Hi Everyone:
I read about this story last month and it was put on the back-burner until now. If I gave an award for the complete opposite of a CSA, this would be at or near the top.
This story is absolutely true, believe it or not. Prior to the cash for clunkers program (that ends tomorrow, I think) Mark Muller, a new car/truck dealer in Butler, MO; came up with the most unusual and what I think most outrageous marketing plan to increase his sales.
Muller's unbelievable promotion was this: if you bought a new truck you would receive a voucher for an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle. WHAT!!!!!! When Muller was being interviewed about his deal by BBC and CNN interviewers, he was asked about how he could give a voucher to just anyone and everyone? Muller responded that he was only giving vouchers and not the actual guns. The recipients would still have to go through the FBI background check prior to receiving the weapon. "Americans love guns" he told interviewer Robin Lustig, a Newshour host at BBC. "All of them?" Lustig asked. "Except for the Commies," Muller replied.
AK-47's were created, designed and manufactured for one sole purpose................... to kill people. I am so speechless and dumbfounded that someone would actually implement such a program and then to think that it is OK. This is so wrong at every level. It is obvious to me that even if common sense were to hit Muller squarely in the face, he would not recognize it or probably, more sadly, not even want it.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Liar, liar pants on fire!
Hi Everyone:
I really hope that politics have come a long way since this country was founded over 225 years ago. I am sure that there were a lot of debates over the wording of our constitution, The Bill of Rights and every admendment to the constitution etc. Debating issues is an important and integral part of our democracy. What I do not know is whether during all those debates if lying on a mass scale was used to change the opposing side minds and hence their votes on the issues before them.
Well it seems that lying and scare tactics are used more and more these days when important issues crop up to the surface. What should be debates with facts to support whatever your position, now a days facts mean nothing and lies and scare tactics seem to be more important. One of today's hot topics is health care and health insurance reform. I think that we can all agree that our health care system, primarily the health care insurance industry needs reforming. It is getting so expensive that if left unchecked, sometime in the future, health care will only be affordable for the rich. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that people without health care insurance use emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. ER visits for non-life threatening problems is the most expensive way to receive health care. Another big problem is that a lot of bankruptcies occur due to overwhelming medical bills.
President Obama is trying to change our system. He wants change to make health care more affordable. He has left the bill writing job up to congress in hopes that a bi-partisan bill would emerge. Even with the House's health care bill, done in writing, opponents to the bill instead of debating the issue with facts are using scare tactics and outright lies. I recently read the longest email I have ever received from opponents to health care reform. The email analyzed all the points in the bill. Some examples are as follows:
-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed.
-Page 42: The "Health Care Commissioner" will decide health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.
-Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not. will be provided with free health care.
All of the above are untrue and not in the House bill! Politifact.com, the fact checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times read the bill and its legislative summary and could not find any of the above in the bill. Katie Couric of CBS News, during an interview, asked President Obama if illegal immigrants should be included in comprehensive health care reform? President Obama's reply was "No"! Even with both Politifact.com checking the wording of the bill and President Obama's response, that no illegal immigrants would be covered the email was still sent out. In fact, a provision in the House measure states, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." That would seem to clear up any misunderstandings about illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. Not so fast! Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa claims that 5.6 million illegal immigrants may be covered under Obamacare. King went on to say that this is what the Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis said. Rep. King is so wrong! The analysis did not say that, period! Rep. King does not seem to care that his statements and press releases are wrong, inaccurate and are just plain lies that are said to stir up opposition.
Additionally, New York State Assemblyman Greg Ball, R-Patterson, NY, recently told a news conference that that the proposal reforms would "force American taxpayers to foot the bill for taxpayer-funded illegal-alien health care". Where did he get his info? It is obviously another falsehood that is meant to stir up opposition.
Lying and using scare tactics is just plain wrong and should be stopped immediately. I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions and that debating issues should and has to be based on facts and truths. To outright lie makes no common sense. Lies will just come back to bite you. If one feels so adamantly against an issue fight fairly with truths and facts not lies, innuendos and scare tactics. Let the truth be told on both sides of an issue and then let the vote commence with a clear conscience on both sides. That to me would be the common sense approach to the health care/insurance reform that is at hand.
On a side note, if President Clinton was impeached regarding lying about having (oral) sex with Monica Lewinsky, some sort of punishment is needed for politicians who outright lie to use the lie(s) as a scare tactic.
Scare mongers bad, common sense good!
Til next week.
