You shall lose all rights to your ideas including any patents once you
submit. Even if you don't win anything at all.
http://communities.challenge.my/rules#4-intellectual-property-rights
4. Intellectual Property Rights
Each Contestant acknowledges and consents that the ideas contained in
his/ her or their Submissions may be used by any third party
(including but not limited to other Contestants) for any purpose
whatsoever without any compensation to the Contestant. Each Contestant
grants to the Administrators, and their agents, a perpetual, royalty-
free, non-exclusive, worldwide license with the right to sublicense
under all of the Contestant's intellectual property rights in and to
each Submission submitted by the Contestant to use, copy for use, make
derivative works of, perform publicly, and display publicly, for any
non-commercial purpose.
Friday, 14 December 2012
Monday, 22 October 2012
Romney's immiment destruction of USA
USA will go the way of Bush's USA and Romney's Massachusetts.
"While Romney was governor of my state, Massachusetts, the debt burden per capita was the highest in the nation. He raised or created more than 1,000 taxes and fees on people across Massachusetts, while 278 wealthy residents in the state got a tax break. And Massachusetts plummeted to 47th out of 50 in job creation."
It looks like Romney will win the coming election. We must all brace for a more destructive policies similar to Bush being repeated all over again. This time it will be Iran. With more wars, more taxes on the middle class while the rich are exempted, the debt burden will increase tremendously. Do we need a disaster similar to the loan scandals in USA? This time, we don't need a major scandal to trigger the collopse of the US economy, any bad news will do.
I just don't understand why people can be so stupid as to believe in lies and repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Theoretically less government and more private enterprises will spur the economy just as it had done to China's special territories, but it had not done so to USA. The reason could be due to the corruption of the ideals of free enterprise in USA. It is not true capitalism but rather crony capitalism that is practised in Malaysia which led it to being the most corrupt in the world, whereas Singapore, that has huge government involvements, had managed to become the richest in the world. Malaysia and Singapore are good examples for comparisons because they used to be one nation, neighbours, similar racial composition and starting with similar levels of developments, and yet the final result is very severe. Malaysia, despite its huge resources, had gone into the third world with the worst corruptioin and income gap levels while Singapore had gone on to become the wealthiest nation on earth, despite having no resources at all, not even enough fresh water.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-warns-president-romney/article/2511330#.UISBy2flaq0
Kerry Warns: 'President Romney?!'
Referring to his own paper-thin 2004 loss to former President George W. Bush, Kerry is trying to scare Democrats into giving the Obama campaign one last donation so that President Obama isn't outspent by Romney, though September financial records show that Obama outspent Romney two to one.
Kerry's email:
Folks, it's time to get serious about this.
In these last two weeks, President Obama and Democrats are going to get slammed with a massive blitz of negative ads. Mitt Romney and outside groups are "hoping that burying President Obama in ads will give them a crucial edge on Election Day," reports the Washington Post.
You and I learned the hard way eight years ago: We need to respond immediately and forcefully.
We've got the right candidates, the right ideas, and millions of committed supporters -- but we simply can't win without the resources.
So please donate $5 or more today.
We cannot let Mitt Romney become president.
While Romney was governor of my state, Massachusetts, the debt burden per capita was the highest in the nation. He raised or created more than 1,000 taxes and fees on people across Massachusetts, while 278 wealthy residents in the state got a tax break. And Massachusetts plummeted to 47th out of 50 in job creation.
What does it say that the people who know Mitt Romney best trust him least? He is trailing by 20 points or more in the state where he was governor.
If that's not what you want for the next four years, then chip in $5 or more and help President Obama and Democrats across the country beat Romney and his Republican allies:
https://my.democrats.org/Finish-Line
Thanks,
John Kerry
P.S. -- The stakes could not be higher. Tomorrow is the final debate, and then we're just two weeks away. No regrets. Donate today.
Friday, 19 October 2012
US road to disaster
I support Paul Krugman's comments completely, even to the point of the soundness of Romney's basic principle such as lowering taxes for businesses as well as lowering regulations for small businesses so as to lower the cost of doing business, but as being clearly pointed out, Romney has no plans to fix the US economy apart from helping the rich while increasing the debt burden.
Romney is just trying to repeat the disastrous Bush era. The excuse is that this time round, Romney will be tough on China and there is no more mortgages to fail. Come on, those mortgages failed because of pressures from the lowering of the income of the middle class which Romney will definitely destroy by increasing US debts and subsequent wars with Iran and Syria.
There is no doubt that in the 3rd debate, Obama will get a beating on foreign policy as the cautions Obama style is making things bad for the US interests especially that of Israel.
Taking into account the overwhelming Republican congress that had carried out Bush policies despite Obama's presidency, the slow econmic progress achieved will turn to economic disaster as more debts pile up, and more regulations being removed. The worst affected will be the middle class but it is the fault of the middle class themselves for voting in the Republican congress which resulted in the increasing gap between rich and poor, and the increasing state of bankrupcy that US is suffering as Romney engages in militarism to protect Israeli's interests to the detriment of the world's economy.
It will be a second round of Bush disasters and nobody is to be blamed except the greedy US citizens but the whole world will suffer as a result, not only Iranians but the whole world.
Op-Ed Columnist
Snow Job on Jobs
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 18, 2012 47 Comments
Mitt Romney talks a lot about jobs. But does he have a plan to create any?
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
You can defend President Obama’s jobs record — recovery from a severe
financial crisis is always difficult, and especially so when the
opposition party does its best to block every policy initiative you
propose. And things have definitely improved over the past year. Still,
unemployment remains high after all these years, and a candidate with a
real plan to make things better could make a strong case for his
election.
But Mr. Romney, it turns out, doesn’t have a plan; he’s just faking it.
In saying that, I don’t mean that I disagree with his economic
philosophy; I do, but that’s a separate point. I mean, instead, that Mr.
Romney’s campaign is telling lies: claiming that its numbers add up
when they don’t, claiming that independent studies support its position
when those studies do no such thing.
Before I get there, however, let me take a minute to talk about Mr.
