Have you ever wondered why the children of the 1950's and 1960's were so extremely smart? Think about it for a moment. The classrooms were 6 rows of 8 seats per row and mostly filled. The teachers were underpaid. The books were old. There was no free lunch for the students. Milk was distributed in the elementary grades but the students paid for their milk. The lessons were the same year in and year out. Grammar school student had hourly changes in subject matter. Tests were given every Friday and there were unannounced tests at any moment.
So how did these children learn???
For one important reason. The basics were drilled into them by rote. Math. Reading. Spelling. Geography. And in the later years of grammar school, political sciences and CIVICS. What was CIVICS. Every student had to know how our government worked. How an idea was forwarded into a bill and how a bill became a law. In fact, every student in my grammar school dreaded the final CIVICS test. WHY? Because the only way a student could graduate into high school was to pass the CIVICS test. Fail the test - no matter how good your grades and you did not graduate.
So what did the students of the 1950's and the 1950's have that student today with all their computers and "new thinking" not have? These students had to learn their lessons by rote. Repeating and repeating them until they learned to spell, read, do math, and write. It was not difficult. Just took time and the real possibility that failure was not an option.
A student studied because there was consequences if you did not meet at least a "C" in all subjects. Failing meant being held back. No one wanted that - even to "cool" kids or the "tough guys". Everyone wanted to graduate out of grammar and high schools.
And what happened. Most students graduated and were able to enter college without having to take remedial classes to "catch-up" with all the other students in college. And even those students that for whatever reason did not go on to college were able to read and do math and think logically. That is totally unlike the majority of the students of today - as proven by the world's rate of 23rd in math, science and reading out of all nations.
So the solution is simple. Get back to rote and test, test, test. Make keeping up with the rest of the students a positive social thing. Stop paying students to go to school. Stop rewarding bad behavior.
Rote is best for everyone - no matter what you want to be in life. Rote will give everyone the basics. Rote will create a baseline of minimum knowledge for all students and raise all people up.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Employment figures and the government's figuring
We all know someone who lost a job, been downsized and cannot find a job in a similar industry or salary level.
I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.
Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.
Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending
So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."
The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.
We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.
The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????
Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.
WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.
Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.
Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending
So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."
The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.
We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.
The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????
Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.
WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Overpopulation - How it affects your schools
Over Population costs you real money- directly - it's money out of your pocket. HOW? Because the cities have to raise your property taxes to pay for the extra teachers and new schools. Why all the extra schools and teachers?
Let's look at these three examples:
#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.
#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.
#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.
There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Let's look at these three examples:
#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.
#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.
#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.
There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Friday, February 4, 2011
Over Population and Freedom
When has Egypt ever rose up from the people and demanded Freedom - ever? For the last 5,000 years, the people of Egypt have been ruled by dictators. And for most of that time, most of the Egyptians were slaves, beggars or a few middle class merchants. But has there ever been an uprising for Freedom?
Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later
So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?
And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.
It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later
So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?
And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.
It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Over Population and Unrest in the World
When a country has run-a-way population, the strains on its economy will bring down the economy or bring down freedom. Simple rule. With too many mouths to feed and no jobs, people will just 'mill around' in the streets all day. As they say: "Idle hands are the hands of the devil."
By that I mean, if you have 15% or 20% or 25% or more young people unemployed and mostly uneducated and unskilled, you have the makings of trouble. With a group like this, it is a simple matter to focus this group on unrest. Whether it's for more food or a job, the unrest can bring down a government.
That is why a "One-Baby-Per-Woman" is a concept whose time has come. A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the strain on families to provide the basics for their child. "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will ease the need for a government to provide basic food for its population. As the population reduces, and the strain on families reduces through A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept and the country will find itself in a better financial position.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce unemployment.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need for food imports
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce starvation
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to destroy "old Forests" for farmland.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to build more schools
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the governments' costs in every country
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will provide for a country's stable social and economic well being
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept is a concept the entire world needs to embrace NOW!!!.
And That's The Way I See It...
Straight Talk WIth Jay Clifford
By that I mean, if you have 15% or 20% or 25% or more young people unemployed and mostly uneducated and unskilled, you have the makings of trouble. With a group like this, it is a simple matter to focus this group on unrest. Whether it's for more food or a job, the unrest can bring down a government.
That is why a "One-Baby-Per-Woman" is a concept whose time has come. A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the strain on families to provide the basics for their child. "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will ease the need for a government to provide basic food for its population. As the population reduces, and the strain on families reduces through A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept and the country will find itself in a better financial position.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce unemployment.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need for food imports
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce starvation
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to destroy "old Forests" for farmland.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to build more schools
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the governments' costs in every country
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will provide for a country's stable social and economic well being
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept is a concept the entire world needs to embrace NOW!!!.
And That's The Way I See It...
Straight Talk WIth Jay Clifford
Saturday, January 29, 2011
World Population
The Earth is only so big and there are only so many acres of land to farm and there are only so many fish in the seas to catch --- to feed all the people. Face it World, there are too many people on Earth right now. We cannot feed all these people. Something has to be done or everyone will be at risk of not having enough fresh water and food.
