THE ENTERPRISE--PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE? TRUTH VS. TRUST
PROACTIVE OR DESPERATE--DELL'S DESPERATE DEAL FOR PEROT
Dell is playing catchup and paying for it, big time. In attempts fo emulate the IBM--systems/services model, Dell is late and small compare to IBM and HP. Plus the price it paid for Perot systems didn't reflect Perot's inability to really make it against the "big boys." When Dell's on-line customization model fell prey to "all the laptops come with almost everything on them" situation, it found itself in the same position as option crazy US car companies did when the Japanese imports started hitting the shores with all the most popular options already installed and included in the price. HP, who had trailed, jumped into the lead by virtue of its retail placement--where option rich models attracted prospective individual buyers. Corporate customers may crave customization, but that only goes so far. Right now, Dell is in danger of becoming an "also-ran" and you know how those turn out.
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND COMPLAIN
John Murtha the PA Congressman who never saw an earmark he didn't like now has an expensive airport built just for him and his homies. $150 million in Federal subsidies and earmarks resulted in an airport that few use, and nobody "needs," except Murtha. About 30 passengers use the airport grabbing one of the 3 flights per day to where? You guessed it, DC! Earlier this year another $800,000 in federal stimulus money went toward paving a second runway!! Murtha also has $8.5 million for a new radar system in his pocket too. This guy is shameless and its our tax money he's wasting in the name of "supporting his constituents." Write your Congressional representative and senators. Complain! This is just wrong in so many ways.
PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU SIT--WITH POLITICIANS ANYWAY
Carter's trade policies were huge failures. Now Obama is re-running that horror film to serve his supporters--Unions--to the detriment of Americans--employers and employees BOTH! George Will says it so well, I have just pasted his column below. Gary D. Halbert takes apart Obama's Healthcare speech and tracks down the misrepresentations and lies (Rep. Wilson's outburst was accurage--he does lie!). The MSM (Main Stream Media) also lies and does so as much by omission as by inclusion. Did anyone see the coverage of the huge event shown below?
WHETHER PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE--TRUTHFULNESS IS CRITICAL TO TRUSTWORTHINESS
As one correspondent reminded me, "they all lie." I did not rebut him then, but I will here. That doesn't make it right or acceptable, and the higher the position, the bigger and more important the lie, then the greater the damage done by it. The President of the US has many occasions where he cannot tell the "whole truth" or reveal information what is not appropriate for wide distribution. BUT--HE SHOULD NOT PROMOTE HIS POLICIES WITH OUTRIGHT LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS. Bush was vilified for his reputed lies about Iraq's WMDs, based on the CIA's intel. Perhaps that criticism was valid, but IF he was basing it on "misinformation" from his sources, shame on him and shame on them. When the President deliberately ignores the facts, that is far worse. When he plays to a small audience (as Bush did with his misguided Steel Tariffs during term one), he is actually doing harm to the vast majority of Americans. THAT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE.
WE CAN DIFFER ABOUT POLICIES, SOLUTIONS AND APPROACHES, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH--OR NOT!
Best, John
========================================================================================
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:08 AM
By George F. Will
While in Pittsburgh, a sense of seemliness should prevent President Barack Obama from again exhorting the G-20, as he did April 2 in London, to be strong in resisting domestic pressures for protectionism. This month, invertebrate as he invariably is when organized labor barks, he imposed 35 percent tariffs on imports of tires that China makes for the low-price end of the market. This antic nonsense matters not only because of trade disruptions it may cause but also because it is evidence of his willowy weakness under pressure from his political patrons.
In 2000, as a price of China's admission to the World Trade Organization, Congress enacted a provision for "relief from market disruption" to American industries from surges of Chinese imports. Congress said disruption exists whenever imports of a product "like or directly competitive with" a U.S. product increase "rapidly" and threaten "significant" injury to a U.S. industry. Evidence of disruption includes the volume of imports of a product, the effect of imports on the prices of competing U.S. goods and the effect on the U.S. industry.
Notice that China need not be guilty of any wrongdoing: It can be punished even if it is not "dumping" -- not selling goods below the cost of manufacturing and distributing them. (That we consider it wrongdoing for a nation to sell us things we want at very low prices is a superstition to be marveled at another day.) And China need not be punished: Presidential action is entirely discretionary. So Obama was using the sort of slippery language that increasingly defines his loquacity when he said he was simply "enforcing" a trade agreement.
None of the 10 manufacturers who comprise the domestic tire industry sought this protectionism. Seven of the 10 also make tires in other countries. Most U.S. manufacturers have stopped making low-end tires, preferring the higher profit from more expensive models. (Four U.S. companies make low-end tires in China.)
The president smote China because a single union, the United Steelworkers, asked him to. It represents rubber workers, but only those responsible for 47 percent of U.S. tiremaking. The president's action will not create more than a negligible number of jobs, if any. It will not restore a significant number, if any, of the almost 5,200 jobs that were lost in the tire industry between 2004 and 2008. Rather, the president will create jobs in other nations that make low-end tires. They make them partly because some U.S. firms have outsourced the manufacturing of such tires to low-wage countries so the U.S. firms can make a small profit, while making high-end and higher-profit tires here.
