Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Monday, August 13, 2012

Ryan, Romney raising cain



What’s New Today

Story # 1 and #2 are our signs for desperation for today.  #3 through #6 are stories on Ryan and what he is doing to the election.  #7 has three videos of the Medicare debate.  #8 tells of how four states have exempted Unions from stalking laws.  #9 is about the August 1 new rules from HHS that lets underage girls get sterilized without parental consent.  #10 is a fascinating article on China and the coming economic collapse.  

Today’s Thoughts

The selection of Paul Ryan by Mitt Romney is a fabulous move.  It puts all of Obama’s failings on the table and it will make the MSM cover the economy, the deficit, the debt, and entitlement reforms.  And why the Democrats think it is good for them, how long will they be able to resist actually giving some details beyond “that’s not my vision of America?”

The latest Rasmussen poll shows 21% strongly approve of President Obama while 44% strongly disapprove (-21%).  If these numbers hold, Obama needs to take 82.8% of the likely voters who neither strongly approve nor disapprove to be elected.

Phoenix neighborhood Preservation Inspector Dwayne Grierson stopped a Christian woman from giving away free water at a First Friday Festival.  The temperature was 112 degrees.  He told her that it was against the law to do this without a permit.  It seems it is against the law to sell without a license, but charity is still legal in Phoenix.

In the latest Battleground Poll Obama leads 47% to 46% a statistical tie.  In looking at the demographics 43% of those polled were Democrats, 40% were Republicans.  Romney leads among independents by 10%.  Translation:  Romney is ahead by at least 2%.  (note: this poll was done before the Ryan announcement).  

 Lie of the Day

"I have no idea the political affiliation of the folks who are associated with that SuperPAC." Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the Pro-Obama Priorities USA SuperPAC.


1.  Signs of Desperation

Lawmakers and operatives made the rounds on the Sunday morning news shows to weigh in on the pro-Obama super PAC ad that connects presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to the death of a woman whose husband was laid off.

"That isn't stated in the ad. It's not a fair implication," David Axelrod, a top campaign adviser for President Barack Obama, told NBC's "Meet the Press" about a Priorities USA spot that features a Kansas City man who lost his job at a company that went bankrupt in 2001 after it was taken over by Bain Capital, a company founded by Romney.

"It's disgraceful," Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, countered on "Fox News Sunday."

The advertisement, which never aired on television, shows Joe Soptic, a former employee at GST Steel, who tells the story of losing his job and then his wife to cancer because he no longer had health insurance through his employer. However, his wife's employer continued to provide her with insurance, and she did not die of cancer until five years after Soptic lost his job, according to Politifact.

The Obama campaign tried to distance itself from the ad, saying that, by law, it does not and cannot coordinate with the super PAC, but officials were caught flat-footed earlier in the week. An Obama campaign spokeswoman claimed she had no idea about the ad's details and yet Soptic had been featured in an official campaign call in May…


Still in denial of what they know is the truth.  That’s politics Democrat style. 


2.  Signs of Desperation part 2 Video


From a Super Pak but getting very close to the truth as it explains the reasons for the desperation of Obama’s campaign. 


3.  Ryan and Romney

On the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk harbor, a coatless Mitt Romney named a tieless Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee.

Romney’s choice was not much of a surprise after he told NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday that he wanted someone with a “vision for the country that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country. I mean, I happen to believe this is a defining election for America that we’re going to be voting for what kind of America we’re going to have.”

This arguably describes some of the others mentioned as possible nominees, but it clearly fits Ryan.
He doesn’t fit some of the standard criteria for vice president. He hasn’t won a statewide election, held an executive position or become well-known nationally or even in much of Wisconsin.

But more than anyone else, more even (as impolite as it is to say) than the putative presidential nominee, Ryan has set the course for the Republican Party for the past three years, both on policy and in politics. From his post as chairman of the House Budget Committee, he has made himself not just a plausible national nominee but a formidable one by advancing and arguing for major changes in entitlement policy.
He has argued consistently that entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — are on an unsustainable trajectory. Left alone, they threaten to crowd out necessary government spending and throttle the private sector.

