More To It Than This

A New Way to Create Jobs?

2011-08-11T20:45:00.000-05:00

As I was driving home today I heard President Obama's Press Secretary condescendingly respond to a Wall Street Journal reporter's very valid question regarding the White House stance that unemployment benefits help create jobs. See and listen to his response here.

First of all unemployment benefits come into play when someone has lost a job. In order for unemployment benefits to help create jobs it would need to replace the lost job and create another. Since the best that unemployment benefits can do is only replace a portion of the affected person's income it is ludicrous to believe that it could stimulate the economy. Higher unemployment rates indicate a suffering economy not a growing one.

Now, it wouldn't be so bad if this was just the Press Secretary messing up the President's policy, but the sad thing is that he is actually defending the President's policy. And this is not new. It was mentioned by then Speaker Pelosi late last year during the negotiations to extend the Bush tax cuts. Speaker Pelosi also claims that unemployment benefits is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

And as recently as a few days ago according to the President the way to get the economy growing right now involves these steps:

Extending the payroll tax credit to put a thousand dollars in the pocket of the average American worker.
Extending unemployment insurance to help people get back on their feet, and
Putting construction workers back to work rebuilding America.

This sounds like his original stimulus plan except this time he did not mention "shovel ready jobs". This time its the more agreeable "putting construction workers back to work". How exactly can congress put construction workers back to work? How well did that plan work the first time around?

This would be laughable except for all those who are unemployed and seeking jobs right now. This is truly sad. Unemployment benefits are a safety net to help those who have lost jobs continue to put food on the table and hopefully not loose their home. It is not a way to create jobs.

Understanding the So-Called Debt Ceiling Crisis

2011-07-23T18:01:00.000-05:00

I am not a professional economist and have often tuned out the talk about our government's deficit spending, debt ceiling and other such things because I just thought it was too complicated. Recently though with all the hoopla about the debt ceiling and threats of default and our country's credit rating being downgraded I felt compelled to become informed. If you can relate then read on. So here is my attempt at explaining this in simple terms.

What is the deficit? If you make $1000 a month and spend $1500 in that same month you have spent more money than you have made. You are running a deficit of $500. If on the other hand you spend only $800 in that month you have a surplus. So a deficit happens when you spend more than you make.

What is the debt? If you have a deficit you have to pay for it by increasing your income or getting a loan. Since most of us cannot instantly increase our income a deficit leads to debt. If you continue to operate at a deficit each month then your debt will continue to get bigger.

What is the debt ceiling? The government's debt ceiling is like your personal credit limit. If you have a credit card it comes with a certain limit that you can run the balance up to. That is your credit limit with that card. The debt ceiling is the government's limit that it can borrow money up to.

So with that basic understanding what is the so-called debt ceiling crisis really all about? The government has obviously been running a deficit for a while and has been running up its debt to the point where it cannot borrow any more money under the current credit limit. When the average citizen runs into this problem they can ask their credit card company for a credit limit increase, or they can take a serious look at their spending and try to get it under control. The term "Live within your Means" comes to mind.

Now, we've all probably operated under a deficit at one point or another and there could be many reasons for doing that. Continually operating at a deficit is not a good idea though. So you have two choices. Get your spending under control or increase your income. Which is practically easier to do? I have found over the years that it did not matter how much money I earned, if I did not consciously control my spending I would end up spending all of it if not more.

So in its simplest form that is what the current debate in Washington DC is all about. The Republicans want to get government spending under better control while the Democrats led by the President want to keep the current spending rate, increase the debt limit, and try to make up the difference by increasing taxes.

Of course the problem at hand is more complicated than that. There are tough choices to be made but there is not a pending doom or disaster if the credit limit is not increased. Social Security checks will continue to go out because they are funded by payroll taxes taken out of our paychecks. The country does not have to default on its loans because it can cover that expense from the Federal Income Tax withheld from our paychecks. So all the talk about defaulting on the loans and Social Security checks not going out is simply not true. Those making those claims are just trying to scare people into pressuring congress to increase the credit limit.

To be sure there are tough choices to be made but that's what adults are supposed to do. The government cannot continue to spend with reckless abandon. The government needs to get spending under control, just like the rest of us have had to do through this difficult economic period.

If you want more details check out the information gathered by Fact Check regarding all this.

Resource:

Fiscal FactCheck | FactCheck.org

Just Like That, Google+ Is a Hit (GOOG)

2011-07-13T19:37:00.001-05:00

Just Like That, Google+ Is a Hit (GOOG)

There must be something to this Google+ thing. I didn't expect to find an article about the latest social networking attempt by Google in a financial web site. It is a good article that helps the reader understand the potential in Google+, not just in the personal realm but also in the business world.

