Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Social Networking sites as primary news?

According to Financial Times social networking sites are becoming the primary source of information for people these days. That is a sad sad thought that people are willing to believe things said by other people without any attached proof; because let's face it, how many people post links as proof of what they're saying on Facebook?

It'd be foolish to discount Facebook especially as going anywhere anytime soon. Google's Google+ is a sad imitation, and using it in any form seems to limit the person's ability to share things outside of their circle of friends very easily. MySpace has all but disappeared, and you have various other small-time (in comparison to Facebook) networking sites like LinkedIn popping up, so it's obviously something the business world takes seriously. But a news organization it is not.

I like my friends, and love my family, but I don't even believe them when they try to tell me something is fact unless they have something to show as proof. I think there is a weird effect created by these sites that actually makes people believe the majority of their "friends" are really more than just acquaintances. How much do you really know about the people you have marked Friend on facebook? You might know the mundane facts they post about what they ate, where they went over the weekend, how their job is going, etc. but do you really know what kind of a person they are? I can think of several people that act completely different on Facebook than they do in person.

Some may act like a person who can't be fingered for their actions because of a confused sense of anonymity brought about by being online so you're actually getting a more honest impression of them, but just as many act completely differently because it is much easier to lie when you don't have to look someone in the face. There are even some people who view those they interact with online as less than people, almost as if they aren't real, because they don't have to look them in the eye while they're communicating, and these are people you really want to trust as your source of daily information?

My piece of advice on these sites, take what you read and check it through other sources. Find the original source of the information if possible, and form your own opinion. "Trust but verify" should be the number one rule of the internet.

State and Presidential Elections, and the Electoral College

So I was watching the news (CNN again today) and I noticed something about the delegate votes for the Republican Primary and how they were split between the candidates. Other than the silliness of the voter choice not being legally binding on the delegates (seriously) they were split rather unevenly given the actual spread of the vote numbers. How is it that with an 8 point spread in the votes Romney managed to pick up twice the number of delegates compared to Santorum? Vote numbers aside the districts themselves were pretty evenly split between the two candidates. This shows an inherent flaw at the very beginning of the election process, at least to me.

Different states have different rules, as per the Constitution they are free to do so, but I honestly believe this is one thing that needs to be amended, especially given the demographic changes compared to the late 18th century. The way it is set up now State Senators, Congressional Senators, and Governors are decided almost entirely by the major population centers in the State effectively making the opinions and needs of the rest of the state null and void. This is especially harmful in states that have multiple industry types, Washington being a prime example with its technological industries centered around Seattle-Tacoma, the farmland (largely) on the eastern side of the state, and the decently sized cattle industry mashed mostly betwen the two. The eastern side of the state has Spokane, but even that is dwarfed by the number of people on the western side of the Rockies. It's near impossible to compete with Olympia and Sea-Tac; that is the part of the state that makes 90% of the state decisions.

When it comes to statewide elections (Senators and Governor) and laws, they need to split the state up by the various districts, assigning each of them an equal number of electoral votes, and use the popular vote of that district to determine who gets the electoral vote for that district. This would work at the state level because generally something that affects one part of the district will have an effect on the rest.

For this same reason during the primaries and general election for the President the popular vote giving a candidate all of the electoral votes for that state is a horrible idea (so is popular vote overall). You get the same thing only at a position that affects the entire country, and with certain states having population centers so large they dwarf the rest of the state in numbers (California with its massive amount of farm and ranchland with lower population is also affected by this) you negate the votes of a huge portion of those states.

