ninth through fifteenth year the capital gains would rise incrementally by 1/7 till the fifteenth year 100% capital gains would have to be paid.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mark Edwards Uncensored - Is Local Radio Dead? In Some Ways It Is, But Owners Don't Know It Yet
http://markontheweb.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-local-radio-dead-in-some-ways-it-is.html?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=08e916d06e-TRI_11-08-2011&utm_medium=email
I was in an all day discussion with Mark about my perceptions on Radio. I thought I would present it here:
I was in an all day discussion with Mark about my perceptions on Radio. I thought I would present it here:
I did not see it mentioned - the exclusivity of Radio. Much like telephone and cable - radio and television stations also have a monopoly on access into the American home. (And you do not need to put a crappy looking antenna on the side of your house.) No net-neutrality issues here. If local stations could see this they would understand they have a captured audience whom they should customize their programming to.
Also there has to be a new model. Young people have short attention spans so too many ads break their attention and they move onto some other media, include fewer short adds directed towards younger people, and there must be topics of interest - relationships, tech stuff, local events, reviews of pubs, interviews with brew masters, breweries, interviews with local bands (The only place I learn about local talent is through weekend inserts in the local paper), local mom and pop wineries, non-chain eateries, talk about sex, love, parenting, jobs, careers, starting small businesses, interview (Young)small business people, young people in small towns, young people in city living, security (Way to many CSI police stories.), for some examples; include a twitter account to give young people the ability to customize the programming - and be willing to go with it. Understand young people all have something playing all the times, radio just has to figure out how it will be them i.e. advertise not wasting band width because it is delivered separately via radio wave streaming. Then deliver each programming segment in podcast form downloadable for a fee.
Finally radio must realize they have a great plus - most young people watch video podcasts and they know horrible programming when they see it. Ugly people, pontificating with lousy ideas and opinions - their young, with lousy voices - no one tells them they sound horrible and cannot be understood, with lousy rates of delivery and a constant stream of interrupting or talking over each other at a cascading rate of speed with tons of references to acronyms or initials to speed up the delivery. Most pod casts are only 40 minutes to an hour even though the material they have could be talked about for two hours. Pod casters could never sustain a three hour drive time program - pod casters are not this organized, their thoughts are not organized, succinct or able to be formatted into an easy to listen format. Asking them to prepare and create an agenda with professional transitions with guests who are great interviewers and carry this of over three hours - not happening - to much work. But radio "still" has announcers who know how to do this. Radio personalities understand all of this and podcasters are satisfied with a million "hits" radio personalities are satisfied with several million listeners. Who is more hungry?
I used the word "still" because those in radio believe they are in decline so they exude this aura and young people who would like to break in with talent are discouraged and turned away. The older more distinguished seasoned, finished, professional and successful radio personalities are dissappearing leaving none to mentor, train and coach the new radio announcers. To say nothing about the producers being lost due to attrition.
Also there has to be a new model. Young people have short attention spans so too many ads break their attention and they move onto some other media, include fewer short adds directed towards younger people, and there must be topics of interest - relationships, tech stuff, local events, reviews of pubs, interviews with brew masters, breweries, interviews with local bands (The only place I learn about local talent is through weekend inserts in the local paper), local mom and pop wineries, non-chain eateries, talk about sex, love, parenting, jobs, careers, starting small businesses, interview (Young)small business people, young people in small towns, young people in city living, security (Way to many CSI police stories.), for some examples; include a twitter account to give young people the ability to customize the programming - and be willing to go with it. Understand young people all have something playing all the times, radio just has to figure out how it will be them i.e. advertise not wasting band width because it is delivered separately via radio wave streaming. Then deliver each programming segment in podcast form downloadable for a fee.
