tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post745983849905241432..comments2023-10-19T03:24:33.488-07:00Comments on Splinters-Splinters: aSplinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14705056901345775663noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-74739569533188445602012-09-28T10:23:02.644-07:002012-09-28T10:23:02.644-07:00I view the upcoming election as I would if faced w...I view the upcoming election as I would if faced with a choice between death by firing squad or by electrocution: neither is desirable, but one must be selected. I don't think who wins the White House is nearly as important as whether the Republicans retain control of the House -- a virtual certainty. And that will perpetuate the deadlock that's existed for the past two years. When more than 150 Republicans have signed Grover Norquists's no-tax-increase pledge, there's little hope of meaningful action. And the Democrats are nearly as adamant about preserving entitlements "as we know them." That's a guaranteed recipe for default in the future -- the near future if something isn't done to reduce the more than $1 trillion per year deficits that are now routine. Soon the Chinese, Japanese and others will stop buying our bonds each week, and what then? Interest rates will have to be raised, and that alone will kill our staggering recovery. One inexplicable situation is Obama's ignoring the recommendations of Bowles-Simpson, a committee he appointed. Then the Supercommittee failed to come to any consensus, and now we're staring at sequestration and the so-called "fiscal cliff," which will lead to more unemployment. And Obama wants to renew the Bush tax cuts except for those earning $250k or more, while the Republicans insist that all or none must be renewed. I deplore the positions of both sides. A good compromise would be restoring them for those earning less than $1 million, but the effect on the deficit will be negligible in either case. It's simply not that big a deal, given all our other problems. But it typifies the gridlock problem. I continue to hear business owners say that they're not going to hire until and unless tax rates for upcoming years are fixed and until the burdensome, growth-stifling regulations, promulgated and pending, are clarified or modified. Again, this is Congress' responsibility, and each party is resolutely blocking any action by the other. If the House passes something, the Senate blocks it, and vice versa. Maddening.<br /> <br />Our country is at an insoluble impasse, and anyone who's optimistic about its future is delusional, or more likely, ignorant.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-64742749954203943882012-09-28T10:22:20.953-07:002012-09-28T10:22:20.953-07:00You write at length about the psychological hurt o...You write at length about the psychological hurt one experiences when one is fired. I couldn't agree more. It's a staggering blow to one's self-esteem. But there is nearly always a period before it happens during which the smart employee will see what's coming and begin the hunt for another position, cut back on unnecessary expenses and prepare to hunker down when the ax falls. Those who fail to do this are harmed far more, and tend to dwell on the injustice of it all much longer than those who prepare. On the other hand, I have a grandson that's been fired dozens of times, usually after no more than a few weeks on his job of the moment. He couldn't care less; he simply lies around at his mother's home until his unemployment runs out, while his daughters survive on SSI and Medicaid. Then he'll eventually get another menial job and repeat the process. This is a far cry from what you envision, with your evident assumption that most people are much like you.<br /> <br />You then touch on the recent foofaraw regarding a long-ago video clip of Obama the community organizer advocating redistribution. Well, redistribution has been going on for a long time. And it was codified forever when the federal income tax law was passed. There has been, and will always be, redistribution of wealth in modern societies. It's simply a matter of how much is confiscated from the well-off, and how it's distributed. The looming problem is that, if matters continue as they are today, there won't be enough well-to-do people left to support the 47% who pay no income taxes, a number that is sure to grow each year. What then?<br /> <br />The Politicofact segment is essentially a screed against the tax laws that favor investors, and against Romney for lobbying for them. At the end, still railing against the carried interest rule, they quote Jacob Hacker: "It still lives because of the lobbying of the industry, and in particular the PEGCC." Wrong. It (and all similar loopholes, special exemptions and exceptions) lives only because of Congress, and their spineless, mercenary willingness to succumb to the blandishments of the lobbyists.<br /> <br />I don't quite know what to make of the last paragraph, wherein you invoke God, Calvinism, a supposed million-dollar inheritance, and make some weak jokes. I've inferred from those comments that you're not a religious person.