The 215 percent increase in tire imports from China is largely the fault, so to speak, of lower-income Americans, many of whom will respond to the presidential increase in the cost of low-end tires by driving longer on their worn tires. How many injuries and deaths will this cause? How many jobs will it cost in tire-replacement businesses, or among longshoremen who handle imports? We will find out. The costs of the president's sacrifice of the national interest to the economic illiteracy of a single labor union may also include injuries China might inflict by imposing retaliatory protectionism or reducing its purchases of U.S. government debt.
Obama was silent when Congress, pleasing the Teamsters, violated the North American Free Trade Agreement by stopping Mexican trucks from delivering goods north of the border. And although he is almost never silent about anything, he did not protest "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus legislation. And he has not denounced the idea many Democratic climate tinkerers have of imposing "border adjustment mechanisms" -- tariffs -- on imports from countries that choose not to burden their manufacturers, as the Obama administration proposes burdening American manufacturers, with restrictions on carbon emissions. And he allows unratified trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama to languish. Nevertheless, he says he favors free trade.
He must -- or so he thinks -- say so much about so many things, perhaps he cannot keep track of the multiplying contradictions in his utterances. But they -- and the tire tariffs -- are related to the sagging support for his health-care program.
George F. Will writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
georgewill@washpost.com
========================================================================================
TO COMPLAIN OR TO STEP FORWARD
Is this the first such picture you have seen like this? I was stunned to see the size of this crowd in our Nation's Capitol, protesting the policies that are being implemented by our government--Congress, President Obama and his horde of "unconstitutional" czars. If you think posting these here is inflammatory, then you don't understand the history of America, and how a Democracy "of the people, by the people and for the people"...operates. If I were a candidate up for reelection to public office, I would sure take heed of this reaction.
This is the first great conservative anti-statist manifestation in American history. The conservative movement, which developed in the post-WWII, Cold War environment has now fully matured into the most significant political movement of the 21st century. I believe that this day could be referred to in the not too distant future as the day that changed America . This was the day the great silent conservative majority finally found its voice.
Many of the attendees were quite meek and timid and were unsure of exactly what to expect, this being the first time in their lives they’d been involved in a protest movement. Their fears evaporated early in the day and I saw people reveling in the camaraderie , the joy and sheer civility that was exhibited at the entire event. Chants of “Freedom, freedom, freedom”, “No more czars! No more czars!” carried through the air without the slightest hint of rancor or incivility which is the norm at the leftist rallies I have photographed over the years.
========================================================================================
MAYBE OBAMA IS NOT LYING, BUT IT SURE SEEMS LIKE IT
If he will "misrepresent and lie" in this one, why would his handling of other issues be any different?
Excerpt from Gary D. Halbert:
The number one problem with the Democrats’ massive healthcare reform proposal is a simple matter of supply/demand. There is no way to provide healthcare insurance and coverage to 46 million people who do not currently have coverage, with the same number of doctors, nurses and hospitals/clinics, without rationing healthcare. Even if the number is half that, some 23 million people (or even just 15-20 million as some argue), the problem is still the same.
The law of supply and demand also dictates that if we substantially increase the number of Americans covered (demand) with the same number of doctors, nurses and hospitals/clinics (supply), the cost of healthcare will increase, perhaps significantly, unless there is rationing. We must look no further than Canada or Great Britain to see how this will happen.
The question at the end of the day is, why can’t the president and the Democrats just admit that there will berationing and just be straight with the American people? In all of his healthcare speeches, President Obama totally avoids this simple supply/demand fact. The president wants us to believe that we can insure and provide healthcare to at least 15-20 million more Americans and actually spend less. No wonder that millions of Americans are up in arms over this!
Some observers have called this a “convenient fantasy” on the part of President Obama and the Democrats. How are we are going to save money by spending a lot more money – $1 to $2 trillion over the next ten years? How are we are going to solve our exploding fiscal problems with a massive new federal bureaucracy that will control at least one-sixth of the national economy going forward?
President Obama claims that the new government-run healthcare system “won’t add one dime to the deficit.”Unfortunately, presidential administrations and Congress are notoriously bad at forecasting the costs of their pet projects, especially entitlement programs that are intended to be permanent.
President Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug program is a perfect example. When it was passed in 2003, the White House and the Congressional Budget Office forecast that it would cost apprx. $400 billion over 10 years. Guess what – the CBO now projects it to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Do we really think Congress and Obama’s cost forecasts are any better? I doubt it!
Obama says the government will guarantee that you can keep your current insurance, even though his healthcare plan would encourage your employer to stop offering it; and when they do, you will have no optionexcept the government-run plan. The same is true should you get fired or decide to change jobs – the government-run option is the only option in H.R. 3200.
In addition, he says we aren’t going to insure any illegal aliens; however, in H.R. 3200 passed by the House Committee on Education and Labor, there were no citizenship verification provisions to assure that illegals can’t apply and get benefits. Yet President Obama promises that the new healthcare plan will only cover American citizens. (Maybe he plans to make them all citizens – amnesty - before the new system goes in place – think about it.)