Finally radio must realize they have a great plus - most young people watch video podcasts and they know horrible programming when they see it. Ugly people, pontificating with lousy ideas and opinions - their young, with lousy voices - no one tells them they sound horrible and cannot be understood, with lousy rates of delivery and a constant stream of interrupting or talking over each other at a cascading rate of speed with tons of references to acronyms or initials to speed up the delivery. Most pod casts are only 40 minutes to an hour even though the material they have could be talked about for two hours. Pod casters could never sustain a three hour drive time program - pod casters are not this organized, their thoughts are not organized, succinct or able to be formatted into an easy to listen format. Asking them to prepare and create an agenda with professional transitions with guests who are great interviewers and carry this of over three hours - not happening - to much work. But radio "still" has announcers who know how to do this. Radio personalities understand all of this and podcasters are satisfied with a million "hits" radio personalities are satisfied with several million listeners. Who is more hungry?
I used the word "still" because those in radio believe they are in decline so they exude this aura and young people who would like to break in with talent are discouraged and turned away. The older more distinguished seasoned, finished, professional and successful radio personalities are dissappearing leaving none to mentor, train and coach the new radio announcers. To say nothing about the producers being lost due to attrition.
Both the paid podcast model (with very few exceptions) and the "interactive" model (Listener Driven Radio, Jelli) have had little success. One of the most popular podcasters with a subscription model drew just over 3200 unique visitors in September, the most recent month I have metrics for. Another podcaster draws about ten times that much traffic, but his show is advertiser supported, so there are still ads, just like OTA radio.
While some companies are working hard to shorten their ads, commercial broadcasting is still a business and sadly the cost of free over the air radio is commercials. Remember Clear Channel's "Less Is More"? Gone. Companies that capped their spot loads have removed the caps on minutes, units, or both because they have to "hit their number".
There is still a place for the young in radio, and I've worked with some immensely talented people just out of college or younger in the last few years. These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear and embrace the concept, technology, and experience that local radio will need to evolve into over the next decade in order to thrive. It can be done, but not by gimmicks or podcasting, but by creating individualized user experiences.
While some companies are working hard to shorten their ads, commercial broadcasting is still a business and sadly the cost of free over the air radio is commercials. Remember Clear Channel's "Less Is More"? Gone. Companies that capped their spot loads have removed the caps on minutes, units, or both because they have to "hit their number".
There is still a place for the young in radio, and I've worked with some immensely talented people just out of college or younger in the last few years. These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear and embrace the concept, technology, and experience that local radio will need to evolve into over the next decade in order to thrive. It can be done, but not by gimmicks or podcasting, but by creating individualized user experiences.
Mark,
I was not writing of a straight pod cast show. More like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt etc. where I can listen via AM radio to their regular show but their online content (Pod casts, interview transcripts, show notes, links discussion etc.) require a monthly fee for access. Two birds with one stone. With my limited understanding of Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) it is supposed to drive people to a product or company, help products or companies be better known to the internet consumer and to identify consumer trends for companies to capitalize on. Is radio outside such a model to be more listener driven through social media?
This is the problem with on air advertising - does the show support the advertisements or the advertisements support the show. For young people who have grown up with so much access to media without advertising, reduced advertising or what I call passive advertising - banner ads and flashing ads around what they are attending to, but not interrupting or stopping the stream. They are used to this way of receiving advertisements and are not tolerant of interruptions. I on the other hand have grown up and had been desensitized to the interruptions. After no television or cable and getting my media off the web with no, or reduced number of ads I am appalled at the interruptions on television even though I do not believe the quantity of ads has increased. I also listen to AM radio and know when the hard breaks are coming and mute the advertisements. This is what happens to consumers when there is a choice. This is what has happened to commercial radio and television when the age old proven model (From the dawn of radio) ran into internet delivery. I think the answer is time because for most of the existence of the web content has been undervalued i.e. giving away content. Lately the internet has been more on a bent of locking down content and requiring a fee. As this behavior increases it will become the norm and consumers will understand the pay to play mentality. Best example is Netflix. The moment they proposed, what I saw as a modest increase, a whole lot of people bailed, why because they are used to undervalued content. Where are they going to go? Back to commercial television? No more streaming? Eventually content will be seen as more valuable and the older model of advertising interruptions or a Netflix style flat fee for content will win out making commercial television and radio competitive. (At least there is no up front fee to the Telephone Company or Cable Company to hook up to radio. Think about this. My Comcast bill currently is $39.99. That fee is necessary to visit any web site. To listen to radio requires no ISP or fee. And there are still advertisements when I get to most web pages. Radio has none of this tethering to an ISP.)
