Click through to the link. Some of you may need a drink/food warning. Not that it's going to destroy the "Sarah's an idiot! Obama's brilliant!" meme, but entertaining nonetheless.
#1
Nothing short of mental illness. One moment they are castigating "Palin's" sentence. Thet next moment they are defending the same sentence when they learn it's really from Bammo's book. Get a grip moonbats.
Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high." Uh, you think? I'm not going to say we (as in those of us who knew better) told you so. Actually, I changed my mind. WE TOLD YOU SO.
#1
David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high.
Do you think functioning as a President is too high an expectation?
#3
Nixon took a whole bunch of "stature enhancing" trips abroad as vice president and later as a private citizen and well-known presidential contender. He met a lot of people, learned a lot of geography all before he was elected president. Now Obama is trying to learn those types of things after he's already been elected and they're taking him for the know-nothing chump that he is.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/23/2009 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
World leaders do not respect a country or a leader than comes to them with his tail between his legs.
#6
Isn't that a petulent snit for the leader of the free world? Not very presidential. Agreed being a leader of the free world is not being very European.
#8
Obama's ego has been writing checks his body can't cash since well before he first showed up in the Senate. If Der Spiegel has started to turn on him, the rest are sure to follow soon enough. The facade is beginning to fade away at an ever-increasing pace as reality takes hold, which it always does eventually and we (as in those of us who knew better) always knew it would.
It's been an ugly few years for the United States Postal Service. Lots of us have had it tough.
The quasi-government agency announced this week that it lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year, which ended September 30th. It also delivered less mail - 26 billion fewer pieces less, a nearly 13 percent drop from the previous year. The bad news follows losses totaling $7.8 billion in 2007 and 2008. Nobody saw this coming, natch. It just snuck up on them. Nobody could figure why...
The Postal Service, as it is quick to point out, is legally prohibited from taking tax dollars. But in order to stay afloat, the agency has been actively borrowing from the U.S. Treasury: At last count, according to Postal Service spokeswoman Yvonne Yoerger, it owes the government $10.2 billion. Which is somehow construed as not taking tax dollars. Y'gotta be really smart to understand how that is. With my mere 3-digit IQ I'da said they were, but what do I know?
Federal law dictates that the Postal Service can borrow up to $3 billion per year - but the debt cannot grow beyond $15 billion. That means that while the agency, which had revenues of $68.1 billion last year, could potentially borrow another $3 billion in 2010, it will soon no longer be able to legally borrow billions from the government. The banks, of course, are lined up, just waiting their chance to bet their investors' money on this sure thing...
Meanwhile, the Postal Service is estimating that without significant changes, it will lose another $7.8 billion in the coming year - and deliver another 11 billion fewer pieces of mail. Which raises the question: Could the Postal Service be doomed? If I was $10 billion in debt I'd consider myself doomed. On the other hand, Fedex and UPS don't seem to be sliding downhill. DHL has its problems, but they have to do with ineptitude -- they've got the idea what they want to do, they're just not executing it quite as well as they could. I don't know how Purolator Courier's doing -- I thought they made oil filters until I saw one of their trucks. Therefore, the Postal Service, being in the same line of work as Fedex and UPS, would seem to have a viable business line to pursue. Now, I can be hired for a small fee to have a look at their operation and tell them approximately what to do to compete with Brown and Fedex. Some off the top of my head suggestions might include
charging more per piece of junk mail and less for actual personal mail;
cutting stamp prices to make shipping more cost effective for consumers;
dissolving union contracts and paying market wages;
cutting the number of post offices (and postmasters) and augmenting with a larger number of drop-off/pickup points in shopping centers, like the two bigs do business;
cutting upper management salaries and making bonuses performance-based
outsourcing those drop-off/pickup points to Mom & Pop operations at fixed contract rates, rather than cost plus or something. That would result in most of them being operated by Hindus or Chinese or Ugandans, but the costs would be controllable.
Given another half hour or an hour of thought I can probably come up with a few more ideas. At somewhere around $300 an hour I figure it shouldn't take more than about six months to come up with a real plan that will get myself them out of the hole.
"I don't think the Postal Service is in danger of going away totally," said Yoerger, the Postal Service spokeswoman. "But our current business model needs to be reviewed and revised to come up with a sustainable model so that we can get back to profitability while still continuing to meet our mission of serving all of the country with affordable, universal Postal Service." Ijust offered to do that, and $300 an hour is a bargain price for a high-powered business consultant like me.