At the country level I propose it should be done as follows:
  • First, each state has their number of electoral votes based on population, the number only changing with the Census as it does now.
  • Next you look at the total number of people who voted
  • Then you assign a number of electoral votes to the candidate based on the percentage of the total voters that person got
  • For example: California has 55 electoral votes
    • Democrat gets 56% of the votes collected
    • Republican gets 37%
    • Independent gets 7%
  • The Democrat in this situation would get 30 of the electoral votes (stay with me here)
  • The Republican would get 20
  • The Independent would get 3
  • Then, the person with the highest percentage would get any votes left over to prevent people from getting decimal values of votes, so the Dem would end up with 32 of the electoral votes.
  • Using this method every person in the state would have their vote actually count, because you wouldn't have a winner takes all issue with the large population centers deciding for parts of the state with completely different concerns
The reason I propose the above instead of just a straight popular vote is for the same reason as the state level. You would end up with the large population centers being the primary determining factor for the entire country. "Flyover Country" would cease to matter in determining the President. This would give equal representation to people across the state regardless of whether they were the political minority in their area, and it would allow each state to determine what issues were most important to it without large cities making the decision for the rest of the country.

Do I think this would work perfectly? No, no system is ever perfect, however I believe it is better than the system we now have in place with citizens of some states feeling essentially useless in determining the course of the country just because they are outnumbered in their area. Ask a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California if they truly believe their vote for the presidency matters the way things are now.

One more thing *best old man voice*, the order for the party primaries should be random every year. None of this same order every year where Iowa and NH are first. NH with their state law requiring them to be first every year disgusts me. What gives them the right to decide for the rest of the country that they get to go first? I have to give them credit, that's some serious cajones from a state with FOUR electoral votes. Really though, assign each state a number, toss them in a computer, and hit the random button a year before the national election. Tradition has its place, but Kingmaker status to two of the smallest states in the country, effectively having a larger hand than most to determine who the nominee is, is total bull.

Sometimes it sucks to be right...

So, according to a new report released by the Congressional Budget Office (page 54 in the PDF, "Participation in the Labor Force") actual unemployment at the beginning of the year is actually much closer to 10%. Given my earlier prediction in Government Unemployment Bull (based on information released in November 2011) using their own numbers and formulas provided by the Labor Dept I'd say I did pretty good for someone whose job is not to semi-accurately predict market shifts. This just proves the federal government is out to hoodwink us all into believing what they say and then hope that people won't look at the actual numbers for themselves.

Said it before, I'll say it again... Throw them all out, and keep doing it until the new guys realize they are there to serve us, not the other way around.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Florida Primary: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul

And there is your order for who won in Florida, though as I understand it is a winner-takes-all state, so Romney will get all of the electoral votes from that state's representatives.

Mitt Romney came in with 46.4%, Newt Gingrich at 31.9%, Rick Santorum with a disappointing (to me) 13.4%, and Dr. Ron Paul at 7%. Granted both Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Ron Paul decided to essentially skip the contest in Florida due to their lack of funds compared to the other two candidates (Romney had $24 million in donations in the last quarter alone) and the fact it is a winner takes all state. Can't say I blame them, but it is still disappointing to me how many people are not voting for the only conservative with a consistent record in the bunch.

The above statement will probably anger the Ron Paul supporters, but the reality is that we cannot ignore the world outside our country. Trading with everybody equally and not getting involved is a very nice idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work. The world is not an emotionless and completely logical place, and that is what it would take for one country not to dislike (or hate) us for trading with a country they consider their enemy. We cannot stand back and let Iran do whatever they wish to the detriment of the region and eventually the rest of the world. They already support some of the most extreme terrorist organizations in the world, and Rep. Paul thinks it's okay for them to get nukes... I'm not even going to get started on China and North Korea.

Thank you Newt for shooting yourself in the foot with your attacks on capitalist business practices and your inability to explain what exactly was wrong with how Bain Capital works; not saying there is anything wrong, I haven't seen any real evidence even if I am suspicious of the methods in question. Now we just need Newt to get the heck out of the race so Santorum can go head to head with Romney. I'd really love to see Mitt try to hit Santorum with something negative, there really isn't anything out there except the fact he supported Specter over Toomey (which I've explained previously).

Perfect Santorum is not, but then NOBODY is perfect, and this habit of many conservative voters expecting Mr. Perfect is really annoying to me. Many Americans saw President Obama as Mr. Perfect after listening to his rhetoric and ignoring the facts, and look how that turned out. Santorum has a record that has not changed his entire time in office, so you know exactly where he stands. There is no perfect candidate. President Ronald Reagan was not perfect.

