Hi Everyone:
So my wife and I went out to dinner recently and we were astounded at what the waitress did.
The hostess seated us at a table that had just been cleaned off but had not yet been set up. A short while later the waitress arrived to take our drink order. She noticed that there were no placemats, napkins or silverware. She said she would be right back. I went to the bathroom to wash my hands.
While I was walking back towards our table I noticed that the waitress had returned and had already placed down the placemats and napkins. Then she did something that astounded me. She held the silverware by the business ends instead of the handles when she placed them on the table. By the time I arrived at our table the waitress had left. My wife hadn't noticed due to the fact that she was reading the menu. I mentioned to my wife what the waitress had done. My wife, in her infinite wisdom, asked me not to say anything. So we cleaned off our silverware with the napkins and I didn't say anything. My mistake!
The waitress then returned with our drinks. Unbelievably she was holding them by the top of the glasses, where our lips would touch, instead of the body of the glasses. I could not hold my tongue this time and I told her that was not the correct way to hold the glasses. She apologized. My wife and I then wiped off our glasses with our napkins and asked her for some more clean napkins.
Now I would presume and hope that she would have been trained on how to properly hold silverware, that's why there are handles, and the proper way to hold and serve glasses. Even if she had not paid attention to her trainer, you would at least think that common sense would have kicked in. But apparently that was not the case with us. In these times, with the regular flu and the swine flu set to rear their ugly heads, it is very important to try to not spread germs of any kind. Holding silverware and glasses incorrectly will undoubtedly spread any germs that are on the wait staffs fingers and or hands.
I am glad that I spoke up and told the waitress of her mistakes and can only hope that she does not do it again.
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
They're At It Again
Hi Everyone:
In my college Economics 101 class, I learned about supply side economics. If demand increases, supply goes down and prices rise. On the other hand, if demand decreases, supply increases and prices decrease. Everything you and I learned about supply side economics can now be thrown out the window or better yet flushed down the toilet because that theory no longer holds any water!
I have written about a similar problem twice before on 3/8/09 and 6/21/09; but today's topic is about natural gas prices. On 9/16/09, I read in my newspaper, an article that was buried in the paper and not front page news; that natural gas prices spiked more then 13%, while crude oil prices fell for the second straight day. Natural gas prices settled at $3.297 per 1000 cubic feet. That is up 33.7 cents. Now you might be thinking that natural gas prices usually do climb right before the heating season begins, but a 13% increase in prices? Not so fast with that way of thinking. Presently, there is an enormous glut in the supply of natural gas. We are also obviously still in a terrible recession which means with less money to spend, people conserve and use less natural gas in order to save money. In addition, people buy less manufactured products to also save money. That translates into manufacturers using less natural gas to build less products. All total it means less demand. But wait, supply side economics says that when demand is down and supply is up, prices decrease. That no longer seems to be true in this day and age of never ending greed with the investment banks.
If demand is down and supply up, why then the huge increase in prices when the prices should be going down? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Just like crude oil prices that more then doubled last year, the one and only reason I can figure out why there was such a huge price increase is due to.................drum roll please.................here we go again..................... speculators. What other reason is there? To my knowledge, there are no distribution problems. Last year it was speculators, (not the supposed increase of China's and India's demand as we were told) who drove up the price of crude oil to levels never before seen and they made a ton of money doing it. Investment houses greed is rearing its ugly head again because now they are starting with natural gas prices. What the hell?
With such a huge supply glut of natural gas and prices jumping 13%, why isn't this front page news and a hot topic for TV news. Why aren't all the millions and millions of natural gas customers yelling out their windows that they are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That I do not have an answer for.
I do believe though, that a law should be passed that forbids speculating on natural gas and crude oil. Let the prices of natural gas and crude oil be based solely on supply side economics without any outside influence, i.e.: speculators. Risking the health of our already terribly weak economy is absolutely the wrong way to go and will do more damage. If we head down that road, our recession could very easily turn into a depression and the current 9.7% national unemployment rate will seem like the good old days. Speculators, in my book, started this recession last year with their greed regarding crude oil and have to be stopped ASAP. If anything, our country's economy and also the world's economy needs stable prices in order to help us all climb out of this recession.