Yoerger told CBSNews.com that the Postal Service is seeking "flexibility to better manage our business." "Flexibility" means you can stick your toe in your ear.
Translation: We may technically be a government agency, but we're also a business -- and we want the government to get out of the way. They're not really that much of a business, and they continue to act like a government agency.
The agency cut $6 billion in expenses over the past year, eliminating 40,000 of its roughly 750,000 jobs and slashing overtime hours. But it says that isn't enough. And it's pushing for two major changes that it suggests could help get it back into the black in 2010. I'm sure I could find ways to deal with them at $300 an hour...
The first is freedom from a government-mandated requirement that the agency pay more than $5 billion per year into a fund to cover its retired employees' future health benefits over a ten-year period. The government allowed the agency to forgo $4 billion of that obligation this past year, but the requirement remains on the books. Lemme see, here... They lost $3.8 billion last year... They had an obligation to pay out $5 billion, of which they only paid out $1 billion, which means that without the obligation they'd have come up $2.8 billion short and the unionized retired postmen got shafted. If you're gonna use unionized employees, make the unions handle the pensions so that all you do is pay into the funds and the eventual collections aren't your problem. Better still, dump the unions and get your people from Kelly or Manpower or some combination of agencies and let them take care of the pensions and healthcare and such. Problem is, Postal Service (like many industries) had a defined benefit pension plan. You work, you retire, the amount of your monthly check is fixed. Most industries switched over the last couple decades to defined contributions plans -- you work, employer tosses money into your retirement account, and after you retire your check depends on how well the fund did. Turns out that 90% of private industry pensions are now defined contribution plans, and 80% of public employee pensions are still defined benefit plans. Guess which one the postal workers have? Go on, guess.
The second goal, critics say, is a fundamental threat to the identity of the Postal Service: The end of Saturday mail delivery. How many people are gonna notice? Who actually mails letters anymore? Bar/bat mitzvah candidates sending out invitations and thank you notes, high school graduates sending out announcements and thank you notes, brides sending out wedding invitations, announcements and thank you notes, new mothers sending out announcements and thank you notes... Isn't that why we now have Facebook?
No. Just give me your checkbook and be quiet, since you clearly don't understand How Things Are To Be Done. We can serve only champagne cocktails instead of having a staffed full bar, if you need to cut costs, and go with a buffet lunch instead of a served dinner. I can even bake the desserts myself. But the invitations and thank you notes are not negotiable.
The Postal Service has suggested cutting Saturday service could save 3.5 billion per year, though the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), which regulates the Postal Service, puts that figure at $2 billion. If they lost $3.8 billion last year and cutting Saturdays, which few people would notice anyway, would save $3.5 billion then definitely cut Saturdays. For that matter, go to alternating days residential delivery and offer 7-days a week (and overnight) package delivery.
The head of the PRC, Ruth Y. Goldway, urged "caution" about cutting Saturday service in Congressional testimony earlier this month. She said such a move could undermine "the vitality of the mail system" and the justification for its mail monopoly. The root of the matter...
"From a market perspective, the Postal Service could lose its greatest strategic advantage - ubiquity," she said. "Reducing service is detrimental to mail growth and to public perception of the value of the mail system." Email has displaced the postal service's residential business. It's not there anymore -- all anybody gets is bills and junk mail. Unless you make serious modifications to your business model you're going to be class with the diplodocus and the woolly mammoth.
Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny Davis, a member of the Congressional subcommittee that oversees the Postal Service (and, until recently, its chairman), told CBSNews.com in an interview that the agency "is between a rock and a hard place." "It's just not generating the money that you need in order to keep operating," he said. Not the way it's been operating, anyway...
Davis said he was open to cutting Saturday service - perhaps on a rolling basis, so that certain communities would lack Saturday delivery once or twice a month - as well as loosening the health benefit requirements. He also backed a government bailout for the embattled agency if that's what it takes to keep it afloat. That's because there's lots of money to be spread around, and the government would be assured of getting its investment back. Why didn't I think of that? The man's obviously a genius.
"We've bailed out a lot of things, "... with excellent results ..."
and I think the Postal Service is probably as important in one sense as some of the other places where we have put public money," he said. Added Davis: "I'm not afraid of spending public money to keep money flowing." "I wouldn't spend my own, mind you..."