The very facts that both the Mainstream Media and Establishment Republicans support Mitt over Santorum is reason enough for me to like the guy. Both groups hated Reagan too. I'm not calling Santorum Reagon either (he's not), but both of the above groups were wrong about how good Reagan would be so why people keep listening to the MSM and Establishment government types is beyond me.

Edit: Oops. Hadn't meant to post this the day before the primary, the order was unlikely to change so I got it ready and was planning to update the percentages Wednesday morning.

Gingrich, Romney, & Santorum on Gun Control

This post has been split into separate posts for each candidate.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Newt Gingrich on Abortion

At a conference in Atlanta in April, 1995, Gingrich was asked about abortion. "I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion." A murmur ran through the mostly conservative audience. He quieted it by insisting on putting values first in lawmaking and suggesting that alternatives to abortion such as adoption must be promoted and their costs eased.
Newt!: Leader of the Second American Revolution, by Dick Williams, p. 182 - Jun 1, 1995

"Abortion is perhaps the most contentious public issue today, testing the professed American principle that every human life is precious and entitled to constitutional protection. With the advent of increasingly sophisticated ultrasound technology, public opinion on abortion has shifted, with a majority of Americans now identifying themselves as pro-life. As with any public policy, the more strongly public opinion is swayed in defense of unborn life, the more our laws should and will change as a result."
A Nation Like No Other, by Newt Gingrich, p. 92 - Jun 13, 2011


Given that abortion rates had been dropping pretty steadily since 1990 up until 2006 I'd say his opinion on how people view abortions is probably correct. However, whether that view changed because of increased welfare for single mothers or because people started realizing how wrong it is in cases that aren't life threatening (or any other reason) I can't begin to guess. But it IS telling that as unemployment rates started going up so too did the abortion rates begin to rise.

Out of the three candidates my personal opinion is pretty inline with Newt's to be honest. I don't think we need to make it illegal, we just need to make the procedures better understood, and the other options available more viable to pregnant women and their child's father. This includes convincing parents to support the child in their decision, even if it is a hardship on all involved. With changing public opinion, and decreased poverty brought on by available jobs, the abortion rate will start to decline again on its own without trying to force a belief on people (no matter how fact-based that opinion is).


Monday, January 23, 2012

Primaries 2012: South Carolina

So, Newt's win in South Carolina proves that not everyone considers him a non-player after his inability to distance himself from the Super PAC supporting him. We'll see how long that lasts in other states. Perry's last minute withdrawal and backing of Gingrich definitely threw a good number of people his way, people that had not been backing Newt for one reason or another, and are just as likely to look at the other candidates now that they have more time to do so.

The completed recount of the Iowa caucus votes have Santorum actually winning the state over Romney by about 30 votes, hooray for that (not holding my breath that the electoral votes will be shifted to show it since they aren't legally bound to vote as the citizens do though; proof the system is broken). Now Romney doesn't get to claim he is the only candidate since 1976 to win both Iowa and NH. Paired with Newt's win in SC, Romney's so-called inevitability is looking not so inevitable.

Still waiting for the Paul camp to denounce the evil Chuck Norris for backing Gingrich over Ron Paul, whom he had appeared with on stage at several events but not officially endorsed. Also waiting for their outrage at me pointing out that Ron Paul has two houses, one slightly over 5,500 sq ft and the other not much smaller. They got really angry over the idea that Romney and his wife have 3 houses (they've been spouting the rhetoric that he owns 15 though) the largest of which was 3,000 sq ft, now being torn down to build an 11,000 sq ft home. My opinion on that? Good for them, it's their dang money. Unless someone can prove it was unethically or illegally acquired, why the heck do people care what someone does with their own cash? Just more envy and class warfare bull from the Newt Super PAC and the left-wing.