Your last paragraph is totally correct. But if you think of the internet as each web site is a radio station and each web site is out to capture a specific audience or provide a portal (Google) to all the other content. Web sites are not trying to capture all the traffic only a portion - your words - "These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear..." Most people who run web sites, blog, sell or provide content know they are targeting only certain people not "for all to hear" or read. If you can imagine a porn site with news, weather, interviews and a tech show wrapped around porn. You would say, "That is ludicrous, those who want the porn would be put off by all the other stuff and those wanting all the other stuff would be put off by the porn." Targeting your audience and competing for this select group - which station or web site provides the pertinent content, does it in an entertaining way, making it a finished product is going to get the listeners or the hits. I keep thinking of NPR "All Things Considered" and some of their other programming. My 23 year old son listens to these shows today. We never listened to NPR when he was growing up. I think the attraction is exactly these things. These are not gimmicks they are the nature of radio, the strength of radio and the history of entertainment in this country. Consumers will purchase great programming and radio has a history of providing such a product.
I was not writing of a straight pod cast show. More like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt etc. where I can listen via AM radio to their regular show but their online content (Pod casts, interview transcripts, show notes, links discussion etc.) require a monthly fee for access. Two birds with one stone. With my limited understanding of Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) it is supposed to drive people to a product or company, help products or companies be better known to the internet consumer and to identify consumer trends for companies to capitalize on. Is radio outside such a model to be more listener driven through social media?
This is the problem with on air advertising - does the show support the advertisements or the advertisements support the show. For young people who have grown up with so much access to media without advertising, reduced advertising or what I call passive advertising - banner ads and flashing ads around what they are attending to, but not interrupting or stopping the stream. They are used to this way of receiving advertisements and are not tolerant of interruptions. I on the other hand have grown up and had been desensitized to the interruptions. After no television or cable and getting my media off the web with no, or reduced number of ads I am appalled at the interruptions on television even though I do not believe the quantity of ads has increased. I also listen to AM radio and know when the hard breaks are coming and mute the advertisements. This is what happens to consumers when there is a choice. This is what has happened to commercial radio and television when the age old proven model (From the dawn of radio) ran into internet delivery. I think the answer is time because for most of the existence of the web content has been undervalued i.e. giving away content. Lately the internet has been more on a bent of locking down content and requiring a fee. As this behavior increases it will become the norm and consumers will understand the pay to play mentality. Best example is Netflix. The moment they proposed, what I saw as a modest increase, a whole lot of people bailed, why because they are used to undervalued content. Where are they going to go? Back to commercial television? No more streaming? Eventually content will be seen as more valuable and the older model of advertising interruptions or a Netflix style flat fee for content will win out making commercial television and radio competitive. (At least there is no up front fee to the Telephone Company or Cable Company to hook up to radio. Think about this. My Comcast bill currently is $39.99. That fee is necessary to visit any web site. To listen to radio requires no ISP or fee. And there are still advertisements when I get to most web pages. Radio has none of this tethering to an ISP.)