Romney’s claim that he knows how to fix the economy because he’s been a
successful businessman. That would be a dubious claim even if he were
honestly representing his business career, because the skills needed to
run a business and those needed to manage economic policy are very
different. In any case, however, his portrait of his own experience is
so misleading that it takes your breath away.
For Mr. Romney, who started as a business consultant and then moved into
the heady world of private equity, insists on portraying himself as a
plucky small businessman.
I am not making this up. In Tuesday’s debate, he declared, “I came
through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small
business.” In his speech at the Republican convention, he declared,
“When I was 37, I helped start a small company.”
Ahem. It’s true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of
employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that
included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies
and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads
associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn’t
every plucky little start-up have access to that kind of financing?
But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan
has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it
calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker
environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would
create 12 million jobs over the next four years.
Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three
studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however,
those studies did no such thing.
Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two
million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other
intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn’t
proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study
suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs
in the next few years — but these were predicted gains under current
policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not
as a consequence of the Romney plan.
Finally, a third study examined the effects of the Romney tax plan and
argued (implausibly, but that’s another issue) that it would lead to a
large increase in the number of Americans who want to work. But how does
that help cure a situation in which there are already millions more
Americans seeking work than there are jobs available? It’s irrelevant to
Mr. Romney’s claims.
So when the campaign says that these three studies support its claims
about jobs, it is, to use the technical term, lying — just as it is when
it says that six independent studies support its claims about taxes
(they don’t).
What do Mr. Romney’s economic advisers actually believe? As best as I
can tell, they’re placing their faith in the confidence fairy, in the
belief that their candidate’s victory would inspire an employment boom
without the need for any real change in policy. In fact, in his infamous
Boca Raton “47 percent” remarks, Mr. Romney himself asserted that he
would give a big boost to the economy simply by being elected, “without
actually doing anything.” And what about the overwhelming evidence that
our weak economy isn’t about confidence, it’s about the hangover from a
terrible financial crisis? Never mind.
To summarize, then, the true Romney plan is to create an economic boom
through the sheer power of Mr. Romney’s personal awesomeness. But the
campaign doesn’t dare say that, for fear that voters would (rightly)
consider it ridiculous. So what we’re getting instead is an attempt to
brazen it out with nakedly false claims. There’s no jobs plan; just a
plan for a snow job on the American people.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Why 50% US believe in Romney's lies?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/romney-emergency-rooms_b_1965042.html
The above article is excellent reading and yet it does not explain why
Romney is still liked by the majority of US citizens that are mostly
middle class. It shows how selfish US has become. Despite the
disasters under Bush caused by taxing the middle class more, these
middle class still want to repeat the same mistakes that they did, all
because they all don't want to pay any taxes? In the end it is the
middle class that will have to pay more, by paying more for education
and health insurance, as a result of cuts in welfare expenditures in
favour of the rich and military. Don't they realise that the rich
already pay much less tax than the poor? And now, under Romney, the
middle class will have to pay more for basic necessities, apart from
more taxes. It is so mind boggling. And all because they believe in
the lies that Romney said in the debates? Research reports that are
not era search at but stupid comments not backed by facts such as the
economic progress under Clinton despite more tax to the rich, and
economic disaster under Bush for 8 years despite low taxes for the
rich and higher tax for middle class. And yet, almost half of US
voters still want to believe in the lies and hidden agenda from
Romney. Romney does not even declare his tax let alone the tax cuts he
is proposing.
HuffPost Social Reading
Leo W. GerardInternational President, United Steelworkers
GET UPDATES FROM LEO W. GERARD
Like
844
Mitt Romney: The Empty Suit Clueless About the Empty Chair
Posted: 10/15/2012 8:39 am
1
Submit this story
Billy Koehler died on March 7, 2009, for lack of health insurance.
Mitt Romney said on October 10, 2012, that's impossible.
The Republican nominee for president told the Columbus Dispatch last
week:
We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment
because they don't have insurance.
Technically, that's true of Billy Koehler. He didn't die in his
apartment. He died in his car. Koehler suffered cardiac arrest and
perished slumped over his steering wheel at a stop sign in Pittsburgh
because he didn't have health insurance and didn't have $60,000 to
replace his implanted defibrillator.
Romney, a quarter-billionaire born with a silver foot in his mouth,
has shielded himself from the world in which America's many Billy
Koehlers exist. Their paths don't naturally cross. Billy Koehlers
don't hang out with Romney's NASCAR owner pals. Billy Koehlers don't
disparage the nation's elderly and impoverished at fundraisers in the
homes of private equity moguls. FDR and JFK made an effort to
understand the joys and hardships of the non-rich. But Romney hasn't.
And that's why he so carelessly called America's Billy Koehlers a
deliberately dependent underclass, albeit one comprising47 percent of
all citizens. Because Romney knows nothing of the lives of the
nation's Billy Koehlers, the Republican nominee can dismiss their
medical predicaments as nonexistent and assure wealthy donors he won't
"worry about those people."
Romney told the Columbus newspaper that no one needs to worry about
those lacking health insurance because federal law requires hospitals
to treat emergency cases:
We don't have a setting across this country where if you don't have
insurance, we say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you
have your heart attack.
He continued:
No, you go to the hospital; you get treated; you get care, and it's
paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.
Logically, then, the solution would be for no one to buy insurance.
Why bother? Hospitals must treat and bill someone else, according to
Romney.
But it doesn't work that way. The late Billy Koehler is an example of
how it actually operates -- how it fails to work for 26,100 to 45,000
Americans who die each year for lack of insurance.
Billy's sister, Georgeanne Koehler, a retired hospital worker and
member of the Service Employees International Union, told his story at
rallies for passage of Obamacare, taking with her an empty chair in
his memory. She celebrated the law's passage in 2010, particularly its
provision forbidding insurance companies from denying coverage to
those with pre-existing conditions. That might have saved her brother.
Billy was just 39 when he suffered his first cardiac arrest. An
electronics technician, he had health insurance through his employer,
and that paid for surgery to implant a defibrillator. Still, over the
years, Billy spent his entire $25,000 in pension savings on medical
bills that insurance did not pay.
