|
 |
RSS Feed  |
a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life |
|
|
You are here
|
Creativity!
|
Get it!
|
I like it!
|
Fun stuff!
|
About me...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Random Quote
My aim is to put down on paper what I see and what I feel in the best and simplest way.
-- Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Through Blog: << More Recent Posts | Home Page | Earlier Posts >>
Blog Archive by Month | Blog Archive by Story or Tag | Search Blog and Comments
On the Passion Index, Obama swan dives to -12.  I'd say that he's about in the middle of that dive, mostly because people are figuring out that he really doesn't understand the economy. Wait till the foreclosure data begins anew. I'll write a post called "Tank" at that time. You know what the sad part is? That the people who voted for him didn't realize that capitalism, for all its inequities (which are justified), is what's been making their lives better than it would have been otherwise. Capitalism: as my life improves, it improves the lives of others. Liberalism: to improve my life, I have to detract from the lives of others. I don't think the Obamas will ever understand that truth. They're simply unwilling to see it. It goes against their every belief. |
|
|
Glenn Reynolds: "CASH FOR CLUNKERS" RUNNING WITH TRUE GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY:Dealers reported problems with the government's online system to get the transactions approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is running the program.Scott Lambert, vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, said he was "astounded" to learn at a meeting Tuesday representing about 150 Minnesota dealers that not one has had a deal approved. "We had dealers representing 1,500 to 2,000 transactions," he said. "We asked how many had a deal approved yet, and not one hand went up." Lambert said the government has created a program that's "so big and cumbersome that it can't find a way to accept anything. We're sending in good, reliable deals." It's nerve-racking for the dealers, he said, because they have given the customer $4,500 and now the dealers need to be reimbursed. Don't worry, though - I'm sure they'll do a better job with your prostate. Yep. That's how they roll.I told someone yesterday that the reason government is never efficient is because it has no competition to improve it. Competition is the only mechanism to efficiency and government has no competitor. Hmm... it just occurred to me. We ought to have two governments: a Democrat-run system, and a Republican-run system. Taxpayers can opt for the system they deem best and live within the rules of that system. Some healthy competition would drive efficiency real fast, I expect. |
|
|
I endeavor to create my own job, and create jobs for others. To do that, I work hard on what I believe is a market solution, and then I trot it out into the market to see if I can get some traction. No matter how many positive comments I might hear back in response to my crafted solution, there is only one reaction that counts: purchase. Nice comments don't create jobs. Transactions create jobs. The decision to buy is the only opinion that counts, at the end of the day. An entrepreneur needs that feedback. If the market isn't ready to purchase, for whatever reason, the entrepreneur needs to know that and then respond to it with improvements. Which is why I find it unfortunate that the gut reaction of some entrepreneurs is to try and get money from the government to fund their work. While the captured and narrow audience of a few bureaucrats who look for ways to spend money that isn't theirs on a "solution" they won't personally use is certainly a way to get money, it's not at all the same as attracting the money of those who crave the offered "solution" enough to buy it with their own money. By seeking government funding, the burgeoning entrepreneur misses valuable feedback that will show that the "solution" is truly market-ready. Otherwise the "solution" is immature and still needs tweaking, which is why most bureaucrat-funded early-stage businesses never succeed as hoped. Government funding is a false positive, and can only create temporary jobs - not self-sustaining jobs. |
|
|
 That's Tim Geithner's house. It's for sale. He put it on the market in February. He keeps dropping the price, but it won't sell. That's poetry. |
|
|
What is the Job of a Politician? |
Somewhere along the way, we citizens got stupid and decided to peg the well-being of our economy on politicians. I get why that happened. Increasing taxation negatively impacts the economy, as history clearly shows, and decreasing taxation positively impacts the economy, as history clearly shows. Politicians control taxation, so we affixed responsibility for that on them. But that has transformed into politicians now believing that they have a mandate to "fix" an economy, and in Obama's and Pelosi's case, they believe that they have a mandate to substantially alter the direction of an economy. This country was never founded on the premise that any politician was responsible for economic health. In a limited government, the people are responsible for the economy. It's up to the citizens to create jobs, not the government. It's up to the citizens to ensure that they eat, not the government. It's up to the citizens to obtain a home, not the government. Lawyers are not entrepreneurs. They