Your last paragraph is totally correct. But if you think of the internet as each web site is a radio station and each web site is out to capture a specific audience or provide a portal (Google) to all the other content. Web sites are not trying to capture all the traffic only a portion - your words - "These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear..." Most people who run web sites, blog, sell or provide content know they are targeting only certain people not "for all to hear" or read. If you can imagine a porn site with news, weather, interviews and a tech show wrapped around porn. You would say, "That is ludicrous, those who want the porn would be put off by all the other stuff and those wanting all the other stuff would be put off by the porn." Targeting your audience and competing for this select group - which station or web site provides the pertinent content, does it in an entertaining way, making it a finished product is going to get the listeners or the hits. I keep thinking of NPR "All Things Considered" and some of their other programming. My 23 year old son listens to these shows today. We never listened to NPR when he was growing up. I think the attraction is exactly these things. These are not gimmicks they are the nature of radio, the strength of radio and the history of entertainment in this country. Consumers will purchase great programming and radio has a history of providing such a product.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Wind Turbines, Hancock MA,, November 3, 2011 - Scott Wright Sawyer
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150373431195502
What I said about the above video presented by Mr. Sawyer on his Facebook Wall:
What I said about the above video presented by Mr. Sawyer on his Facebook Wall:
What a way to decimate the beauty and charm of New England ridge lines and forests. Yeah, in Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma where there are desolate places nobody relishes living and not known for their beauty, but their starkness.
I give it five years when we will read about towns and counties in New England, New York and the whole of the Northeast in litigation with bankrupt businesses over abandoned windmills; which will not only be eyesores, but monuments to an abandoned industry like the mills and factories all over the northeast, not to say a danger to public safety of falling apart, blowing down or attractions for the curious and thrill seeker. Expect regular budget items for securing these sites or their removal in governmental budgets in the future as bankruptcy stipulations disavow any responsibility by the failed business. Expect a new industry to arise, requiring enormous sums of money from taxpayers, to sweep behind this failed attempt at power generation and remove these windmills.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Defending Sarah Palin
Defending Sarah Palin
I wrote the following to my brother in-law and thought I would share it here.
I followed a link from NRO about defending Michelle Bachmann to the above commentary. I can't help but remembering, as a wet behind the ears voter hearing and - I have to confess - believing much of the same about another republican outsider called Ronald Reagan. I believe this is exactly why the American people adored him and the "chattering class" and "party elites" could not stand him. I know it is why I admire him. Wasn't there a phrase - "the Teflon president" to describe how all the crap thrown at him never stuck; all the while being gracious, humorous and - the dreaded word - detached. Now when he is gone, everyone comes out from whence they hid and say, "Yes he was one of the best presidents of all time." I can't help but feel the same way I did when Barack Obama came on the scene as the outsider claiming I am an outsider and I will change the atmosphere of Washington DC. I said, "I know these lies, I have herd these lies, I have seen these lies lead to ruin!" Oh, it is Jimmy Carter again!" Well I have the same affinity to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann especially when the party elite say, "NO, no, no, she is unelectable, she is too conservative with her talk of constitutional government, not centrist enough for the independent vote with her patriotism and pride with American exceptional-ism. She will lead the Republican party to dooom, never to recover in our lifetime." I know these truths she talks about, I have heard these truths in the founding documents, I have seen these truths turn this country around and bring prosperity to millions who had little hope and dashed dreams ten years earlier. And I saw a president who believed all of this be despised and ridiculed, stick to his guns under relentless mockery and turn this country around because of his exceptional leadership. "Oh it is Ronald Reagan again." This is why I am all in for a crap shoot for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann than the white elite smarmy big government centrists of Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich etc. At least Palin and Bachmann generate the ire of the opposition and party elite which is worth a whole lot in political capital.
I wrote the following to my brother in-law and thought I would share it here.