It seems that the educated countries of the world have reduced their level of new babies. Even China has reduced it's new-born population. Now it's up to the rest of the world - specially the Middle East, Africa and South America and India most of all.
There is a reason people in those over-populated areas are always rioting and bringing down governments. They are mostly uneducated, underfeed or starving, and without jobs. Why no jobs? Because there never can be enough jobs for an over-populated world. Wake up world. The time to limit babies for everyone is now. One baby per woman and that's it.
By limiting women to one baby, the world's population will begin to reduce to a more sustainable level. With less people, there is less need for food and fresh water. With less people, there is less need to destroy "old forests". With less people, there can be jobs for everyone. With less people, every child will get more attention and less likely to commit crimes. With less people, every family can focus their money on just one child.
The people who say that we are taking the rights away from people by limiting every woman to one child, I say that is the responsibility of all people for the betterment of all the people to reduce the population in half over the next generation.
Having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or more babies is just not responsible. How can a poor family take care of all the needs of a multi-child family. On the other side, families that have the disposable income have to share the one baby per woman idea because they have the same responsibility as everyone else to work towards reducing the population.
And governments will find a one-baby-per-woman idea better for their citizens. Each country will then be able to create enough jobs for everyone. And each country will be able to feed and support education for everyone. An educated, feed and working society will be a stable society.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
It seems that the educated countries of the world have reduced their level of new babies. Even China has reduced it's new-born population. Now it's up to the rest of the world - specially the Middle East, Africa and South America and India most of all.
There is a reason people in those over-populated areas are always rioting and bringing down governments. They are mostly uneducated, underfeed or starving, and without jobs. Why no jobs? Because there never can be enough jobs for an over-populated world. Wake up world. The time to limit babies for everyone is now. One baby per woman and that's it.
By limiting women to one baby, the world's population will begin to reduce to a more sustainable level. With less people, there is less need for food and fresh water. With less people, there is less need to destroy "old forests". With less people, there can be jobs for everyone. With less people, every child will get more attention and less likely to commit crimes. With less people, every family can focus their money on just one child.
The people who say that we are taking the rights away from people by limiting every woman to one child, I say that is the responsibility of all people for the betterment of all the people to reduce the population in half over the next generation.
Having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or more babies is just not responsible. How can a poor family take care of all the needs of a multi-child family. On the other side, families that have the disposable income have to share the one baby per woman idea because they have the same responsibility as everyone else to work towards reducing the population.
And governments will find a one-baby-per-woman idea better for their citizens. Each country will then be able to create enough jobs for everyone. And each country will be able to feed and support education for everyone. An educated, feed and working society will be a stable society.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Can A Leopard Change Their Spots
Tuesday's Jan 25th State of the Union speech will have obama telling everyone that his beliefs,
held for his lifetime, and the legislation he pushed through with "behind-the-closed-door-bribes" was all a mistake and now he "Sees The Light" and wants to go off in a new direction.
Can you believe him? I do not think so.
He will say whatever it takes to get him re-elected in 2012 so he can have the next 4 years without worrying about re-election and without worrying how many congresspersons he 'throws under the bus' to transform the United State of America into a 3rd rate, bankrupt, socialistic country.
Yes, the country needs jobs. Yes we need a change in the direction of the political winds.
Yes, people can change - after years of "seeing the light" and from years on the psychiatrist's couch.
BUT a leopard can never change their spots.
And neither can the core values of a dedicated socialists change into a capitalist over night.
I have zero trust in the person calling himself 'obama hussein'. Can you trust this man???
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
.
held for his lifetime, and the legislation he pushed through with "behind-the-closed-door-bribes" was all a mistake and now he "Sees The Light" and wants to go off in a new direction.
Can you believe him? I do not think so.
He will say whatever it takes to get him re-elected in 2012 so he can have the next 4 years without worrying about re-election and without worrying how many congresspersons he 'throws under the bus' to transform the United State of America into a 3rd rate, bankrupt, socialistic country.
Yes, the country needs jobs. Yes we need a change in the direction of the political winds.
Yes, people can change - after years of "seeing the light" and from years on the psychiatrist's couch.
BUT a leopard can never change their spots.
And neither can the core values of a dedicated socialists change into a capitalist over night.
I have zero trust in the person calling himself 'obama hussein'. Can you trust this man???
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
NPR Nat'l Public Radio Needs to be free
NPR or National Public Radio needs to be free.
Why Should NPR get govt money - Why should my tax dollars be used to support this radio statio? IF the station's mission is to spread FREEDOM over the world, that is OK by me. Then, this station needs to stay completely and always out of USA politics at home.
Since there is an agenda at NPR to spew one political side over another, and paid by tax money, this is offensive to me. That said, NPR needs to be OFF US PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. NPR needs to compete like every other radio station.
If this station continues to get involved in biased reporting of the US political scene, then they need to compete for their money like every other radio station and NOT GET ANY US TAXPAYER MONEY.