Florida has started getting in their absentee ballots (180,000 of 475,000 at this time) plus around 50,000 early voters. Should be interesting to see who wins this one. Given the couple of days for Perry's supporters to take a closer look at Newt I expect a decent chunk to switch over to the Santorum camp, but I've been wrong before (see first paragraph).

I raise my coffee mug to the hope that things continue to be split all the way to the convention. It'll be a lot harder for the Romney camp and establishment Republicans to claim he is the most electable if he is unable to get the 50% of the electoral votes needed to be named the nominee beforehand.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Prior to the South Carolina polls

I’m sorry, Newt has written himself off by not denouncing the actions of the “Super PAC” that supports him for the blatant lies they threw at Romney, asking them to pull it to confirm their information is not enough. Perry has been out as soon as I found out he had passed a limited version of the DREAM Act granting illegals the same rights to state tuition in Texas as legal residents, and then had the gall to call anyone that disagreed with his action, “Heartless.” Ron Paul, as much as I agree with several of his views on challenging the Constitutionality of government actions is completely clueless to how the rest of the world actually works and I believe he’d get us all killed trying to appease the various fanatical forces (Islamic and otherwise) aligned against us. Non-interventionism is a non-starter.

This is effectively a two candidate race as far as I am concerned. So in an attempt to be fair to both of the candidates I’m going to be posting some comparisons between them, along with further facts to prove or disprove various statements made by the “Super PACs” and ads by the candidate’s own campaign.  This will be a multi-part series, separated by issue,  given the length of the responses.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Martin Luther King Day

As we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., let us pause to reflect on who he was and why his struggle to obtain civil rights for black Americans was necessary.

First, Dr. King was a Republican until the day he died because he knew that the Republican Party, from its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.  For details on the history of civil rights, see the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter posted on the NBRA's website. 

Second, the nemesis of Dr. King's valiant and historic campaign to end discrimination and gain equality for blacks was the Democratic Party, the party of slavery, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.  Led by the former Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd, Democrats launched a despicable crusade to smear and undermine Dr. King.  This relentless disparagement of Dr. King resulted in his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death.

When Dr. King left Memphis, Tennessee in March of 1968 after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Byrd called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.  A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963.  Democrat President John F. Kennedy authorized his brother, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, to wiretap Dr. King's telephone using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on Dr. King's telephones in his home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.

The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of President Kennedy for ignoring civil rights issues, according to the author David Garrow in his book, "Bearing the Cross".   As was pointed out in the book by Wayne Perryman "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats", Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator.  After Kennedy became president, he was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.

The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly for wiretapping Dr. King was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King.   However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

Kennedy's disdain for blacks further manifested itself when the King family sought help with getting Dr. King out of a Birmingham jail.  Kennedy's civil rights advisor, Harris Wofford who was a personal friend of Dr. King, made a telephone call on behalf of Kennedy without Kennedy's knowledge.  That call resulted in Dr. King's release.  Kennedy was angry about the call because he feared he would lose the Southern vote.  History shows, though, that the call by Wofford eventually worked in Kennedy's favor and is the primary reason so many blacks today wrongly venerate Kennedy.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death.  To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's birthday a holiday.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still attempting to sully his image by claiming that he was a socialist.  In reality, Dr. King was a Christian, guided by his faith and Republican Party principles as he struggled to gain equality for blacks.  He did not embrace the type of socialist agenda that is promoted by the Democratic Party today, which includes fostering dependency on government handouts that trap blacks in generational poverty.

NBRA Chairman Frances Rice is a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.

Monday, January 9, 2012

The New Deal

Here's some food for thought. FDR and his "New Deal" were really a raw deal, with a side of sandpaper.

Do most people even know how the government managed to get taxes expanded onto the majority of the population after the 16th Amendment was marketted at only targetting the top few percentage of the population? During WWII FDR issued Executive Order 9250 to tax everyone who made over $25k (about $315k today) at 100%. Thankfully this was rescinded by Congress. He did however manage to get through a 94% tax on those over $25k, and then pushed another tax through the following year to tax everyone else (Go to pages 73 and 74). After all, who is going to complain that he is being taxed at 20%+ when someone else is getting hit for 94% of his income? By 1944 nearly every employed person was paying taxes (thanks to the idea of withholding), as opposed to only 10% prior to 1940.