In 2003, Billy lost his job and his health insurance when the company
he worked for closed. He tried to get another job with health
insurance but could not. He tried to buy health coverage privately,
but every insurer in Pennsylvania denied his request because of his
pre-existing heart condition. He didn't qualify for Medicaid because
he earned slightly too much money in his new job as a pizza delivery
driver.
While at work on December 14, 2007, he collapsed in the pizza shop. He
survived, but a cardiologist told him that his defibrillator needed to
be replaced. Because Billy had no insurance, the doctor required
payment up front.
Romney's right about one thing. The hospital treated Billy as an
emergency cardiac arrest victim. But the hospital emergency room
wasn't required to give him surgery to replace the defibrillator. And
neither Billy, nor his sister, had $60,000 to pay for it out of
pocket.
Less than two years later, as Billy drove home from work, he suffered
cardiac arrest again. And he died. For lack of health insurance.
Under Obamacare, insurers can't deny coverage to people like Billy
because of pre-existing conditions. Obamacare also established high-
risk pools for people like Billy. And Obamacare will extend Medicaid
to more low-income people like Billy.
Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.
Like a 21st century Marie Antoinette, he says: Let 'em go to the
emergency room.
Romney's prescription doesn't work. It wouldn't work for his own wife,
Ann,who has multiple sclerosis and survived breast cancer. As quarter-
billionaires, the Romneys have the best insurance in the world. But
without it, a hospital emergency room would not have provided Ann
Romney with the care she needed. Emergency rooms don't perform
lumpectomies or radiation therapy. Emergency rooms don't provide
therapy for fatigue, dizziness, numbness or paralysis caused by MS.
Emergency rooms don't dispense MS drugs that can cost $3,000 a month.
Romney's clearly unaware of the empty chair campaign. Not having
health insurance or $60,000 for surgery is inconceivable to him. He
bought his wife a $500,000 dressage horse for MS therapy, after all.
America can't afford to have in the White House an empty Armani who
has made no attempt to find out what it's like to try to survive
uninsured, who remains clueless about all the chairs in America
emptied by lack of insurance. The nation can't afford a president so
comatose to the lives of average Americans.
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger
Related News On Huffington Post:
Mitt Romney's Hospital Comment 'Frightening' To Uninsured Woman
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says that thanks to
hospitals, Americans who lack health insurance don't have it so bad.
"We don't have a setting...
Mitt Romney: People Don't 'Die In Their Apartment Because They Don't
Have Insurance'
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal
Obamacare, says that people without health insurance don't have to
worry about dying as a...
Under Health Care Reform, Employers May Slash Workers' Hours To Avoid
Mandate
Working as a server at a Capital Grille in Tampa, Fla., Kevin Kearney
typically picks up more than 30 hours per week, bringing home just...
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Judy Dushku: It Is a Moral Imperative to Treat Women As If They
Mattered: A Mormon Woman's Manifesto
Mitt Romney selectively puts forward ideas that he says reflect his
faith, but other Mormons disagree with his interpretations of our
beliefs.
Linda Bergthold: Health Care Matters in This Election
I've been reminded of how important it is to remember the personal
stories at this point in the election season. Talking heads will
pontificate about who won what debate and what poll is really
accurate. But there are real consequences to this election.
Leo W. Gerard: Mitt Romney: Magic Man
Now you see severely conservative Romney, now you don't. The GOP
nominee asks Americans to engage in magical thinking -- to believe his
hocus-pocus is not just a stage show but will actually painlessly
solve problems.
Ben Townsend: Uninsured People Do Die in Their Homes
Now, I'm an Obama supporter. And I don't think very much of Romney's
health care proposals. But I would like to comment on his assertion
that uninsured people don't die in their homes. Because I happen to
know a person who did.
More Blog Posts: « First Prev 1 2 Next Last »
More in Politics...
Obama: Debate Preparation Is 'Going Great'
Jason Thompson On Obama: 'We Have The...
2012 Election: Debate Preparation Trumps Campaigning
Barack Obama And Mitt Romney's Economic Plan
Comments 1 Pending Comments 3 View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment;
after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to.
Share your Comment:
Post to Facebook.Post to Blogger.Post to Twitter.Post to
WordPress.Post to TypePad.Post to Tumblr.
View All Bloggers
Recency | Popularity
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
1918 Fans
17 minutes ago ( 8:53 AM)
Hey, Mitt, try actually talking to a member of the middle class rather
than talking down at us.
Permalink | Share it
The above article is excellent reading and yet it does not explain why
Romney is still liked by the majority of US citizens that are mostly
middle class. It shows how selfish US has become. Despite the
disasters under Bush caused by taxing the middle class more, these
middle class still want to repeat the same mistakes that they did, all
because they all don't want to pay any taxes? In the end it is the
middle class that will have to pay more, by paying more for education
and health insurance, as a result of cuts in welfare expenditures in
favour of the rich and military. Don't they realise that the rich
already pay much less tax than the poor? And now, under Romney, the
middle class will have to pay more for basic necessities, apart from
more taxes. It is so mind boggling. And all because they believe in
the lies that Romney said in the debates? Research reports that are
not era search at but stupid comments not backed by facts such as the
economic progress under Clinton despite more tax to the rich, and
economic disaster under Bush for 8 years despite low taxes for the
rich and higher tax for middle class. And yet, almost half of US
voters still want to believe in the lies and hidden agenda from
Romney. Romney does not even declare his tax let alone the tax cuts he
is proposing.
HuffPost Social Reading
Leo W. GerardInternational President, United Steelworkers
GET UPDATES FROM LEO W. GERARD
Like
844
Mitt Romney: The Empty Suit Clueless About the Empty Chair
Posted: 10/15/2012 8:39 am
1
Submit this story
Billy Koehler died on March 7, 2009, for lack of health insurance.
Mitt Romney said on October 10, 2012, that's impossible.
The Republican nominee for president told the Columbus Dispatch last
week:
We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment
because they don't have insurance.
