Sunday, August 17, 2014

Ron Suskind

I have been reading Ron Suskind's book Confidence Man, and it is quite an education regarding the financial crisis.  However, considering the detail he uses to describe events, for example a private conversation between Elizabeth Warren and Obama, which, almost requires a complete disclosure by either party.  He better be telling the truth, which I think is impossible.

It is however, gasp, making me a bit more understanding of Liberal policies, he offers such non confrontational presentations of "progressive" viewpoints that they are almost palatable. 

It also seems to describe a very smart Obama.


He describes the whole of the Bush presidency as a reflection of the last months, which by any objective measure not a proper description.  The financial crisis, actually it was much more complex that just a financial crisis, was a long time in coming with many parties at fault, mostly people who started buying homes they could not afford and financial institutions investing in products they did not understand.  Much of the Bush presidency was prosperous.

Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare, is intended to make an inefficient system....better.  The point made in the book was that there was no correlation between level of care and outcomes, something now which must be addressed day after day in my profession (not delivering care, just documenting care).  The lack of logic and analysis is....not smart.  It is going to make things worse.  The most efficient system is for the consumer to pay for what they receive.  Obamacare is the opposite. 

The cure they chose to apply?  Transferring responsibility for care to yet another entity (Accountable Care Organizations) further removes the receiver of heath care from the payer of health care.

Also, if outcomes (money spent for benefit), is going to be applied to Medicine, should it not be applied to other concerns, specifically Poverty?

While I admire his change of heart regarding Gay and Lesbian issues, his missed opportunity to heal race and have us move beyond (which ultimately is going to require black people to say, apology accepted, lets move on) is really, really regretful.  He could have changed the conversation to, "we are all in this together", yet chose feed the fire of oppression and entitlement.

For me his lasting legacy will be the enlargement of the entitlement state.

On another note, the inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth, is the graph that Gore showed with the hockey stick (and the models projected to show a flooded earth) has not happened and should have by now.  After 6 years of unfettered Liberal Green, is the problem better?  Crisis averted?  Did the miniscule number of electric cars stop the tide and prevent disaster or did it just not happen.  Climate change is mostly a poorly studied and politically biased theory.  As in all things, the economic and personal desires of a free people is the best way to cure such ills (Tesla).

The belief that a controlling entity can manage complex problems, poverty, race, percentage of rich/poor, environment, never ceases to amaze in its immaturity.

Saturday, June 28, 2014


The world cup is a Liberal thing.

When does game end?  Kind of...sorta...ends.   Well we keep track, and we add stuff on at the end and...

There are no commercial breaks!  Sell something already.

So USA!, gets a tied in the last (sort of) 7 seconds to....Tie!  And they advance?

What a bunch of BS!   We Conservatives need rules, and end of game time management and...your out if lose


Its freaking boring!

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Monday, November 11, 2013


Another example, millions and billions that there are, how central planning does not work.

Feeble minds our Liberals are, they will never understand how a free people, making their own choice will always arrive at the best economic decision. 

Obamacare is....we will establish exchanges which work better than the free economy in allocating health care.  Ignoring the pertinent point...the distortion is caused by government...but anyway...

In no other endeavor is there the rational thought that removing the customer from financial decisions results in better financial decisions.

So the web site does not work, a portion of the population is having their insurance cancelled due to the increased requirements of offering individual insurance.  Temporary! they say... one might assume they will work the issues out (stupid that they think they can't solve this but can manage the whole)...but even giving their doubtful short term success...a long term!

They, our formerly (for me) beloved government, cannot manage a business...they will FIU.

The Liberals should have taken the Reps offer.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Do we really careif PUTIN has the lead?

Everyone is all bunched up in their panties, that Russia is going to lead the charge to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons. Sounds like a bunch of school boys saying only us we are the leaders, well that is exactly what Putin is saying about the arrogance of America.
 Yes isn't a good thing Syria finally admitted they had chemical weapons and isn't it a good thing he is going to destroy them, who cares who gets credit? Some great business books say don';t worry about who gets credit just get it done
. We are still destroying our chemical weapons ( yes we have them too) and I just read this was decided during the Nixon years.
 So it will take a lot of time, let's see Nixon was when? Anyway it is really simple math again 6,000 dead Americans and 150,000 dead Iraq's under an invasion plan, and this plan has ZERO deaths. I say give Putin credit who cares, I know there is some mothers and fathers that will still have their children to hug and kiss goodnight.
 These war mongers like McCain, Cheney, and Rumsfield, are all too anxious to send our children to fight for their glory. Bush and Cheney and Shock and Awe, have taught us a lesson Senior Bush new a long time ago.
 Don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest.

This is a smackdown...bitch....this is what happens when Liberal Doves rule the day

If the link does not work, it is Putin's op-ed in the NYT

Actually some of what he says is true, but more true is he is calling out America...