Few public policy experts, on the center-left as well as the right, disagree. But many politicians, certainly those in the Obama White House, shy away from confronting the entitlement crisis. Better to demagogue your way through one more election cycle and kick the can down the road.

What’s astonishing is that Ryan has persuaded his fellow Republicans to follow his lead. Almost all House and Senate Republicans have voted for his budget resolutions. And they have included his proposal to change Medicare, for those currently younger than 55, from the current fee-for-service system to premium support, in which recipients would choose from an array of insurers, with subsidies to low earners.
Republicans rallied to the Ryan plan during the nomination contest. Newt Gingrich was lambasted for calling Ryan’s budget right-wing social engineering, while Romney over time moved to embrace the basic elements of Ryan’s budget and Medicare reforms.

Ryan campaigned enthusiastically for Romney in the Wisconsin primary, and there was clearly a rapport between these two number crunchers. Romney would defer to Ryan to answer and has made a point of staying in touch with him after clinching the nomination….


The big news in Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan is that he will not kick the can down the road, but has picked it up.  I seriously think the democrats are giddy about this pick because they know it death to touch the third rail of politics…at least it was the last time any of them were actually conscious (prior to 2008). 

4.  Romney Ryan on 60 Minutes

The new Romney-Ryan team, looking for all the world like two people who had been partners for far more than 36 hours, moved swiftly Sunday to try to blunt Democratic lines of attack on the Republican ticket. The pair used an interview with CBS to insist it is President Obama – and not Rep. Paul Ryan through his dramatic budget plan – who is “robbing” Medicare and threatening the nation’s elderly.

In a joint 60 Minutes interview that was partially aired Sunday night on television and partially posted online, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his new running mate made clear they want to stop playing defense as Democrats mount withering attacks on the budget advanced by Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee.  The plan – embraced by the conservative establishment and to some extent by Romney -- preserves the current Medicare system only for Americans older than 55. Younger people would purchase Medicare or private insurance with the help of capped vouchers that might not keep up with costs.

Romney cast this as a noble act in the 60 Minutes interview with Bob Schieffer. “What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it's there for current seniors,” Romney said in a segment of the interview that was posted online. He stressed there would be “no changes… for current seniors, or those nearing retirement.” But he acknowledged big changes for those younger. He said Republicans are telling them, “We're going to give you a bigger choice.” He suggested that is the only way to “make Medicare work down the road.”…

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-and-ryan-a-matched-pair-go-after-obama-on-cbs-20120812

IPAB is the real change that Obama has put into Medicare.  Need a knee replacement?  There is no guarantee with the IPAB that will be available to you when you are a senior if Obamacare stands.  In fact, the IPAB has the power to basically ban any medical procedure by reducing the amount Medicare will pay for a procedure. 


5.  Krauthammer:  Ryan choice is a game changer

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said that the choice changed the race by shifting it from a referendum on Obama to an idea-driven race powered by the young, “Kennedy-esque” Ryan.
“I think the picture sort of changes the dynamics of the race,” Krauthammer said. “Up until now it was Romney running as the guy who could do a better job — ‘I know how to fix the economy. The other guy is a failure.’ But it was a star-led choice, he’s a better technocrat. When you look at the two there are two things different than Ryan’s presence on the platform. The first is youth. I mean, he’s the future. He has a youthful look. If you like Kennedy-esque boyish enthusiasm and energy.”

Krauthammer said that Ryan’s speech indicated that it won’t be just a policy ideas Ryan will put forth, but a broader philosophical ones.

“But second is also the shift in grounds, the dynamic of the debate — the argument from stewardship, from who can do a better job. to ideas,” he continued. “When Ryan spoke, he mentioned our rights are from nature and God. That’s a fairly fundamental idea. It isn’t even a policy. It’s a philosophy. He wants to make the debate about the philosophy of government and the policies that then follow. And I think by doing this they are now running on what is essentially an argument, ‘No to the status quo.’ It’s a complete reversal of 2008. Obama in 2008 was hope and change. ‘You don’t like status quo, we’ve got ideas.’”

But with those two things, Krauthammer said it takes the 2008 “change” theme away from Obama and puts it on the side of the Republicans.


So the party that wouldn’t even pass a budget for the past three years is not in the position that will have to take a stand and provide details.  This is why Republicans are smiling. 