Technically, that's true of Billy Koehler. He didn't die in his
apartment. He died in his car. Koehler suffered cardiac arrest and
perished slumped over his steering wheel at a stop sign in Pittsburgh
because he didn't have health insurance and didn't have $60,000 to
replace his implanted defibrillator.
Romney, a quarter-billionaire born with a silver foot in his mouth,
has shielded himself from the world in which America's many Billy
Koehlers exist. Their paths don't naturally cross. Billy Koehlers
don't hang out with Romney's NASCAR owner pals. Billy Koehlers don't
disparage the nation's elderly and impoverished at fundraisers in the
homes of private equity moguls. FDR and JFK made an effort to
understand the joys and hardships of the non-rich. But Romney hasn't.
And that's why he so carelessly called America's Billy Koehlers a
deliberately dependent underclass, albeit one comprising47 percent of
all citizens. Because Romney knows nothing of the lives of the
nation's Billy Koehlers, the Republican nominee can dismiss their
medical predicaments as nonexistent and assure wealthy donors he won't
"worry about those people."
Romney told the Columbus newspaper that no one needs to worry about
those lacking health insurance because federal law requires hospitals
to treat emergency cases:
We don't have a setting across this country where if you don't have
insurance, we say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you
have your heart attack.
He continued:
No, you go to the hospital; you get treated; you get care, and it's
paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.
Logically, then, the solution would be for no one to buy insurance.
Why bother? Hospitals must treat and bill someone else, according to
Romney.
But it doesn't work that way. The late Billy Koehler is an example of
how it actually operates -- how it fails to work for 26,100 to 45,000
Americans who die each year for lack of insurance.
Billy's sister, Georgeanne Koehler, a retired hospital worker and
member of the Service Employees International Union, told his story at
rallies for passage of Obamacare, taking with her an empty chair in
his memory. She celebrated the law's passage in 2010, particularly its
provision forbidding insurance companies from denying coverage to
those with pre-existing conditions. That might have saved her brother.
Billy was just 39 when he suffered his first cardiac arrest. An
electronics technician, he had health insurance through his employer,
and that paid for surgery to implant a defibrillator. Still, over the
years, Billy spent his entire $25,000 in pension savings on medical
bills that insurance did not pay.
In 2003, Billy lost his job and his health insurance when the company
he worked for closed. He tried to get another job with health
insurance but could not. He tried to buy health coverage privately,
but every insurer in Pennsylvania denied his request because of his
pre-existing heart condition. He didn't qualify for Medicaid because
he earned slightly too much money in his new job as a pizza delivery
driver.
While at work on December 14, 2007, he collapsed in the pizza shop. He
survived, but a cardiologist told him that his defibrillator needed to
be replaced. Because Billy had no insurance, the doctor required
payment up front.
Romney's right about one thing. The hospital treated Billy as an
emergency cardiac arrest victim. But the hospital emergency room
wasn't required to give him surgery to replace the defibrillator. And
neither Billy, nor his sister, had $60,000 to pay for it out of
pocket.
Less than two years later, as Billy drove home from work, he suffered
cardiac arrest again. And he died. For lack of health insurance.
Under Obamacare, insurers can't deny coverage to people like Billy
because of pre-existing conditions. Obamacare also established high-
risk pools for people like Billy. And Obamacare will extend Medicaid
to more low-income people like Billy.
Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.
Like a 21st century Marie Antoinette, he says: Let 'em go to the
emergency room.
Romney's prescription doesn't work. It wouldn't work for his own wife,
Ann,who has multiple sclerosis and survived breast cancer. As quarter-
billionaires, the Romneys have the best insurance in the world. But
without it, a hospital emergency room would not have provided Ann
Romney with the care she needed. Emergency rooms don't perform
lumpectomies or radiation therapy. Emergency rooms don't provide
therapy for fatigue, dizziness, numbness or paralysis caused by MS.
Emergency rooms don't dispense MS drugs that can cost $3,000 a month.
Romney's clearly unaware of the empty chair campaign. Not having
health insurance or $60,000 for surgery is inconceivable to him. He
bought his wife a $500,000 dressage horse for MS therapy, after all.
America can't afford to have in the White House an empty Armani who
has made no attempt to find out what it's like to try to survive
uninsured, who remains clueless about all the chairs in America
emptied by lack of insurance. The nation can't afford a president so
comatose to the lives of average Americans.
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger
Related News On Huffington Post:
Mitt Romney's Hospital Comment 'Frightening' To Uninsured Woman
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says that thanks to
hospitals, Americans who lack health insurance don't have it so bad.
"We don't have a setting...
Mitt Romney: People Don't 'Die In Their Apartment Because They Don't
Have Insurance'
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal
Obamacare, says that people without health insurance don't have to
worry about dying as a...
Under Health Care Reform, Employers May Slash Workers' Hours To Avoid
Mandate
Working as a server at a Capital Grille in Tampa, Fla., Kevin Kearney
typically picks up more than 30 hours per week, bringing home just...
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Judy Dushku: It Is a Moral Imperative to Treat Women As If They
Mattered: A Mormon Woman's Manifesto
Mitt Romney selectively puts forward ideas that he says reflect his
faith, but other Mormons disagree with his interpretations of our
beliefs.
Linda Bergthold: Health Care Matters in This Election
I've been reminded of how important it is to remember the personal
stories at this point in the election season. Talking heads will
pontificate about who won what debate and what poll is really
accurate. But there are real consequences to this election.
Leo W. Gerard: Mitt Romney: Magic Man
Now you see severely conservative Romney, now you don't. The GOP
nominee asks Americans to engage in magical thinking -- to believe his
hocus-pocus is not just a stage show but will actually painlessly
solve problems.
Ben Townsend: Uninsured People Do Die in Their Homes
Now, I'm an Obama supporter. And I don't think very much of Romney's
health care proposals. But I would like to comment on his assertion
that uninsured people don't die in their homes. Because I happen to
know a person who did.
More Blog Posts: « First Prev 1 2 Next Last »
More in Politics...
Obama: Debate Preparation Is 'Going Great'
Jason Thompson On Obama: 'We Have The...
2012 Election: Debate Preparation Trumps Campaigning
Barack Obama And Mitt Romney's Economic Plan
Comments 1 Pending Comments 3 View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment;
after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to.