I followed a link from NRO about defending Michelle Bachmann to the above commentary. I can't help but remembering, as a wet behind the ears voter hearing and - I have to confess - believing much of the same about another republican outsider called Ronald Reagan. I believe this is exactly why the American people adored him and the "chattering class" and "party elites" could not stand him. I know it is why I admire him. Wasn't there a phrase - "the Teflon president" to describe how all the crap thrown at him never stuck; all the while being gracious, humorous and - the dreaded word - detached. Now when he is gone, everyone comes out from whence they hid and say, "Yes he was one of the best presidents of all time." I can't help but feel the same way I did when Barack Obama came on the scene as the outsider claiming I am an outsider and I will change the atmosphere of Washington DC. I said, "I know these lies, I have herd these lies, I have seen these lies lead to ruin!" Oh, it is Jimmy Carter again!" Well I have the same affinity to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann especially when the party elite say, "NO, no, no, she is unelectable, she is too conservative with her talk of constitutional government, not centrist enough for the independent vote with her patriotism and pride with American exceptional-ism. She will lead the Republican party to dooom, never to recover in our lifetime." I know these truths she talks about, I have heard these truths in the founding documents, I have seen these truths turn this country around and bring prosperity to millions who had little hope and dashed dreams ten years earlier. And I saw a president who believed all of this be despised and ridiculed, stick to his guns under relentless mockery and turn this country around because of his exceptional leadership. "Oh it is Ronald Reagan again." This is why I am all in for a crap shoot for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann than the white elite smarmy big government centrists of Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich etc. At least Palin and Bachmann generate the ire of the opposition and party elite which is worth a whole lot in political capital.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html
An open letter to my son about the above article.
Thomas,
I read the article you sent me and I understand the argument about how non-conservatives could see this ongoing conservative unwillingness to see any other solution than budget cuts and lower taxes. I think this unwillingness is based on years of rising spending and taxing in this country. I also believe taxpayers have a sense they are getting less and less from the government for more taxes. On a personal note - do you think you should pay more taxes? And if you did how would you manage your budget if you had less money in your pocket because of raised taxes? Do you believe your money which you pay in taxes should be given to a bureaucrat to run an important government program? Or is your circumstance as important or more important than the above bureaucrat and government program? For me, you and Rachelle, your marriage, your dreams, the family you are going to create, your career are infinitely more important than 99.9% of government programs past, present and in the future. So I say do away with them all if it allows you two unlimited opportunities to be successful and accomplished. For me, as a conservative, I have come to believe I can waste my own money just fine, I really don't need government or bureaucrats wasting my money. In fact I believe this sediment runs so deep that in places like California - the state is losing billions in tax revenue because taxpayers are buying outside the state and having things shipped into the state therefore avoiding California sales taxes. A direct byproduct of the tax and spend attitude of California. I mean if a business treats you badly with customer service or the service they claim to provide is less than advertised do you or I continue to populate such a place - "Hell, no" we move on to businesses which treat us well. Why not a state government?
Another observation for conservatives to bolster their understanding of cutting taxes and spending; the situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and soon to be England and France. These are all fantastic examples of the tax and spend mentality, followed by bureaucrats requesting just a little more taxes and the problems - they will go away. The problems have not been fixed in those countries and it appears the only out is default or austerity programs - cutting spending i.e. cutting government programs. This is a far larger disaster and hardship i.e. losing all your pension money, paying out of control inflation, double digit interest rates and having what savings you have wiped out by the same inflation than it is to have controlled reduction of government spending and more money in citizens pockets from reduced taxes so they can prosper rather than default in bad economic times. A side note to the reduction in taxes - the thinking is with less taxes collected this should lead to an offset of less programs because some conservatives are eternally optimistic that politicians will suddenly wake up out of their slumber and live within their means - has not happened in my lifetime.
