Monthly Archives: October 2015

JUST WHEN YOU THINK IT CAN’T GET ANYMORE RIDICULOUS!

Earlier this week, MSNBC host, Melissa Harris-Perry took offense to a conservative guest, Alfonso Aguilar, using the term “hard worker” to describe Congressman Paul Ryan in his quest to be elected Speaker of the House. Ms. Harris-Perry argued that the term, “hard worker,” diminished the experiences of slaves.

While Ms. Harris-Perry agreed with Mr. Aguilar that Paul Ryan was a “great choice for this role,” she also said, “But I want us to be super careful when we use the language, “hard worker.” Ms. Harris-Perry further indicated that she kept an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.

To a baffled Alfonso Aguilar, Ms. Harris-Perry also intimated that you don’t call Moms who don’t have healthcare, hardworking. Instead, you call them failures.

This is so ridiculous that it will certainly go away. But to think that we have people as demented as Ms. Harris-Perry on TV as news anchors and analysts is scary. Of course, liberals are going to say, “What about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?” I’ve never head Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity say anything disparaging about black people as a race. Sure, they may denigrate individuals for their liberalism, but, again, I have never heard either one of them put down black people.

A few hours ago, a Facebook friend who is black and far-left, posted an article on vox.com that was entitled, “Even Walking is more Dangerous if you’re Black.” The article insinuates that white drivers don’t yield to black pedestrians like they do to white pedestrians. It was also insinuated that this could perhaps be subconscious racism. The far left has been pushing the notion that all white people are inherently racist. So, I guess this is one more thing liberals will use against whites, in their quest to annihilate them.

Let me add another thing. At night black people are harder to see than someone white. And while black liberals tend to blame the white people for all their problems, this is one problem that the white person had nothing to do with. Black liberals, you’re going to have to take this up with the man upstairs. In the meantime, if you’re going walking at night, it’s best to wear light colored clothing. In fact wearing light colored clothing at night is recommended for all people.

In addition to the above, a liberal Facebook friend shared a split photograph. The top of the photograph was a still shot of the deputy that flipped over the desk of a black girl when she refused to leave her classroom after being ordered to do so for bad behavior. The bottom of the photograph was a picture of police, after arresting Dylan Roof. Roof was walking with the police and did not seem to be resisting arrest. The captions on the photos read as follow: (1) How you arrest a black girl who refused to leave a class; and (2) How you arrest a white man who shot 9 people at church.

First, the picture of Dylan Roof doing the perp walk was taken after he was arrested and he appeared to show no resistance to arrest. The picture of the deputy turning the black girl’s desk over in order to get her moved from the classroom was taken during the altercation in which she refused to leave the classroom. The two really cannot be compared. Furthermore, the deputy, Ben Fields has been fired and the altercation has been denounced by Richland County Sheriff’s Department. So what more do you want? What more can be done?

This particular photograph originated at the Facebook page of Jonas Saintilus. After visiting his Facebook page, it sure looks like he is a radical Muslim. He claims to be a soldier of the Nation of Islam who studied black empowerment, ancient history, science, and knowledge of self at new world nation of Islam. In addition to having anti-white photos on his website, one of those photos stated the following: “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.”

I intend to confront my liberal friend with this. This guy appears to be radical and dangerous.

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART THREE (SOCIALISM VS. COMMUNISM)

This post is part three and the last in this series about socialism. The following will compare and contrast with socialism with communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties, but very few are truly communist. Socialism is sometimes used interchangeably with communism, but the two philosophies have some stark differences. While communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

The following will further outline the differences:

PHILOSOPHY

Communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

DEFINITION

Communism: International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

IDEAS

Communism: All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.

Socialism: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

KEY ELEMENTS

Communism: Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the proletariat, common ownership of the tools of production, no private property, equality between genders and all people, international focus, anti-democratic. One party system.

Socialism: Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. Production for use; useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

 

 

ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Communism: The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.