Share your Comment:
Post to Facebook.Post to Blogger.Post to Twitter.Post to
WordPress.Post to TypePad.Post to Tumblr.
View All Bloggers
Recency | Popularity
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
1918 Fans
17 minutes ago ( 8:53 AM)
Hey, Mitt, try actually talking to a member of the middle class rather
than talking down at us.
Permalink | Share it
Secret of high standard of education
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/10/14/mitt-romney-surges-also-expresses-pride-massachusetts/REhJOMdgAb9Hbq3DZnonUI/story.html
It shows that high standard of education is not gained by reducing standard, but by stadfasting with the standards. The problem with Malaysia is that we keep on reducing our educational standards just to allow more students to pass. Initially it may be hard but later on, as more students and teachers learn the value of high standard of learning, will improve themselves.
Mitt Romney’s finally loving Massachusetts
One of the refreshing aspects of Mitt Romney’s recent resurgence has been his willingness to express pride in Massachusetts. He’s accepted ownership of the state’s health plan, and, in the first presidential debate, touted the success of the state’s students. Education reform has been a triumph for Massachusetts. And in keeping with the old saying that success has a million fathers while failure is an orphan, Romney deserves some credit as well.
“Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation,” he said in the debate. “This is not because I didn’t have commitment to education. It’s because I care about education for all of our kids.’’
It is true that during Romney’s time as governor, Bay State students hit a new high on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam. In 2005, improving on their already strong performance in 2003 (the year Romney took office), Massachusetts’ fourth- and eighth-graders surged to the head of the pack on the exam known as the nation’s report card.
That result was the culmination of years of hard work that started with the Education Reform Act of 1993, which hiked state education funding, increased standards, and added accountability. The three real fathers of that law were Democrats Mark Roosevelt and Tom Birmingham, then the House and Senate chairmen of the Legislature’s education committee, and Bill Weld, then the state’s Republican governor. Acting Governor Jane Swift deserves special credit for remaining courageously behind the MCAS when high failure rates, in the years before passing that exam became a graduation requirement, prompted other policy makers to go wobbly.
That’s not to say that Romney deserves no credit on education. Among other things, he did laudable work beating back a legislative attempt to ambush the state’s charter-school movement. Massachusetts’ success in education reform proves the need for constant commitment and vigilance, something that governors from Weld to Patrick — including Romney — can cite with pride.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
An economics professor can be so wrong if he ignores all mathematics and facts.
"Lower tax rates" was the policy that got US in trouble during the Bush era, and why continue such policies?
See my comments within the paragraphs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443995604578003861814796262.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The Romney Cure for Obama-Induced Economic Ills
First is the obvious: The American economy is getting worse, not better. Real personal income fell by 3.8% at an annual rate in August. In the past two months, half a million Americans gave up looking for work, and the percentage of the working-age population with jobs is below, rather than above, what it was when the recovery began in July 2009. Unemployment has been stuck above 8%. Economic growth in the most recently reported second quarter was a minuscule 1.3%.
The Obama administration and its supporters counter with a rosier view, noting that, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of households, there are 2.3 million more jobs in the past 12 months. That may sound good, but over the same period the working-age population increased by four million. And in the past two months, the survey shows, employment declined.
>Othman
As bad as it may seem, it was not as bad during the Bush era. After such devastating damage done to the economy, that lower taxes HAD FAILED to address, you still want to propose similar failed policies?
And worse, these same policies are still being carried out by the stubborn Republican congress, that continue the Bush era income tax cuts across the board, and therefore favoring the rich much more.
And yet put the blame on Obama!!! Bloody lying idiot.
If the Republican Congress had allowed Obama's plans to proceed, we are sure US economy will grow even larger and there will be much less unemployment, and all economist with a decent honesty will surely know this.
Now, the Bush tax cuts is still on, why isn't the economy recovering? Why blame it on Obama?
The excessive tax cuts on the rich is the main problem, US citizens must wake up. If tax cuts really can introduce more jobs, by this time, unemployment rates should have gone down.
Facts don't lie, but we can reason it by observing that despite tax cuts on the rich, the rich are not investing. Why? Becaasue the economy is weak, because the consumers are still poor. The consumers are mostly the middle-class. Without the economic strength of the middle-class, there will be negligible consumption in the US that drive its economy, and therefore investment. Even Apple does not invest heavily.
No matter how much you reduce its taxes, it will not invest more in US. Better face the reality. Better tax Apple more, so that Apple will maintain its HQ in US because most consumers are in US. If you still dont' know the simple maths, how many iPhones can someone with 1 million buy? 1. How about those with 100,000, ten of them. The chance for those with incomes of 100,000 to buy is ten times more than those with 1 million income. Imagine against billionaires? That Bush era tax cuts favour.
***************
The second basic problem is that the economic policies pursued by the Obama administration consist mainly of short-term interventions, such as the stimulus packages, cash-for-clunkers, and temporary payments to state governments and individuals. At best, these have produced only small, short-term economic blips.
Here, too, some administration defenders claim that at least the fiscal stimulus packages stopped the economic free fall. This is not what the data show. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in February 2009, but the sharp decline in retail sales, exports and new investment orders ended in December 2008 or January 2009.
>Othman
That act was not the only action taken by the Bush adminstation to halt the decline. Bank bailouts were much earlier.
Are you saying that the act didn't stop the decline AT ALL? Just the discussion of the act can stop steep declines. Without any discussiion of a reinvestment, it will surely freefall. A professor in economics should know this and yet, failed to see investor sentiments.
************************
Basic economics tells us that such temporary policies do little to restart growth. More lasting reforms are needed. Mr. Romney's economic plan will deliver these reforms. It promotes growth by focusing
>Othman
Yes. Not by continuing Bush tax cuts for the RICH!!! See the words clearly!!! THE RICH!!!
*****************************
on five strategic areas: energy, education, trade, debt reduction and job creation.
>Othman
All a bunch of lies and half measures that had already been tried during Bush era and failed.
