I am tired of the double speak from Nancy Pelosi.
She continues to claim that the Bush administration used illegal torture methods to get information from terrorists and that the CIA lied to her about it. She claims that she was never briefed (only informed) and would not have approved of such "torture" methods to get information. But others including CIA Director Panetta say she knew.
The policy of the Bush administration was to use water boarding to get information from terrorists. It is non-lethal and that does not damage them physically. The process was supervisor by medical to help insure that terrorists were not hurt.
Yet, liberals claim that this is inhuman. My junior high physical education classes were worse than that yet I still had to go through them!
When you get down to the facts, the truth is the Clinton administration did things far worse than the Bush administration. Several key members of the Obama administration were part of Clinton administration that approved capturing terrorists in foreign countries and sending them to other countries.
These countries used real torture methods that would maim or possibly kill the terrorists. If their were medical staff present, they were probably administering drugs to help the interrogation.
The Clinton administration knew exactly what was going to happen to them. (And the worst part is that we had to trust these countries that they gave us the correct intelligence.) They did not want to get their hands dirty by getting the intelligence themselves.
The current administration continues to treat those who disrespect the rights of other (i.e. terrorists and convicted felons) better than law-abiding citizens.
It puts good people at risk of really getting hurt.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Another Prius Please?
The liberal agenda continues to be shoved down the throats of Americans...
Washington is now pushing higher gas mileage standards on automobiles and cap and trade on emissions. From the initial sound bites on the evening news its sounds okay. But the real truth is a lot darker.
Automobile gasoline standards are being raised to levels that mean most people will have to drive a Prius (unless you are politician who gets a chauffeur!). Not only will automobiles cost more, it will lead to more highway deaths. It is common sense that smaller, lighter cars are not as safe as the current ones we drive. But who cares about the safety of people, we need to save that extra gallon of gas.
The concept of cap trade means putting limits on emissions and "selling" rights to exceed them. This is basically another tax at the end of the day.
For our economy, it means more inflation as companies pass these costs to consumers. It will also mean more jobs will be shipped overseas where standards will not as strict (or as expensive). The Heritage Foundation estimates that this will:
I also doubt that it will really help global warming (if you really beleive it...). Scientists are now saying that we are entering into a cooling period over the next several decades. So do we need to take such a radical approach?
The bottom line is that liberals are trying to control Americans and expand their own agendas.
Washington is now pushing higher gas mileage standards on automobiles and cap and trade on emissions. From the initial sound bites on the evening news its sounds okay. But the real truth is a lot darker.
Automobile gasoline standards are being raised to levels that mean most people will have to drive a Prius (unless you are politician who gets a chauffeur!). Not only will automobiles cost more, it will lead to more highway deaths. It is common sense that smaller, lighter cars are not as safe as the current ones we drive. But who cares about the safety of people, we need to save that extra gallon of gas.
The concept of cap trade means putting limits on emissions and "selling" rights to exceed them. This is basically another tax at the end of the day.
For our economy, it means more inflation as companies pass these costs to consumers. It will also mean more jobs will be shipped overseas where standards will not as strict (or as expensive). The Heritage Foundation estimates that this will:
- raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
- raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
- raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
- raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500
- increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.
- expand the drilling in the U.S. - There is plenty of oil in Alaska and offshore
- build more nuclear plants - it is a nearly limitless, clean source of electricity
- quite wasting gas from oil fields and dumps by simpling burning it - use it for energy. In Fort Pierce, the landfill has 4 or 5 gas exhaust stacks that are just burning it off
- use other innovative means like using the wind and tides to create electricity
I also doubt that it will really help global warming (if you really beleive it...). Scientists are now saying that we are entering into a cooling period over the next several decades. So do we need to take such a radical approach?
The bottom line is that liberals are trying to control Americans and expand their own agendas.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Will The Real Marlins Please Show Up
It's a good thing Freddie Gonzalez was already bald otherwise he would be pulling his hair.
The Marlins started the season red-hot. 11 and 1 out of the gate. Yes, it included six games against the Nationals but also games against the Mets and Braves.
They then proceeded to loose the next seven straight. Win three, loose four, win one, loose three. They seem to playing well in Colorado (a place were they have not done well). The strange thing to me is that the starting pitchers went 20 games without a win. This is the strength of the team!