6.  Video: Here’s why Ryan is the VP nominee

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RPENdwNzbfA 

Liberals need to watch this and be afraid, very afraid. 

7.  More videos: Three videos on the Medicare Debate

If you don’t enjoy reading wonky policy papers, here are three videos about the Medicare debate that you might find of use. The first features Paul Ryan, explaining what’s wrong with Medicare today, and how the Wyden-Ryan approach to Medicare reform differs from Obamacare.


Some really excellent videos if you want to bring yourself up to date on what the real debate is about. 


8.  States exempt Unions from Stalking Laws

At least four states provide exemptions to anti-stalking laws for labor union officials conducting organizing activities, according to a new report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Every state in America criminalizes stalking, generally defined as repeated unwanted contact with another individual designed to cause some sort of mental or emotional distress. But Illinois, California, Nevada, and Pennsylvania offer broad exemptions for union officials.

A law in Illinois, for instance, exempts from stalking prohibitions individuals who are engaging in “any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions or benefits . . . the making or maintaining of collective bargaining agreements, and the terms to be included in those agreements.”

Pennsylvania law says that laws against stalking “shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute.” That could prove troubling for the owners of Philadelphia-based Post Brothers Apartments, who allege that the wife of one of the company’s owners “is routinely followed taking their toddler to pre-school by picketers” involved in a labor dispute.

The Chamber explains more generally why these exemptions are concerning:


What’s sauce for the goose….never mind. 

9.  Obamacare requires free sterilizations without Parental Consent

Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.
It says that all health care plans in the United States--except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se--must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”

In practical terms, "all women with reproductive capacity" means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating….

Is this a victory for women?  Is this an example of freedom of religion? 

10.China:  It’s Future

Death and taxes. You know how the saying goes. I’d like to add a third certainty: you’ll never become Chinese, no matter how hard you try, or want to, or think you ought to. I wanted to be Chinese, once. I don’t mean I wanted to wear a silk jacket and cotton slippers, or a Mao suit and cap and dye my hair black and proclaim that blowing your nose in a handkerchief is disgusting. I wanted China to be the place where I made a career and lived my life. For the past 16 years it has been precisely that. But now I will be leaving.

I won’t be rushing back either. I have fallen out of love, woken from my China Dream….

…Modern day mainland Chinese society is focused on one object: money and the acquisition thereof. The politically correct term in China is “economic benefit.” The country and its people, on average, are far wealthier than they were 25 years ago. Traditional family culture, thanks to 60 years of self-serving socialism followed by another 30 of the “one child policy,” has become a “me” culture. Except where there is economic benefit to be had, communities do not act together, and when they do it is only to ensure equal financial compensation for the pollution, or the government-sponsored illegal land grab, or the poisoned children. Social status, so important in Chinese culture and more so thanks to those 60 years of communism, is defined by the display of wealth. Cars, apartments, personal jewellery, clothing, pets: all must be new and shiny, and carry a famous foreign brand name. In the small rural village where we live I am not asked about my health or that of my family, I am asked how much money our small business is making, how much our car cost, our dog….

…Once you’ve purchased the necessary baubles, you’ll want to invest the rest somewhere safe, preferably with a decent return—all the more important because one day you will have to pay your own medical bills and pension, besides overseas school and college fees. But there is nowhere to put it except into property or under the mattress. The stock markets are rigged, the banks operate in a way that is non-commercial, and the yuan is still strictly non-convertible. While the privileged, powerful and well-connected transfer their wealth overseas via legally questionable channels, the remainder can only buy yet more apartments or thicker mattresses. The result is the biggest property bubble in history, which when it pops will sound like a thousand firework accidents….