Socialism: The means or production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

POLITICAL SYSTEM

Communism: Usually takes the form of totalitarianism as Marx described in the Communist Manifesto. Cronyism common.

Socialism: Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Lennists advocate Democratic centralism.

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Communism: Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with usership.

Socialism: Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State, but with worker control.

RELIGION

Communism: Abolished. All religious and metaphysics is rejected.

Socialism: Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Communism: All class distinctions are eliminated.

Socialism: Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than the class distinctions. Some mobility.

FREE CHOICE

Communism: Either the collective vote or the state’s rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else.

Socialism: Religion, jobs, and marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare and education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS

In a socialist economy, the means or producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government, there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people’s deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs), it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone’s needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to, but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility.

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS

Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own, the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. Socialism is primarily an economic system so it exists in various degrees and forms in a wide variety of political systems.

On the other hand, communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class, but not as individuals, is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

**********

With an avowed socialist running for president, I think it is important that voters have some idea about socialism. I also believe that while what Bernie Sanders says sounds great on the surface (soak the rich, substantive regulations on private businesses, womb to tomb access to healthcare and education), it doesn’t work l in the real world and leads to an overall decrease in prosperity. Millennials, who were never exposed to the horrors of Communism and were probably never taught economic history of this country, are embracing old, white, Bernie Sanders.

Except for the above paragraph, the contents of this article was taken from website: diffen.com.

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART TWO (CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM)

Currently candidate for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States, Bernie Sanders, is an avowed socialist, calling himself a Democratic Socialist. While Senator Sanders will probably lose the nomination to Hillary Clinton, he is currently a viable candidate. As of this writing, he will soon be giving a speech explaining just what a Democrat Socialist is, but in the meantime, the following will contrast Capitalism, our current economic system in the United States with Socialism. As you read this, keep in mind that while we call or economic system capitalism, it is not a purely capitalistic system.

The central arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe that economic inequality if bad for society and that the government is responsible for reducing it through programs that benefit the poor such as free public education, free of subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, and higher taxes on the rich. In contrast, capitalists believe that the government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprises do, and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.

As I indicated above the United States is considered a bastion of capitalism. However, large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are considered socialist democracies. As you know, though, the United States has a plethora of entitlement programs that allegedly benefit the poor. The U.S. also offers free public elementary and secondary education to its citizens and has implemented a Social Security program to benefit the elderly. Furthermore, its present tax system imposes higher taxes on higher income earners. As such, the United States is not a pure capitalistic society. We currently have a strong private sector and income inequality. Those individuals who work hard and take risks have chances at accumulating more wealth than those who prefer not to take large risks and work less. But for those individuals willing to work harder than normal and take the risks, additional wealth is not guaranteed. Of course, there’s those in between. In a capitalistic society such as what we have in the United States, you get to choose.

The following will outline the differences between capitalism and socialism:

DEFINITION

Capitalism: A theory or system of social organization based around a free market and privatization in which ownership is ascribed to the individual persons. Voluntary co-ownership is also permitted

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

PHILOSOPHY

Capitalism: Capital (or the means of production) is owned, operated, and traded in order to generate profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole. No restriction on who may own capital.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

 

IDEAS

Capitalism: Laissez-faire means to “let it be;” opposed to government intervention in economics because capitalists believe it introduces inefficiencies. A free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Government should not pick winners and losers.

Socialism: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and this the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

KEY ELEMENTS

Capitalism: Competition for ownership of capital drives economic activity and creates a price system that determines resource allocation; profits are reinvested in the economy. “Production for profit:” useful goods and services are a byproduct of pursuing profit.

Socialism: Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. “Production for use:” useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Capitalism: Market based economy combined with private or corporate ownership of the means of production. Goods and services are produced to make a profit, and this profit is reinvested into the economy to fuel economic growth.

Socialism: The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

POLITICAL SYSTEM

Capitalism: Can co-exist with a variety of political systems, including dictatorship, democratic republic, anarchism, and direct democracy. Most capitalists advocate a democratic republic.

