I am so freaking frustrated with reading/listening to how Consumer Confidence is low, which is why consumer spending is down. Confidence is low? What does this mean? Oh, I don't want to spend any money because the economy is in the toilet. Did it ever dawn on you that you NOT spending money is the problem? Sure savings are higher now, the banks are flush with cash, paying tiny returns and hoarding cash, your cash. They aren't making loans because the economy is bad. Poor folk don't save, they spend all they have. It's everyone else who has extra cash laying around who aren't spending.
I had a conversation with a retiree who told me he wasn't going to make any large purchases because the economy is 'bad'. I said to him, are you nuts? You have a fixed income, prices are rock bottom, the 'bad' economy does not affect you at all, yet you won't spend? What kind of idiots are you people? The economy will not recover as it should unless we start spending again. When we spend, stores have to stock up, meaning manufacturers and suppliers have to hire more people, meaning more people employed to buy more stuff. We need to take back control over our own lives and economy. The government cannot resolve every problem. We need to stop whining how bad things are and do something about it.
As an example, the car industry was in a shambles, now after investment they are back making a profit again. People are buying cars again. This is a small segment, we can do more, do better. So open up your checkbooks and start buying, do your part !!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Sunsetting the Tax Breaks for the wealthy is NOT a tax increase
Today a talking head made an interesting analogy that all of us can understand. Thing of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy by the Bush administration as a coupon you get in the mail. It has an expiration date on it. If you try to use that coupon after that date, are you being ripped off by paying the actual price? Of course not. The coupon, as with the tax cuts were a temporary measure, passed by a Republican Congress under Budget Reconciliation. Efforts since then to make them permanent have failed throughout the years. We are talking about the top 2% of the wage earners in this country. If allowed to continue, the cost to the deficit will soon reach 4.4 Trillion dollars. This is from ONE temporary tax break which will sunset January 2011. Temporary tax break. Like the Cash for Clunkers, temporary. Like the tax breaks for purchasing a home or hybrid car, temporary. The Republicans have not complained about those being tax increases have they? How is a temporary tax break expiring a tax increase, or is it that the playing field is being put back in place as it once was. 23 million jobs were created during the Clinton years with the old tax rate. 3 Million jobs have been created since the tax breaks went into effect. The Heritage Foundation claims that keeping the tax breaks will create no new jobs, but will prevent jobs from being lost. They know there is no way to quantify the amount of jobs lost due to allowing the law to expire because the economy is in a shambles as it is. So they throw out bogus numbers.
The reality is this. If, after all my expenses and tax breaks and write offs, I as a business man have a $1 million tax liability, what would I do to limit that liability? Maybe hire 3 or 4 workers and take advantage of those tax breaks? What makes more sense to me? Hiring 4 workers and saving money, or give it all to the government?
I know what I would do.
The reality is this. If, after all my expenses and tax breaks and write offs, I as a business man have a $1 million tax liability, what would I do to limit that liability? Maybe hire 3 or 4 workers and take advantage of those tax breaks? What makes more sense to me? Hiring 4 workers and saving money, or give it all to the government?
I know what I would do.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Our energy future is not going to happen unless...
Frankly I am sick and tired of all the talk about energy independence. Just now I saw yet another ad for some group wanting you to support energy independence without as usual specifics. This is what drives me nuts. Great idea to achieve it, yet no one seems to have a real plan to do it in a realistic, well thought out program. It is very clear to me that the only way real change will come is if the government actually mandates it.
In years past, when whaling destroyed the ability to use whale oil to light homes, gas and and that new fangled oil from the ground provided the obvious next step. At the time, we had viable options that were a natural progression. Today we are dealing with a finite amount of fossil fuels, sucking the earth dry at a dramatic rate without any real transition option available. China is booming and disrupting the status quo as far as consumption is concerned. The end date for fossil fuels is looming faster everyday. The problem is that there are other 'options' available.