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

If your going to use Chemical.....go big says Obama.....(who thinks.....its Bush's fault)

If a President runs into a crisis, those who lead address the issues but no...the man of diversity harkens to his best days...criticizing the past war...before starting his own.

Now...granted tough situation.  But as Hags noted, he drew the RED LINE, no one else.

So American policy is no use of chemical weapons...OK...good if you use them let's make you pay...great...let's go!...but wait!  NO!'s go with just a limited strike...huh?  Either we go to war or we don't, we don't do "limited" to satisfy the liberal base which will never agree to anything "war".   So we are going to do what Baxter and Crazy Rich?  We are going to send a few bombs, mess up some stuff...probably kill some civilians...and then what?

Now the really incoherent part of our Presidents speech tonight...


So, let me see if I understand our Presidents reasoning...don't use chemical weapons dammit...look I drew a RED LINE!...cuz if you do we are going to bomb...something to be determined...not you...just something... but look if you do use chemical weapons and then we find out...we are going to be really mad...I mean it, really we are...but here is the real deal...

If you use the Chemical stuff...just once...after I drew the RED LINE!...OK, not great but...just call the Russians and offer to turn everything over and....then...OK...promise not any more...just that one time...really I mean it.  Don't do it again, I will be really mad.

And besides....IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a red line, and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison-gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation — and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.
Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21, Sentier released "Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013." The finding that grabbed headlines was that real median household income "has fallen by 4.4 percent since the 'economic recovery' began in June 2009." In dollar terms, median household income fell to $52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.

What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit polls.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

A Boy in a Man's Game

Boy: a male child or young man.
ladschoolboy, male child, youthyoung manladdiestripling

I start with the definition so I don't have to hear any BS about racism.

We and our allies about about to pay the price for having an inexperienced yet egotistical amateur at the head of our government.  His casual remarks at a press conference a year ago are coming back to haunt us all.

Assad should be deposed.  He is evil.  But Syria is complex and the stakes are high.  Read "Obama's Bread and Circuses" by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post in Real Clear Politics.  It is incisive and somber.  This link may work:

Obama has done real harm to us and our allies.  Now that evil people recognize him for the buffoon he is, real trouble will follow.

If you need more convincing, read "A Case Study in How Not to Conduct Foreign Policy" by Fareed Zakaria of CNN.  Neither Mr. Zakaria nor CNN is know for leaning to the right. The article is also available at Real Clear Politics.  Try this link:
The article is also available on CNN, which may be more comfortable for those with a leftward tilt.

Buckle your chin straps.  Things are going to get worse.

All the best,



 President Barack Obama is going to see what the most gutless two bodies in the history of organized democracy -- The U.S. House Of Representatives and the U.S. Senate -- have to say about going to "war" in Syria.
And that's awesome, because it technically is their effing job to decide that stuff, a practice we've gotten away from, and which has greatly benefitted Congress, who rarely have to nut up and do anything anymore.
 But since society frowns on us just dropping the big one on Syria, they get to take a vote on it.
 Especially all those BIG TALKERS who claimed to want to take a vote, most of whom were lying when they said this. Now " can't wait to start a war " MaCain might vote no. What else from the man who chose Palin to be a heart beat away from the Presidency. Of course now they will criticize him for not being a leader.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

When do think skulls understand?

The education proposal reflects the Obama modus operandi. First, identify an American industry that long ago made a Faustian bargain for federal support, such as hospitals and housing. Then describe the subsidy-dependent industry's inevitable bloat and inefficiency in images so stark no reasonable person could disagree. "Burdened with tens of thousands of dollars" in student debt, Mr. Obama said at Binghamton University in New York, "they have to put off buying a home, or starting a business, or starting a family." [Footnote: That was federal student debt.] Then after getting buy-in from the mortified industry, he imposes the solution—on his terms.

First government aids an industry (Retirement, health care, education, energy) then it is over subsidized then it fails and must be rescued by those who messed it up.

Time and time again.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Ted Cruz and his Tea Party Supporters

I have been relishing a Ted Cruz run for the White House as it will put the hypocrisy of the right wing in full relief. Cruz is a Tea Party favorite, which is to say that many/most of his supporters wanted to overturn the will of the American people as expressed in a presidential election and throw President Obama out of office for allegedly being foreign born (to an American mother and foreign father). That isn't preventing them from supporting a Canadian born candidate (to an American mother), whose father was Cuban.

How many of these folks will send an apology to our president? Will Donald Trump make a definitive statement or continue to dodge the question? This isn't a minor matter. The fact that some Americans wanted to President Obama out of office on this basis yet support Senator Cruz shows just how the Nazis were able to take power in Germany. Otherwise ordinary people were choosing a fascist path at the expense of democracy and why?

Conservative David Horowitz put it best in December of 2008, "It is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution."