<br /><br />Yet more commentary follows.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-34742303199590511372012-09-28T10:21:33.230-07:002012-09-28T10:21:33.230-07:00Later on you disagree with Romney that paycheck pe...Later on you disagree with Romney that paycheck people are not responsible nor motivated. Well, some are, and some aren't. You again assume that all "paycheck people" are well-educated white-collar workers, which is far from the truth. Are burger-flippers, mop-wielders, liquor store clerks and construction workers all responsible and motivated? Hardly. They're either content with dead-end jobs or earning money to advance their education or feed themselves, and far different than well-paid engineers or executives. He writes "Victims don't want to be victims and they work to find work." An absurd generalization at best. I have two such victims in my household, and another across town, and none has the slightest interest in taking a min-wage job and losing their benefits. There are millions like them.<br /> <br />You decry the security escort "Sam" received as he was ushered out. This has been standard practice for a long time. And the engineer who created "a hundred patents" surely knew that, under the rules of virtually all engineering firms, patents developed by employees are the property of the firm, which provided the support required to create the invention and paid the individual for developing it.<br /> <br />No one can dispute that cutbacks and firm closings are heartless and brutal to the people involved. This is the way it works in free enterprise; thrive or die. There are always competent, deserving individuals who are fired, along with the usual deadwood and redundant people. It's an ugly but commonplace part of the business cycle. You then opened your own business. I did likewise. But what of the millions of laid-off or fired employees who aren't able to do that? They are paid a percentage of their final salaries as unemployment while ostensibly seeking new jobs. Some find employment, some don't. Some, like my son-in-law, disdain lesser-paying jobs and opt for extended unemployment. When that was about to run out, he finally went to work at a job comparable to his earlier job. Without the extended 73 weeks of unemployment, he'd have done that much sooner.<br /> <br />Yes, Bain Capital, like all enterprises, was in business to make money. You write "There is no support for Romney's claim for creating 100,000 jobs." You're right. The figures are muddled as to what the net result of Bain's activities were. For every Staples there was a failure; one study estimates that about half of Bain's acquisitions were profitable; the rest lost money. But whatever the number, it's bogus. Romney created no jobs, just as Obama's boast that he's created 4.7 million jobs since 2008 is preposterous. The net effect of Obama's nearly four years is a loss of jobs. about a half-million by most accounts. If you count the millions that have given up job-hunting, the unemployment rate is about 13%. And individuals in politics don't create jobs; they can only create an environment that encourages job creation by businesses. To say Obama has done this is absurd. Romney continues to proclaim he'll create jobs, but never says how. As with all of our problems, Congress must act if a positive job-creation environment is to exist. Lately they've only acted to put barriers in place.<br /><br />More commentary follows.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-79108628157006769252012-09-28T10:20:23.398-07:002012-09-28T10:20:23.398-07:00Texas Monthly printed an editorial a couple of mon...Texas Monthly printed an editorial a couple of months ago that basically announced the end of Republican hegemony in Texas. Actually, it would have ended several decades ago, but for the fact that a large number of those who say they're Democrats don't bother to vote. But that's changing, and we'll soon see the end of the Republicanss holding every statewide office and dominating the Congressional cohort. Even if Romney should win in November, which is very doubtful, it's highly unlikely that he'd be re-elected, or that any Republican would ever again sit in the White House. The tide is turning toward the Democrats, and it's inexorable. As the group of those dependent on entitlements and/or government funds for their existence continues to grow, it will soon outnumber the old-line Republican base, which is dying off rapidly. The larger the state population and the more urban, the more likely it is to vote Democrat. The enormous brown tide, already larger than the black population, will transform America into an unrecognizable place in a few more decades. My grandchildren and great grandchildren will doubtless live in a Latino-dominated society, much as we did in Corpus Christi as far back as the early 70s. And they'd better hope that the Latinos treat them better than we treated the Latinos and blacks.