I want to focus on one area that we are all familiar with, gasoline. I choose this because it is the most complicated to resolve. As of today there are at least three options for the future available. Electric power is the first. Battery technology is a growing research industry and new technologies are available today. The problem with full electric powered cars is their limited range. The 2011 Chevy Volt has a range of 40 miles. Now Chevrolet claims that most people commute less than 40 miles, this may be true. The reality is that in the real world people don't want to wait for a charge to jump in and go. There is a gas generator that will kick in and allow you to go up to 300 miles. Again though, gasoline is still used. True, the alleged fuel economy is higher, but it is nothing more than an advanced hybrid. You can plug in your Volt to 110v and in 10 hours you are charged, or you can install a 240 circuit and charge in 4. At $.12 per kw/hr you can expect to pay $45.00 a month for the electricity to travel 40 miles a day. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle such as the Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen supplied by a solar powered home refueling station. The equivalent mpg to gasoline is 60 mpg, the range on a single hydrogen fill is 240 miles. Hydrogen as we all know is the most abundant element on planet earth. The third option is a combination hybrid/increased CAFE standards, meaning we are still using OIL.
Since all types use battery packs, the research funding for better battery technologies makes sense. The issue for me is which technology will win out with regards to what type of vehicle should they be put in. We have competing technologies which is expensive and unnecessary. This is where the government should step in and take a leadership role by defining one standard for use by all manufacturers.
The premise.
Auto manufacturers will spend billions because their systems must be competitive, the weaker ones will fall by the wayside without help. Some will stick with hybrid, some electric and some fuel cells (FCV). The government will lose trillions on gas taxes in the process. Oil companies will be resistant, but if they thought ahead, they could be a key factor in making my idea work.
The idea.
The Federal government must take a stand and do the right thing, regardless of the politics. It is clear than any reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced as practicable as possible. The only realistic solution is the FCV. No fossil fuels used to drive. Honda has developed a solar based home fueling station. Whether totally electric or FCV, both use batteries and electric motors. The difference is that the electric car plugs into your home or office, no fuel cell. Commuter cars would benefit from all electric and they can be today's version of the sub compact. Midsize and larger would be FCV's. For this to work the government will set a single standard. The government will contract each FCV manufacturer to submit for approval their power pack designs for midsize and larger vehicles and for light duty trucks. There will be open competition between the designs. The winning design will be the only approved power pack to be used in all domestic and foreign imported or captive import vehicles. All the car manufacturers will have to do is incorporate the power pack into their own vehicle design. One power pack will power every single vehicle in the US. The power pack can be built under license from the winner with no royalties paid. What makes this good for the consumer is that they can take their vehicle into any dealership in the US to resolve power pack issues that may arise. Having a standard power pack simplifies maintenance and service issues. The costs are substantially less because the development costs will be for one, rather than competing designs. In fact it may be preferable to have a separate consortium responsible for the design and manufacturing of the power pack. Manufacturers can use whatever battery and motor design they choose. Only the power supply is standard.
Truck will be only of the diesel power design, no gasoline trucks. The diesel design would be to use JP4/5 aviation jet fuel, or aviation jet to comply with Federal truck standards. The idea being again, standardization.
This leaves farm tractors and lawn mowers, vintage cars, weed eaters etc. to run on gasoline.
There must be a hard and fast deadline for 100% of all new vehicles sold in the US as either electric or FCV's. Truck deadlines could be done in 2 years. I would say, 10 years for 100%. No sense in wasting anymore time on this.
How the government will recoup the taxes lost is their problem.
How can the oil companies benefit? One they will no longer have to drill for oil for US consumption. Two, they have the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver hydrogen to filling stations. No tax breaks for big oil to retrofit either. They will benefit from the investment plus the outrageous profits they will generate from the new lack of demand in the US.
The bottom line is this. We will continue spinning our wheels as long as people TALK about doing something. It's time to actually do it.
We can, we will !!