Moving Towards Openness?

2008-08-10T19:38:00.004-05:00

In our College & Career Life Group (aka Sunday School) this morning we discussed the Olympics and how impressive the opening ceremonies were. Then I brought up this article regarding some Olympic athletes who are Christians and are facing a dilemma of sorts during their respective events, and probably even their stay in the Olympic Village, as well as travel throughout the host country, China. How far can they go in displaying gratitude to God whom they credit with their success?

To quote Sanya Richards

"It's important because I want people to know that I'm not the best because I'm Sanya Richards. I'm the best because of God. I truly believe we can't will ourselves to win. I hope people see the same thing I see."

So what is the dilemma? According to the article:

The Olympic charter specifically prohibits demonstrations of
"political, religious or racial propaganda" at "any Olympic sites,
venues or other areas."

China, the host country, also has strict prohibitions regarding religions and their practice.

So what are these athletes to do? Here's what we discussed during our study this morning. For all its wonderful displays and story lines during the opening ceremonies, China is still far from being an open country. Its citizens still have to deal with limited freedom even though there has been some movement in a positive direction. One of the areas still heavily restricted is religion. This is true even for visitors, and the athletes are no exception even during the Olympic games. The athletes should be respectful of the host country's culture and norms, but the host country in desiring to host the Olympics should also be respectful of the culture and norms of the participating countries.

For Christians, we have scriptural direction in regards to such matters of standing for your belief in God. See Daniel 6 (whole chapter), Exodus 14:13, Matthew 10:22, and Luke 21:17-19. Finally we discussed that we should have the correct attitude. See Philippians 2.

What would you do?

What's My Job Description?

2008-08-04T20:26:00.001-05:00

Wow! Talk about mixed up priorities. I couldn't pass up commenting on this article regarding the rating assigned to the movie "The Dark Knight".

Ms Clark of the British Board of Film Classification justifies the rating that was assigned to "The Dark Knight" because of the target audience the movie was made for. According to Ms Clark, "Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it...We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't." I guess that's the same logic the MPAA used in issuing a PG-13 rating to the film.

So what happened to the notion that a film will be rated based on its content and not its intended target audience, or how many people may be upset? How about challenging the producers and directors of movies to work
harder at removing content from a movie if they really are targetting a
certain audience. In other words make the content match the target
audience, or accept the appropriate rating and live with the fact that
the movie as produced missed its target audience.

Its all subjective of course but people rely on the ratings assigned to films to understand the general content of movies, and whether there is anything in them that they would not want to see or experience. By using the logic cited in the article I'm referring to hear it shows that in some cases the BBFC and MPAA are not doing their job. In the connected world we live in we are probably better served checking out reviews by sites such as Plugged In, and Christianity Today, than relying on the ratings assigned by the associations.

Urban Farming in Cuba

2008-06-08T18:25:00.001-05:00

When I saw the title of this article I just had to read it through. I still have family in Cuba. Although I have never been in Cuba, my mother has traveled back a couple of times to see them and she's come back with news of their living conditions and the overall condition of the towns she visited while there. My mother and father grew up in a rural area just outside of Havana. My mother grew up on a farm. It was a tough life but the family always had plenty of food. After my mother's first visit back to Cuba she related how sad it was to see the once productive farms in her hometown overgrown with weeds and basically unkempt. When she first visited, our family was not allowed to keep any of the food they grew. As a matter of fact, urban farming was not even allowed. The government had to control everything in typical socialist style.

A couple of things struck me about this article. First, that urban farming is now being encouraged and that the workers get to keep 80% of the profits. That is a stark change from previous years. It is sad that it took so long for those in control to allow the Cuban people to at least fend for themselves. The second thing that I found interesting is the acknowledgment that the state run farms are still not doing well. This is a clear indication that communism, the forced control and distribution of all resources, simply does not work as well as a free market. It is my belief that socialism in general does not work.

Yes, urban farming is a great idea and it should be encouraged through incentives, or at least the removal of dis-incentives. The fact that Cuba is successfully using urban farming is not as important as realizing what is making this a necessity. The state control over the large farms which removes any incentive for their efficient and productive cultivation. Before communism Cuba was a very productive country. It was an economic force in the Caribbean. After communism was instituted it rapidly became dependent on subsidies from Russia, and when that failed from China. The real success story here is not urban farming, although that is a good thing. The real successful model to be followed is that of a free market, and individuals having the incentive to produce for their own, and indirectly for others' benefit.