And that's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Why Should NPR get govt money - Why should my tax dollars be used to support this radio statio? IF the station's mission is to spread FREEDOM over the world, that is OK by me. Then, this station needs to stay completely and always out of USA politics at home.
Since there is an agenda at NPR to spew one political side over another, and paid by tax money, this is offensive to me. That said, NPR needs to be OFF US PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. NPR needs to compete like every other radio station.
If this station continues to get involved in biased reporting of the US political scene, then they need to compete for their money like every other radio station and NOT GET ANY US TAXPAYER MONEY.
And that's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Making nice in politics
Since President George Bush won his election, the Democrats have issued hate on any Republican everywhere they can find something to twist to make it sound like the Republicans are doing something wrong. OK Sometimes the Republicans did some things that are wrong in my view. BUT to have ABC & CBS & NBC & NPR & EVERY TALK SHOW HOST ON THESE TV STATIONS & The New York Times & The L.A. Times spewing hate at the Republicans ALL THE TIME for years and decades while the Democrats were in power and then when the DEMOCRATS LOSE THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS TURN AROUND AND SAY - LET US MAKE NICE IS PURE BULL CRAP. The Democrats lost and now they want to change the rules that the Democrats have been playing with for decades to prevent the Republicans from using the same tactics - COME ON PUBLIC - OPEN YOUR EYES AT THIS DEMOCRATIC SMOKE SCREEN.
ONE FL congresswoman is one of the worst. Every word out of her mouth is hate with nothing about " DOING RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." And this FL Congresswoman is now calling for Republicans to watch what they say when she is one of the worst congresspersons for spewing hate.
WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S A POWER PLAY AND THE LOSERS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
And That's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
ONE FL congresswoman is one of the worst. Every word out of her mouth is hate with nothing about " DOING RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." And this FL Congresswoman is now calling for Republicans to watch what they say when she is one of the worst congresspersons for spewing hate.
WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S A POWER PLAY AND THE LOSERS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
And That's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
GUN LAWS
I am in favor of allowing the public to have guns - period. One Democratic Senator last week SHOT one of two intruders in his house. What's so amazing about this ??? The Democratic Senator has been openly and forcefully in favor of restricting guns from the public. What a contradiction. The man has no conviction of his words. Some might even call him "two-faced". Is this hate speech - no way - It is simply telling the truth without any added inflammatory remarks - straight truth as reported in the news and the Senator's voting record.
So let us talk about gun control - Why should mentally ill people have the right to have guns? Good question.
But who will determine who is mentally ill and is this a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.
Maybe the answer lies in the community forgetting about "political correctness" - a term that reeks of racism, uniformity and exclusion. Maybe we should think about coming together as a community - like we used to - and report "unusual activity" to the principal or law enforcement. Maybe that in and of itself could reduce the violent crimes. By taking action now to help the youth make right decisions with their lives. Maybe there needs to be more boys & girls clubs to help children learn about the making good decisions and becoming responsible for their actions. Maybe these clubs can help to foster a 'second' family for children; giving these children the structure all children need and might be lacking in many homes.
So in summary - Every citizen must be able to keep firearms per the 1776 US Constitution. Secondly, we need to spend more money on helping the youth now before they develop into criminals or gang members. In the long run, this will save money and lives.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
So let us talk about gun control - Why should mentally ill people have the right to have guns? Good question.
But who will determine who is mentally ill and is this a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.
Maybe the answer lies in the community forgetting about "political correctness" - a term that reeks of racism, uniformity and exclusion. Maybe we should think about coming together as a community - like we used to - and report "unusual activity" to the principal or law enforcement. Maybe that in and of itself could reduce the violent crimes. By taking action now to help the youth make right decisions with their lives. Maybe there needs to be more boys & girls clubs to help children learn about the making good decisions and becoming responsible for their actions. Maybe these clubs can help to foster a 'second' family for children; giving these children the structure all children need and might be lacking in many homes.
So in summary - Every citizen must be able to keep firearms per the 1776 US Constitution. Secondly, we need to spend more money on helping the youth now before they develop into criminals or gang members. In the long run, this will save money and lives.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Monday, January 17, 2011
Making hay after the horse left the burning barn
All of a sudden, the Democrats want to mix the seating in the President's State of the Union speech.
And I have to ask WHY????? WHY ??????
The only reason I can come up with is because the Democrats do not want to show the public how many seats they lost in the last election.
Come on people. Has any Democrat changed his tune??? I do not think so. They are using this mixing of Republicans and Democrats seating idea for one and only one reason. They Democratic side will be very small if they all stay together. And they are afraid to show the public that they LOST THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE UNDERHANDED PASSING OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE AND THE WASTING OF $787,000,000,000 AND THE
CONCENTRATING OF POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN BACK-DOOR CHICAGO-STYLE DEALINGS AND BRIBINGS. AND NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE "CZARS" THAT HAVE POWER AND WERE NEVER ELECTED NOR VETTED BY CONGRESS - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE VETTED BY CONGRESS.