In years past, when whaling destroyed the ability to use whale oil to light homes, gas and and that new fangled oil from the ground provided the obvious next step. At the time, we had viable options that were a natural progression. Today we are dealing with a finite amount of fossil fuels, sucking the earth dry at a dramatic rate without any real transition option available. China is booming and disrupting the status quo as far as consumption is concerned. The end date for fossil fuels is looming faster everyday. The problem is that there are other 'options' available.
I want to focus on one area that we are all familiar with, gasoline. I choose this because it is the most complicated to resolve. As of today there are at least three options for the future available. Electric power is the first. Battery technology is a growing research industry and new technologies are available today. The problem with full electric powered cars is their limited range. The 2011 Chevy Volt has a range of 40 miles. Now Chevrolet claims that most people commute less than 40 miles, this may be true. The reality is that in the real world people don't want to wait for a charge to jump in and go. There is a gas generator that will kick in and allow you to go up to 300 miles. Again though, gasoline is still used. True, the alleged fuel economy is higher, but it is nothing more than an advanced hybrid. You can plug in your Volt to 110v and in 10 hours you are charged, or you can install a 240 circuit and charge in 4. At $.12 per kw/hr you can expect to pay $45.00 a month for the electricity to travel 40 miles a day. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle such as the Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen supplied by a solar powered home refueling station. The equivalent mpg to gasoline is 60 mpg, the range on a single hydrogen fill is 240 miles. Hydrogen as we all know is the most abundant element on planet earth. The third option is a combination hybrid/increased CAFE standards, meaning we are still using OIL.
Since all types use battery packs, the research funding for better battery technologies makes sense. The issue for me is which technology will win out with regards to what type of vehicle should they be put in. We have competing technologies which is expensive and unnecessary. This is where the government should step in and take a leadership role by defining one standard for use by all manufacturers.
The premise.
Auto manufacturers will spend billions because their systems must be competitive, the weaker ones will fall by the wayside without help. Some will stick with hybrid, some electric and some fuel cells (FCV). The government will lose trillions on gas taxes in the process. Oil companies will be resistant, but if they thought ahead, they could be a key factor in making my idea work.
The idea.
The Federal government must take a stand and do the right thing, regardless of the politics. It is clear than any reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced as practicable as possible. The only realistic solution is the FCV. No fossil fuels used to drive. Honda has developed a solar based home fueling station. Whether totally electric or FCV, both use batteries and electric motors. The difference is that the electric car plugs into your home or office, no fuel cell. Commuter cars would benefit from all electric and they can be today's version of the sub compact. Midsize and larger would be FCV's. For this to work the government will set a single standard. The government will contract each FCV manufacturer to submit for approval their power pack designs for midsize and larger vehicles and for light duty trucks. There will be open competition between the designs. The winning design will be the only approved power pack to be used in all domestic and foreign imported or captive import vehicles. All the car manufacturers will have to do is incorporate the power pack into their own vehicle design. One power pack will power every single vehicle in the US. The power pack can be built under license from the winner with no royalties paid. What makes this good for the consumer is that they can take their vehicle into any dealership in the US to resolve power pack issues that may arise. Having a standard power pack simplifies maintenance and service issues. The costs are substantially less because the development costs will be for one, rather than competing designs. In fact it may be preferable to have a separate consortium responsible for the design and manufacturing of the power pack. Manufacturers can use whatever battery and motor design they choose. Only the power supply is standard.
Truck will be only of the diesel power design, no gasoline trucks. The diesel design would be to use JP4/5 aviation jet fuel, or aviation jet to comply with Federal truck standards. The idea being again, standardization.
This leaves farm tractors and lawn mowers, vintage cars, weed eaters etc. to run on gasoline.
There must be a hard and fast deadline for 100% of all new vehicles sold in the US as either electric or FCV's. Truck deadlines could be done in 2 years. I would say, 10 years for 100%. No sense in wasting anymore time on this.
How the government will recoup the taxes lost is their problem.
How can the oil companies benefit? One they will no longer have to drill for oil for US consumption. Two, they have the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver hydrogen to filling stations. No tax breaks for big oil to retrofit either. They will benefit from the investment plus the outrageous profits they will generate from the new lack of demand in the US.