As we all know, once government sinks their talons into something it's nigh impossible to get that something back. The war was used as an excuse by FDR and his "New Deal" Democrats to tax the population and make them beholden to the federal government through new social program spending that kept us in debt after the end of the war. With the war over the taxes should have gone away shortly after the debt was paid off, but they had spent so much money (and continued to spend more) for their new programs that they needed to keep the taxes in place. I have no issue with raising taxes during a war, and keeping them in place until the war is over in order to pay off any debt incurred, that's in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1). However, they used the facade of helping the people in order to steal their money and hold them under the thumb of government.

What's worse, we aren't even actually at war. Not by the definition of the Constitution. Congress has not officially declared war since WWII. There have been votes to provide funding, votes to authorize the use of troops, etc, but no declaration of war. Even with Bush Jr. actually doing the right thing and going to Congress (something our current President seems to have forgotten is a legal requirement under the Constitution) they only authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, they avoided using that WAR word.

There was a "New Deal" made in the federal government alright, a deal to slowly take the freedom from the citizens of this great country and hand it to a small group we regularly elect to represent us. A deal that gave the federal government the ability to practice legal thuggery upon the USA, Al Capone would be proud.

Being "Poor" and Being Responsible

This article by The Washington Post annoys me. Not only is it disingenuous, it gives the people interviewed another reason not to accept responsibility for their situation. Yet another reason for them to say to themselves, "See, even the big money news people say we're getting hosed." I feel for low income families, I really do. My family and I survived on LESS than $20k a year for three years while I worked part-time jobs, on again off again, on the opposite side of the state from them. It sucked, but I did it anyway.

The thing is, the mentality starts when they're kids. It starts when they go to public schools and are told it isn't their fault, the State will help them. They drop out of school because they see no purpose to staying, there is nothing waiting for them afterwards because there are no jobs in their area so why stay? If they stayed through high school they could join the military, but that is demonized in a lot of the bigger cities; either the military is evil, or the person gets shunned as abandoning "his people."

When I joined the military at 20 I was flat broke. I had spent 2 years after high school going to school for computer animation to find out that it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. So for those two years I essentially wasted the rent and school fees. I could have moved back in with my parents, or another relative (they offered), but I didn't. Why? Because I knew that it was my own dang fault, and I wasn't going to make myself a burden on my family like that. That was a turning point in my life (up until then I was a rather "poor me" person to be honest), and I am glad I made that decision. The point is that I took RESPONSIBILITY for my life, my situation, and I did something about it.

Contrary to the bull the media hands out, people CHOOSE to live in the inner city. The military is a choice for just about every 18-30 year old there if they can't find any other way to leave and IF they bothered to finish high school. I get it, the schools suck, so what? My high school sucked too, we were reviewing subjects I had learned in elementary school in another state, I still finished. I was lazy as all heck when I was in high school too.

The article in question points out how the poor have to have caller id for peace of mind to avoid billing companies... Seriously? Why are those billing companies calling again? Oh yea, to collect the money you owe! If you couldn't afford the bill, why did you apply for the service? Cell phones are nice, but contrary to popular belief they aren't NECESSARY! I work in hands-on technical support, I do not have a business cell, and only in real emergencies do I get calls on my personal line. Yet I have never gotten a poor review for customer service or response times. If I can do it, so can they. Cable? Not necessary, my family and I could afford it, but we don't get it because it costs too much and that means we'd have less money to pay off our bills (we actually leave ourselves wiggle room in case something unexpected occurs)! Internet? It's nice to have definitely, but also not necessary even these days. Libraries have these things called books for entertainment, you also have used book stores (of which cities have quite a few if you bother to look). You even have Starbucks if you really need internet, even McDonald's is putting in wireless in a lot of places these days and most laptops have wireless as part of the basic install. Couple hundred dollars and you can get a new one that will work for basic internet and word processing. If you don't have a lot of money why are you buying a huge tv or super gaming rig? They seem to have plenty of money to buy the latest and greatest gaming console for $300+.