KEEP THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SEATING AS ITS BEEN FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS - SEPARATED.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
And I have to ask WHY????? WHY ??????
The only reason I can come up with is because the Democrats do not want to show the public how many seats they lost in the last election.
Come on people. Has any Democrat changed his tune??? I do not think so. They are using this mixing of Republicans and Democrats seating idea for one and only one reason. They Democratic side will be very small if they all stay together. And they are afraid to show the public that they LOST THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE UNDERHANDED PASSING OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE AND THE WASTING OF $787,000,000,000 AND THE
CONCENTRATING OF POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN BACK-DOOR CHICAGO-STYLE DEALINGS AND BRIBINGS. AND NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE "CZARS" THAT HAVE POWER AND WERE NEVER ELECTED NOR VETTED BY CONGRESS - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE VETTED BY CONGRESS.
KEEP THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SEATING AS ITS BEEN FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS - SEPARATED.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Healthcare's decline
Just saw a TV Commercial for United Health Care. The man has Prostrate Cancer and
who does he get for his treatment under United Health Care ???
A RN - That's right a nurse, not a doctor or a cancer specialists - a nurse.
I am not taking anything away from nurses - It's just that you would expect to be treated
for Prostrate Cancer by a cancer doctor. That is obama health care in action -
Get used to it unless the congress can rescind and replace this terrible, terrible law that
will kill jobs, make doctors quit the profession and ration health care all while increasing
costs and your federal taxes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
who does he get for his treatment under United Health Care ???
A RN - That's right a nurse, not a doctor or a cancer specialists - a nurse.
I am not taking anything away from nurses - It's just that you would expect to be treated
for Prostrate Cancer by a cancer doctor. That is obama health care in action -
Get used to it unless the congress can rescind and replace this terrible, terrible law that
will kill jobs, make doctors quit the profession and ration health care all while increasing
costs and your federal taxes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Black and White
At the risk of starting political straight talk, one of the 'soul' problems with the Black community began with President Lyndon Johnson and his legislation to "help" the Black people by creating WELFARE. Welfare in and of itself is not a bad thing. But the restrictions of government on who could receive welfare was the main destroyer of the Black culture and the Black family. Recipients of welfare - usually mothers - could not receive welfare IF there was a man living in the household. SO the smart thing to do in light of the free money (i.e.welfare) was to kick the Black man out of the house. This lead to a breakdown of the Black family. Any family without a father is more likely to see their children get into serious trouble with early pregnancy, drugs and gangs whatever their race.
Then along comes Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King whose agenda is to make money while pretending to help the Black people. If he truly wanted to help the Black people he would have used his organization to help all poor people. BUT Jackson made it clear in every way, that the only way his organization could make money was to focus on Black people at the expense of all poor people. This fostered worsening race relations - putting his organization in contradiction with its stated purpose.
So what do we do about the "race" problem? We can discuss alternatives in my next blog
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Then along comes Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King whose agenda is to make money while pretending to help the Black people. If he truly wanted to help the Black people he would have used his organization to help all poor people. BUT Jackson made it clear in every way, that the only way his organization could make money was to focus on Black people at the expense of all poor people. This fostered worsening race relations - putting his organization in contradiction with its stated purpose.
So what do we do about the "race" problem? We can discuss alternatives in my next blog
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The obama thing
All people want is a government that will make it easy to plan for business growth and purchases. And with
the tax hike due Jan 1, 2011, why would anyone hire a new employee??? Add to that the obama health care
law which is raising premiums and limiting services while raising taxes now for services that will not be
available until 2014, it's no wonder that many of my clients are dropping health care completely for all their
employees. The premiums are just to expensive.
There is hope yet.
First, the tax hikes might be averted if the Democrats see the reasoning and sense of keeping taxes low.
While not raising taxes will raise the deficit at first, the economy will grow under lower tax rates and produce
increased tax revenues.
Second, there will be a call to rescind the obama health care bill. That was what the November election was
mostly about. Maybe all if it will not be rescinded. Let's hope that some major "FLAWS" in the 2000+ page
law that nobody has read nor could understand will be changed to reduce increased government employees
and costs to the tax payers.
Third, let's hope that the new House of Representatives can get some of the newly hired government
employees fired and the rest can get their salaries down to a more reasonable level. Why should
government employees with all their special health care and privileges get paid more than people in
the general public who have none of those special privileges???
There is hope that the government may yet begin to work for the people instead of cramming laws down
our throats and then expecting to raise taxes to pay for these laws. That is not how a free government
should work.
Remember Nov 2012 and vote out the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and maintain the Republican
house majority. Let's hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party can get together and put up a candidate
that can win against the obama in 2012
Who has a rational and sane thought? Let's hear from you
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
the tax hike due Jan 1, 2011, why would anyone hire a new employee??? Add to that the obama health care
law which is raising premiums and limiting services while raising taxes now for services that will not be
available until 2014, it's no wonder that many of my clients are dropping health care completely for all their
employees. The premiums are just to expensive.