In brief, Chinese property prices have rocketed; owning a home has become unaffordable for the young urban workers; and vast residential developments continue to be built across the country whose units are primarily sold as investments, not homes. If you own a property you are more than likely to own at least three. Many of our friends do. If you don’t own a property, you are stuck
.
When the bubble pops, or in the remote chance that it deflates gradually, the wealth the Party gave the people will deflate too. The promise will have been broken. And there’ll still be the medical bills, pensions and school fees. The people will want their money back, or a say in their future, which amounts to a political voice. If they are denied, they will cease to be harmonious…

… That is the increasing likelihood that there will be upheaval in China within the next few years, sparked by that property crash. When it happens it will be sudden, like all such events. Sun Yat Sen’s 1911 revolution began when someone set off a bomb by accident. Some commentators say it will lead to revolution, or a collapse of the state. There are good grounds. Everything the Party does to fix things in the short term only makes matters worse in the long term by setting off property prices again. Take the recent cut in interest rates, which was done to boost domestic consumption, which won’t boost itself until the Party sorts out the healthcare system, which it hasn’t the money for because it has been invested in American debt, which it can’t sell without hurting the dollar, which would raise the value of the yuan and harm exports, which will shut factories and put people out of work and threaten social stability.

I hope the upheaval, when it comes, is peaceful, that the Party does not try to distract people by launching an attack on Taiwan or the Philippines. Whatever form it takes, it will bring to an end China’s record-breaking run of economic growth that has supposedly driven the world’s economy and today is seen as our only hope of salvation from recession.


I highly recommend you read this article.  We know so little about China, but there is a recurring theme you see about a crash coming and this article explains how it will happen. 

Monday, August 6, 2012

Anatomy of a Gaffe--Democrat style


AAA Reid's source 
AAA Romney's gaffes
What’s New Today

Story # 1 is the signs of desperation article for today.  #2 looks to see if Obama is suffering from Pseudologia fantastica.  #3 looks at the economy but this time from how it is letting Obama and the Democrats down.  #4 looks at Obama’s “You didn’t build that,” to analyze what he really meant.  #5 is a look around the globe to see how countries that tried stimulus are doing.  #6 is a story about Mia Love who is running for congress.  #7 is an update on China’s economy.  #8 reviews what happened to the Tea Party.  Is it dead or just changed?  Finally #9 looks at men and women and how they apologize differently.  

Today’s Thoughts

Actress and comedian Roseanne Barr won the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party Saturday in Los Angeles.   She has selected Cindy Sheehan as her running mate.  

Dan Ariely of Duke University has done a study that shows both parties faithful are okay with lying if it promotes their candidates.  But for Democrats, this was a slightly more endorsed position than for the Republicans. So the Democrats are more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than the Republicans.

Today’s Reagan Quote: 
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."


1.  Signs of Desperation

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign announced Monday that they had raised $101.3 million dollars in July.

The fundraising haul, from joint efforts between Team Romney and the Republican National Committee (RNC), marks the second straight month that they have passed the $100 million mark and is likely to intensify concerns among President Obama’s reelection team that they will be outpaced by the GOP’s fundraising push.

The July efforts leave the Romney campaign in strong shape with three months left until Election Day. The campaign, RNC and state party groups have $185.9 million cash on hand, said a statement touting the war chest…. 

…The Obama campaign has pressed donors to rally, warning repeatedly that they could be outgunned before November, especially among outside groups backing Romney.
Obama is scheduled to host a series of high-dollar events in the coming weeks and has added additional fundraising events to his schedule. 

Last week Obama attended a fundraising dinner in New York City with 60 donors who contributed $40,000 each. Obama has also held many high-profile events on the West Coast, where the campaign hopes supporters in the entertainment industry and Silicon Valley will help close the fundraising gap….


Add to this that Obama’s campaign has spent a lot more money than Romney and has a higher overhead and you can see big trouble ahead for the Democrats after the conventions.

Update:  Obama announces they raised $75 million in July.


For the third straight month Obama and the DNC announced that they have raised significantly less than Mitt Romney and the RNC.  They in fact raised slightly less than 2/3 of what the Republican presumed nominee raised.  It also appears Obama will not be matching 2008’s fundraising totals.



2.  Does Obama suffer from Pseudologia fantastica?

…Pseudologia fantastica is apparent when the patient (for lack of a better term) displays a compulsion to create innumerable fantastic stories, at the center of which the patient is always shown in a heroic light.  The patient will apparently create these stories that have at their heart a kernel of truth, and embroider them outrageously to show that they are brave, heroic, irreplaceable and so on. 
In a very mild form, this might even be just a case of "resume enhancement" that is seen day after day in almost every business, or listening to a guy in a bar after a few brews telling you how he actually "won the big game" with very little help from his high-school teammates.  It happens.  It's annoying.  It's usually harmless.
  