The bottom line is this. We will continue spinning our wheels as long as people TALK about doing something. It's time to actually do it.
We can, we will !!
Monday, June 21, 2010
iPod Touch as an example
I have been wondering about something lately. I own an iPod Touch, which by the way is a terrific device. It is made in China, engineered however in the good old USA. From what I can tell, this device appears to be assembled via robotics. What I don't understand is this. What is the financial benefit of assembling a device in China, especially when the device is made without the benefit of manual labor? I mean, the lead times are longer due to shipping and US Customs. There are the packaging costs and repackaging costs and distribution and domestic shipping costs. As for an import tariff, I cannot find one listed for an iPod or Computer or Cellphone imported into the USA. If this is so, why is it so? If anyone can show me what the tariff is, I would be grateful. I just don't get it. There is something missing here. Some loophole that allows a company to ship manufacturing jobs overseas and make a larger profit otherwise must exist. The numbers just don't make any sense if you look at the actual costs to manufacture this product. Believe it or not, Dickies aren't even made in the USA, yet you pay for the name. Can you believe that Hanes cannot manufacture a t-shirt in the USA for a low price? Of course they can, so why not? Even if the cost to produce were say $.25 more per t-shirt, I would gladly pay an extra $.50 per shirt to buy American, would'nt you?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Unemployment Benefits Drug Tests?
"Welfare and unemployment beneficiaries would have to pass a drug test to qualify for programs under an amendment offered Tuesday by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). ".
Well folks, this is something I can agree with. There has been a bit of an uproar over Sen. Hatch suggestion, but it is consistent with every single requirement each state has, to receive benefits you must be willing and able to work, to be employable.
It has been my experience, tho anecdotal, that over 50% of applicants who have been offered jobs at the local Wal-Mart failed their drug tests. Not 50% of all applicants, 50% of those who were actually offered a job.
I disagree with the idea that those who fail the drug test under this proposed law be given free drug counseling. My preference would be to deny their claim and have them come back 90 days later and take the test again. This is a simple matter of personal responsibility. It is a person's choice to use drugs. If you use drugs and are unemployed, you are not eligible for benefits because you are not employable thereby giving a state a reason to deny benefits. It seems to me that requiring a drug test does not need a special law since the requirement to be employable is already part of the statutes.
Well folks, this is something I can agree with. There has been a bit of an uproar over Sen. Hatch suggestion, but it is consistent with every single requirement each state has, to receive benefits you must be willing and able to work, to be employable.
It has been my experience, tho anecdotal, that over 50% of applicants who have been offered jobs at the local Wal-Mart failed their drug tests. Not 50% of all applicants, 50% of those who were actually offered a job.
I disagree with the idea that those who fail the drug test under this proposed law be given free drug counseling. My preference would be to deny their claim and have them come back 90 days later and take the test again. This is a simple matter of personal responsibility. It is a person's choice to use drugs. If you use drugs and are unemployed, you are not eligible for benefits because you are not employable thereby giving a state a reason to deny benefits. It seems to me that requiring a drug test does not need a special law since the requirement to be employable is already part of the statutes.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Israeli Massacre on the high seas.
I am appalled that the world has not come down on Israel for her illegal and immoral attack on a Turkish ship on the high seas bringing humanitarian aid to the blockaded residents of Gaza. All politics aside for one moment, lets look at legalities. The ship was Turkish flagged, meaning it is essentially Turkish soil. The ship was in international waters. The ship carried no arms or terrorist equipment. No soldiers or Freedom fighters. This was a humanitarian aid ship. The attack on a Turkish flagged vessel is illegal under international law.
Much has been made by the left leaning press that the Israeli commandos were 'defending' themselves. What a joke!!! They were attacking the ship, the crew and folks onboard were the ones defending themselves against an illegal attack by the Israeli!! What were the commandos defending themselves against? Pipes? Being tossed overboard by the folks defending their ship? I saw a plastic chair thrown at a commando. I am not aware of, nor has it been reported that the folks on the vessel shot at or killed any of the commandos, yet 9 people on a humanitarian mission were killed.