Socialism: Can co-exist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate “Democratic Centralism.”

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Capitalism: Private property in capital and other goods is the dominant form of property. Public property and state property play a secondary role, and there might also be some collective property in the economy.

Socialism: Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.

 

OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE

Capitalism: The means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit. This drives incentives for producers to engage in economic activity. Firms can be owned by individuals, worker do-ops, or shareholders.

Socialism: The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in public ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative ownership models.)

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Capitalism: Classes exist based on their relationship to capital: the capitalists own shares of the means of production and derive their income in that way while the working class is dependent on wages or salaries. Large degree of mobility between the classes.

Socialism: Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions that class distinctions. Some mobility.

FREE CHOICE

Capitalism: All individuals make decisions for themselves. People will make the best decisions because they must live with the consequences of their actions. Freedom of choice allows consumers to drive the economy.

Socialism: Religion, jobs, and marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare and education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

The above outline a few of the major differences between capitalism and socialism. Again, pure free market capitalism doesn’t exist on the planet. The United State, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong are strongholds of capitalism.

With Bernie Sanders running for the Democrat nominee for president, front-runner Hillary Clinton has moved far left. Millennials are leaning toward socialism because they see our capitalistic economic system as one that benefits the wealthy. However, younger adults tend to be more idealistic, but tend to change as they mature and are able to view the world from a practical standpoint rather than an academic stand point.

It is my hope that American from the entire political spectrum will read this post and think hard and long about socialism. Is this something you really want because there is a good chance this country, built on the principals of capitalism and a free market will veer toward socialism if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders are elected President in 2016.

The contents of this article was mostly provided by diffen.com and your administrator’s personal opinions.

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART ONE

The term, socialism, has been much bantered around since Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders became a candidate for president of the United States. According to dictionary.com, socialism is defined as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Dictionary.com also states that socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ party affiliation is listed as “Independent,” and he claims to be a Democrat socialist. He caucuses with the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

When I graduated from college, I was an obnoxious brat who thought I knew everything and I wanted everything right then. My mother tried to explain to me that I needed to start at the bottom, get my foot in the door, and work my way up. Do any of you want to take a guess as to who was right? I was a pill to deal with and sort of hate myself to this day for it.

The United States of America was founded on the principles of hard work and dedication. Every person in America would have the chance to succeed at his or her own level. If you desire to be the CEO of a large corporation with the corner office with a view, you would have the opportunity to make that happen. If your desire was to lead a simpler life, you were very much free to pursue that. Unfortunately, achievement of your goals is not guaranteed. In your pursuit of the corner office with a view, things can happen that prevent you from getting there. You may have to settle for a small office on the third floor with a view of the parking lot. Never-the-less, the opportunity is there. Furthermore, in the pursuit of your goals, you may be called upon to make difficult decisions that keep you from achieving your dreams. You may have to settle for less as a result of other factors in your life.

Having said all of the above, we all know that what’s worth having is worth working for. We most certainly appreciate those things that we have to work for. These things may include accumulating vacation days and sick days, a better than average health insurance plan, a nice automobile(s), a nice house, a vacation house(s), etc.

In campaigning, Bernie Sanders has promised free healthcare, free college tuition, paid family leave and other items that most of us are used to working for. To pay for all of this, he claims he can go after the billionaires in this nation and let them pay for all of the goodies he’s going to distribute to us. The health care will most certainly be a standardized, one size fits all. I’d rather choose my health plan according to what I can afford and what coverages I need. And I don’t want to have to purchase it through a government exchange. I want to handle it through the private sector.