The loosing streak has seen blown saves, bad pitching, bad defense, and bad luck a couple times. (I do have the opponents credit. I saw Volquez shut down the Marlins for 8 inning with a great performance.)
The starting pitching will be fine as long as the core (Josh Johnson, Chris Volstad, Ricky Nolasco) remains healthy. The bullpen will be up and down because we do not have experienced late inning stoppers. This is one are were some more moves will be made through he season.
Jorge Cantu and Hanley Ramirez are carrying the offense. John Baker and Jeremy Hermida are fine for now with some timely hitting and good OBP. Dan Uggla and Cody Ross have a decent amount of RBIs for their averages but more is expected from both.
Cameron Maybin and Emilio Bonifacio look overwhelmed at times at the plate. Both are providing good defense but their bats are hurting. I do not understand why Gonzalez bats them where he does. They should bat 2nd and 7th to have some protection / pressure on the pitcher. If one of them bats second, put Ramirez at the top to get on in front of them. They will see more fastballs. In the 8th spot they will be pitched around some in front of the pitcher. You need someone more experienced and patient.
The front office made a move to bring Chris Coghlan (3B, corner OF) to get another bat in the lineup. He was drafted out a Mississippi program that has produced some good major league the last decade. In the
I still stand by my earlier prediction of a 2nd place finish in the NL East. This is young exciting team to watch. They will frustrate you at times but it will be fun seeing them grow up.
The Marlins started the season red-hot. 11 and 1 out of the gate. Yes, it included six games against the Nationals but also games against the Mets and Braves.
They then proceeded to loose the next seven straight. Win three, loose four, win one, loose three. They seem to playing well in Colorado (a place were they have not done well). The strange thing to me is that the starting pitchers went 20 games without a win. This is the strength of the team!
The loosing streak has seen blown saves, bad pitching, bad defense, and bad luck a couple times. (I do have the opponents credit. I saw Volquez shut down the Marlins for 8 inning with a great performance.)
The starting pitching will be fine as long as the core (Josh Johnson, Chris Volstad, Ricky Nolasco) remains healthy. The bullpen will be up and down because we do not have experienced late inning stoppers. This is one are were some more moves will be made through he season.
Jorge Cantu and Hanley Ramirez are carrying the offense. John Baker and Jeremy Hermida are fine for now with some timely hitting and good OBP. Dan Uggla and Cody Ross have a decent amount of RBIs for their averages but more is expected from both.
Cameron Maybin and Emilio Bonifacio look overwhelmed at times at the plate. Both are providing good defense but their bats are hurting. I do not understand why Gonzalez bats them where he does. They should bat 2nd and 7th to have some protection / pressure on the pitcher. If one of them bats second, put Ramirez at the top to get on in front of them. They will see more fastballs. In the 8th spot they will be pitched around some in front of the pitcher. You need someone more experienced and patient.
The front office made a move to bring Chris Coghlan (3B, corner OF) to get another bat in the lineup. He was drafted out a Mississippi program that has produced some good major league the last decade. In the
I still stand by my earlier prediction of a 2nd place finish in the NL East. This is young exciting team to watch. They will frustrate you at times but it will be fun seeing them grow up.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Continuing De-Construction of Capitalism
On Monday, the Obama administration announced plans to change the tax code to (in their words) "close" international tax loopholes.
Part of it was closing done loopholes allowing individuals to create phony shell corporations in countries without income taxes. From a political sound bite perspective it sounds great and most people probably agree with it.
The second part was aimed at multi-national corporations who make profits overseas but do not repatriate the proceeds (bringing them back to the U.S.). This is the dangerous part that most people do not seem to understand.
As an example under the current tax law, let’s say you make a car in the U.S. for $15K and sell it in Brazil for $20K. You would charge the Brazilian subsidiary $15K for the car leaving $5K in profits in Brazil.
You would pay income tax on the $5K. If Brazil’s marginal tax rate was $10% that would be $500. If you re-patriot the profit (bring it back to the U.S.) you get a credit for the $500 paid to Brazil and pay the difference to the U.S. If the U.S. marginal rate is 35%, these means $1,750 in taxes less $500 credit for a net tax bill of $1,250 when you repatriate the profits.