At one point during his healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama drew cackles for remarking that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.” No kidding! Here again, Obama delivered a message that was strikingly similar to the one that has failed to resonate with the American people thus far. The reason is that while Obama can paper over political and policy realities by speaking in broad strokes, it’s always the specifics that have caused him problems. Healthcare is too big not to nail down the specifics!
As he has done before, Obama pledged to veto any bill that added to the federal deficit. But despite that commitment, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the House Democrats’ healthcare reform plan would cost over $1 trillion over the next decade and add a minimum of $239 billion to the deficit.
Obama again touted the cost-saving potential of “preventive care.” Here, too, the independent Congressional Budget Office has determined that preventive measures would actually increase health care costs, and that a so-called Medicare Commission that Mr. Obama has suggested would have a negligible impact on curbing government healthcare spending. Why are the president and the Congress ignoring these warnings from the independent CBO?
Back in May, President Obama went before the American Medical Association and declared, “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” He has made this exact claim in numerous other healthcare speeches.
In his latest speech before Congress on September 9, Obama offered a more nuanced pledge that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” As noted above, this is simply not true if you lose your current coverage for any reason under H.R. 3200.
Regardless of whether or not the proposed healthcare legislation specifically requires that Americans give up their private coverage, there are still many changes to the system that could cause many people to lose it anyway. For instance, one provision Obama backed in his latest speech - to tax expensive health plans - is explicitly aimed at encouraging employers to drop benefit-rich policies in hopes that it would help rein-in medical spending (ie – rationing).
At another point in his recent healthcare speech, Obama said that, “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” How does this jibe with the preceding sentence in the paragraph just above? Then, at another point in his latest speech Obama gave an unwavering endorsement of a requirement that individuals either purchase health insurance, or pay a tax.
Under the Senate version of healthcare reform/mandate proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), individuals would face a tax of at least $750 annually if they do not purchase health coverage. How is this “greater security, not higher taxes”?
And while the Baucus healthcare proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300% of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if they do not obtain health insurance, while individuals with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950. Yet Obama argues that this is not a “tax,” if it’s something that is good for you. Yeah, right!
This is a problem that Obama himself noted when he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton back when he said he opposed such mandates. In a February 2008 debate referring to healthcare reform, he said, “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.” He was referring to conditions under a similar healthcare mandate in Massachusetts.
During his speech two weeks ago, Obama advocated the creation of a plan to be offered on a government-run insurance exchange that would be “administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.” He said that the reason we need such an option is that, “by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.”
Yet later in the same speech, he argued that he could pay for most of his proposal with cuts to Medicare that would not have any impact on benefits to seniors. Say what? The reason, he explained, is that we could save money by reducing “the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud…” in Medicare - the very government-run program he touts as a model for the creation of a new government-run healthcare program. Do they really think we are that stupid?
While acknowledging that the new plan would be run by the government, Obama tried to argue that it wouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers, but only funded by the premiums it collects. Sorry, but I must point out that any new government plan would require taxpayer money to fund huge start-up costs - at the least, and should it run into financial trouble, it’s hard to believe that lawmakers would allow it to fail without pumping taxpayer money into it, just as they did in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and those were allegedly private companies).
President Obama speaks in such broad circles and contradictions. You can keep your current plan and doctors, but not really; your taxes will not go up, but they probably will have to; we won’t cover illegals, but there’s no way not to; etc., etc. No wonder the number of Americans who oppose government-run healthcare is now at a record high – 56%!
"Forecasts & Trends" is published by ProFutures of which Gary D. Halbert is the President. (gdh@profutures.com)
========================================================================================
BONUS INFORMATION:
POSTED BELOW IS A PIECE OF MEDICAL NEWS THAT MIGHT SAVE A LIFE--YOU OR SOMEONE AROUND YOU:
Blood Clots/Stroke - They Now Have a Fourth Indicator, the Tongue
I will continue to forward this every time it comes around!
STROKE:Remember the 1st Three Letters....S.T.R.
My nurse friend sent this and encouraged me to post it and spread the word.
I agree.
If everyone can remember something this simple, we could save some folks.
Seriously..
Please read:
STROKE IDENTIFICATION:
During a BBQ, a friend stumbled and took a little fall - she assured everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics) .she said she had just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes.
They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food. While she appeared a bit shaken up, Ingrid went about enjoying herself the rest of the evening
Ingrid's husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been taken to the hospital - (at 6:00 pm Ingrid passed away.) She had suffered a stroke at the BBQ. Had they known how to identify the signs of a stroke, perhaps Ingrid would be with us today. Some don't die. they end up in a helpless, hopeless condition instead.
It only takes a minute to read this....
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.
RECOGNIZING A STROKE
Thank God for the sense to remember the '3' steps, STR . Read and Learn!
Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke.
Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:
S *Ask the individual to SMILE.
T *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently)
(i.e. It is sunny out today)
R *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.
If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
New Sign of a Stroke -------- Stick out Your Tongue
NOTE: Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick' out his tongue.. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or the other,that is also an indication of a stroke.
A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
