I am still holding out judgement on this but I am leaning more toward a belief that he is naive and not a liar.
A small group of folks that I work with are vocal supporters of Obama. One of those supporters likes to try to debate me. He is more modearte than most and his comments of late have indicated a growing concern about the stimulus package and actually how successful it will be in turning the country around. However about a week ago he was much more enthusiatic about it and praised the "Buy American" slogans and themes Obama has been clamoring about. My first reactionwas to point out that the World may not be so supportive of such a obvious policy. Now do not misunderstand I believe at all times we, the USSA should do what is in our best interest. Our President should exercise care in his words for such a position is liken to cause a Worldwide system of tariffs and embargoes. History has shown such a course only slows economic growth.
There are a myriad of reasons why this stimulus package will do nothing except place a burden at the feet of our grand children.
The first reason resides in a fundamentally misunderstanding of today's economy and the economy in the USA at the time of the New Deal. During that time, Americans borrowed primarily from Americans. Therefore the debt of the nation was held in the hands of the people of the nation sort of like owning preferred stock in a company. Today this is not as true as much of the USA debt is held by foreigners. Therefore Obama has eseentially 2 sources of funding. The first is to print the money that means more dollars for the same amount of goods. The result is always inflation. The second is foeign investors which lowers the credit worthiness of the USA if lenders can even be found and ultimately a weaker dollar.
The second reason resides in another myth. The New Deal did have some successes in creating roads and power plants to be sure but merely building a road does nothing to increase the productivity of an area. If this worked everyone would do this. The new roads did have a positive effect after and during WWII. The roads reduced the costs of getting goods to market ie made it cheaper for businesses to operate. This stimulus package contains more money for special projects than new roads to lower the costs to industries.
So far I have tried to show why this is destined to fail but let me go a bit further to illustrate a point.
Several States have shortfalls. Several Car manufacturers have short falls.
Someone please explain why the Federal Government is giving money to either of these entities. Also explain why the profit driven businesses have to give a full accounting and are expected to change their policies but the government agencies are getting a blank check. Finally please explain how getting a blank check is going to get the States to operate more efficiently.
To me this is like an engine leaking oil but instead of fixing the engine the conductor says give it more coal.
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/02-02-2009/107048-US_economic_China-0
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Another great article
Modern Science VS Darwin
Front page / Science / Mysteries
02.02.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Pages: 12345678
by Babu G. Ranganathan
Darwin convinced the intellectual elite of society in his day of no need to believe in God because his explanation of "natural selection" in Nature solved all naturalistic problems for explaining design and complexity in life, so he thought. Actually, other individuals wrote and published on the subject of natural selection well before Darwin but that is another subject.
Modern Science VS Darwin
The problem that many didn't realize right away in Darwin's time is that "natural selection" has limits. Natural selection is not a creative force. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and that have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. Biological traits and variations are produced by the DNA or genetic code of species. If the genetic information or capability for a particular trait doesn't exist in the DNA of a species then there's nothing that natural selection can do to put it there. Natural selection can only work with the genetic information available in DNA and nothing more.
When it eventually dawned on followers of Darwin that natural selection has limits, they resorted to the belief that genetic mutations would provide natural selection with entirely new genetic information and, thus, evolution from amoeba to man would become possible if given just enough time.
Mutations are accidents (random changes) in the sequential structure of the genetic code and they are caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation. The problem with mutations is that they are almost always harmful since they are accidents in the genetic code. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species.
At the very best mutations can only produce variations or modifications of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change those genes so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the genes so that feathers or wings develop! Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations which are rare in nature. Combinations of genes can occur by chance but that doesn't mean that the genes themselves can come into existence by chance!
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics. It would require genetic engineering to turn an amoeba into a human being. Nature does not have the ability to perform such genetic engineering.
Front page / Science / Mysteries
02.02.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Pages: 12345678
by Babu G. Ranganathan
Darwin convinced the intellectual elite of society in his day of no need to believe in God because his explanation of "natural selection" in Nature solved all naturalistic problems for explaining design and complexity in life, so he thought. Actually, other individuals wrote and published on the subject of natural selection well before Darwin but that is another subject.
Modern Science VS Darwin
The problem that many didn't realize right away in Darwin's time is that "natural selection" has limits. Natural selection is not a creative force. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and that have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. Biological traits and variations are produced by the DNA or genetic code of species. If the genetic information or capability for a particular trait doesn't exist in the DNA of a species then there's nothing that natural selection can do to put it there. Natural selection can only work with the genetic information available in DNA and nothing more.
When it eventually dawned on followers of Darwin that natural selection has limits, they resorted to the belief that genetic mutations would provide natural selection with entirely new genetic information and, thus, evolution from amoeba to man would become possible if given just enough time.