Article : Cuba's urban farming program a stunning success

Who's Really Behind The High Gas Prices?

2008-06-04T22:57:00.001-05:00

If you base your answer on the questioning from some in congress during the hearings last week you might say that the gas companies are to blame for the high cost of gasoline. A more reasonable explanation is that the price is driven by demand. Demand is sometimes artificially controlled by affecting the supply of oil, for example not producing oil as quickly as possible as OPEC is prone to do. The news article referenced below from Forbes.com sheds some insight into what really drives the price of gas/oil.

Oil plunges as U.S. gasoline stocks grow, fears of lower demand confirmed

A Simple Way to Reduce Gasoline Costs

2008-06-03T07:34:00.001-05:00

We've all received those chain emails encouraging everyone to boycott one gas company or another so that they'll buckle under the pressure low sales and thereby lower their gas prices. Well, than hasn't worked. But this idea might just be the right answer to help curb overall demand for gasoline and maybe lower prices. At the very least it can help you immediately reduce how much you spend on gas each week. How? Drive to work four days out of the week instead of five. This is not a new idea as you can see from the news articles referenced. It is an idea that will work if enough people try it.

Of course this will not work for everyone, and it requires that your boss be in agreement. It will also, require a change in your daily habits. But, the savings will be well worth it. What do you think?

Sometimes No News is Good News

2008-06-01T14:41:00.004-05:00

What a difference a year makes. Last year the big debate was whether the United States should bring troops home or defying most conventional wisdom send more troops into the area. President Bush stood firm even when some in his own party came out against the troop surge. Thankfully for the Iraqis and for us in the U.S. he refused to give in. He refused to give up. Now one year later the new strategy appears to be succeeding.

US Iraq deaths 'at four-year low'

Not only because casualties are lower, but because Iraqis themselves have a new perspective and are beginning to take a stand against Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups. The hope of Freedom appears to be taking hold. It is a shame that I found this story on BBC News, but not at any of our own news sources, including FoxNews. I guess sometimes, no news can be good news.

America, Still Home of the Brave?

2006-12-09T10:31:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago we observed the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. As I reflected on that day that will live in infamy I wondered if America is still the home of the brave? For a long while the media continuously bombarded us with daily updates on the increasing number of U.S. casualties in Iraq. So effective was this campaign that now it seems all we care about regarding Iraq is when we can bring our troops home. How soon can we get them out of harms way? We don't seem as concerned about finishing the job in Iraq. How sad.

When is the price of freedom too costly? The attack on Pearl Harbor left us with 2,335 dead, yet the cost to retain our freedom, and to help others regain it was much higher. Along the way to victory in World War II there was an enormous price paid in human life. The battles of Normandy and Iwo Jima alone resulted in 29,000 and 20,000 U.S. deaths respectively. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am not advocating that more people should die. I am merely observing that when there are those bent on taking freedom away from others in their quest for power, there will be costs involved in bringing them to justice, and part of that price unfortunately involves casualties.

What would it be like today if during the middle of the battle at Normandy we suddenly decided that we had just suffered too much loss and we should pack up our bags and go home? Would we be any safer? Any better off? I am thankful that in the face of such a mounting cost and increasing doubt there were those who realized that to pack up and go home would have been much more costly. They realized that they needed to stay the course.

But the jury is still out on us now. Whether we want to accept it or not, Al Qaeda has made Iraq a focus of their campaign. If we let them succeed there it will embolden them and put the whole world in more danger. The irony of it is that if we bring our troops home now to get them out of harms way we will only be creating a greater danger that they will have to face in the future. Looking back at Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many lives could we have saved if we had acted sooner to stop Hitler and Japan. Instead we waited until things got worse.

To put things in perspective the current U.S. casualty count in Iraq as of this writing is 2,922 over the course of the entire war effort. In 2005 alone the number of murders in the United States was 16,910. In that same year the number of traffic fatalities was 43,443. We are on our way to victory if we will not lose our courage and retreat. It is not so much that we haven't paid a high price already, as much as it is that if we let up now we will be creating the environment that will cost many more lives in the future.

I am hopeful that we are still the Home of the Brave, so that we'll remain the land of the free.

Sharia Law is spreading

2006-11-29T07:04:00.000-05:00

This story out of the U.K. is troubling. Some see this as a positive thing but have they really considered all the consequences.

A stabbing case involving Somali youth in south-east London was not handled by the English justice system but instead by an unofficial Somali "court". Although, at first glance you may cheer this approach because of this particular ruling, you should stop and survey some other rulings in Islamic influenced countries. As an example, look at this case of a journalist being sentenced for publishing the now infamous cartoons.