Of course, it's usually considered harmless unless the patient is "enhancing" his resume in order to become president of the United States.

Many others have looked at the validity of stories told in President Obama's memoirs, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope, and found that kernel of truth.  They also found truckloads of fabrication and embroidery.  Even that erstwhile defender of all things progressive, The New York Times, has written in a review of David Maraniss' book (who incidentally is an employee of the other über-progressive east coast newspaper, The Washington Post) that admittedly there are significant differences between reality as we know it, and the reality that Barack Obama describes.  In the Times review, the author (Michael D. Shear) quotes Mr. Maraniss as saying:

... attributes some of the differences to the kind of family lore that is often exaggerated. He notes that the story about the death of Mr. Obama's step-grandfather - allegedly killed while fighting Dutch troops in Indonesia - was 'a concocted myth in almost all respects.' Mr. Maraniss writes that he died trying to hang drapes.

Exaggerated?  When is something that is "a concocted myth" classed as an exaggeration?  Sister Mary must have missed mentioning that when she was teaching about the Catholic ritual of confession for the forgiveness of sin while I was in grammar school. 

I can see how well that would go over when I told the priest in the confessional -- "Bless me Father, for I have not really sinned.  I didn't actually lie. I only created a 'concocted myth' ".
Yeah, I can see that selling like hotcakes...

Obama’s “concocted myths” have been exposed by Maraniss which is why the left doesn’t like his book. I believe they are clinging to their myths much as Obama accused people of clinging to their guns and religion. 

3.  How the economy is letting Obama down

Politico is featuring an amusing piece called “Obama’s 4 economic letdowns.” It wasn’t instantly clear to me who Politico believes is letting down whom. But it’s apparent from the article that Politico’s Ben White sees Obama as the victim.

Specifically, four forces are victimizing him: Congress, the Fed, the Europeans, and corporate America. At least Politico had the decency not to blame automated teller machines. 

Congress is to blame for our economic woes because it’s doing nothing about “fiscal cliff fears.” But what about Obama?  He has failed to propose a budget plausible enough even to garner any votes from Democrats. And not only did Obama reject the fiscal solutions proposed by his own bipartisan commission (Bowles-Simpson), he is now attacking an approach advocated by Mitt Romney that this very panel called for. 

Politico also laments the fact that the Fed won’t embark on fresh campaign of “quantitative easing.” But the Fed has been pumping money into the system throughout Obama’s tenure. Moreover, Obama claims that the economic situation has been turned around and that it’s just a matter of time until existing policies usher in happy days. If that’s the case, it would be reckless for the Fed to engage in even further “easing.”

As for the Europeans, Politico has a point. The U.S. economy is always influenced by what happens overseas. Long before “globalization,” Martin Van Buren saw three years of trying to cope with fallout from the Panic of 1837 go to waste when the European economy turned south in the run-up to the election of 1840. 

The banking policies of Van Buren’s party are generally believed to have helped cause the Panic of 1837, just as the housing policies of Obama’s party helped cause the recession of 2008. But at least Van Buren didn’t push the U.S. to adopt policies that led to Europe’s economic woes. The same cannot be said for Obama….


What’s the old Pogo line?  “We have met the enemy and they are us.”  Sounds like a fit for Obama’s woes.

4.  What Obama really meant

President Obama must surely wish he could undo the campaign speech  he delivered in Roanoke, Va., on July 13. That was where he offered up the view that “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.” It is a line that could haunt him right to November, revealing as it does an unwillingness to credit success and a hostility toward the culture of entrepreneurship. But the remark came in the context of a broader argument that was just as telling on a different point, and no less troubling.

After laying out his plans to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, the president said this to his audience:

You know, there are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, Well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, “You know what, there’s some things we do better together.” That’s how we funded the GI Bill, that’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet, that’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president, because I still believe in that idea: You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

This remarkable window into the president’s thinking shows us not only a man chilly toward the potential of individual initiative, and not only a man deluded about the nature of his opponents and their views, but also (and perhaps most important) a man with a staggeringly thin idea of common action in American life.  