There is hope yet.
First, the tax hikes might be averted if the Democrats see the reasoning and sense of keeping taxes low.
While not raising taxes will raise the deficit at first, the economy will grow under lower tax rates and produce
increased tax revenues.
Second, there will be a call to rescind the obama health care bill. That was what the November election was
mostly about. Maybe all if it will not be rescinded. Let's hope that some major "FLAWS" in the 2000+ page
law that nobody has read nor could understand will be changed to reduce increased government employees
and costs to the tax payers.
Third, let's hope that the new House of Representatives can get some of the newly hired government
employees fired and the rest can get their salaries down to a more reasonable level. Why should
government employees with all their special health care and privileges get paid more than people in
the general public who have none of those special privileges???
There is hope that the government may yet begin to work for the people instead of cramming laws down
our throats and then expecting to raise taxes to pay for these laws. That is not how a free government
should work.
Remember Nov 2012 and vote out the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and maintain the Republican
house majority. Let's hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party can get together and put up a candidate
that can win against the obama in 2012
Who has a rational and sane thought? Let's hear from you
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
Monday, October 18, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY FREEZE
What am I missing???
We have and will give Haiti $1,500,000,000.00 and there is nothing to show for it. The people are still
wondering around just like before the earthquake only now they are in tents. And we want to hand out more
money while we are FREEZING SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS. Is that just stupid or is
there an anti-senior bias showing up in this???
And our aid to 'terrorists' countries like palistine is another several BILLION DOLLARS we are not giving to
our senior citizens.
Then there is the way we figure inflation. In my world, the following items have gone up in this year:
Bread
Milk
Eggs
Meats
Every Vegetable
Electricity
Heating oil
NAtural gas
Gasoline
Insurance premiums for auto, health, housing, and even medicare premiums
Rent
Real Estate Taxes
State Taxes
Sales Taxes
Medicines - over the counter and prescriptions
All these things make up a part of the expenses of a senior citizen as well as working people's expenses.
So why isn't the CPI (The Inflation Factor) going up???
The main reason is home prices. The second reason is home prices. And the third reason is home prices.
Home prices need to be taken out of the CPI, in my opinion.
BUT, Most seniors are living in a world where their cost of living will increase by anywhere from a minimum
of TEN PERCENT (10%) to TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%). The government thinks it's OK to FREEZE the
SOCIAL SECURITY FOR our seniors - while THEY GIVE AWAY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
TO PERKS FOR CONGRESS PERSONS AND FOREIGN PEOPLE.
That is absolutely UNAMERICAN. These congress persons need to get their priorities correct. The CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES COME FIRST WHEN HANDING OUT OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I say reduce and eliminate foreign aid and give it to our citizens.
Does anyone beside me think that China and Japan need to step up their giving and increase their foreign aid ?
The CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY FOR ALL OUR SPENDING AND GIVING PLANS.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
We have and will give Haiti $1,500,000,000.00 and there is nothing to show for it. The people are still
wondering around just like before the earthquake only now they are in tents. And we want to hand out more
money while we are FREEZING SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS. Is that just stupid or is
there an anti-senior bias showing up in this???
And our aid to 'terrorists' countries like palistine is another several BILLION DOLLARS we are not giving to
our senior citizens.
Then there is the way we figure inflation. In my world, the following items have gone up in this year:
Bread
Milk
Eggs
Meats
Every Vegetable
Electricity
Heating oil
NAtural gas
Gasoline
Insurance premiums for auto, health, housing, and even medicare premiums
Rent
Real Estate Taxes
State Taxes
Sales Taxes
Medicines - over the counter and prescriptions
All these things make up a part of the expenses of a senior citizen as well as working people's expenses.
So why isn't the CPI (The Inflation Factor) going up???
The main reason is home prices. The second reason is home prices. And the third reason is home prices.
Home prices need to be taken out of the CPI, in my opinion.
BUT, Most seniors are living in a world where their cost of living will increase by anywhere from a minimum
of TEN PERCENT (10%) to TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%). The government thinks it's OK to FREEZE the
SOCIAL SECURITY FOR our seniors - while THEY GIVE AWAY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
TO PERKS FOR CONGRESS PERSONS AND FOREIGN PEOPLE.
That is absolutely UNAMERICAN. These congress persons need to get their priorities correct. The CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES COME FIRST WHEN HANDING OUT OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I say reduce and eliminate foreign aid and give it to our citizens.
Does anyone beside me think that China and Japan need to step up their giving and increase their foreign aid ?
The CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY FOR ALL OUR SPENDING AND GIVING PLANS.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Unions - pros and cons
When the Industrial Revolution was beginning, men with dreams and guts created industries. These industries ran on large amounts of labor. People would labor 12 hours a day for 6 days a week for their pay. And if they were not always working or came in late, they were docked pay. These were part of the working conditions.
Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.
The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.
Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.
Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.
As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.
Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.
In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.
For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.
The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.
The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"
In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.
The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.
In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.
The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.
Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.
Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.
As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.
Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.
In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.
For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.