I really hope that politics have come a long way since this country was founded over 225 years ago. I am sure that there were a lot of debates over the wording of our constitution, The Bill of Rights and every admendment to the constitution etc. Debating issues is an important and integral part of our democracy. What I do not know is whether during all those debates if lying on a mass scale was used to change the opposing side minds and hence their votes on the issues before them.
Well it seems that lying and scare tactics are used more and more these days when important issues crop up to the surface. What should be debates with facts to support whatever your position, now a days facts mean nothing and lies and scare tactics seem to be more important. One of today's hot topics is health care and health insurance reform. I think that we can all agree that our health care system, primarily the health care insurance industry needs reforming. It is getting so expensive that if left unchecked, sometime in the future, health care will only be affordable for the rich. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that people without health care insurance use emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. ER visits for non-life threatening problems is the most expensive way to receive health care. Another big problem is that a lot of bankruptcies occur due to overwhelming medical bills.
President Obama is trying to change our system. He wants change to make health care more affordable. He has left the bill writing job up to congress in hopes that a bi-partisan bill would emerge. Even with the House's health care bill, done in writing, opponents to the bill instead of debating the issue with facts are using scare tactics and outright lies. I recently read the longest email I have ever received from opponents to health care reform. The email analyzed all the points in the bill. Some examples are as follows:
-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed.
-Page 42: The "Health Care Commissioner" will decide health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.
-Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not. will be provided with free health care.
All of the above are untrue and not in the House bill! Politifact.com, the fact checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times read the bill and its legislative summary and could not find any of the above in the bill. Katie Couric of CBS News, during an interview, asked President Obama if illegal immigrants should be included in comprehensive health care reform? President Obama's reply was "No"! Even with both Politifact.com checking the wording of the bill and President Obama's response, that no illegal immigrants would be covered the email was still sent out. In fact, a provision in the House measure states, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." That would seem to clear up any misunderstandings about illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. Not so fast! Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa claims that 5.6 million illegal immigrants may be covered under Obamacare. King went on to say that this is what the Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis said. Rep. King is so wrong! The analysis did not say that, period! Rep. King does not seem to care that his statements and press releases are wrong, inaccurate and are just plain lies that are said to stir up opposition.
Additionally, New York State Assemblyman Greg Ball, R-Patterson, NY, recently told a news conference that that the proposal reforms would "force American taxpayers to foot the bill for taxpayer-funded illegal-alien health care". Where did he get his info? It is obviously another falsehood that is meant to stir up opposition.
Lying and using scare tactics is just plain wrong and should be stopped immediately. I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions and that debating issues should and has to be based on facts and truths. To outright lie makes no common sense. Lies will just come back to bite you. If one feels so adamantly against an issue fight fairly with truths and facts not lies, innuendos and scare tactics. Let the truth be told on both sides of an issue and then let the vote commence with a clear conscience on both sides. That to me would be the common sense approach to the health care/insurance reform that is at hand.
On a side note, if President Clinton was impeached regarding lying about having (oral) sex with Monica Lewinsky, some sort of punishment is needed for politicians who outright lie to use the lie(s) as a scare tactic.
Scare mongers bad, common sense good!
Til next week.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Common Sense Award #2?
Hi Everyone:
I can't believe that I have found another story that may eventually fit into my CSA category. I hope this common sense solution works, but I am not sure yet and only time will tell.
On March 8, 2009, I wrote about why I thought the prices of oil/gasoline went sky high in such a short period of time which had never occurred in the history of oil prices previously. Some of my friends weren't sure if I was correct since the country was fed information over and over, (what I believed was a bunch of BS) on the theory of supply and demand economics. I wrote that the cause was due to speculative trading, not supply and demand.
Well, well, well, go figure, this past July 27, The Wall Street Journal had an article that stated that the volatile oil prices were due to exactly what I wrote about on March 8th. The WSJ blamed the price increases on the energy futures market; specifically the investment houses and their speculators. I will not gloat about what I thought had happened other then to say, I told you so.
It now seems that federal regulators may be moving toward imposing limits on speculative energy trading. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Traders Commission, said his agency must "seriously consider" imposing stringent limits on speculative trading of energy futures contracts, a move that would mark a major shift for the government. At a hearing organized by the agency, Gensler said the futures exchanges have generally not used their authority to limit the size of positions taken by speculative players - something that on 7/28/09 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expressed willingness to do. Gensler also said last week that the agency may propose new rules setting limits in the fall. He went on to say that the commission opened the debate to determine how limits could reduce excessive speculation, "not how we can eliminate speculation".