As far as the free college tuition, what are the limitations going to be. Will students be able to choose where they attend college and the course of study they want to pursue? Or will the government direct this for the sake of social engineering? Will private colleges disappear? Will the funds distributed to the colleges by the government be enough to provide quality education to the students? We all know that Obamacare was not implemented so that those poor unfortunate souls who didn’t have health insurance could now have health insurance. It was implemented for the purpose of putting 1/6 of the economy under the government control. Liberals are already admitting this and telling those of us who were hurt by it that we’ll get used to it. According to Forbes, before the ACA was implemented, 17.87% of Americans were uninsured. Now that the ACA has been implemented, 14.22% of Americans are uninsured. This is a difference of 3.67 %. Worth destroying the best healthcare system on the planet? You tell me.

Back to socialism. The billionaires alone aren’t going to be able to pay for this and the implementation of these socialist programs is going to eliminate the billionaires. All classes will be taxed heavily. Sure, your education will be free, your healthcare will be free, and you will get a lot of paid time off from your job. But what are you going to do with all free time. Will you have any extra money left after the government takes its hefty share and you provide for your other basic needs to take a vacation and enjoy your time off? Will there be any room to stretch your wings and pursue your dreams? Also, what’s going to happen to small businesses?

One thing that particularly disturbed me during the Democrat debates was the promise that companies would be forced to share their profits with their employees. Many companies do this and I think that’s great. However, companies shouldn’t be forced into this. And what amount of profits is the government going to allow a company to keep? The above will surely result in fewer people willing to take chances because the government will squelch resultant prosperity. So why work your buns off and take risks if the government is just going to take it away from you in the form of taxes and re-distribution demands?

Socialism will punish achievement and put the screws to entrepreneurism. If you want to punish the billionaires, I guess socialism would be the way to do it. But what’s going to happen when we run out of other people’s money?

Facebooktwitter

DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH – PART THREE

According to Time Magazine, hardly a right-wing publication, twenty-five persons/entities are to blame for the financial crisis that began in September 2008. Some of the people on the list I’ve never heard of. Some of them, though, are household names which include Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, American Consumers, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Bernie Madoff.

One name that was glaringly left off of this list was Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank. According to the Boston Globe, again, not hardly a right-wing publication, Congressman Frank’s fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco. According to the Congressman, the private sector got us into this mess and the government has to get us out of it. Frank, a committed liberal and proponent of big government, the current financial crisis is the span of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein in the capitalists.

The Globe goes on to indicate that while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private sector culprits, they weren’t the ones who got us into this mess. The mortgage lenders didn’t wake one fine day, deciding to junk long held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so, or else.

The Globe continues to opine that the roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. At that time, government officials egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and redlining because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities/borrowers with weak credit histories became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to meet the credit needs of low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods. Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this subprime lending by authorizing even more flexible criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All of this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor, the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn’t take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today’s self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Barney Frank doesn’t. But the Globe indicates that his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago (2003) when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank was adamant that these two entities were not facing any kind of financial crisis. When the White House warned of systemic risk for our financial system unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

In their piece dated, September 28, 2008, Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. The Globe concludes their piece stating: “If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Time, in their acknowledgement that Bill Clinton was one of the contributors to the financial crisis, pointed out that in 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It has been the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for the troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.

Time, in their blaming of George W. Bush, acknowledged that he did push for tighter controls over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but failed to move Congress to follow through. And as the Boston Globe indicated, Congressman Barney Frank was adamant that Freddie and Fannie were not facing any kind of financial crisis. Time goes on to indicate that President Bush backed on signed Sarbanes-Oxley after the Enron scandal. But when SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush’s advisors at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans. Time ended by simply stating the meltdown happened on Bush’s watch.

Those of us who have been managers know that if something happened under our watch, we own it. It doesn’t matter what actions are taken to prevent it or what we may do to correct the problem.

The Democrats, however, would have you to believe that the economic collapse of 2008 was solely the fault of George W. Bush. The U.S. economy is an extremely complex entity and common sense would indicate that it would take more than one person or entity to bring it down.

So when Democrats try to push their lie that Bush was exclusively responsible for the 2008 economic melt-down, keep all of the above in mind and point this out to the Democrats.

Facebooktwitter