The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.
The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"
In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.
The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.
In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Friday, October 8, 2010
What is a Republican
Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican. His platform was in part about limited government and state's rights.
And he was fiscally conservative. Right out of the frontier mid-west, the Republican party won against the "Whigs" and the Democratic parties; just like today with the Tea Party who are trying to re-establish conservative values back into politics while strengthening states rights. Limited government is another trade mark of Republicans and the Tea Party.
Why is that good? The power to tax is mighty tempting to CHEAT. Think about the recent obama health care bill.
There was not enough votes to pass it. SO what did the government with part of the 787 BILLION bail-out funds do? The government used OUR MONEY TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO A YES. They did this in secret. Remember the cameras watching Senator's reed's closed door where all the Democrats were being bribed behind closed doors without any transparency. (Another major obama lie)
I'll bet a lot of the 787 BILLION (which still has Billions unaccounted for) is being used to fund Democratic November races. This is called a SLUSH FUND made up of our money being used to encourage "takers" to vote for continuing the obama 'change'. (Taking from the workers to pay for the slackers)
And what is that change looking like??? Let's see. Government now control the finance part of our economy - that's the banks and brokerages. Government now controls two car companies with more than a hint that they will allow a Chinese company to take over one of OUR CAR Companies. Imagine. We just borrowed Billions and Billions to shore up our car companies to allow a foreign company to reap the profits. And not just any foreign country. It's the country that has RIGGED IT CURRENCY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW OWES CHINA BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. This is an outrage!!!
So would a Republican do any of this? No No NO!. A republican wants smaller government and less control of the economy. That way, the economy is free to grow organically the way it has since the first settlements landed here.
The Republicans want fiscal and personal responsibility of every citizen. That means every citizen needs to speak American English, pay their taxes and obey the laws. Of course Republican understand that "things" happen to people and that is why Republicans give to charity four to one compared to Democrats. (IRS statistics)
There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch. Somebody, somehow has to pay for the 'free' lunch. When you give money, food stamps, health care for 'free', somebody has to pay for it. It's only 'free' to the people who are on the receiving end. That money comes out of a general tax revenue fund.
Now if the general tax revenue fund could increase, then more money could be available for "free" items like
social security and health care. BUT, even Greece is becoming more fiscally responsible than the obama budget busting plan. Did I say "obama budget?" I must of mis-spoke. The Democrats did not create a budget this year. Why? Because they were too scared that the true numbers would scare everyone to vote out the Democrats this Nov 2 election.
So what is a Republican? Someone with Fiscal and Conservative Values who believes that the citizens know best how to grow the economy and who want to reduce the size of the government and it's budget.
Which person is the better citizen? - being a taker or the one paying taxes?
Next topic - UNIONS - pros & cons
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
And he was fiscally conservative. Right out of the frontier mid-west, the Republican party won against the "Whigs" and the Democratic parties; just like today with the Tea Party who are trying to re-establish conservative values back into politics while strengthening states rights. Limited government is another trade mark of Republicans and the Tea Party.
Why is that good? The power to tax is mighty tempting to CHEAT. Think about the recent obama health care bill.
There was not enough votes to pass it. SO what did the government with part of the 787 BILLION bail-out funds do? The government used OUR MONEY TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO A YES. They did this in secret. Remember the cameras watching Senator's reed's closed door where all the Democrats were being bribed behind closed doors without any transparency. (Another major obama lie)
I'll bet a lot of the 787 BILLION (which still has Billions unaccounted for) is being used to fund Democratic November races. This is called a SLUSH FUND made up of our money being used to encourage "takers" to vote for continuing the obama 'change'. (Taking from the workers to pay for the slackers)
And what is that change looking like??? Let's see. Government now control the finance part of our economy - that's the banks and brokerages. Government now controls two car companies with more than a hint that they will allow a Chinese company to take over one of OUR CAR Companies. Imagine. We just borrowed Billions and Billions to shore up our car companies to allow a foreign company to reap the profits. And not just any foreign country. It's the country that has RIGGED IT CURRENCY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW OWES CHINA BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. This is an outrage!!!
So would a Republican do any of this? No No NO!. A republican wants smaller government and less control of the economy. That way, the economy is free to grow organically the way it has since the first settlements landed here.
The Republicans want fiscal and personal responsibility of every citizen. That means every citizen needs to speak American English, pay their taxes and obey the laws. Of course Republican understand that "things" happen to people and that is why Republicans give to charity four to one compared to Democrats. (IRS statistics)
There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch. Somebody, somehow has to pay for the 'free' lunch. When you give money, food stamps, health care for 'free', somebody has to pay for it. It's only 'free' to the people who are on the receiving end. That money comes out of a general tax revenue fund.
Now if the general tax revenue fund could increase, then more money could be available for "free" items like
social security and health care. BUT, even Greece is becoming more fiscally responsible than the obama budget busting plan. Did I say "obama budget?" I must of mis-spoke. The Democrats did not create a budget this year. Why? Because they were too scared that the true numbers would scare everyone to vote out the Democrats this Nov 2 election.