Hundreds were taken prisoner and most deported, the ones not deported will be thoroughly investigated, probably tortured and either released or put on trial. Put on trial? For what crime? No crime was committed. The ship had not passed through the blockade, it was still many miles away.
Now, why is there a blockade in the first place? Because the people of Gaza exercised their right by democratic vote to choose a government Israel does not approve of.
Back off Israel!!! These are human beings who deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of the world should have, even Israel. You don't blockade a whole people because you don't like the government they elected. It is an act of war to do so.
PS. Let us not forget the Israeli mindset. The consider themselves the 'chosen ones'. Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament shows the Jews as the masters of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I asked a minister once why the Jews could justify the murder of men, women and children since clearly if violates the Ten Commandments. If was explained to me that since they are the chosen ones, that all other races and people were inferior to the Jew and therefore not considered, for this purpose as as human as the Jew. The rules as defined by the Ten Commandments are only to be used by Jews with Jews, not non-Jews. Interestingly enough while the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were not slaughtered enmasse as the Jews would have done. Does this suggest that the Egyptians were more civilised in their treatment?
Much has been made by the left leaning press that the Israeli commandos were 'defending' themselves. What a joke!!! They were attacking the ship, the crew and folks onboard were the ones defending themselves against an illegal attack by the Israeli!! What were the commandos defending themselves against? Pipes? Being tossed overboard by the folks defending their ship? I saw a plastic chair thrown at a commando. I am not aware of, nor has it been reported that the folks on the vessel shot at or killed any of the commandos, yet 9 people on a humanitarian mission were killed.
Hundreds were taken prisoner and most deported, the ones not deported will be thoroughly investigated, probably tortured and either released or put on trial. Put on trial? For what crime? No crime was committed. The ship had not passed through the blockade, it was still many miles away.
Now, why is there a blockade in the first place? Because the people of Gaza exercised their right by democratic vote to choose a government Israel does not approve of.
Back off Israel!!! These are human beings who deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of the world should have, even Israel. You don't blockade a whole people because you don't like the government they elected. It is an act of war to do so.
PS. Let us not forget the Israeli mindset. The consider themselves the 'chosen ones'. Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament shows the Jews as the masters of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I asked a minister once why the Jews could justify the murder of men, women and children since clearly if violates the Ten Commandments. If was explained to me that since they are the chosen ones, that all other races and people were inferior to the Jew and therefore not considered, for this purpose as as human as the Jew. The rules as defined by the Ten Commandments are only to be used by Jews with Jews, not non-Jews. Interestingly enough while the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, they were not slaughtered enmasse as the Jews would have done. Does this suggest that the Egyptians were more civilised in their treatment?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill
Well peeps, we need to understand and face certain realities. I am sick and tired of listening to the the Tea Baggers/RWNJ whine and complain about how the Federal government and the President are somehow responsible. Lets set the record straight. This is NOT a natural disaster such as Katrina. This disaster is a man made disaster, BP is 100% responsible for it and the clean up and financial losses. BP as a condition of being granted rights to drill accepted that responsibility and assured the regulators that drilling is safe and if there was an incident, they were in a position to resolve the problem. BP is the responsible party. No doubt. The President and government are not responsible. No doubt. It is true that the government is overseeing the efforts to resolve the problem, but there is little more it can do. The US government is NOT equipped to stop the leak, it never has been. The US government is not responsible for financial losses. We have no choice but to rely on BP to resolve this issue. Who else do we turn to? Exxon? This is a private company matter. Right wingers want less government regulation, they got it. Right wingers want less interference in our private lives from the Federal government, yet who do they turn to when something like this happens? Gov. Jindal refused Federal stimulus money, yet is begging for bail out money for the oil spill. He should be going to BP not the American taxpayer. Place the blame where it belongs, with BP, not the President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)