<br /> <br />There have always been bullies and bozos in business, just as there are in government. But in business, companies run by the bozos eventually fail, and those run by bullies will eventually run afoul of the law and be brought to account, although this may take a long time. The scenarios George recounts regarding Bain Capital and Romney are possible only because of bad laws and bad regulations. One of the most outrageous examples of bad law is the carried interest regulation; another is a tax code that not only allows, but encourages, overseas investment, and then makes it unwise to bring those profits here and reinvest them. A major problem is the absurdly high (on the world stage) 35% tax rate on corporate profits. Bain wreaked its havoc within the rules and regulations; Bain and similar companies continue to do that today. It's the law of the jungle; the fittest survive, and the weak and poorly run fail or are devoured. The collateral damage is always human capital. But of course all large operations have deadwood and incompetents; those are generally, though not always, the first to go when a reorganization or downsizing takes place. Most of Bain's leveraged buyouts occurred with the active support of top management, a clever approach which obviated the need for an expensive, bitter hostile takeover. Either way, however, the employees are still the victims.<br /><br />I'll now comment on some specific statements you make. You recount the charge that Romney's prep school friends held down a gay classmate while Romney (Mitten??) cut his hair. It may be true, but that was 40 or so years ago. Young people, even rich young people, do stupid things. How is that relevant to your point? Obama sat in church and listened to the Rev. Wright's jeremiads for about two decades. Does that make him a US-hating racist, as Wright clearly is? Obama hob-nobbed with Bill Ayers. Does that make him an anarchist?<br /> <br />More commentary follows.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-48620686320936409022012-09-28T10:14:24.827-07:002012-09-28T10:14:24.827-07:00There's no way to know what might have happene...There's no way to know what might have happened to corporations such as the one you worked for in CA, had it not been acquired by "X." Business executives make bad decisions every day; it's not uncommon for them to come back to bite them, as happened with your employers. RIM, maker of the Blackberry, is near death, as are lots of other formerly high-flyers, such as Radio Shack, Dell and AOL. Companies come and go routinely, and jobs are lost. That's the nature of free enterprise, which, with all its faults and shortcomings, is by far the best economic system man has devised, and is primarily responsible for our (previously?) lofty status in the world. The problem isn't capitalism, but the lack of sensible, effective regulations and vigorous, prompt prosecution. Again, blame Congress and the lobbies. When lobbyists are allowed to write the rules and regulations (e.g., Billy Tauzin and Medicare D), the laws are guaranteed to favor business, often at the expense of the taxpayers. And the enforcers are undermanned and underfunded, and generally composed of those who couldn't make it in the competitive world of business. Dodd-Frank is a bad joke; many of its regulations are yet to be written, and its efforts to restore fiscal sanity to Wall Street and the big banks are destined to fail miserably when they are. Today, the same abuses and risky tactics that led to the 2007-08 collapse are again being executed. Lobbies uber alles... <br /> <br />You make some valid points, of course, but like virtually all political partisans you focus only on the negatives of the opposition and ignore or gloss over those of your party. Unions have been a principal cause of the collapse or flight of industry, and public employee unions have done incalculable damage to many cities, counties and states around the country, particularly in CA, OH, WI and IL most recently. They wield the power to shut down services if their demands aren't met, and thus have bankrupted many municipalities and counties across the country. Many pay almost nothing toward their health care and pensions, and tend to strike when struggling entities attempt to rectify this. And of course the teachers unions fight attempts to evaluate their members, and make it almost impossible to fire incompetents and those who violate rules or laws. There are abuses and inequities on both sides of the political spectrum.<br /> <br />In Romney's latest revealed gaffe he conflates two different situations in his 47% comments. It's true that about 47% of the country's workers pay no income tax; it's also true that about that percentage of voters are solidly in the Dem camp, because the Dems have always been their principal source of economic support. There is a large overlap between those two groups, of course; many the same people who pay no income tax aren't paying it because they aren't employed, for one reason or another.