Historically the writer is correct. Under Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Reagan economically it was probably harder than it is now. However what he did not say was... Lyndon Johnson! [Updated July 5, 2001 - supporting reference from Walter Russell Mead: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/04/the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-shade-of-lbj/ ]. President Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War, instituted the war on poverty and created Medicare during his presidency which all lead to unprecedented government spending (Deficits, inflation and a burgeoning national debt) and higher taxes - which all the above presidents followed and had to deal with the consequences of. So historically it is not today we should be most concerned about... it is the long term consequences of the current tax and spend behaviors. That is what is most disturbing. And let me be clear all politicians are fraught with this blindness - it is the nature of not always going to be around (Consequences) and special privileges which insulate them from real world circumstances. I find Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists and Communists unable to think ahead into the future to see what they have set in motion and the eventual consequence.
There are two testimonies which the "raise more taxes and don't cut spending" criers usually will not mention. [July 5, 20011 update supporting article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell#.ThM1g4Z4MJk.blogger] President Kennedy's reduction of tax rates and cutting of spending and President Reagan's cutting of tax rates and cutting of government spending. Both created a huge increases in tax revenues being collected (President Kennedy's were the impetus for President Johnson's spending.) even though tax rates were cut! Why? Because people worked harder because they got to keep more of their money rather than sending it to the government - people like to do this - make more money without having to give it to someone who may not be working nearly as hard as they are. And because citizens have more money... they spend, save or invest their surplus money stimulating the economy.
Finally the last observation of conservatives is the economy - working, spending, investing, buying however you want to describe the act of money, goods and services - is not the responsibility of the government it is the exclusive area, authority, responsibility and privilege of the citizens to manage and run. That is why you see trillions legislated to "Shovel Ready Jobs" by the government to no avail! Why? Because the citizens do not like government legislating where money should go. (They really hate the slimy people who lobby the politicians into giving them portions of this waste.) See above - citizens want to be in charge of spending, saving and investing and resent the know-it-all politicians confiscating their money to waste. And when they get this feeling they hunker down, stop working hard, cut their expenses, pay less taxes, begin to barter and work under the table, move to places with better jobs and more amicable tax code and punish the politicians because they know they can persevere longer and get rid of them in the short term. If politicians want to stimulate the economy they jump in bed with the citizens and do what the citizens are doing - cutting expenses, paying off debt, saving and collect less taxes from them.
Love you,
Dad
An open letter to my son about the above article.
Thomas,
I read the article you sent me and I understand the argument about how non-conservatives could see this ongoing conservative unwillingness to see any other solution than budget cuts and lower taxes. I think this unwillingness is based on years of rising spending and taxing in this country. I also believe taxpayers have a sense they are getting less and less from the government for more taxes. On a personal note - do you think you should pay more taxes? And if you did how would you manage your budget if you had less money in your pocket because of raised taxes? Do you believe your money which you pay in taxes should be given to a bureaucrat to run an important government program? Or is your circumstance as important or more important than the above bureaucrat and government program? For me, you and Rachelle, your marriage, your dreams, the family you are going to create, your career are infinitely more important than 99.9% of government programs past, present and in the future. So I say do away with them all if it allows you two unlimited opportunities to be successful and accomplished. For me, as a conservative, I have come to believe I can waste my own money just fine, I really don't need government or bureaucrats wasting my money. In fact I believe this sediment runs so deep that in places like California - the state is losing billions in tax revenue because taxpayers are buying outside the state and having things shipped into the state therefore avoiding California sales taxes. A direct byproduct of the tax and spend attitude of California. I mean if a business treats you badly with customer service or the service they claim to provide is less than advertised do you or I continue to populate such a place - "Hell, no" we move on to businesses which treat us well. Why not a state government?
Another observation for conservatives to bolster their understanding of cutting taxes and spending; the situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and soon to be England and France. These are all fantastic examples of the tax and spend mentality, followed by bureaucrats requesting just a little more taxes and the problems - they will go away. The problems have not been fixed in those countries and it appears the only out is default or austerity programs - cutting spending i.e. cutting government programs. This is a far larger disaster and hardship i.e. losing all your pension money, paying out of control inflation, double digit interest rates and having what savings you have wiped out by the same inflation than it is to have controlled reduction of government spending and more money in citizens pockets from reduced taxes so they can prosper rather than default in bad economic times. A side note to the reduction in taxes - the thinking is with less taxes collected this should lead to an offset of less programs because some conservatives are eternally optimistic that politicians will suddenly wake up out of their slumber and live within their means - has not happened in my lifetime.