Is this the kind of law you want spreading to your part of the world? Consider this quote from the stabbing story out of the U.K. :

Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Good News About Iraq

2006-11-21T14:44:00.000-05:00

Yes, there is good news coming out of Iraq and its not that we are leaving as some would like. The good news is that great strides have been made in reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. If you read carefully you will see that the reconstruction was long overdue, and not just necessitated by our invasion of the country in 2003. Saddam Hussein long neglected the real needs of the people of Iraq as he pursued power by warring with his neighboring countries, and seeking to develop biological and nuclear weapons.

Read this article which details some of the work being accomplished in Iraq. Unfortunately, more stories like this are buried daily in order to publicize the more chique "bad news". The real stories are there, we just need to look past all the fast-food high-cholesterol junk food the major news chains want to feed us.

Rangel's Weird Logic

2006-11-19T23:22:00.000-05:00

Congressman Rangel wants to bring back the draft, but his reason for doing so just doesn't make any sense. In this CNN article it states that Rangel believes a draft would boast U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient. Then he goes on to state the following:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,"

First of all, having a draft did not keep previous administrations from going to war. Consider Vietnam, and Korea, of which Rangel himself is a veteran. We had a draft then and in both cases soldiers were sent to war. Secondly, if he truly believes that our current troop levels are insufficient then that would serve as more of a deterrent to going to war than having enough, or more than enough troops. Finally, the thought that a draft would cause members of congress to vote against going to war because it would mean sending kids from their communities doesn't add up. When Congress voted to approve the Iraq war the votes where 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. Using Rangel's logic this means that those that voted for the war must have believed that none of their constituents were in harm's way. That just doesn't make any sense given the number of Yes votes.

One of the things that sets our military apart from so many others is that it is comprised of volunteers. Each of the members in our military are quite aware of the possibility of seeing combat. They volunteer any way and that's part of what makes our country so great. Our men and women in uniform understand the importance and cost of freedom.

Bringing back the draft makes no sense. It is not needed and will only diminish one of the intangibles that makes our country so great. Many, realizing the importance of freedom, willingly give of themselves to make sure we all continue to enjoy that freedom.

What Did The Election Really Mean?

2006-11-12T11:21:00.000-05:00

I've read and heard alot about what the election really means. What message were the voters sending? Of course each political group has their opinion on what the election results mean. The democrats want to infer a mandate so they can push their agenda forward. The republicans want to assign blame in different power plays to promote their particular group's agenda looking ahead to the presidential election. One of these groups is the religious right which is saying that the election was lost because the republicans in power didn't promote and enact their agenda and so alienated that part of the conservative movement.

As I thought about all these things the one that bothered me the most was the position of the religious right. I have felt for a long time that it is wrong to politicize matters of faith. As an engineer I look to root causes when I'm faced with a problem that needs to be fixed. I try to differentiate the symptoms from the root cause, because if I don't correct the root cause the problem will persist. I look at the actions of our elected officials in the same manner. I try to differentiate the symptoms from the root cause. If our government does not rule in a manner consistent with my religious beliefs what does it really mean? I believe that you cannot legislate morality. Prohibition is a an example of a failed attempt. Abortion is another.

If we really want a lasting change it will only come as a result of a change of heart in individuals. The root cause is the individual's faith. When I look at Christ's ministry on this earth I notice that He did not focus on the political, even though that is what the Isrealites wanted. He instead focused on the individuals and their relationship with God. He affected the greatest and most lasting change by focusing on individuals instead of polictical or government establishments. He commanded us to do the same in the "Great Commission". I believe that if our government is failing it is because our Church is failing, and that is because we as individuals are failing in what Christ has called us to do.

If we do our part and trust God to do His part then He will not fail us. If we don't trust God and try to do things our own way we will only mess things up, or at best affect a short-lived solution. For example, how effective was the republican led government over the last decade? If the religious right is correct and it was based on their efforts that the republicans were elected, how well did that solution work?

So what did the election really mean to you?

Where's The Intellectual Honesty?