By the way, it is rather clear to me that Ted Cruz is a natural born American who is eligible to hold the presidency, just as the American born Obama is, even if he had been born in Kenya.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Let's just say it, we would do better if we taxed Gates, Jobs, and Buffett less than everyone else

One of the signature themes of the Obama administration is that the American dream is under attack due to "income disparity." The words divide the country into haves and have-nots, suggesting a national condition that needs to be corrected—presumably by "progressive" taxation as a mechanism for income redistribution. The American dream has traditionally been one of individual success that is rewarded and admired. But we are now urged to become a zero-sum society in which those achieving the American dream are envied and even resented.

The American dream is not politically affiliated. The last time it was alive and well was the period from Ronald Reagan's second term in office through Bill Clinton's second term in office. In those 16 years, we enjoyed continuous low taxes, low government spending and economic prosperity.

Since 2000, the economy has staggered under the record government spending and deficits of two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The result of that spending spree has been lower real wages and higher and more-persistent unemployment. The Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates to near-zero, and, for the first time ever in the U.S., that Depression-era medicine has not worked—a scary situation reminiscent of Japan's decade-plus economic demise.

According to the latest 2012 IRS income-tax data, the top 1% of American taxpayers earned 20% of all income and paid 36% of all taxes. The top 5% earned 36% of all income and paid 58% of all taxes. Will even higher taxes help the economy? My experience in Silicon Valley tells me that high and so-called progressive taxes are a major cause of the country's current economic problems, not the solution.

In Silicon Valley, the rich commonly reinvest their wealth close to home. For example, I have reinvested most of my net worth in 8.5% of the shares of my own company.

Since its 1982 founding, Cypress Semiconductor has been a net creator of jobs and wealth. We have returned $2.2 billion more to the economy through stock buybacks, share dividends and spinouts than we have taken out in total lifetime investments. That figure doesn't count the $4 billion in wages the company has paid or the taxes paid on those wages. Currently, my investment helps maintain 3,479 permanent, high-paying jobs with good health-care benefits that are now threatened by more taxes.

A couple of years ago, I decided to invest in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wis., by building a $1.2 million lakefront restaurant. That restaurant now permanently employs 65 people at an investment of $18,000 per job, a figure consistent with U.S. small businesses. If progressive taxation in the name of "fairness" had taken my "extra" $1.2 million and spent it on a government stimulus program, would 65 jobs have been created?

According to recent Congressional Budget Office statistics on the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program, each job created has cost between $500,000 and $4 million. Thus, my $1.2 million, taxed and respent on a government project of uncertain duration, would have created about one job, possibly two, and not the 65 sustainable jobs that my private investment did.

On the other end of the capital-intensity scale, Cypress Semiconductor required huge investments to create jobs in its chip-manufacturing plants. Between 1983 and 2003, those investments totaled $797 million and led to the creation of 4,033 jobs at an investment of $198,000 per job created. Thus, my own experience on the cost of job creation ranges from $18,000 to $198,000 per job, compared with $500,000 to $4 million per job created by the Obama stimulus program.

This data squares with the broad numbers showing that private investment is more efficient than government spending in creating jobs. In other words: Every dollar that is taxed away from private investment and spent by government produces fewer jobs than the jobs destroyed by the loss of private investment.

Yet the politics of envy, promoted most notably by President Obama himself, continuously stokes the idea that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share." This injured sense of unjust rewards was summed up on a radio show I heard the other day, when a caller said of the rich: "How much more do they need?"

How much more do I need? How many more jobs do you want?

Even European socialist democracies are starting to understand that tax-and-spend policies kill jobs. For example, both Italy and Spain have repealed their incentive programs for solar energy (along with their "green jobs") because the countries have calculated that for every job created by government investment in green energy, somewhere between 4.8 jobs (Italy) and 2.2 jobs (Spain) are lost because of the reciprocal cuts in private investment. I am aware of these figures because from 2002-11 I was a major investor in and chairman of SunPower, the world's second-largest solar-energy company, also based in Silicon Valley.

Silicon Valley is today's brightest example of the traditional American dream still at work. The investments for most startup companies must come from individuals who can wait 10 years to get a return on investment. Only very wealthy Americans can afford that.

Like many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, I have reinvested in the next generation of entrepreneurs, in my case via the Sequoia Fund and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, two venture-capital firms that gave me a shot at the American dream. I also serve as a board member of their portfolio companies.

Does anybody really believe that moving investment decisions from Silicon Valley to Washington by raising taxes on venture capitalists and their investors would make Silicon Valley more productive? Consider the Solyndra debacle: It was obvious to most of us here that the solar-energy company had zero chance of survival. That's why the company had to be government-funded near the end; no real investors were willing to step up.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama insulted America's entrepreneurs by telling them: "You didn't build that." Progressive taxation is just another tool used by government to take over an ever-larger part of the U.S. economy. The horrible irony is that the government keeps telling the very people whose jobs it destroys that if we only tax the rich more, everything will be better

Thursday, August 15, 2013

How the rich companies create jobs

Cisco To Cut 4,000 Jobs Despite Earning $2.27 Billion In 3 Months