<br /> <br />But it's also true that, when you divide the country by quintiles, there is much movement between the bottom groups. In our society, people can move up if they're willing to make the effort and take care of their affairs sensibly; people move down for a variety of reasons, unemployment being only one of them. Retirees, the chronically ill, malingerers and those who disdain or opt out of low-paying, unrewarding jobs and elect to subsist on taxpayer-subsidized programs are others who move downward. And along with most blacks, most Latinos, gays, many women and lesser minority groups, they make up the core constituency of the Democrat party. The only reason most Republicanss are ever elected is the massive apathy of that constituency, and it shouldn't be blamed on voter ID laws.<br /> <br />More commentary follows.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-75502420107588199072012-09-28T10:12:17.832-07:002012-09-28T10:12:17.832-07:00George, you are clearly and understandably bitter ...George, you are clearly and understandably bitter toward large businesses. But hundreds of thousands of workers (most not nearly as educated as you) have been downsized since our industrial megaliths began moving abroad and/or scaling back. And what happened to you in CT and CA is part of the risk white-collar employees assume when they opt for that type of career. It's impossible to know how valuable you were to your employers. Who can know why yu were fired and others weren't? The same goes for "Lindsey." These things are always subjective. I was fired (for the only time) from the last job I held simply because my boss left for a better job and his boss, who then became mine, didn't appreciate my abilities. That hospital later filed Chapter 7.<br /><br />It's clear that you have no respect for anything Romney has accomplished or anything he stands for (whatever that may be). The 47% video has drawn fire from both parties, as it should, and unrelenting attacks from the left-leaning media, which is to say the vast majority. As always, MSNBC's "newsmen" went apoplectic. As an aside, I assume you saw the results of a Gallup poll last week, wherein 60% of those polled don't trust the media to be fair. What you doubtless didn't see or hear was the breakdown by party: 58% of Dems trust the media, 29% of Repubs, and 31% of independents (the last two seem high to me). When Obama and Biden say incredibly dumb or incorrect things, little is said or written, and it's over in a day or so. When Romney says stupid or insensitive things (which is often), the outcry is prolonged and strident, and persists long after it's old news. Or so it seems to me...<br /><br />Romney is an aloof, patrician autocrat who would have been at home in a British court, as a medium-level functionary. He is so rich he's incapable of "getting" how the rest of us live. And he's continually making comments and statements that reinforce this negative image. In addition, he's surrounded by sycophantic yes-men who haven't a clue about how to run his campaign. If elected, he'd be about as far over his head as Obama was in 2008, except that he has run a state; Obama had never managed anything. And Obama's made some terrible appointments, something that's inevitable in our spoils system, where political considerations trump competence and effectiveness.<br /><br />Bain Capital, however, seems to be the prime target of George's critique. Originally a very successful venture capital firm, Bain later began targeting businesses that were foundering. They engineered a takeover and then set about trimming deadwood, restructuring debt and either liquidating them, selling them or cashing out and leaving them in operation, leaner and likely to survive. In the process they looted many pension funds, an unconscionable action that should never have been legal. (It was, though, thanks to Congress, which is ultimately responsible for just about every bad thing that corporations have ever done that wasn't illegal on its face.)<br /><br />Because of size limitations I'll need to continue this in separate comments.Roger in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599357830542699435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32306280.post-18107082124122012892012-09-23T17:29:12.050-07:002012-09-23T17:29:12.050-07:00Romney was complaining - even if he doesn't kn...Romney was complaining - even if he doesn't know it, about the earned income tax credit. expanding it was a centerpiece of Reagan's 1986 tax reform, and it was a GOP idea first birthed under Gerald Ford.<br /><br />the reason people working minimum wage avoid income tax (though not FICA, or medicare or sales tx, or state income tax) is do in large part to the EITC. <br /><br />Watch Obama nail Romney on hating St. Ronnie's policies during the debates.<br /><br />Of course if Romney wanted the 47% to pay income tax he could advocate raising the minimum wage, but for Mr. "outsource to slave labor in china" that would be like saying something about a rich man, heaven a camel and the eye of a needleGianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12031096844906681786noreply@blogger.com