Mutations are accidents (random changes) in the sequential structure of the genetic code and they are caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation. The problem with mutations is that they are almost always harmful since they are accidents in the genetic code. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species.
At the very best mutations can only produce variations or modifications of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change those genes so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the genes so that feathers or wings develop! Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations which are rare in nature. Combinations of genes can occur by chance but that doesn't mean that the genes themselves can come into existence by chance!
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics. It would require genetic engineering to turn an amoeba into a human being. Nature does not have the ability to perform such genetic engineering.
Great Article
This is probably the single best article that I have read that quickly and concisely points out the flaws in Carbon Dating.
Are fossils really millions years old?
Front page / Science / Planet Earth
06.02.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Pages: 12345
by Babu G. Ranganathan
Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "No".
Are Fossils Really Millions of Years Old?
Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.
For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).
The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.
Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.
Are fossils really millions years old?
Front page / Science / Planet Earth
06.02.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru
Pages: 12345
by Babu G. Ranganathan
Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "No".
Are Fossils Really Millions of Years Old?
Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.
For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).
The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.
Complicated as the subject of the earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Quotes from Thomas Jefferson
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
In light of the present financial crisis, it ' s interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
In light of the present financial crisis, it ' s interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
and the body count rises
Difficult to find this in the main stream news but a few have started talking about the story out of Mexico. Apparently some 5500 died in 2008 in border towns as drug violence has taken an uptick. Good thing we started building and enforcingour border. Oh that's right our friends in Washington in an effort to court the illegal did not bother to secure our Southern Border. In stead we are building a super expressway so that an invading army, I mean so that goods can move quickly from Mexico to the USA.
http://www.tribstar.com/letters/local_story_031215110.html
Also, the socialist country of Mexico appears to be straining as cut back on wire transfers back to Mexico and in some cases they have gone back. The declining price of oil has not yet hit Mexicos bottom line as the contract is fixed at $70 per barrel. Any one care to guess what happens when and if Mexico has to operate on revenue from $40 per barrel oil. Keep in mind the oil production like many industries in Mexico is controlled by the government.
Maybe we could use those prison camps being built by the government to house the refuggees that will be streaming over the border.
http://www.tribstar.com/letters/local_story_031215110.html
Also, the socialist country of Mexico appears to be straining as cut back on wire transfers back to Mexico and in some cases they have gone back. The declining price of oil has not yet hit Mexicos bottom line as the contract is fixed at $70 per barrel. Any one care to guess what happens when and if Mexico has to operate on revenue from $40 per barrel oil. Keep in mind the oil production like many industries in Mexico is controlled by the government.
Maybe we could use those prison camps being built by the government to house the refuggees that will be streaming over the border.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Remember this is for your safety
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
By now we have all read about the so called secret prison camps being built. Like many of you, I thought such stuff was an urban legend. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
By now we have all read about the so called secret prison camps being built. Like many of you, I thought such stuff was an urban legend. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Monday Morning Update on National Debt
At the beginning of each month, I will post the total National Debt for the US.
It looks like about $10,639,319,410,269.98 assuming a total US population of roughly 305,575,ooo that is roughly $34,817.39 per US citizen not taxpayer but every man, woman, and child.
In the past, US debt was held by US citizen so no real big deal because US citizens are not going to decide they would rather have the cash now. See the problem yet.
If not then consider the value of a US dollar has declined during recent years in most countries. And now the Democrats are printing money. At what point do foreigh investors decide US currency is not worth the risk?
Putin recently spoke about the idea of discontinuing the use of the dollar in international transactions. This not really a new tactic for Putin as back in October of 2008, Russia and China were talking about switching any from the dollar as the international standard. Yeah I know the mass stream media could not fit in much discussion about this in between American Idol and idol worship.
Some say our children and our children's children will be paying this debt. No our descendants will struggle just to pay the interest.
It looks like about $10,639,319,410,269.98 assuming a total US population of roughly 305,575,ooo that is roughly $34,817.39 per US citizen not taxpayer but every man, woman, and child.
In the past, US debt was held by US citizen so no real big deal because US citizens are not going to decide they would rather have the cash now. See the problem yet.
If not then consider the value of a US dollar has declined during recent years in most countries. And now the Democrats are printing money. At what point do foreigh investors decide US currency is not worth the risk?
Putin recently spoke about the idea of discontinuing the use of the dollar in international transactions. This not really a new tactic for Putin as back in October of 2008, Russia and China were talking about switching any from the dollar as the international standard. Yeah I know the mass stream media could not fit in much discussion about this in between American Idol and idol worship.
Some say our children and our children's children will be paying this debt. No our descendants will struggle just to pay the interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