In the global economy today, dealing with multiple tax jurisdictions is standard practice. Countries look at these transfer pricing agreements to make sure they are fair market value. I see this in my job as we deal with foreign taxing authorities. Some countries (including the U.S) require mark-ups on some of these transactions to insure that there will be some profit left in their country (and creating tax payments to the country).
Companies will leave profits in foreign countries for a number of legitimate reasons. The primary reason is to re-invest it and expand overseas operations. Sometimes they will leave it overseas at the lower tax rate and repatriate it during more favorable times (i.e. downturns when they might be operating at a loss).
The Obama administration sees it primarily as tax avoidance. Their message is that if you do not pay taxes on it you will not be able to deduct the expense to create the goods or services here in the U.S.
For service oriented companies, this will accelerate them move to offshore work. If tax conditions are not favorable they will move the work to more favorable locations. As a leader of a company, why would you allow a more costly scenario to continue to exist?
Manufacturing companies will not be able to react as quickly, but it will also drive jobs offshore over time as they setup new assembly plants overseas.
This administration continues to make moves that handcuff businesses and will continue to slow the economic recovery. Instead of making incentives for companies to create jobs, they continue to create rules they think will force companies to create jobs when in reality it will probably have the opposite effect. The bottom line it is another assault against capitalism.
Part of it was closing done loopholes allowing individuals to create phony shell corporations in countries without income taxes. From a political sound bite perspective it sounds great and most people probably agree with it.
The second part was aimed at multi-national corporations who make profits overseas but do not repatriate the proceeds (bringing them back to the U.S.). This is the dangerous part that most people do not seem to understand.
As an example under the current tax law, let’s say you make a car in the U.S. for $15K and sell it in Brazil for $20K. You would charge the Brazilian subsidiary $15K for the car leaving $5K in profits in Brazil.
You would pay income tax on the $5K. If Brazil’s marginal tax rate was $10% that would be $500. If you re-patriot the profit (bring it back to the U.S.) you get a credit for the $500 paid to Brazil and pay the difference to the U.S. If the U.S. marginal rate is 35%, these means $1,750 in taxes less $500 credit for a net tax bill of $1,250 when you repatriate the profits.
In the global economy today, dealing with multiple tax jurisdictions is standard practice. Countries look at these transfer pricing agreements to make sure they are fair market value. I see this in my job as we deal with foreign taxing authorities. Some countries (including the U.S) require mark-ups on some of these transactions to insure that there will be some profit left in their country (and creating tax payments to the country).
Companies will leave profits in foreign countries for a number of legitimate reasons. The primary reason is to re-invest it and expand overseas operations. Sometimes they will leave it overseas at the lower tax rate and repatriate it during more favorable times (i.e. downturns when they might be operating at a loss).
The Obama administration sees it primarily as tax avoidance. Their message is that if you do not pay taxes on it you will not be able to deduct the expense to create the goods or services here in the U.S.
For service oriented companies, this will accelerate them move to offshore work. If tax conditions are not favorable they will move the work to more favorable locations. As a leader of a company, why would you allow a more costly scenario to continue to exist?
Manufacturing companies will not be able to react as quickly, but it will also drive jobs offshore over time as they setup new assembly plants overseas.
This administration continues to make moves that handcuff businesses and will continue to slow the economic recovery. Instead of making incentives for companies to create jobs, they continue to create rules they think will force companies to create jobs when in reality it will probably have the opposite effect. The bottom line it is another assault against capitalism.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Congress Debates College Football Playoffs
So what was Congress doing on Friday while the rest of worked (and others looked for work) in this tough economy? They debated the need for a college football playoff system.
You read that right!
While the large automakers are failing, global nuclear arms issues with North Korea and Iran, the Taliban running wild in Afghanistan, and pirates off the coast of Somalia, Congressional leaders questioned the fairness of the current bowl system.
I think there are a number of other things they could be working on. We are not talking about a Saturday afternoon session on their own time, but full blown hearings with testimony from NCAA, conference, and bowl officials.
Okay, some smaller conference schools are complaining about the current system. They feel that they do not get a fair shot at the title. It may very well be slanted towards the larger conferences. But they also need to play tougher non-conference schedules to gain validity for their records.