****************************
Economists point to enormous opportunities for sustainable growth in energy. To capitalize on these opportunities, the federal government has to approve the necessary infrastructure—such as the Keystone XL pipeline—and permit states to manage energy development on federal lands within their borders. The Romney plan would provide the needed federal approvals.
>Othman
Without taking into account the environmental impacts, it will make it worse in the long run to the US economy. Similar to the devastation done to East Germany, vs West Germany.
Environmental disregard, for the sake of short term economic gains will not help the nation in the long run.
**********************************************
The nation's troubled education system is a drag on long-term growth. To improve outcomes, Mr. Romney proposes to allow students in poorly performing schools to use existing federal funds (such as those in Title I, which are targeted to disadvantaged children and high-poverty districts) to attend other public schools including charters, private schools if their state allows it, and online-education programs. Research by economist Eric Hanushek shows that bringing U.S. education back to the top of international rankings would substantially increase GDP and eventually increase average incomes by 20%.
>Othman
When you continue giving money to the rich, but giving them tax cuts, where do the money come from? From the air???
The students need to be given a chance to succeed, not to be ridiculed as parasites to the nation because they don't pay any tax. When their time had come, they should then pay their fair share of the tax. Without any tax, or very very low tax, where do the money to help students and unfortunate people can come from???
**********************************
A more aggressive program for negotiating trade agreements to open markets for U.S. goods and reduce costs for American producers and consumers will raise real income. The current administration has not started and brought to completion even one trade agreement. Mr. Romney intends to move ahead on trade agreements and create global enterprise zones to remove barriers to trade.
>Othman
If Bush failed to do it in 8 years, what makes you think Romney and Obama can do it?
The best that you can do is to stop US companies from investing in China or overseas, by taxing them heavily. After all, these companies still need US consumers for their well-being. Obama is on the right track. Romeny and Bush had made things worse by encouraging companies to invest overseas in order to maximise profits, in the name of reducing costs.
***********************************
The federal debt is exploding. With the administration's policy, the Congressional Budget Office projects a debt-to-GDP ratio of 80% in two years, double the amount at the end of 2008. This policy is slowing economic growth by raising the likelihood of large future tax increases or another financial crisis. Mr. Romney puts a high priority on bringing the debt down as a share of GDP. Specifically, his plan is to reduce deficits by gradually bringing down spending as a share of GDP to 20% by 2016, which is where it was before the crisis in 2007. This reduction in federal spending is what any
>Othman
By not reducing taxes to the rich, you pretend to reduce the US debt? Just a lie.
******************************
responsible family or business would do if they were borrowing at an unsustainable pace.
Mr. Romney's tax reforms are designed to foster more investment and jobs. For example, his proposal to lower marginal income-tax rates across the board by 20% will provide incentives for small businesses to expand and increase their hiring. Cutting the corporate-tax rate from to 25% from 35% and insisting on a cost-benefit approach to regulation—both part of the Romney plan—will enable American firms to be more competitive in the global market.
>Othman
Where do the money for education that was mentioned earlier, could come from then?
What is not mentioned is the intention of Romnet to contine spending for Defense.
What about health care? Are you going to cut some more? Why no mention about this?
If you don't cut benefits, while reducing taxes, you will increase US debt even more, simple arithmetic, that primary school students should now. No need to be a professor to calculate this, just plain honesty.
If you cut benefits, who will suffer the most? The middle-income of course. To the rich, it is nothing to them. By lowering the standard of living of the middle-income, you will devastate the consumer economy of the US, reducing profits for the rich, discouraging new investiments because of low profit margins etc.
The same Bush illnesses repeated all over again.
*****************************************
In response, former President Bill Clinton said at the Democratic National Convention that Mr. Romney would return to "the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place." No, the Romney plan rejects such policies, including perpetual support of poorly regulated housing-finance agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which got us into the mess. Mr. Romney also argues
>Othman
You forgot conveniently to mention about the poor regulation, during the Bush era, and Mr. Romney has no mention about improving regulation, rather reducing regulation even further, thus making cases like Fannie Mae even more likely in the future.
****************************************
against the easy-money policy by the Federal Reserve that helped lead to the crisis.
Critics complain that Mr. Romney's tax proposals favor the rich. Actually, he wants to eliminate or limit deductions from special provisions in the tax code for high-income Americans in exchange for lower marginal tax rates. We have not had a major tax reform since 1986, and the tax code has become notoriously cumbersome and a drag on growth.
>Othman
Show to the public what the plans and reforms are! There is none at the moment. Reform that works anyway. You can talk about your attempts all years, but what matters is that it cannot be achieved all these years. What makes you think Romney is so special? All over the years and world, people try to make such reforms, but instead of reducing the problems, they make the problems worse. E.g. the US tax system of course. The rich always can find excuses not to pay any tax at all.
***********************************
His plan does not, as Mr. Clinton claimed at the convention, "get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts." Rather, the plan bolsters capital requirements, repeals debilitating regulations in Dodd-Frank that had nothing to do with the crisis, and follows the rule of law, including the bankruptcy code, without giving favors to special interests. It thereby avoids both crises and bailouts—and puts the country on a sound path toward sustainable prosperity.
>Othman
You should tell that to Mr. Bush. He bailed out banks. All these provisions had failed to stop the financial disaster, what makes you think your version will? Rule of law exists all the time, and yet bank failures still exist. What rule of law alone can prevent a financial disaster? None. So why propose one. Rule of law, if not backed by regulations, will be too late.
*************************
Mr. Taylor is professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is an economic adviser to the Romney presidential campaign.
>Othman
When someone is too tied to party politics, they tend to be biased. We can expect some bias, but to tell only half truths, is unacademic and unprofessional.
"Lower tax rates" was the policy that got US in trouble during the Bush era, and why continue such policies?
See my comments within the paragraphs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443995604578003861814796262.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The Romney Cure for Obama-Induced Economic Ills
Lower tax rates provide incentives for more investment and hiring, especially by small-business owners.