Another way to increase revenue, at least in theory, would be to raise the cost of postage, which remains exceedingly low compared to other countries. But that move is bitterly opposed by the businesses (such as catalogues and credit card companies) whose mailings now make up a major portion of what the postal service handles. No kidding: you mean catalog and credit card companies don't want to pay more? Color me surprised. Funny thing is, I get an offer every month from my bank to take my credit card statement totally on line. And catalog companies are more and more doing everything on line. This problem solves itself if you just let it.
(In June, a Gallup poll found that two in three Americans would prefer to cut Saturday delivery if it meant keeping postal rates low.) Actually the point's well on its way toward becoming moot. More and more people are buying fewer and fewer stamps. They don't need them anymore.
At the heart of the debate is the question of what the Postal Service means to America. Its mission is to bind the country together - to connect "every American household, business and institution through its universal service network," in the words of PRC chair Goldway, who told Congress that the agency is "literally part of the fabric of the nation." I think of it as a precursor to the internet...
But its identity, in this technological age, has become increasingly uncertain. Most Americans today communicate not by mail but by cell phone, e-mail and instant message; the notion that the Post Office provides a vital connection to the outside world seems increasingly quaint to anyone with an Internet connection. Thank you for that recapitulation of the obvious...
Of course, not everyone does - and the private companies that would theoretically step in if the Postal Service were to disappear would not be mandated, as the Postal Service is, to serve every address in the country. "Hello, Fedex? Lissen, I didn't get my junk mail delivery today! Wassup widdat?"
For a small group of Americans, a mailbox is a lifeline - and the Post Office is a resource that can't easily be replaced. "We need the Postal Service," says Davis, who says the agency keeps "that link" between people "alive." How to keep if from going the way of the Pony Express, however, remains an open question. I'll figure some answers for you for $300 an hour, six month minimum contract. Half my fee up front.
"We're like Humpty Dumpty on the wall," he said, suggesting the agency is teetering on the brink of disaster. "We haven't come up with anything that I know is actually a solution to the postal crisis." Somewhere around here I've got an original printing copy of "How to Succeed in Business." I could loan them that, for a price.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lest we fergit, VARIOUS > PERTS = the INTERNET is suppos to run out of EMAIL ADDRESSES + BYTESPACE come 2010, or shortly thereafter. POTUS BAMMER needs to bailout the NET???
[Conpiracy Theory of theOWG-NWO GOVT = USPS taking over the WWW-NET here].
#2
Come on people...think outside the box will you. Why can't those neighborhood postal trucks carry passengers like a taxi? Deliver milk, Schwans Ice Cream, peanuts. We could also pass the around wealth penalize the successful businesses by charging FedEx and UPS a tax to help support the ailing Postal Service.
Lastly, veteran hiring preferences and old white men are the real problem with the postal system. Get RID of them and institute diversity before it's too late! Flex-hours, work from home, free breakfast and lunch and in-house day care would also be a plus.
#3
It baffles me that companies ACTUALLY GET A DISCOUNT when sending junk mail. WTF? Who came up with this idea? It makes up how much percent of the post office's total volume?
I can't remember the last time I got a first-class letter. Actually, it was back before my Grandma passed away.
#4
Cutting Saturday delivery wouldn't cut costs much - work rules would probably require paying the people anyway.
One big difference in business models relative to UPS & Fedex is USPS is required to deliver First Class at one price anywhere in the country: originally the idea was to lace the nation together that way, but with fewer and fewer rural residents the rural unit cost is way up, and being subsidized by lower urban unit costs.
Oh, and Fred, just cuz the elite have 2 3 numbers after the decimal point does not mean they have four-digit IQs.
#5
Therefore, the Postal Service, being in the same line of work as Fedex and UPS,
But not the routes. The USPS is mandated to deliver to places that are not economically feasible for commercial business at prices that are not sustainable. If personal letter mail were charged for the distance traveled like packages, then the cost of letter across town wouldn't be the same as a letter sent to the nether regions of Alaska, the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or to Joe in Guam. Mail sent by the troops from designated War Zones goes without postage by law. The commercial carriers are likewise not covered to enforce laws governing fraud and criminal activity associated with their trade, but the USPS is. This does not absolve upper management for incompetence and malfeasance in operating the USPS, but it is also not valid to believe there is a pure direct comparison to several of the commercial operations.
#7
Junk mail gets a discount because the companies that mail it do a lot of the work. It's all pre-sorted, pre-indexed and delivered to the USPS ready to, um, deliver. Plus, these companies are BIG: they put out a lot of mail, and so they get a volume discount as well.