So what is a Republican? Someone with Fiscal and Conservative Values who believes that the citizens know best how to grow the economy and who want to reduce the size of the government and it's budget.
Which person is the better citizen? - being a taker or the one paying taxes?
Next topic - UNIONS - pros & cons
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Sunday, September 26, 2010
What is a Liberal?
In all recorded history people would form groups. One man would become the "alpha" male and one woman would become the "alpha" woman. From these two people all the descending levels of hierarchy would form. The larger the group the more levels. And as the Alpha male and female became old or died, other males and females would attempt to overthrow the Alpha male and female. OK this is fact.
Let's move along to the beginning of civilizations. From the beginning, these civilizations were built on similar hierarchy with levels of "upper class" the land owners and whose power came form the Alpha male - the newly forming middle class made up of merchants, tradespeople, farmers and artisans - and the rest of the people made up of house servants, slaves and beggars. OK there will be particular people that do not fall into one of these categories. But they are for the most part one-of-a-kind people. We are interested in generalized groups and classes of people. Were there any Liberals in this group? Probably not. Were there people who opposed the people in power? Probably yes.
Can we fix a label on those people who opposed the people above them in power, money or status. In my opinion - no.
Now let's move to around 1200 AD in England. There was a growing number of higher level, land-owners who were beginning to feel like they "deserved more latitude" in their lives and resented tithing to the king. This then, in my opinion, was a group of people who were the grandchildren who fought to gain their position. These newly rich, without having to sacrifice for their riches, were beginning to demand a bit of independence from the king. In fact, they banded together to force the King of England to sign the "Magna Carta" which guaranteed certain liberties to these grandchildren. Everyone should read the document. Go here to read it ... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
This document set in motion the beginning of Liberalism. You are encouraged to comment on this after reading the document.
Nothing much changed until the Revolution Was between the Colonies and England. And by then, there were many Liberals who voiced their opposing opinion to independence. Yep, even back then, there were Liberals who wanted to be taken care of and not upset the apple cart for a better cause. Mostly these Liberals were well-off merchants with more to lose financially from war then to keep the 'status-quo'. Those persons who felt 'put-upon' and taken advantage of by the King of England wanted independence. So how would you define Liberal at this time period?
This class warfare would continue until today. How do you define Liberals today? Well there are no Liberals in the foxhole - at least live ones. Therefore, there are no Liberals in the active armed forces. Yes many persons in the armed forces have various ideas. But when you interview returning soldiers, you get a sense they understand why we are fighting a war today.
So that brings us to the people at home. Maybe they can define what it means to be Liberal. They say Liberal people are for helping other people. BUT Conservatives out-give charity six to one versus the Liberal population.
SO that can't be how to define Liberals.
What about religion. Seems to me that more Conservatives are church going that Liberals. The popular movement for Liberals today is to remove GOD from the populace. To me, religion should never be included in politics but it is a fact of today's political climate. To me Church and State should never mix. But I digress.
Liberals, to me, seem to be made up of several groups. The obvious group is those persons wanting a hand-out and never willing to sacrifice for the charity given to them. There are third generation families on welfare producing babies at an alarming rate. WHY? In there own words: "I tried working but why spend 40 hours a week plus commuting time when I can get more money from welfare by doing nothing." YES, Those are the exact words from an interview shown on TV a while back on several news programs.
Then there are the young people who though they may be intelligent, do not have a fully formed brain. That's a medical fact. People's brains are fully developed from age 24 to 28 and not sooner. People younger that 24 just do not have the ability to evaluate life in the same way as people in their 40's and older. So these younger people are idealistic. And many of them are stubborn so when the age, they continue to maintain their 'value-system' well into their senior years.
How does that account for the millions f Liberals who are working and living basically a 'normal' life. My opinion is that they are from mostly working class stock - semi-professional - trades - businesspeople. Can you imagine a 45 year old union worker who owes his entire life-style to the ability of a union to maintain his employment voting against the union. Never! That is why the unions today are demanding that we get rid of one of our basic "Rights" by eliminating the secret ballot. That way union people can make life hell for anyone who votes against the union. Self-serving? You bet!
But unions do have a place in today's world. It's just that senior management just keeps sucking way to much salary for the little work they preform. In my opinion, if there was a cap between the highest officer of any company with union members and the highest union paid worker, that would go a long way towards resolving the differences between management and workers. And to me that means more reduction in senior management's pay than raising worker's pay. After all there is a profit that at the end of the day needs to be made to keep the business going.
So how do we define Liberals today? They are mostly unemployed, low wage earners, under-educated with a mix of over-educated professors who have never experienced anything in the workplace, the young people and the grandchildren of people who have a comfortable life for their family and descendants.
What do you think?
Next topic - What is a Conservative
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Friday, September 24, 2010
TEA PARTY SUCCESSES
TODAY WE ARE WITNESSING what happened in the mid-1800's when a new party called the Republicans put up an unknown candidate - Abraham Lincoln.