Does not having them inconvenience people? Yes it does, but when you have very little income that is something you live with, or at least that's what people used to do. Now they go out and get their payday loans, or Rent-A-Center large screen TVs, or whine about how their life sucks and it's "the man" keeping them down. Heck, most people that are considered poor by the US government have newer cars than I do too (mine's a '97). This may be of interest to some. Yes, it's a two year old article, but if things are getting better like the government says, doesn't that mean the outlook is even better than what it shows here? Pay particular attention to the Census Survey comparison of items owned at the bottom of the article.

I understand it's hard not having a car, or having to use the more expensive corner stores, or laundry facilities. But do people think life is supposed to be easy when you make very little money? Things would be kind of loopy if life got HARDER as you made more, don't you think? Maybe they should try banding together as a COMMUNITY instead of trying to do it all themselves? You might surprised how much easier things get when you say, carpool to get groceries, share meals, buy in bulk splitting the cost and items. Crime too high in your area? Stop glorifying gangs listening to rap music with singers talking about doing drugs, beating women, shooting cops, etc. Get a gun, work with your neighbors, and shoot the bastards if they won't leave on their own. You think a gang wants to try fighting an entire neighborhood? Oh, that's right, the liberals in big cities hate guns so they make it near impossible to get them in a lot of those cities. Whose fault is it those people got elected again? Responsibility.

Don't keep voting in the same idiots that obviously can't fix the problem, or worse create larger problems. Don't be jealous or envious of your neighbors if they become successful, congratulate them. Maybe they might be willing to help you out if you aren't glaring daggers at them because they managed to do something to improve their situation. I am all for helping people that need help, when they are actually trying to improve themselves. I refuse to willingly help someone who is too lazy to get off their rear and try to find a job. I know that not everyone on Welfare abuses the system, I'm even pretty certain most don't. But there is a large percentage that does, and even the ones who are trying to improve their lot in life are suspect when it comes to voting. Hypothetical Question: If you were getting a government check would YOU be willing to vote for a guy saying he is going to decrease how much you're getting, even though you knew it would make things better for everyone overall? I would, heck my wife had a hard enough time convincing me to apply for Unemployment (money they automatically take out of your paycheck thanks to the Withholding junk).

Voting for the politician promising to increase Welfare isn't taking responsibility, it's pushing the responsibility for improving your life onto someone else. Someone who worked hard to get where they are at (even if they inherited the money, SOMEBODY worked hard for it originally), and you are penalizing that person for being successful.

If you need more proof the federal government and their MSM buddies are trying to pull the wool over your eyes, read this. I agree with the last bit of the article, not saying things aren't cruddy for some, but they aren't nearly as bad as the government and MSM folks like to make it appear. People want to point at how bad things are in the city compared to the suburbs that's all well and good (in most cases it's even true things are worse in the cities), but pay attention to who is making the laws in those places, how much debt there is, etc. You'll see that in most cases it's a matter of responsibility taken by the population in how they spend their money, and who they elect to govern their area.

Responsibility sucks, it means you can't take the easy way out and blame someone else. It means that sometimes you just have to suck it up and move forward instead of wallowing in how life has screwed you over. If you make a mistake that results in things getting worse for you, or you just get hit by a random piece of bad luck (like the oil pump in your car blowing up on you...), get back up, brush yourself off, acknowledge the situation and fix it. Don't sit there feeling sorry for yourself. The only person in this life that is going to change where you are, is you.

Random Thought: I wonder...

I wonder what things would be like in this country if people actually took responsibility for their own actions and situation...

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Government Unemployment Bull

Given current events I figured I should make a post about the wonderful smoke and mirrors our government is currently using to fool your average voter into thinking things are getting better while anyone can look around and see they obviously are NOT. The assumption is almost always, "It must be getting better overall and eventually it will get to where I am at." The sickening part is that the MSM is helping them do it! The media is supposed to be the agency that uncovers this crud, and here they are lying for the federal government.