Increasing natural gas prices when there is such a glut makes no common sense and we need a whole lot of common sense right about now. Something needs to be done today because waiting until tomorrow just may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
What do you think? Post a comment and let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
In my college Economics 101 class, I learned about supply side economics. If demand increases, supply goes down and prices rise. On the other hand, if demand decreases, supply increases and prices decrease. Everything you and I learned about supply side economics can now be thrown out the window or better yet flushed down the toilet because that theory no longer holds any water!
I have written about a similar problem twice before on 3/8/09 and 6/21/09; but today's topic is about natural gas prices. On 9/16/09, I read in my newspaper, an article that was buried in the paper and not front page news; that natural gas prices spiked more then 13%, while crude oil prices fell for the second straight day. Natural gas prices settled at $3.297 per 1000 cubic feet. That is up 33.7 cents. Now you might be thinking that natural gas prices usually do climb right before the heating season begins, but a 13% increase in prices? Not so fast with that way of thinking. Presently, there is an enormous glut in the supply of natural gas. We are also obviously still in a terrible recession which means with less money to spend, people conserve and use less natural gas in order to save money. In addition, people buy less manufactured products to also save money. That translates into manufacturers using less natural gas to build less products. All total it means less demand. But wait, supply side economics says that when demand is down and supply is up, prices decrease. That no longer seems to be true in this day and age of never ending greed with the investment banks.
If demand is down and supply up, why then the huge increase in prices when the prices should be going down? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Just like crude oil prices that more then doubled last year, the one and only reason I can figure out why there was such a huge price increase is due to.................drum roll please.................here we go again..................... speculators. What other reason is there? To my knowledge, there are no distribution problems. Last year it was speculators, (not the supposed increase of China's and India's demand as we were told) who drove up the price of crude oil to levels never before seen and they made a ton of money doing it. Investment houses greed is rearing its ugly head again because now they are starting with natural gas prices. What the hell?
With such a huge supply glut of natural gas and prices jumping 13%, why isn't this front page news and a hot topic for TV news. Why aren't all the millions and millions of natural gas customers yelling out their windows that they are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That I do not have an answer for.
I do believe though, that a law should be passed that forbids speculating on natural gas and crude oil. Let the prices of natural gas and crude oil be based solely on supply side economics without any outside influence, i.e.: speculators. Risking the health of our already terribly weak economy is absolutely the wrong way to go and will do more damage. If we head down that road, our recession could very easily turn into a depression and the current 9.7% national unemployment rate will seem like the good old days. Speculators, in my book, started this recession last year with their greed regarding crude oil and have to be stopped ASAP. If anything, our country's economy and also the world's economy needs stable prices in order to help us all climb out of this recession.
Increasing natural gas prices when there is such a glut makes no common sense and we need a whole lot of common sense right about now. Something needs to be done today because waiting until tomorrow just may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
What do you think? Post a comment and let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Lack of Common Sense lead to a Lack of Civility
Hi Everyone:
Something occurred this past Wednesday, 9/8 that has never ever happened before in this country. What I am talking about is what Rep. Joe Wilson said during President Obama's speech to both houses of Congress.
As a side note, from 1800 to 1913, Presidents of the USA never addressed Congress. Since then when Presidents gave speeches to Congress, members of the opposite side of the aisle have occasionally booed or jeered as expressions of dissent on a specific point. Rep. Wilson has now taken it to a whole new level.
As we all know, Wednesday evening, President Obama gave a speech regarding his health plan initiative. I will not, as I said in my first blog, get political in my blog. I will try to stay apolitical. This blog is not about whether you are for or against the Presidents health care ideas. Today's blog is about what Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina said during the President's speech. I believe that President Obama gave the speech to correct all the mistruths and inaccuracies about his health care changes. Please see my 8/16 blog. At the point in his speech when he told Congress and the American public that illegal immigrants would not be eligible to receive a health care plan (as part of the uninsured); Rep Wilson took it upon himself to yell at President Obama, "You Lie". You could see the entire room look in the Representative's area with bewilderment and silence. Never before has any person verbally expressed one's opposition to a President's speech. I hope this is not the start of a new way to express one's self during any President's speech.