By JOHN B. TAYLOR
When my economics students ask me how Mitt Romney's program will improve the economy, I begin by stressing the basic problems and then address the usual counterpoints.First is the obvious: The American economy is getting worse, not better. Real personal income fell by 3.8% at an annual rate in August. In the past two months, half a million Americans gave up looking for work, and the percentage of the working-age population with jobs is below, rather than above, what it was when the recovery began in July 2009. Unemployment has been stuck above 8%. Economic growth in the most recently reported second quarter was a minuscule 1.3%.
The Obama administration and its supporters counter with a rosier view, noting that, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of households, there are 2.3 million more jobs in the past 12 months. That may sound good, but over the same period the working-age population increased by four million. And in the past two months, the survey shows, employment declined.
>Othman
As bad as it may seem, it was not as bad during the Bush era. After such devastating damage done to the economy, that lower taxes HAD FAILED to address, you still want to propose similar failed policies?
And worse, these same policies are still being carried out by the stubborn Republican congress, that continue the Bush era income tax cuts across the board, and therefore favoring the rich much more.
And yet put the blame on Obama!!! Bloody lying idiot.
If the Republican Congress had allowed Obama's plans to proceed, we are sure US economy will grow even larger and there will be much less unemployment, and all economist with a decent honesty will surely know this.
Now, the Bush tax cuts is still on, why isn't the economy recovering? Why blame it on Obama?
The excessive tax cuts on the rich is the main problem, US citizens must wake up. If tax cuts really can introduce more jobs, by this time, unemployment rates should have gone down.
Facts don't lie, but we can reason it by observing that despite tax cuts on the rich, the rich are not investing. Why? Becaasue the economy is weak, because the consumers are still poor. The consumers are mostly the middle-class. Without the economic strength of the middle-class, there will be negligible consumption in the US that drive its economy, and therefore investment. Even Apple does not invest heavily.
No matter how much you reduce its taxes, it will not invest more in US. Better face the reality. Better tax Apple more, so that Apple will maintain its HQ in US because most consumers are in US. If you still dont' know the simple maths, how many iPhones can someone with 1 million buy? 1. How about those with 100,000, ten of them. The chance for those with incomes of 100,000 to buy is ten times more than those with 1 million income. Imagine against billionaires? That Bush era tax cuts favour.
***************
The second basic problem is that the economic policies pursued by the Obama administration consist mainly of short-term interventions, such as the stimulus packages, cash-for-clunkers, and temporary payments to state governments and individuals. At best, these have produced only small, short-term economic blips.
Here, too, some administration defenders claim that at least the fiscal stimulus packages stopped the economic free fall. This is not what the data show. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in February 2009, but the sharp decline in retail sales, exports and new investment orders ended in December 2008 or January 2009.
>Othman
That act was not the only action taken by the Bush adminstation to halt the decline. Bank bailouts were much earlier.
Are you saying that the act didn't stop the decline AT ALL? Just the discussion of the act can stop steep declines. Without any discussiion of a reinvestment, it will surely freefall. A professor in economics should know this and yet, failed to see investor sentiments.
************************
Basic economics tells us that such temporary policies do little to restart growth. More lasting reforms are needed. Mr. Romney's economic plan will deliver these reforms. It promotes growth by focusing
>Othman
Yes. Not by continuing Bush tax cuts for the RICH!!! See the words clearly!!! THE RICH!!!
*****************************
on five strategic areas: energy, education, trade, debt reduction and job creation.
>Othman
All a bunch of lies and half measures that had already been tried during Bush era and failed.
****************************
Economists point to enormous opportunities for sustainable growth in energy. To capitalize on these opportunities, the federal government has to approve the necessary infrastructure—such as the Keystone XL pipeline—and permit states to manage energy development on federal lands within their borders. The Romney plan would provide the needed federal approvals.
>Othman
Without taking into account the environmental impacts, it will make it worse in the long run to the US economy. Similar to the devastation done to East Germany, vs West Germany.
Environmental disregard, for the sake of short term economic gains will not help the nation in the long run.
**********************************************
The nation's troubled education system is a drag on long-term growth. To improve outcomes, Mr. Romney proposes to allow students in poorly performing schools to use existing federal funds (such as those in Title I, which are targeted to disadvantaged children and high-poverty districts) to attend other public schools including charters, private schools if their state allows it, and online-education programs. Research by economist Eric Hanushek shows that bringing U.S. education back to the top of international rankings would substantially increase GDP and eventually increase average incomes by 20%.
>Othman
When you continue giving money to the rich, but giving them tax cuts, where do the money come from? From the air???
The students need to be given a chance to succeed, not to be ridiculed as parasites to the nation because they don't pay any tax. When their time had come, they should then pay their fair share of the tax. Without any tax, or very very low tax, where do the money to help students and unfortunate people can come from???
**********************************
A more aggressive program for negotiating trade agreements to open markets for U.S. goods and reduce costs for American producers and consumers will raise real income. The current administration has not started and brought to completion even one trade agreement. Mr. Romney intends to move ahead on trade agreements and create global enterprise zones to remove barriers to trade.
>Othman
If Bush failed to do it in 8 years, what makes you think Romney and Obama can do it?
The best that you can do is to stop US companies from investing in China or overseas, by taxing them heavily. After all, these companies still need US consumers for their well-being. Obama is on the right track. Romeny and Bush had made things worse by encouraging companies to invest overseas in order to maximise profits, in the name of reducing costs.
***********************************
The federal debt is exploding. With the administration's policy, the Congressional Budget Office projects a debt-to-GDP ratio of 80% in two years, double the amount at the end of 2008. This policy is slowing economic growth by raising the likelihood of large future tax increases or another financial crisis. Mr. Romney puts a high priority on bringing the debt down as a share of GDP. Specifically, his plan is to reduce deficits by gradually bringing down spending as a share of GDP to 20% by 2016, which is where it was before the crisis in 2007. This reduction in federal spending is what any
>Othman
By not reducing taxes to the rich, you pretend to reduce the US debt? Just a lie.
******************************
responsible family or business would do if they were borrowing at an unsustainable pace.