What they neglect to explain is that seasonal work is just that, seasonal. It's not permanent, and many of the people who get seasonal jobs now will NOT get another one at the end of the season. But they still count it as people being employed. Even according to CNNs own numbers (which they conveniently only mentioned in their newscast on 6 Jan 2012 but not their website; if you find it feel free to post a link) you need 150,000 jobs a month for replacement, and with 60,000 of those jobs being seasonal that means actual permanent job creation was only 140,000. Meaning we actually LOST 10,000 jobs in December. They never ever report the actual numbers after adjusting for replacement. Also, they do not count underemployed, or unemployed people no longer looking. Go here to understand how CPS determines replacement numbers. Unlike CPS I don't separate by age (age is meaningless anyway, if someone is qualified their age doesn't matter), actual replacement across the board is up around 230,000, rather than the 150,000.

Underemployed is people working part-time jobs that were working full-time jobs, or people in full-time positions that pay significantly less than what they were paid before they lost their job. Another thing that is not considered (on purpose) by the federal government because it makes them look worse, ie. the truth sucks. Participation has been steadily declining for quite awhile, with a 0.16% drop between November and December alone. You want to see a comparison of our current recession's handling versus previous ones? Take a look at this. Things were recovering from the 2001 Recession, and then in 2007 they dived... Now what happened that caused this? Oh that's right, it was the massive Democrat influx after the 2006 elections. Paired with a guy that wanted to be liked by everyone; Bush Jr. was a smart man believe it or not, but he was also very much a social liberal when it came down to using government to "help" people. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Ronald Reagan

Reagan was no saint, he made mistakes, even though most people don't like to point them out. He did make deals with the Dems that caused increased government spending for more than just Defense which resulted in $2.2 trillion in debt. But he also didn't spend over a trillion a year creating new rules and regulations that businesses had to follow in order to "help" the country recover from a Recession. He got government out of the way and let private industry do the work of recovering itself.

Then you have the effect that adults taking part-time jobs has on teenagers, ignoring the much lower pay that is nowhere near what is needed to support a family. The fact is that teenage unemployment is currently at an overall 25.4% with 34.3% participation, while at the start of the Recession participation was at 41.3%. If you were to look at unemployment for that 41.3% participation you would actually have an unemployment number of approx 45%, NEARLY DOUBLE the unemployment rate!

Participation is how the government lies to you. They only count people currently on unemployment vs those who are employed in ANY sense, and guess what, after awhile you can no longer collect unemployment (even with all the extensions). It is an estimate of a very small group of people on top of that. They DO NOT account for actual population numbers, they even count UNPAID KIDS DOING CHORES. I don't care if it's a family business, if you're not being paid, you are NOT employed! If they did count REAL population numbers I would be surprised if actual unemployment was not up around 11-12%.

Learn to love it folks. If we don't turn things around soon it's only going to get worse. Look at your Representatives and Senators' voting record since their last election. If they haven't voted for laws that make things better for businesses, vote them out ASAP. Keep doing it until they get the idea, and please, STOP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU CAN GET "YOUR FAIR SHARE" OF THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET! That is money taken from your fellow citizens working hard to make a living for themselves and their families. Every time the government takes your money, or your neighbors' money, or your aunt's money, it makes it harder for each of you to improve your life by your own choices.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Finding dirt on Santorum

Looking for dirt on Rick Santorum. Given his recent win in Iowa (and given how little money he had to spend versus Romney I consider it a win) the media is going to start jumping all over him. I'm curious what is actually out there other than his backing of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. Regardless of how you feel about his choice (I personally can't stand Specter) it was the best choice to ensure we got Alito on the Supreme Court. Incumbents historically have a much better chance of staying in office which meant a better chance to not lose to the Democrat challenger.

So, that said; Bring on the dirt, with links please. Show me the proof of how dirty, or clean, he really is.