So they get the discount that you and I, just paying the electric bill, don't get.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/23/2009 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#8
There is little incentive for the USPS to do better. Congress is in a tax and spend and bailout mentality.
Fred and others have a lot of good ideas. It seems like the PC could be used to get mail and packages ready to mail. Perhaps they could then be scanned into the system either at the point of pickup or the post office. This would eliminate long waits in line. The P.O. often ends up standing for "pi$$ed off" rather than post office. An attitude of tolerance and condecension is often projected in these long lines. P.O. ought to concentrate on providing service at the counter.
#10
The only "Letters" I ever send, are paying bills, they are NOT getting into my bank account(Electronic bill paying)
I pay when I have money, NOT the second they demand.
By getting bills by mail they allow a week (Or so) Grace time.
Electronicly they Get it that second, whether or not the cash is in the account, say I get paid tomorow, they MUST wait a day, instead of hitting me with overdraft fees, that small flexibility is worth a stamp and envelope.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/23/2009 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
-- I still insist on getting my bills and financial statements on paper on a regular basis. When things get screwed up (and they do, on a regular basis) it is essential to have paper copies to fall back on, for legal purposes. DO NOT LET YOUR CREDIT CARD BILLS BE MADE SOLELY ONLINE. If you want to take issue with a bill you don't agree with, phone calls & email have limited utility. Written & printed material delivered on-site has a different impact, e.g. does your heart skip a beat when you get an email from the IRS, as opposed to a letter from same?
-- The USPS has many unfunded mandates forced on it by Congress that competitors don't have. Believe it or not, there was a time when a the equivalent of a first class stamp cost a day's wages. The price of 5 first class letters was the price of an acre of land!
-- The obligation to pre-pay health benefits for future unionized USPS retirees is utter nonsense, one of those unfunded mandates.
-- USPS's defined benefit plans for future retirees are also nonsense. IMHO defined benefit plans are not economically viable. Once the electorate figures this out, there will be a crisis at many governmental levels. Increasingly poorer voters will rebel at paying huge pension bills for retired government workers.
--- It's high time for Congress to take up a key role it has abdicated & review the current setup (i.e., "reform") the USPS. Re-do the whole thing with an eye towards future viability. IIRC Congress has been wasting its time for months planning another massive unfunded mandate call health care "reform."
#13
Compared to what I've seen and used abroad, the US Postal Service is fabulous: friendly, helpful and very cheap. Over there I waited longer to be grunted at and told I was in the wrong line, got to the front of the new line only to find the same clerk as before -- now able to help me without any apology for her unwillingness to step over there and fetch the little form back for me to fill out and take back to the first line. This was in a village post office that had two clerks and half a dozen people waiting their turn in three lines. In the post office here, when I get to the front of the line without the proper form the clerk will fetch it for me, have me fill it out while he takes care of the next customer or two, then as soon as I'm ready slide me in before calling the next person -- all with a ready smile and a bit of real conversation. I've had American postal workers re-wrap packages for me, advise me how I should mail things from among the choices, and commiserate over a bad cold, even in the days before Christmas when the lines never end.
#14
"The only "Letters" I ever send, are paying bills, they are NOT getting into my bank account(Electronic bill paying)."
Me too, RJ - though I do pay bills through my bank's website instead of mailing them whenever I can. Nothing automatic - I have to put it in each month. Works great for credit cards, phone company, even the county for water. Still have to send a check to my oil company; the bank just couldn't get it straight (luckily the oil company was nice about waiting when I explained what was going on).
It's not so much about saving the stamp; it's just more convenient for me. And there's a record in case there's ever any question.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/23/2009 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Left one out, Fred:
* Make every government agency, the executive, legislature and the judiciary use USPS for mailing, whether overnight or packages.
#16
After falling victim to e-bill paying, i spend the money for stamps and mail my bills.
Saturday deliveries to houses can stop, as can those commemrative stamps that the USPS insists on putting out. why support some out of work ar-teest to create something that don't work no better than the regular model, just for a few to collect. and then when it gets printed wrong, these same collectors go crazy for it (thinking upside down jennie stamp)
junk mail subsidizes the regular first class stuff.
finally, if the USPS shuts down, where will they hang the pictures of America's most wanted?? Wal-Mart? hell the perps probably are the greeters there......