Mr. Romney's tax reforms are designed to foster more investment and jobs. For example, his proposal to lower marginal income-tax rates across the board by 20% will provide incentives for small businesses to expand and increase their hiring. Cutting the corporate-tax rate from to 25% from 35% and insisting on a cost-benefit approach to regulation—both part of the Romney plan—will enable American firms to be more competitive in the global market.
>Othman
Where do the money for education that was mentioned earlier, could come from then?
What is not mentioned is the intention of Romnet to contine spending for Defense.
What about health care? Are you going to cut some more? Why no mention about this?
If you don't cut benefits, while reducing taxes, you will increase US debt even more, simple arithmetic, that primary school students should now. No need to be a professor to calculate this, just plain honesty.
If you cut benefits, who will suffer the most? The middle-income of course. To the rich, it is nothing to them. By lowering the standard of living of the middle-income, you will devastate the consumer economy of the US, reducing profits for the rich, discouraging new investiments because of low profit margins etc.
The same Bush illnesses repeated all over again.
*****************************************
In response, former President Bill Clinton said at the Democratic National Convention that Mr. Romney would return to "the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place." No, the Romney plan rejects such policies, including perpetual support of poorly regulated housing-finance agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which got us into the mess. Mr. Romney also argues
>Othman
You forgot conveniently to mention about the poor regulation, during the Bush era, and Mr. Romney has no mention about improving regulation, rather reducing regulation even further, thus making cases like Fannie Mae even more likely in the future.
****************************************
against the easy-money policy by the Federal Reserve that helped lead to the crisis.
Critics complain that Mr. Romney's tax proposals favor the rich. Actually, he wants to eliminate or limit deductions from special provisions in the tax code for high-income Americans in exchange for lower marginal tax rates. We have not had a major tax reform since 1986, and the tax code has become notoriously cumbersome and a drag on growth.
>Othman
Show to the public what the plans and reforms are! There is none at the moment. Reform that works anyway. You can talk about your attempts all years, but what matters is that it cannot be achieved all these years. What makes you think Romney is so special? All over the years and world, people try to make such reforms, but instead of reducing the problems, they make the problems worse. E.g. the US tax system of course. The rich always can find excuses not to pay any tax at all.
***********************************
His plan does not, as Mr. Clinton claimed at the convention, "get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts." Rather, the plan bolsters capital requirements, repeals debilitating regulations in Dodd-Frank that had nothing to do with the crisis, and follows the rule of law, including the bankruptcy code, without giving favors to special interests. It thereby avoids both crises and bailouts—and puts the country on a sound path toward sustainable prosperity.
>Othman
You should tell that to Mr. Bush. He bailed out banks. All these provisions had failed to stop the financial disaster, what makes you think your version will? Rule of law exists all the time, and yet bank failures still exist. What rule of law alone can prevent a financial disaster? None. So why propose one. Rule of law, if not backed by regulations, will be too late.
*************************
Mr. Taylor is professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is an economic adviser to the Romney presidential campaign.
>Othman
When someone is too tied to party politics, they tend to be biased. We can expect some bias, but to tell only half truths, is unacademic and unprofessional.
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Explanation of Social Security
One colleague mentioned how bad Taiwan and Hong Kong's economies are
compared to Malaysia because of social security. These nations are
heavily in debt because of social security, and will collapse at any
time. These are nations that had produced companies like Acer and huge
trading houses in Hong Kong. Malaysia is nothing compared to them,
even in debt burden.
The automobile technology of Malaysia is nothing compared to Korea
that has social security. Malaysians have been paying heavy taxes in
cars trying to protect the automobile industry but to no avail, stuck
with mediocre cars and road infrastructure to show for all the huge
amount of taxes burdened by the Malaysian government, at more than
double the real cost of cars. That translates to a huge income tax on
Malaysian citizens.
This article is in response to Romney's comments about 47% of citizens
who don't pay any taxes now in USA. These are short sighted facts and
quoted by opponents of Social Security in Malaysia and even the
extreme capitalists in USA.
Social security has never been free. You have to pay for it out of
your own pocket but only when times are good. Isn't it some form of
insurance? But unlike the corrupted life insurances, you only need to
pay when you are well off, or those who have become well as a result
of support when they are just beginning their businesses. Once they
have become well established, they should contribute more. However if
they fail, they have a parachute for support.
This is all about the argument about survival of the fittest used by
the animal kingdom but aspired by stupid humans, against the
compassionate competition used by humanity. The result is very clear
for all to see. The compassionate humans managed to wipe out all the
survival of the fittest animals. For the same reason, any humans who
want to follow the animal way will go the animal way., i.e.
extinction. In fact the whole human civiliation started with
compassion, without which, humans will be no different from animals.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120919,0,2408537.column
compared to Malaysia because of social security. These nations are
heavily in debt because of social security, and will collapse at any
time. These are nations that had produced companies like Acer and huge
trading houses in Hong Kong. Malaysia is nothing compared to them,
even in debt burden.
The automobile technology of Malaysia is nothing compared to Korea
that has social security. Malaysians have been paying heavy taxes in
cars trying to protect the automobile industry but to no avail, stuck
with mediocre cars and road infrastructure to show for all the huge
amount of taxes burdened by the Malaysian government, at more than
double the real cost of cars. That translates to a huge income tax on
Malaysian citizens.
This article is in response to Romney's comments about 47% of citizens
who don't pay any taxes now in USA. These are short sighted facts and
quoted by opponents of Social Security in Malaysia and even the
extreme capitalists in USA.
Social security has never been free. You have to pay for it out of
your own pocket but only when times are good. Isn't it some form of
insurance? But unlike the corrupted life insurances, you only need to
pay when you are well off, or those who have become well as a result
of support when they are just beginning their businesses. Once they
have become well established, they should contribute more. However if
they fail, they have a parachute for support.
This is all about the argument about survival of the fittest used by
the animal kingdom but aspired by stupid humans, against the
compassionate competition used by humanity. The result is very clear
for all to see. The compassionate humans managed to wipe out all the
survival of the fittest animals. For the same reason, any humans who
want to follow the animal way will go the animal way., i.e.
extinction. In fact the whole human civiliation started with
compassion, without which, humans will be no different from animals.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120919,0,2408537.column
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)