2006-11-09T23:45:00.000-05:00

Today I overheard one of my co-workers gleefully slam President Bush, calling him incompetent. I could sense this person's joy at the results of the election and un-controllable urge to puff up at the expense of another. I bit my tongue and kept on doing my work. But the more I reflected on what was said the more disgusted I felt. Here is a person that is not even a manager of a small group of people, calling the President of the United States incompetent. Of course, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and to be critical of our government. I do also believe that the criticism should be based on some facts and not just simple dislike of the person's background. Thinking that the President is stupid, or incompetent is typical of some Democrats who don't have any intellectual honesty and will hate the President no matter what he does. People like this are close-minded and foolish. If they were to honestly consider the facts about the President they could not call him incompetent. He is after all the elected President of the United States and before that a successfull business man, and a Harvard graduate with a Masters of Business Administration. All these surpass what the person dishing out the criticism has been able to accomplish. Of course if the President is incompetent he was obviously elected by an incompetent electorate. This is the culmination of this type of thinking. If someone doesn't agree with your point of view they must be inferior in some way.

So to all those who want to make themselves feel better by slamming the President by calling him deragatory names, at least do some homework, gather some facts and present them in a way that doesn't sound like "nah nah..nah...nah..nah nah...". Try to demonstrate some intellectual honesty, that is, if you really have any.

Someone Remembered To Ask The Troops

2006-11-07T06:50:00.000-05:00

I had a few extra minutes this morning as I sat waiting for the polls to open, so I scanned the headlines. This is the last one I came across and it wasn't on the front pages of any of the major news sources: Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results
Its from the Washington Post but it was buried on page A13. Alot of people are saying that this vote today will be about the Iraq War and how the current administration hasn't done a good job executing it, or how we never should have gotten into it in the first place. Most of them never asked the troops how they feel about their role in Iraq. Whether they believe they are there for good reason or not. Here is one soldier's quote:

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

We are so focused on the here and now, and our desire for instant gratification that we often forget some things cannot change overnight. It takes time. Here is another quote from the article:

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

If we heard these kinds of stories more often than the ones finding fault in everything related to the war I think people's perspectives would be different.

Well, off to vote now. Hope you've done or will do the same. I'm thankful for our troops and all they do to make sure we get to vote, express ourselves freely, etc. etc.

Are we at War?

2006-11-05T20:06:00.000-05:00

Just this morning, as I was getting ready for church, I was thinking of what I would write about today. I was thinking about writing something positive and uplifting and then I saw a promotional spot on FoxNews for a documentary film called "Obession: Radical Islam's War Against The West". I knew right then that it was a must-see for me. I watched the one hour special this afternoon which showed highlights from the documentary and I believe it is probably the most important program of the year. I urge you to look into this documentary and learn as much as you can about the threat that faces us.

View some short clips of the documentary here.

FOXNews.com - 'Obsession' — Ask the Filmmakers! - FOX Fan

Philosophy by Calvin

2006-11-04T09:24:00.000-05:00

Calvin and Hobbes is one of my favorite comics. Today's strip made me think a little. What changes us? Charles Jones, a comedian/motivational speaker, once said "You are the same today you will be five years from now except for the people you meet and the books you read." I would add to this the news we read, hear, and see every day.
There have been days where I have noticed my mood changed by the news being reported. Why is this? What direct impact on our lives does the news reported on a daily basis really have? If things really get bad, I'm sure someone will let us know. There have been times when I've been out of touch with the daily news when I've been backpacking, on mission trips, or vacations. I didn't miss the news that much, and didn't really suffer for it. Do we want something so temporal changing us and affecting who we become?
I think Calvin is right, we just go about our business and one day realize we're different.
What books do you read the most? Who do you spend most of your time with? What kind of impact do you have on others' lives?

Why I don't like polls

2006-11-03T08:45:00.000-05:00

Here's one of the headlines that I'm sure will get lots of press very soon.

"British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il"

I don't like polls. They can be twisted to say whatever the poll creator wants the result to be. From the wording of the questions, to the people who are polled, what comes out is generally the quality of what goes in. Useless information. From this headline you would think that most of the people in Britain think President Bush is a great danger to world peace. If you take a closer look at the article you'll find, near the end, what the sample was for the poll.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)

The words, "weighted to the profile of all adults", means what exactly? Was the sample weighted by age, gender, socio economic status, religious background, political party offiliation, etc.? Actually, if you think about it the sample was tainted from the beginning. They were all surveyed by phone. It does not mention what time of day the survey was taken and whether cell phone numbers as well as home numbers were used. All the factors listed above can have an impact on the results. Even when you've got a fairly representative sample, the results may not be very accurate. We should know that by now since the most insidious polls, "Exit Polls", have proven very inaccurate, and there you would assume the sample to be fairly representative. The real problem is the size of the sample. There is no way that a poll of 1000 people can give you results that are representative of the overall population when it is such a small percentage of that population.

In the words of Mark Twain:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Polls use statistics to validate their results.
Enough said...