go to school, go deep into debt, and then set up shop to provide an expensive service. It's not hard to be successful as a lawyer if you make it through school. I'm not belittling the work involved in passing the bar - it's damn hard. But that path is far different than the typical entrepreneur. Most politicians are lawyers. They don't know what's required to start and maintain a business. Since businesses create jobs, most politicians don't know how to create jobs. Since jobs provide the basis for our economy, most politicians don't understand the fundamentals of an economy. So tasking politicians with the health of our economy is sheer lunacy on the part of us citizens. The more we tie the economy to our politicians, the more they'll want to control it. That's only logical, and it's the unintended consequence of holding them accountable for taxation that burdens our economy. It is not the job of the politician to make decisions on our behalf. It is not the job of the politician to ensure our well-being. The only job of the politician is to protect our liberty. If the only laws they could pass were to protect our liberty, there would be no earmarks. If the only laws they could pass were to protect our liberty, there would be no nationalization of industries. If the only laws they could pass were to protect our liberty, there could be no confiscation of our private property. Stop tying the economy to politicians, and start tying the protection of our liberty to politicians. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous theme during his 1992 campaign, "It's about the liberty, stupid." |
|
|
Oh.my.god. HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA. Good lord. Our president is utterly deluded. He's a complete idiot. This is as founded in reality as me saying that I spent this past week on my knees praying that the earth wouldn't implode. It hasn't imploded, therefore you owe me thanks. People with Obama bumper stickers look more and more ridiculous by the day. |
|
|
Here's my thought for the day. Maybe for the year. In my day-to-day work, I deal with complicated systems all of the time. Many people do. The more complicated the system, the longer you should take to consider the optimum workflow to gain the greatest efficiency. Otherwise, you're likely introducing more pain into the system, and you're guaranteed to fail. Most of the time with complicated systems, you have the benefit of current and historical methods, the asset of competitor systems and their profitability (or lack thereof) to gauge effectiveness, and market demand to steer you. That takes time. It takes study. It requires experts. Earlier this week, I watched a Discovery channel special on going to the moon. After John F. Kennedy's proclamation that we were going to do the thing that was hard, NASA implemented a plan. It required several years and several trials and tweaks along the way. It also factored in a plan to abort the mission. Eight years after Kennedy spoke, and after the effort of thousands of experts and trials, we accomplished our goal. Streamlining the very personal issue of health care for every American into universal coverage that makes the system more efficient while continuing to attract skilled health care providers is not something that Nancy Pelosi's office and small cadre of legislative writers can craft in a mere few months, without trials and a plan to abort the mission. What Obama and Pelosi are attempting to do is to try to go to the moon mere months after John F. Kennedy announced his vision, with no tests, no expert analysis, and no plan to abort. Had that happened, we would have failed our president's vision and cost lives. John F. Kennedy would not have allowed such a thing. He was smarter than that. Obama is not. He doesn't care. This ramrodded fiasco is doomed to fail for the lack of preparation and the lack of analysis and the lack of milestoned trials that prove the concept. Not no but hell no. Anybody who gets behind this "plan" is a rube. |
|
|
 If you look at the above graph, it shows presidential approval ratings. As you can see, with the exceptions of Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, Barack Obama is the least popular president of the last twelve at this point in his presidency. His programs are not popular. They're not popular because they are invasive and doomed to fail, as socialism historically always has. Americans relish freedom and success, even if the media tries oh so hard to whitewash socialism. All the whitewash in the world can't erase the fact that Obama's intentions have a 100% failure rate across history. In a recent comment thread, Bella suggested that Obamacare is merely the introduction of "a gov't competitor into the system." The problem is that Bella hasn't read page 16 of the House bill: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day [of the year the bill becomes law]." Investor's Business Daily saw this, and said, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised - with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."A government competitor? Only if you never change jobs. Yep. That's what you voted for, Obama voters. A guy who nationalizes car companies, banks, and soon - unless we stand strong against it - health care. Me, I refuse to live in North Cuba. And I refuse to stand by and idly watch my kids' futures get mugged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