The president simply equates doing things together with doing things through government. He sees the citizen and the state, and nothing in between — and thus sees every political question as a choice between radical individualism and a federal program.


I do believe this is a window into the president’s thinking, but the technique he used (creating a strawman) is one he commonly uses.  He always divides a choice into two extremes and he is always the voice of moderation.  In fact, his campaign is attempting to do this with Mitt Romney as he tries to define Romney as an extreme. 

5.  More Stimulus equals lower growth

Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.

It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus. 

The four nations—Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic and Finland—with the biggest stimulus programs had the steepest declines in growth. The United States was no different, with greater spending (up 7.3%) followed by far lower growth rates (down 8.4%)….

…If you believe, as I do, that the macro economy is the sum total of all of its micro parts, then stimulus spending really doesn't make much sense. In essence, it's when government takes additional resources beyond what it would otherwise take from one group of people (usually the people who produced the resources) and then gives those resources to another group of people (often to non-workers and non-producers). 

Often as not, the qualification for receiving stimulus funds is the absence of work or income—such as banks and companies that fail, solar energy companies that can't make it on their own, unemployment benefits and the like. Quite simply, government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don't work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment.

Yet the notion that additional spending is a "stimulus" and less spending is "austerity" is the norm just about everywhere. Without ever thinking where the money comes from, politicians and many economists believe additional government spending adds to aggregate demand. You'd think that single-entry accounting were the God's truth and that, for the government at least, every check written has no offsetting debit…


This morning I was looking at our plants on the patio.  We have an automatic watering system and some of the plants looked withered.  My wife thought we needed to water them more.  However we have a water meter and putting it in where the withered plants were showed not that we needed water, but they we had too much water.  I think this is analogist to what is going on with the left and the right.  The withered economy tells the left that it needs more stimulus, while the right sees that as a sign of too much stimulus.   



6.  Mia Love for Congress

Mia Love is a former mayor, avid runner, mother, and has a penchant for straight talk. She also stunned the political world with her meteoric rise to success. There are sure to be comparisons to another conservative woman leader.

Love is running against Democratic incumbent Jim Matheson for Utah’s 4th district congressional seat. In response to last week’s news that for the 42nd consecutive month unemployment is above 8 percent Love said, “Jim Matheson has repeatedly touted his vote for the stimulus. Yet, here we are, three-and-a-half years later, and the unemployment rate is the same as it was when Matheson fell in line with the rest of the big-government Democrats to pass Barack Obama’s stimulus scheme. Jim Matheson and Barack Obama’s stimulus plan has done nothing but add to the mountain of federal debt that Washington’s reckless spending has left for Utah’s future generations.”
Due to Love’s charisma and the potential for Republicans to gain another seat in the House the race has caught the attention of conservatives from across the country. After hosting a fundraiser for her campaign, Rep. Paul Ryan said, “Mia has a great opportunity to extend the message of liberty and economic freedom in ways that a lot of us can’t, and we’re excited about that.”

Love was born in Brooklyn, NY to immigrant parents from Haiti. The family eventually moved to Connecticut, where Love attended the University of Hartford. While in school, she met her future husband, Jason, who was in Connecticut on a mission trip. After graduating, they married and moved to Utah.
In Utah, Love served two terms on the Saratoga Springs city council. After serving during a time of economic downturn and making tough financial decisions to keep the city running, Love was elected as mayor.

The 2010 election ushered in a fantastic group of conservatives like Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Allen West, Raul Labrador, and Sean Duffy. With leaders like Mia Love on the horizon, 2012 is sure to bring about an even more energized freshman class to Congress….


She is an exciting candidate who has the support of the Tea Party, but she is also black.  So does that mean if you are a democrat and you vote against her you are a racist? 

7.  China Companies report lower profits or losses

Chinese companies are warning they will be reporting either losses or declining profits for the first half.  Corporate results are forcing stock markets down and pointing to a contraction in the country’s economy.