(CNN) -- A freshman Democratic senator said Sunday that he will support his party's efforts to pass health care reform legislation even if that means losing his seat in next year's midterm elections. Many of us are hoping that's precisely what happens. Obviously he's not one of us.
"If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform and every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?" CNN's John King asked Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado on Sunday's State of the Union. "Yes," Bennet bluntly and simply replied. But we know that's not precisely what happens. What actually happens is that he casts his vote in the teeth of the opposition of his constituents. Then when campaign time comes he waffles and denies or qualifies what he actually did. His campaign literature doesn't say he voted for a health care plan that'll gobble up fully 1/12 of the nation's GDP, only that he "led the fight for health care" so that "every American child will be covered." If he's lucky, by the time the professional handlers are done spinning it the voters will be dizzy enough that he'll come through with 50.01 percent of the vote after the unions help out in the recount.
Bennet was appointed by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Sen. Ken Salazar, who stepped down from the Senate to serve as President Obama's Interior Secretary. Bennet, who was superintendent of the Denver public school system prior to his appointment, will have to seek election to the seat for the first time in 2010. I see. Colorado's version of Roland Burris.
This article starring:
Sen. Michael Bennet
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
even if that means losing his seat in next year's midterm elections.
Clearly indicating he is fully aware (as is everyone else in the Congress) that his constituents DO NOT want this plan approved. But of course, they know what is best for America.
#5
It seems that civil disobedience is appropriate for such laws that are passed by Congress that they don't have to obey themselves. If this health care reform is so great, why doesn't Congress have the same plan? What a crock of $hit!
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) may not have been present as the Senate voted Saturday evening to move healthcare reform forward but he was clearly on his former colleagues' minds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took a call from Kennedy's widow, Victoria, just minutes after the upper chamber held a crucial, party-line test vote on the healthcare reform bill. Reid appeared to break up slightly as he told reporters about the call.
"She called right after the vote. It was really -- I'll remember the call always. She, of course, was crying pretty hard and we both said Ted would be happy with this vote," Reid said. "We both felt that he was watching what took place tonight."
Democrats evoked Kennedy's name many times during the course of the debate Saturday especially when the man appointed to fill his seat, Sen. Ron Kirk, spoke on the floor in the middle of the afternoon.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Kennedy card plays almost as strong as the Race card in DC (liar's) p0ker.
Liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday morning that a small group of centrist Senate Democrats should not "dictate" the form of the public option during the debate over healthcare reform.
Brown, a supporter of a strong public option, said that liberals in the caucus should not cater to centrists on the government-run, public healthcare option even though their votes might be needed to invoke final cloture on the bill, a measure that requires the support of 60 senators. "In the end, I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it is not going to be in it," Brown said on CNN's "State of the Union" the morning after the Senate moved forward on its first procedural motion on the bill. "They will have their chance to [get what they want] in the amendment process."
Senate liberals have decided to double-down and hang together in 2010, rather than hang separately ...
Brown's words come as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Saturday night said he is open to negotiations with a group of centrists, which include Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), on a public option compromise, but continued to stand behind the his version of the plan, which would allow states to opt out.
The group has worked with Senate Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is a liberal, and Sen. Tom Carper (D- Del.) to craft a compromise. "First of all, I support a strong public option," Reid said after the motion to proceed passed on Saturday night. Reid. "I welcome Sens. Schumer, Landrieu and Carper, who Sen. Landrieu said they're working together to find a public option that's acceptable to all Democrats."
But Brown said that efforts to cater to centrists in the end may not be necessary because they may, in the end, support the cloture motion regardless of the public option's form. "They don't want to be on the wrong side of history," he said. "I don't think they want to go back and say, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important [bill] in my political career."
This article starring:
Sen. Sherrod Brown
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday morning that a small group of centrist Senate Democrats should not "dictate" the form of the public option during the debate over healthcare reform.
If centrist Senate Republicans vote for healthcare takeover, however, that would be OK.
#4
They don't want to be on the wrong side of history
Seems to me Sen Brown is on the wrong side, and like so many of those there, he has no clue its the wrong side. Just like the Soviets. Who if I am not mistaken use the same terminology.
After coming under fire for advancing policies some say do not do enough to help the middle-class, President Barack Obama's economic team has "turned a corner" on those issues, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday.
