A PRESIDENT WHO IS LOST, CAN'T LEAD THE USA, AND THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT
These are perilous times. During tough times, you would hope to have a solid leader to rely on. Unfortunately, the USA lacks that leader and it is causing the peril to grow. Now that Barack Obama has tossed the "hot potato" of what to do with Syria to the Congress, we see just how weak he is. The worst part is that this is one of the most difficult decisions in recent years, and Barack Obama's soaring rhetoric has painted him in a corner.
=================
NO GOOD CHOICES, LOTS OF RISKS
Do nothing and it comes across as if America condones Assad using chemical weapons. Attack and you take the chance of several outcomes--all of them bad: You miss everything, but still do some damage and kill some Syrians; Hit a chemical weapons stockpile and accidentally kill a lot of Syrians. Hit some military targets, and suffer retaliation in any of several forms—another chemical weapons release, a counter attack from Syria, (or Hezbollah, which controls about half of Lebanon and likes to attack Israel with little or not provocation), or even some Iranian forces join the party, and they all mount an attack on the only really juicy US ally in the area: Israel, which is the closest and preferred target. Public opinion and majorities in both Houses of Congress wanted no part of military intervention in Syria's civil war. There were no "good guys" to back anyway. The rebels are infested with al Qaeda, and Assad was the one who gassed Syrians in their capital city.
=================
SO WHAT DOES OBAMA DO? THE TERM "GRASPING AT STRAWS" COMES TO MIND
John Kerry, (bless his liberal heart), is working hard at trying to help this clueless Commander in Chief, figure out what to do. Kerry makes another one of those casual comments about Assad turning over all of his chemical weapons--then immediately discounts it as neither possible or practical. And "POW" the Russians grab it like a life preserver and "come to Obama's rescue" figuratively speaking. Syria is Russia's ally, and the last thing Putin and Russia want to happen is for the USA to send a few Cruise or Tomahawk missiles over to destroy the 5-6 functioning airstrips in Syria, and most of the planes parked around them. Of course among the other Kerry gaffe's echoed by others was the explanation that our military intervention would be "unbelievably small." Hows that for a threat?
=================
HERE WE ARE. PUTIN HAS TOTALLY ECLIPSED OBAMA IN STATURE AND GUILE
Obama, still clueless about what to do, thinks the idea of Assad turning over his chemical weapons to be inventoried, stored and ultimately destroyed? by a group led by Assad's ally, Russia and confirmed by the fine inspectors from the UN (Useless Nations). As if outsmarting Obama was not enough for Putin, he puts out an OpEd in that bastion of liberal drivel, the NYTimes, in which he verbally pokes Obama in the eye over the use of the term "exceptional" to describe the USA. Can this "clown act" get much worse. All Obama needs is the clown outfit from the rodeo to put on while he "declares victory" in this debacle.
=================
AS OF THE MOST RECENT REPORTS, THE COLLABORATION OF THE UN (?!) AND RUSSIA WILL MONITOR THE REMOVAL AND ULTIMATELY THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS…BY THE 2H OF 2014
There are a few questions as we anticipate this effort, which is being committed to be done in a time frame that is far less than a task of this magnitude would require (not including the destruction of the chemical weapons). In a war torn country like Syria with the violent rebels still trying to overthrow the Assad government, how easily will these weapons caches be contained? Will they be moved, or just identified? When they are, how will they be secured against being overtaken by rebel forces? And as far as the destruction, I know from conversations with a friend of mine (who has worked as a contractor doing exactly this in the USA) that destroying such weapons must be a delicate and carefully controlled process.
=================
GO SEE THE LAST TWO WEEKS POSTS ON THE "HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY" BLOG--FULL OF GOOD INFO
=================
I GUESS USING THE THREAT OF MILITARY INTERVENTION BROUGHT ALL THIS INTO BEING--MAYBE?
I ONLY HOPE IT ENDS WELL…BUT WITH SYRIA'S GOOD FRIEND RUSSIA INVOLVED, AND THE UN ("USELESS NATIONS") IN CHARGE--I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC!
I THINK THIS ONE WILL REAR ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN.
--YOU READ THIS HERE--MAKE A NOTE.
=============
MC DONALD'S WORKERS WANT A RAISE TO $12.50, THAT'S ONLY ABOUT 60%+
Are they worth it? I doubt it. I make that statement because the worth of workers labor is valued by what consumers will pay for the results of their labor. Driving the price of a Big Mac or a Happy Meal up into the $8-10 range might just slow sales--A LOT! Then McDonald's will do what they know could be done now, but would be economically viable at $12.50 labor: Install touch pads for ordering instead of speaking the order, and install cash and credit card machines to collect the money and make change if necessary.
THIS IS NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY AT ALL
This is technology widely used at ATMs, many parking facilities, in airports, and of course on the ubiquitous tablets (like Kindles and iPads) and smartphones (you know, the ones that Obama provides to the poor people for free!). Once the technology is developed, it can also be used for ordering and paying indoors too. Between the two applications about 1/3-1/2 of the employees in a McDonald's would no longer be necessary! That, my friends is called replacing labor with capital equipment and technology--and it's happening all over the place. The more heated the cry for higher wages for lower skill jobs, the faster it will spread.
WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE--GO AHEAD--IT HASN'T KEPT UP WITH INFLATION ANYWAY
BUT, Like in all cases, there are unintended consequences. Youth and minority unemployment which is horrible (25-45% depending on who you include in the data) WILL GET WORSE! There are jobs that are not "worth" the "minimum wage"--in terms of what consumers will spend for the goods or services. The same people who scream for higher wages will scream just as pound when the cost to things they buy--goods and services--go up in cost proportionately. "There is no free lunch." and "The marketplace is a relentless truth-teller." and Companies that do not earn adequate profits to get a return on the capital they put at risk, simply go out of business and fire ALL their employees, and close down.
WITH THE HUGE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, YOU'D THINK MORE OF THEM WOULD WANT JOBS
However, when their combined WELFARE in all forms--Food Stamps, Unemployment, Disability, Housing Subsidies, Free Cell Phones, etc. etc. exceed what they can make in the job market--why would they want to work for it? How much can they get? $20,000-35,000 altogether. That is far more than take home pay from a minimum wage job. So go ahead and raise the minimum wage. Companies will find ways around it to get the labor they need. Or they'll pay the new higher wage, lose money and go out of business in which case EVERYONE LOSES THEIR JOBS.
and that, my friends, is TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!
=============
LAST, BUT FAR FROM LEAST, IS TO DEBUNK THE MTYH OF DEFUNDING OBAMACARE
Last week I published an Addendum to THE ENTERPRISE explaining how this is not only difficult, but nearly impossible. Since that time, I've exchanged messages with two members of Congress to confirm my beliefs. Here are the highlights of this situation f"telling it like it is!"
Defund Obamacare, even if it means shutting down the government, is the mantra you hear for a GOP strategy--from some factions of the GOP--but far from all GOP members of Congress share in that view. There are a couple of problems with that strategy:
1) Getting blamed for shutting down the government comes with large political liabilities going into the 2014 election cycle;
2) Even if Obamacare is omitted from the continuing resolution for discretionary spending (the part of the budget that will be up for renewal)--it won't effectively defund Obamacare. Here's why (from the Congressional Research Service report to Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., (R-OK):
As you can see, certain things just keep being funded, regardless of the vote on the Discretionary Spending and Continuing Resolution in the Budget. There is plenty of money already accessible to keep on with Obamacare.
Politicians like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz must be more focused on their own political aspirations than truly getting something done ---or telling Americans the honest truth. They want to avoid any votes in the US Senate because they know they will lose. They know the Senate can't/won't pass either a "defund" or "repeal" bill, so they are trying to put pressure on the House, which has already voted 40 times to repeal, delay or defund Obamacare--while the Senate hasn't voted once to do either of those.
They sell this kind of emotional 'snake oil' to people who hate/fear or don't want Obamacare (it's now between 1/2 and 3/4 of all Americans), and nobody asks 'is this true' or even possible Everyone hears what they want to hear and then blames House members and leaders for not doing something that will not work.
Consider these questions about the facts:
1. Which body has votes 40 times to repeal, defund or delay Obsmacare? The House
2. Which body can't seem to/isn't even willing to, pass any bill to repeal, defund or even delay Obamacare? The Senate
3. How is Obamacare set up? As mandatory spending (which means if you shut down the government, Obamacare is one of the only things that IS still funded. (the only way to change that is a CHIMP--(that's not a monkey)
4. What is a CHIMP? A Change in Mandatory Program that is needed to defund Obamacare? It's a REPEAL bill.
=================
OK. With those facts, does anyone believe that the Democrat-controlled US Senate is going to be willing or able to do something on the 41st time that they couldn't do for the last 40 times?
Or that a Democratic President who made the bill the centerpiece of his first term in the White House wouldn't veto any such bill as well.
The best tactic seems to be to force a "Delay" on implementation, which the Obama Administration and HHS has already done voluntarily on some provisions. (The "Employer Mandate" is the biggest one--delayed one year in implementation.) Other approaches are to try for more "Waivers," which has been widely done by the Obama Administration.
=================
OK, I KNOW I SAID I WOULDN'T EMBED FILES, BUT THESE LINKS ARE TOO VOLUMINOUS TO PASTE IN HERE. GO READ THEM AT YOUR LEISURE
For ambitious readers, here are examples. If you don't want to stop and go to these sites, I'll summarize. There are already a lot of waivers, and getting more of them may be a good way to slow or reduce the negative effects of Obamacare, but it still doesn't fix the fundamental problem: THIS HUGE BILL HAS SO MUCH IN IT, THAT EVERYONE IS "PARALYZED" BY THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN AND THE LACK OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF ITS CONTENTS AND IMPACTS. That is what is holding back the US economic recovery!
OBAMACARE WAIVERS ARE NUMEROUS AND DIVERSE
Just read the titles in the links and you can see what they cover!
=============
THERE YOU HAVE IT. DELAY AND CHIP AWAY AT OBAMACARE. USE IT TO EXTRACT OTHER CONCESSIONS IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET (Continuing Resolution) DEBATE AND THE DEBT CEILING CRISIS (Which is next in line in October.)
BEST, JOHN
Comments