The TEA PARTY is now doing exactly the same thing on mostly the same issue. Smaller government and states rights. It's time the Republican party joined forces with the TEA PARTY to win over congress. Then congress can pass as many bills without any Democrats. Then congress can rescind the obama health care law and bring spending back to 2008 levels.
Heck - any manager can wring out 5% or 10% or even 15% or waste in their budget. Cut the fat. Reduce the government employee roles. Keep taxes at the same level as today. And they can do this without any reduction in
services.
OK some pet projects will be placed on hold. And some companies that do business with the government will lose revenue for a year or two. BUT the majority of government job reduction will reduce the obama patronage job bloating - a common way to maintain power in Chicago, IL.
By reducing jobs and rescinding and re-working the health care package, the United States can again get it's financial house in order. And that will be good for everyone - not just the Democrats who took bribes for their votes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
The TEA PARTY is now doing exactly the same thing on mostly the same issue. Smaller government and states rights. It's time the Republican party joined forces with the TEA PARTY to win over congress. Then congress can pass as many bills without any Democrats. Then congress can rescind the obama health care law and bring spending back to 2008 levels.
Heck - any manager can wring out 5% or 10% or even 15% or waste in their budget. Cut the fat. Reduce the government employee roles. Keep taxes at the same level as today. And they can do this without any reduction in
services.
OK some pet projects will be placed on hold. And some companies that do business with the government will lose revenue for a year or two. BUT the majority of government job reduction will reduce the obama patronage job bloating - a common way to maintain power in Chicago, IL.
By reducing jobs and rescinding and re-working the health care package, the United States can again get it's financial house in order. And that will be good for everyone - not just the Democrats who took bribes for their votes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Jobs - Jobs - Where are the Jobs ?
The statistics show 9.6% unemployed. That number is unreal. My figure is more like 18% to 19%. Consider all the people who have run out of benefits. They are not figured in the unemployment figures. And people who lost great jobs are now in significantly lower paying jobs. Net result = low disposable income. With consumer sales driving one-third of our economy, this is a road to ruin.
So where are the jobs? For a quick answer look in your driveway. Is the car an American car? Come on people, if we stop buying American cars, the three car companies will go out of business. There has to be an American car choice for every foreign car available. Only snobbery is driving the foreign car market. The lose of sales in American cars is directly related to the loss of jobs. And for every car manufacturing job lost, 5 additional job -at least- are lost in supporting the car companies.
Where are jobs? They have been transferred to lower wage countries. First it was Mexico. Then Mexicans began complaining that their jobs were being transferred to China. Sure Chine has gained big time in all this transferring of jobs. But now the Chinese are complaining that their jobs are moving to Indonesia or India. Don't look away too fast. Africa is a huge source of possible low wage workers.
So where are the jobs. Back in the Clinton Presidency, he signed a bill to limit or dissolve tariffs between nations and for world wide free trade. Then our congress did nothing to create an extra tax burden on US based corporations that transfer their manufacturing operations out of the USA.
So where are the jobs? They have been exported to low wage countries.
We need to figure out how to create jobs in America. There is a sneaker company in the east coast that makes all its gym shoes in the USA. I am looking for the name of that company and I will then only buy my sneakers from that company. I strongly urge all Americans to support that company. I will identify that company's name later so you might support their products. They are competitive in style, function and price. ONLY snobbery will drive Americans to buy sneakers made in foreign countries. Look for that company name in my next blog.
Next time you buy anything, check for the "Made in _______" label. And buy an alternative product that says: "MADE IN THE USA."
And that's they way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
So where are the jobs? For a quick answer look in your driveway. Is the car an American car? Come on people, if we stop buying American cars, the three car companies will go out of business. There has to be an American car choice for every foreign car available. Only snobbery is driving the foreign car market. The lose of sales in American cars is directly related to the loss of jobs. And for every car manufacturing job lost, 5 additional job -at least- are lost in supporting the car companies.
Where are jobs? They have been transferred to lower wage countries. First it was Mexico. Then Mexicans began complaining that their jobs were being transferred to China. Sure Chine has gained big time in all this transferring of jobs. But now the Chinese are complaining that their jobs are moving to Indonesia or India. Don't look away too fast. Africa is a huge source of possible low wage workers.
So where are the jobs. Back in the Clinton Presidency, he signed a bill to limit or dissolve tariffs between nations and for world wide free trade. Then our congress did nothing to create an extra tax burden on US based corporations that transfer their manufacturing operations out of the USA.
So where are the jobs? They have been exported to low wage countries.
We need to figure out how to create jobs in America. There is a sneaker company in the east coast that makes all its gym shoes in the USA. I am looking for the name of that company and I will then only buy my sneakers from that company. I strongly urge all Americans to support that company. I will identify that company's name later so you might support their products. They are competitive in style, function and price. ONLY snobbery will drive Americans to buy sneakers made in foreign countries. Look for that company name in my next blog.
Next time you buy anything, check for the "Made in _______" label. And buy an alternative product that says: "MADE IN THE USA."
And that's they way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)