The liberal Brown, who represents a blue-collar state, has pressured the White House to focus more on aiding the manufacturing sector in order to create more middle-class jobs. On Friday, Brown said that he stands behind Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but sought improvement from the agency on middle-class issues. "I think they've turned a corner," Brown said on CNN's "State of the Union." "The focus next year is all about creating jobs and I think we'll begin to see changes."
Geithner, National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke have come unde fire from conservative congressmen and a growing amount of liberal lawmakers for policies they say heavily favor Wall Street banks instead of the middle-class and small businesses.
Brown appeared to key in on reports that President Barack Obama will use next year's State of the Union address to take on job creation an outline a domestic agenda that focuses on reducing the federal deficit. Brown said that Obama advisers such as manufacturing czar Ron Bloom are starting to have a bigger impact at the White House.
While Brown claimed Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and advisers like Bloom are committed to reviving the slumping manufacturing sector, he said other advisers have yet to come around the issue. "I think the president is. I think the vice president is. I think the advisers are mixed," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
The liberal socia!ist Brown, who represents a blue-collar state, has pressured the White House to focus more on aiding the manufacturing sector in order to create more middle-class jobs.
Like the derisive comment of Napoleon that Britain was a nation of shop keepers, America is a nation of small business. Just check who employs who. Focusing on large manufacturers is so 19th-20th Century Marxism. Keeping old state businesses running are a drag on the present Chinese economy. Those centralized operations were not the source of innovation and growth in the expansion of their economy. These are the time to allow the small businesses to find their niche and grow, allowing the large dinosaurs to move on in economic evolutionary history. Policies like this of the statists will not move the economy to improvement except on the cooked balance sheets of self rationalization. Remove the obstructions from the small business to expand and restart employment growth.
#5
Very true P2K. To go a bit further the most recent data I've seen (a year or two out of date now) claims that 3/4 of all new jobs over the past decade were generated by small businesses and that 85-90% of those were generated by less than 15% of all small businesses. The key mechanism that differentiates the job creators is the need for equity, rather than debt, financing. Encourage risk taking & equity investments & grow the economy. Punish the investor / entrepreneur classes and watch it die.
#7
Hostility to smaller/newer businesses is part and parcel of modern Democrat philosophy, just as eliminating the kulaks was integral to Stalinism. The leftist commentator Michael Lind - near the end of a screed about how opposition to lefty social-welfare schemes was motivated mainly by RAAAAACISM- dropped the following little nugget:
"The costs of such unfunded mandates might drive some small businesses out of existence. But small-business owners are the most vocal opponents of wage and benefit reform in the U.S. The replacement of Scrooge & Marley by a smaller number of bigger private and public employers who treat Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim better would not necessarily be a tragedy."
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
11/23/2009 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The replacement of Scrooge & Marley by a smaller number of bigger private and public employers who treat Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim better would not necessarily be a tragedy."
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D.N.Y.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) sparred over the provision inserted into the healthcare bill that some say was crucial in attracting centrist Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) key vote on Saturday night's procedural motion.
Republicans have questioned an addition to the bill that provides for $100 million in extra Medicare subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." Landrieu's state of Louisiana, of course, was hit by Hurrianes Katrina and Rita in 2005. GOPers have dubbed the provision the "new Louisiana Purchase" saying it helped buy off Landrieu's vote.
But Schumer, who is the Senate Democratic Caucus vice chairman, credited the funds to Landrieu's exceptional legislative ability.
"Mary Landrieu is a very good legislator and she does two things very well," Schumer said on CBS' "Face the Nation. "One, she delivers the goods for Louisiana. She has constantly and I think the people of Louisiana respect her for it. Second she has real views on healthcare those are taken into account as well."
During her speech on the Senate floor, Landrieu touted the measure that she says would help her state. "I am not going to be defensive," she said. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix." But she insisted that the funds were not the reason for her vote. "Certainly not! I have my principles, y'know..."
Landrieu was the second-to-last Democratic holdout to declare her support for Saturday night's procedural motion to begin formal debate on the Senate healthcare reform bill.
Kyl, who is the assistant Republican minority leader, decried the so-called "fix" as a disingenuous political maneuver that is sometimes necessary when negotiating with a diverse caucus. "You haven't heard the Republicans say 'here is my price," he said on "Face the Nation. "The American people don't like that. It should be on the merits."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Mary Landrieu is a very good legislator and she does two things very well,"
#6
the root of the problem is that a bill can contain spending (aka bribes) that have nothing to do with the main subject of the bill. It allows the bribes to be paid - up front - could you see these thieves saying "sure, I'll vote your way if you promise to vote for a bill sometime in the future that pays me off." No way - any competent crook wants his cut up front - not on credit.