Prior to President Obama's speech, I firmly believed that the entire debate on health care has become less about facts and more about emotions. Boy I was surprised to hear Joe Scarborough on the evening news saying that exact same thing. Joe Scaborough added that what Rep. Wilson did shows that the Republican party lacks temperament. I am not in agreement with that statement because I do not believe that Rep. Wilson speaks for the entire party. He is though, a member of the GOP and his statement does not bode well for his party. Protocol and civility are both extremely important in both houses of Congress. There are proper channels to vent one's opposition.
To have an elected official call the President of the US a liar is not only a serious breech (accusations of lying are forbidden under House rules) per the Journal News, but also extremely rare in politics. It is okay to disagree, but do it with civility and debate the issue(s) with civility. It is obviously apparent that Rep. Wilson did not show any civility. But even if he didn't have any civility, if he at least had any common sense, he would have known not to have said what he said, when he said it.
I found it interesting though that Rep. Wilson did not issue an apology until forced by his own party to do so. I think he should apologize to the President on the floor. But I don't think that will ever happen, which itself is unfortunate.
As I do more and more posts, I really believe that politicians seem to be the largest group of people who need to learn about common sense and how easy it is to use.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Something occurred this past Wednesday, 9/8 that has never ever happened before in this country. What I am talking about is what Rep. Joe Wilson said during President Obama's speech to both houses of Congress.
As a side note, from 1800 to 1913, Presidents of the USA never addressed Congress. Since then when Presidents gave speeches to Congress, members of the opposite side of the aisle have occasionally booed or jeered as expressions of dissent on a specific point. Rep. Wilson has now taken it to a whole new level.
As we all know, Wednesday evening, President Obama gave a speech regarding his health plan initiative. I will not, as I said in my first blog, get political in my blog. I will try to stay apolitical. This blog is not about whether you are for or against the Presidents health care ideas. Today's blog is about what Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina said during the President's speech. I believe that President Obama gave the speech to correct all the mistruths and inaccuracies about his health care changes. Please see my 8/16 blog. At the point in his speech when he told Congress and the American public that illegal immigrants would not be eligible to receive a health care plan (as part of the uninsured); Rep Wilson took it upon himself to yell at President Obama, "You Lie". You could see the entire room look in the Representative's area with bewilderment and silence. Never before has any person verbally expressed one's opposition to a President's speech. I hope this is not the start of a new way to express one's self during any President's speech.
Prior to President Obama's speech, I firmly believed that the entire debate on health care has become less about facts and more about emotions. Boy I was surprised to hear Joe Scarborough on the evening news saying that exact same thing. Joe Scaborough added that what Rep. Wilson did shows that the Republican party lacks temperament. I am not in agreement with that statement because I do not believe that Rep. Wilson speaks for the entire party. He is though, a member of the GOP and his statement does not bode well for his party. Protocol and civility are both extremely important in both houses of Congress. There are proper channels to vent one's opposition.
To have an elected official call the President of the US a liar is not only a serious breech (accusations of lying are forbidden under House rules) per the Journal News, but also extremely rare in politics. It is okay to disagree, but do it with civility and debate the issue(s) with civility. It is obviously apparent that Rep. Wilson did not show any civility. But even if he didn't have any civility, if he at least had any common sense, he would have known not to have said what he said, when he said it.
I found it interesting though that Rep. Wilson did not issue an apology until forced by his own party to do so. I think he should apologize to the President on the floor. But I don't think that will ever happen, which itself is unfortunate.
As I do more and more posts, I really believe that politicians seem to be the largest group of people who need to learn about common sense and how easy it is to use.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Parental Instinct vs Stupidity vs Lack of Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
I have read about these stories for years, but it seems that parents continue to do this no matter how much publicity these stories get. I just don't get it! What I am talking about are parents who leave small children strapped in their car seats in a locked car. Doing this in the winter time is wrong and bad enough, but doing it in the summer time is twice as dangerous and can become lethal in a very short period of time.