Of course the other major factor is money. (It usually finds its way into the equation some how…)
Schools want “their” share of the multi-millions spread around the bowl games. In these tough times, they are doing whatever they can to balance their budgets and support the programs they want.
I think the current system should stay in place. First, it is healthy (and fun) to debate who is actually the best. Secondly, we are pulling collegiate athletes out of class too much already. They are not professionals – they are in school to get an education.
I think I could have found a more productive way to spend my Friday…
You read that right!
While the large automakers are failing, global nuclear arms issues with North Korea and Iran, the Taliban running wild in Afghanistan, and pirates off the coast of Somalia, Congressional leaders questioned the fairness of the current bowl system.
I think there are a number of other things they could be working on. We are not talking about a Saturday afternoon session on their own time, but full blown hearings with testimony from NCAA, conference, and bowl officials.
Okay, some smaller conference schools are complaining about the current system. They feel that they do not get a fair shot at the title. It may very well be slanted towards the larger conferences. But they also need to play tougher non-conference schedules to gain validity for their records.
Of course the other major factor is money. (It usually finds its way into the equation some how…)
Schools want “their” share of the multi-millions spread around the bowl games. In these tough times, they are doing whatever they can to balance their budgets and support the programs they want.
I think the current system should stay in place. First, it is healthy (and fun) to debate who is actually the best. Secondly, we are pulling collegiate athletes out of class too much already. They are not professionals – they are in school to get an education.
I think I could have found a more productive way to spend my Friday…
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Heat Lose Game Seven
The Heat lost a tough game today. The series went seven games but none of them were close. It was the anti-thesis of the Chicago Boston series.
So what went wrong for the Heat?
Look at the other teams in recent years that have made deep into the playoffs or won the championship. They are not single dimensional on offense. They have two or three consistent scoring options. This is something the Heat had in the past when they went deep in the playoffs (Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway, and Jamal Mashburn) or won it all (Shaq, Dwayne Wade, and Antoine Walker)
The defensive scheme is another story. It is a difficult system that Riley developed and used by the Magic (with Stan Van Gundy) and the Heat (with Pat Spoelstra). With the right players (and opposition) it can be stifling to opponents. The Heat need big men who can rotate quicker. Beasley has the physical skills, he just needs to learn the system. Udonis Haslem and Jermaine O’Neil seem to struggle at times with the rotation assignments. Against a team like the Hawks (with quick bigmen like Josh Smith and Al Horford) it was a mismatch at times.
What Riley does not need to do is trade the young core away for another superstar to go with Wade. We probably have another superstar in the making with Beasley. There are rumors about trading him for Chris Bosh which I think would be a mistake.
We need to let the young guys play and bring in some quicker big men to help defensively. The league is becoming more speed oriented with point guards dominating play. The team needs to adapt and move that way as well.
So what went wrong for the Heat?
- The offense runs through Wade. It is too predictable at times. When Wade is off or the opposition can slow him down, the Heat are in trouble. They need a couple other scoring threats who can create shots.
- Their defense is not quick enough for some teams. The Hawks big men were just faster than the Heat. They were slow on their rotations which led to easy baskets.
Look at the other teams in recent years that have made deep into the playoffs or won the championship. They are not single dimensional on offense. They have two or three consistent scoring options. This is something the Heat had in the past when they went deep in the playoffs (Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway, and Jamal Mashburn) or won it all (Shaq, Dwayne Wade, and Antoine Walker)
The defensive scheme is another story. It is a difficult system that Riley developed and used by the Magic (with Stan Van Gundy) and the Heat (with Pat Spoelstra). With the right players (and opposition) it can be stifling to opponents. The Heat need big men who can rotate quicker. Beasley has the physical skills, he just needs to learn the system. Udonis Haslem and Jermaine O’Neil seem to struggle at times with the rotation assignments. Against a team like the Hawks (with quick bigmen like Josh Smith and Al Horford) it was a mismatch at times.
What Riley does not need to do is trade the young core away for another superstar to go with Wade. We probably have another superstar in the making with Beasley. There are rumors about trading him for Chris Bosh which I think would be a mistake.
We need to let the young guys play and bring in some quicker big men to help defensively. The league is becoming more speed oriented with point guards dominating play. The team needs to adapt and move that way as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