China Rongsheng Heavy Industries, China’s largest private shipbuilder, lost 19% of its value when it issued a profit warning at the end of last month.  Yards in the country are in a terrible state—the industry’s orders for new vessels in May were half of what they were a year earlier—yet Rongsheng’s poor prospects had largely been discounted.  The company’s shares tumbled not only because it hadn’t announced any shipbuilding orders this year but also because the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission implicated Zhang Zhirong, its chairman and founder, in an insider trading scheme relating to the acquisition of Canada’s Nexon by CNOOC, a unit of one of China’s state oil giants.

We can perhaps dismiss Rongsheng as an aberration, but poor results at other companies are indicative of the state of the country’s increasingly troubled economy.  Take China Cosco, for instance.  The Hong Kong-listed subsidiary of China’s largest shipping company warned that its loss in the first six months of this year would widen to at least 4.14 billion yuan ($648.8 million).  In the same period last year, the company was 2.76 billion yuan in the red.  China Cosco posted a loss of 2.69 billion yuan in Q1…

… Why are there so many profit warnings now?  There is, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Tom Orlik, a “hypercyclicality” in profits caused by government-mandated “breakneck investment,” which resulted in “excess supply.”  As Sany’s Xiang Wenbo noted, Beijing’s past stimulus efforts were “abnormal” and “irrational.”

China is coming off its stimulus sugar high, and so margins are under pressure.  Profits, however, are just wonderful for companies in a few regulated industries, where Beijing essentially determines corporate results…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/08/05/warning-most-chinese-companies-reporting-losses-profit-declines/

It’s always a good idea to keep tabs on China and this is extremely important.  One question you need to ask is what does this do for or to America. 


8.  What Happened to the Tea Party?

The Tea Party movement morphed from protest signs to campaign signs.
That's how a Texas Tea Party activist succinctly put it when I asked him what's become of the movement. He said, "We put down our protest signs, and picked up campaign signs."
He said that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's victory lap after passing Obamacare was a "wake-up call." It signaled that mass demonstrations would not bring significant changes. Change would only come through the ballot box.

Hearing the call, the Tea Party vacated the town squares and hit the streets where it began organizing for the long-term.

It was always a grassroots phenomenon, so no territorial shift was required.  And since it enjoyed little, or no, support from established GOP county structures, it didn't need to ask permission from the local GOP leadership, or accept its judgment as authoritative.

Consequently, the movement was largely a Greenfield Project, unencumbered by any pre-existing cadre of party hacks, as it morphed from event-driven protests to election-driven activism focused on supporting like-minded candidates.

Today, the local independence of Tea Party organizations remains, but communication between Tea Party organizations has continued to expand, in scope and sophistication. 

The absence of central planning is a key to its strength. Decentralization gives it operational flexibility, local ownership of decisions, and continuous learning as concepts are formally, and informally, shared between local organizations.  It's a network.

When James Carville recently said that the Tea Party was over, he knew better. He merely signaled what the progressive left of the Democratic Party, which now controls the party's agenda, fears most.  Progressives recognize that the Tea Party represents a more clear-and-present danger to their agenda than that posed by the go-along-to-get-along mentality within the GOP establishment, where politics as usual is usual…. 

2012 will be a huge victory for the Tea Party.

9.  Men and Women Apologies

… One of few scientific studies on the psychology of female versus male apologies determined that men are less inclined to apologize because they have a different threshold for perceiving offensive behavior; that is, that they don’t always get what they’ve done wrong until someone slaps them upside the head for it. If true, the flipside benefit is that a man is also less likely to demand an apology from a woman, because he has the same high threshold for perceiving a misstep by her as apology-worthy.

Disparities between female and male brains may also impact how apologies are shaped and delivered. Men tend to have proportionally more white matter in their heads, indicating a thick web of connections that strengthen organizational skills, spatial relations, and problem solving. But women are understood to have greater connectivity between the left side of the brain, where logic and facts are mostly processed, and the right side in charge of non-linear thought like creativity and perception. The flow of signals between left and right may explain why women are generally better at connecting emotions with language.
That’s the strength in Stewart’s apology: a direct link between what she did and her begging expression of regret. It says nothing of the trustworthiness of one gender over another, but women seem to deliver a more convincing “I’m sorry” once the deed is done.


Men and women are different and as a man I find the constant need by women to be apologized to confusing.