Historically the writer is correct. Under Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Reagan economically it was probably harder than it is now. However what he did not say was... Lyndon Johnson! [Updated July 5, 2001 - supporting reference from Walter Russell Mead: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/04/the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-shade-of-lbj/ ]. President Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War, instituted the war on poverty and created Medicare during his presidency which all lead to unprecedented government spending (Deficits, inflation and a burgeoning national debt) and higher taxes - which all the above presidents followed and had to deal with the consequences of. So historically it is not today we should be most concerned about... it is the long term consequences of the current tax and spend behaviors. That is what is most disturbing. And let me be clear all politicians are fraught with this blindness - it is the nature of not always going to be around (Consequences) and special privileges which insulate them from real world circumstances. I find Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists and Communists unable to think ahead into the future to see what they have set in motion and the eventual consequence.
There are two testimonies which the "raise more taxes and don't cut spending" criers usually will not mention. [July 5, 20011 update supporting article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell#.ThM1g4Z4MJk.blogger] President Kennedy's reduction of tax rates and cutting of spending and President Reagan's cutting of tax rates and cutting of government spending. Both created a huge increases in tax revenues being collected (President Kennedy's were the impetus for President Johnson's spending.) even though tax rates were cut! Why? Because people worked harder because they got to keep more of their money rather than sending it to the government - people like to do this - make more money without having to give it to someone who may not be working nearly as hard as they are. And because citizens have more money... they spend, save or invest their surplus money stimulating the economy.
Finally the last observation of conservatives is the economy - working, spending, investing, buying however you want to describe the act of money, goods and services - is not the responsibility of the government it is the exclusive area, authority, responsibility and privilege of the citizens to manage and run. That is why you see trillions legislated to "Shovel Ready Jobs" by the government to no avail! Why? Because the citizens do not like government legislating where money should go. (They really hate the slimy people who lobby the politicians into giving them portions of this waste.) See above - citizens want to be in charge of spending, saving and investing and resent the know-it-all politicians confiscating their money to waste. And when they get this feeling they hunker down, stop working hard, cut their expenses, pay less taxes, begin to barter and work under the table, move to places with better jobs and more amicable tax code and punish the politicians because they know they can persevere longer and get rid of them in the short term. If politicians want to stimulate the economy they jump in bed with the citizens and do what the citizens are doing - cutting expenses, paying off debt, saving and collect less taxes from them.
Love you,
Dad
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Howard Dean warns Democrats Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012 - TheHill.com
Operative quote:
"Bruce Cain, a political science and public policy professor and director of the University of California Washington Center, subscribes to the prevailing view that Palin would be a weak opponent against Obama.
“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”"
Wow! Then I guess the Democrats are looking for a new nominee? Because "conventional wisdom" is Barrack Obama has the same problem of being "...way too flawed..."
Let me clarify - polls also show "...that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with ...[Barrack Obama].” I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more women and independents unhappy with Barrack Obama than with Sarah Palin, or for that matter any of the known Republican nominees. What a bunch of gobbledygook from a nobody!
"Bruce Cain, a political science and public policy professor and director of the University of California Washington Center, subscribes to the prevailing view that Palin would be a weak opponent against Obama.
“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”"
Wow! Then I guess the Democrats are looking for a new nominee? Because "conventional wisdom" is Barrack Obama has the same problem of being "...way too flawed..."
Let me clarify - polls also show "...that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with ...[Barrack Obama].” I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more women and independents unhappy with Barrack Obama than with Sarah Palin, or for that matter any of the known Republican nominees. What a bunch of gobbledygook from a nobody!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)