On the other hand, on 7/29/09, the financial firms that play a dominant role in the energy futures market brought their case to federal regulators against any new limits on speculative trading that would apply to them in their role as market middlemen. Of course I would not have expected those financial firms to have done anything else. Their greed is beyond belief and they just want their gravy train to continue indefinitely. Those firms made a ton of money and they don't like or want anybody to step on their toes. But what was the direct end result of those speculators on the oil futures market? Unbelievably high oil prices which led to unbelievably high gasoline prices, which led to higher prices on anything and everything that was either made with oil or delivered using oil, which included everything in this country. The direct results of their actions, in my opinion, also added to the perfect storm which began the recession here in this country and quickly spread to become a global recession that all people of this planet now find themselves in.
As I said before, I am not sure if new limits are imposed that it will work, since it has never been tried before. What I do know is that if no limits are imposed and the speculators are left unchecked, what is to stop the futures market from doing it again and maybe gas prices go up to $5.00/gallon or even higher? Supply side economics has a life of its own and it doesn't need any help from from greedy financial firms and the speculators. So I do believe that imposing some kind of limits, is a good common sense approach. I just hope that it is done correctly and that it works to try to help stem the tide of volatile oil prices as far as speculation goes. Again, only time will tell.
Now I know there will be a whole slew of people and of course financial firms that will be dead set against any kind of government intervention because they think it is none of the government's business being in the commodities market and the market should be left to its own accord to let it work itself out without any outside meddling. All I can say about that is the past policy of no intervention obviously didn't work or we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
What do you all think? Let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools!
Til next week.
I can't believe that I have found another story that may eventually fit into my CSA category. I hope this common sense solution works, but I am not sure yet and only time will tell.
On March 8, 2009, I wrote about why I thought the prices of oil/gasoline went sky high in such a short period of time which had never occurred in the history of oil prices previously. Some of my friends weren't sure if I was correct since the country was fed information over and over, (what I believed was a bunch of BS) on the theory of supply and demand economics. I wrote that the cause was due to speculative trading, not supply and demand.
Well, well, well, go figure, this past July 27, The Wall Street Journal had an article that stated that the volatile oil prices were due to exactly what I wrote about on March 8th. The WSJ blamed the price increases on the energy futures market; specifically the investment houses and their speculators. I will not gloat about what I thought had happened other then to say, I told you so.
It now seems that federal regulators may be moving toward imposing limits on speculative energy trading. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Traders Commission, said his agency must "seriously consider" imposing stringent limits on speculative trading of energy futures contracts, a move that would mark a major shift for the government. At a hearing organized by the agency, Gensler said the futures exchanges have generally not used their authority to limit the size of positions taken by speculative players - something that on 7/28/09 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expressed willingness to do. Gensler also said last week that the agency may propose new rules setting limits in the fall. He went on to say that the commission opened the debate to determine how limits could reduce excessive speculation, "not how we can eliminate speculation".
On the other hand, on 7/29/09, the financial firms that play a dominant role in the energy futures market brought their case to federal regulators against any new limits on speculative trading that would apply to them in their role as market middlemen. Of course I would not have expected those financial firms to have done anything else. Their greed is beyond belief and they just want their gravy train to continue indefinitely. Those firms made a ton of money and they don't like or want anybody to step on their toes. But what was the direct end result of those speculators on the oil futures market? Unbelievably high oil prices which led to unbelievably high gasoline prices, which led to higher prices on anything and everything that was either made with oil or delivered using oil, which included everything in this country. The direct results of their actions, in my opinion, also added to the perfect storm which began the recession here in this country and quickly spread to become a global recession that all people of this planet now find themselves in.
As I said before, I am not sure if new limits are imposed that it will work, since it has never been tried before. What I do know is that if no limits are imposed and the speculators are left unchecked, what is to stop the futures market from doing it again and maybe gas prices go up to $5.00/gallon or even higher? Supply side economics has a life of its own and it doesn't need any help from from greedy financial firms and the speculators. So I do believe that imposing some kind of limits, is a good common sense approach. I just hope that it is done correctly and that it works to try to help stem the tide of volatile oil prices as far as speculation goes. Again, only time will tell.
Now I know there will be a whole slew of people and of course financial firms that will be dead set against any kind of government intervention because they think it is none of the government's business being in the commodities market and the market should be left to its own accord to let it work itself out without any outside meddling. All I can say about that is the past policy of no intervention obviously didn't work or we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
What do you all think? Let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools!
Til next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)