Last month on a mid afternoon Sunday, a Bedford Hills, New York couple, yes I said a couple (mother and father), left their 1 year old twins in their car seats in a locked car. The police were called by someone who witnessed the twins in the locked car. Luckily, the police arrived quickly and the children were removed from the car. The twins were not injuired but both parents were arrested and charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child, which is a misdemeanor. The police also called CPS, (Child Protective Services) to look into the situation. There was no more information.
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that the parent(s) have stated as their reasoning for leaving a child(ren) in a locked car i.e.: forgot that they were in the car, the child was asleep and the parent didn't want to wake them up and they were just running into a store and would've been right back. I too am a parent (2 kids) and I never ever left any of my kids in a locked car for any reason. Obviously the reasons that the parent(s) gave were nothing short of excuses albeit poor ones for their mistake. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to leave a child alone in a locked car.
When I read about these incidents, my first thought is where is/are the parent(s) parental instinct? My second thought is that unfortunately there are some people who just don't have that instinct. My third thought is their stupidity in locking their child in the car. Finally I think that if they just had one ounce of common sense those parents would never have done that. They would have realized the inherent dangers of leaving a child in a locked car especially in the summer. I believe that it takes only a few minutes for the inside temperature to reach 90 degrees and then a few more minutes and the temperature will climb into the 105+ degrees. At such high temperatures, in a short period of time, serious medical consequences can and will happen to the child including death. I do not believe that the parents in these incidents willfully want to injure their child but what were they thinking?
In these cases presuming that the parents are of average intelligence but somehow lack basic parental instinct, common sense would then dictate to not do it. But if one doesn't even have a little bit of common sense as a last resort to help one make an appropriate decision, then these kind of incidents will sadly continue to occur.
Maybe common sense courses taught in high school and college is not such a weird or far out idea. It seems that the time has come to implement some kind of common sense courses. I do truly believe that if common sense was used more often in making any kind of decision, the world would be a better and safer place to live.
Til next week.
I have read about these stories for years, but it seems that parents continue to do this no matter how much publicity these stories get. I just don't get it! What I am talking about are parents who leave small children strapped in their car seats in a locked car. Doing this in the winter time is wrong and bad enough, but doing it in the summer time is twice as dangerous and can become lethal in a very short period of time.
Last month on a mid afternoon Sunday, a Bedford Hills, New York couple, yes I said a couple (mother and father), left their 1 year old twins in their car seats in a locked car. The police were called by someone who witnessed the twins in the locked car. Luckily, the police arrived quickly and the children were removed from the car. The twins were not injuired but both parents were arrested and charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child, which is a misdemeanor. The police also called CPS, (Child Protective Services) to look into the situation. There was no more information.
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that the parent(s) have stated as their reasoning for leaving a child(ren) in a locked car i.e.: forgot that they were in the car, the child was asleep and the parent didn't want to wake them up and they were just running into a store and would've been right back. I too am a parent (2 kids) and I never ever left any of my kids in a locked car for any reason. Obviously the reasons that the parent(s) gave were nothing short of excuses albeit poor ones for their mistake. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to leave a child alone in a locked car.
When I read about these incidents, my first thought is where is/are the parent(s) parental instinct? My second thought is that unfortunately there are some people who just don't have that instinct. My third thought is their stupidity in locking their child in the car. Finally I think that if they just had one ounce of common sense those parents would never have done that. They would have realized the inherent dangers of leaving a child in a locked car especially in the summer. I believe that it takes only a few minutes for the inside temperature to reach 90 degrees and then a few more minutes and the temperature will climb into the 105+ degrees. At such high temperatures, in a short period of time, serious medical consequences can and will happen to the child including death. I do not believe that the parents in these incidents willfully want to injure their child but what were they thinking?
In these cases presuming that the parents are of average intelligence but somehow lack basic parental instinct, common sense would then dictate to not do it. But if one doesn't even have a little bit of common sense as a last resort to help one make an appropriate decision, then these kind of incidents will sadly continue to occur.
Maybe common sense courses taught in high school and college is not such a weird or far out idea. It seems that the time has come to implement some kind of common sense courses. I do truly believe that if common sense was used more often in making any kind of decision, the world would be a better and safer place to live.
Til next week.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
I Couldn't Believe This One!
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.
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 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)