So many billions out the door -- and nary a clue about what Americans got in return.
That's the tragic-but-too-true story of last February's $787 billion federal stimulus program -- the first major legislative package out of Washington after the Democrats took control of the city.
What a monumental waste.
The Obama folks claim that, as of Oct. 30, stimulus funds "created or saved" 640,329 jobs. They might as well claim 640 billion.
The truth? No one really knows if the package "created or saved" any jobs.
And that's now crystal clear, after reporters checked out the Obama team's claims.
ABC News, for example, reported last week that many of the supposedly saved or created jobs were located in congressional districts that, well . . . don't exist.
Arizona's 15th congressional district, for example, supposedly saw 30 jobs saved or created as a result of some $761,420 in stimulus funds. It's a nice return on investment -- except, Arizona has no 15th CD.
Similarly, New Mexico has only three congressional districts, yet federal funds magically ended up boosting jobs in the 4th, 22nd, 35th and 40th CDs.
The administration blames "human error" -- local officials who supposedly misreported their district locations.
And no one (yet, anyway) is saying the money went south; surely someone will one day figure out what happened to more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars in taxpayer cash.
For now, though, neither the administraton -- nor anyone else -- has any idea whatsoever of how many jobs were created or saved, where they're located or even whether a single one can be chalked up to the stimulus. (Particularly since it's impossible to know how many jobs there would have been without the federal funds.)
What is known, of course, is that the stimulus program was rushed through Congress ostensibly to jumpstart the economy and hold down unemployment.
Obama & Co. said that, with the feds dropping billions here and billions there (who cares where?), the jobless rate would peak at 8%; without it, America was staring at double digits.
Well, guess what? Unemployment now stands at 10.2%.
Oh, yeah -- there's one other thing Americans know all too well: Their pocketbooks are $787 billion lighter.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Relax. It's just money---we can print as much as we need.
#3
Similarly, New Mexico has only three congressional districts, yet federal funds magically ended up boosting jobs in the 4th, 22nd, 35th and 40th CDs.
Ah, but they do exist. Those are allocated to the state's Teachers Union which in turn match where the dollars went.
#4
Unemployment hit 11% here in NC for October, and I think it will continue to climb.
Government produces nothing, any jobs it creates comes at the expense of taxpayers. That well is running dry.
It's damn near time to water the tree of Liberty.
BLS stats use out-of-date assumptions; millions of unemployed never registered for benefits or have exhausted them; others have stopped looking; and millions more are on forced furloughs for as much as a week each month.
#6
We need to throw off the shackles, slavery, and tyranny imposed by this out of control Congress ASAP. Put them in the rear-view mirror quickly or they will bankrupt us, our children, and our children's children for generations to come.
Closer to 18%. Last I saw it was 17.5% I know a lot of people that lost their jobs when it started, are out of benifits and still have no job, no hope and no money.
#8
I've been out of work for 3 months now. California's job market is fundamentally different from anything I've seen in the last 25 years.
I send out applications and resumes - but they just drop into a black hole. I've never had a problem finding work in my life... but now, nothing! Not even rejection letters or thanks for the application. Nothing!
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/23/2009 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Don't blame BLS.
The various unemployment sequences were used for many years using the same protocols. When Bush was Prez, the 'including discouraged' rate was then, as now, much higher than the normalistic rate. Also, back then, as now, the employer and household surveys did not track perfectly. The BLS numbers are, in fact, the only ones that keep the Administration in line.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/23/2009 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Hey, we made Obama's friends and cronies happy. And some would say that alone is enough.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high."
It's been an ugly few years for the United States Postal Service. 
(CNN) -- A freshman Democratic senator said Sunday that he will support his party's efforts to pass health care reform legislation even if that means losing his seat in next year's midterm elections.
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) may not have been present as the Senate voted Saturday evening to move healthcare reform forward but he was clearly on his former colleagues' minds.
Liberal 
After coming under fire for advancing policies some say do not do enough to help the middle-class, President Barack Obama's economic team has "turned a corner" on those issues, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D.N.Y.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) sparred over the provision inserted into the healthcare bill that some say was crucial in attracting centrist Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) key vote on Saturday night's procedural motion.
So many billions out the door -- and nary a clue about what Americans got in return. 
