Showing posts with label Regulations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regulations. Show all posts

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Throttling is Good

Why the FCC is wrong

The FCC voted on their regulations for the internet and in these regulations they made throttling illegal. What is throttling? Not piping someones web traffic through their fastest equipment unless a service pays a fee to ensure the traffic goes through it.

A lot of people think it is a good idea; they don't think a company should pay to use the fast lane. This analogy has been used to which I need to point out toll roads tend to be faster because you need to pay to use them and a lot of people don't want to pay for it. Who owns tool roads/fast lanes? The government.


It's like states in which gambling is illegal but there is a state lottery. But I am going a bit off topic here.

So what is the fast lane? The latest and greatest equipment.

When something new is available does a company throw away all of their old equipment and replace everything with something new? NO! That would be stupid. A blog site does not need the fastest connection. Ads do not need the fastest connection. Are people complaining they are not getting ads loaded into webpages fast enough? Screw you Adblocker Plus! Git me dem ads NOW!


A total replacement of an infrastructure with something new means a serious chance of catastrophic failure due to the new technology basically being a beta implementation even if the product is not beta but a commercial release. Installing something new always means finding out what works and what does not and correcting for "what does not" which is "beta" in the context of implementation.

New products need to be introduced into the system gradually. The services that pay for the "fast lane" are actually funding hot new technologies that will become a standard. This is market forces.

The cost the streaming movie sites to pay for the fast lane is baked into their subscription fees. This means that the fast lane is really being paid by people using the fast lane just like a toll road. Now that the FCC has banned that that means users that don't pay for streaming movies will have to pay for that bandwidth anyways because internet providers will have to raise prices to pay for this new equipment; maybe they won't raise prices and they will just let speeds lag due to lack of upgrading. Welcome to Obamanet.

New Rules

The "new rules" mean that providers can not give any preferential treatment to providers of any content. This now means that any connection you make to any user must be randomized on the response. If you want to watch a movie will you get the fastest connection or the bare minimum your contract promises or can provide?

FCC guarantees Russian Roulette connections

I believe I have dotted the points close enough that I do not need to draw the picture, but just in case here I will draw it.

There are two endpoints in an internet connection. The user/requester and the destination/content. Point A requesting point B.

Unless I have misread the release, point B is regulated, not point A.

What does this mean? You are piped through your fastest connection you paid for and the response comes back through the next available port whether it be the latest and greatest connection or a 2600 baud modem because speed discrimination is not allowed.

Nuke the reload button

So here you sit in the brave new world of 'net neutrality.' You will hit the refresh button over and over until the traffic sniffer you installed lets you know you have secured a 'fast' connection fast enough at the lowest resolution you are willing to watch the desired video you want to see. Sometimes you get it in minutes, sometimes you wait till tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice if you had an option to pay for immediate service?

That might come. But once it does, might the FCC quash that like they quashed content providers ensuring reliable content?

Is that government equality? Equal random chance regardless of the willingness of customers and providers to secure the fastest connection through payment options?

Laissez faire internet

Laissez faire internet is gone. Its only correction is through the legislative branch or a brutal implementation of the second amendment. We fought the revolutionary war over a tax on tea. What do you value more? The internet or tea?

Hackers Paradise

What else could a hacker ask for but unbridled bandwidth. Yeah. Net neutrality means unlimited bandwidth to hackers.

So I mentioned point A is restricted through contracts but point B must get blind access to the net.

Oh joy. Root kits will now install speed detectors to see if they have top speed connections. Net neutrality will encourage cost effective speeds in root kits.

Thank you FCC for making the most cost effective services on the net available unrestricted to hackers.


Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Why we don't need the Second Amendment

We have the Second Amendment to provide protection against the government if it raises arms against the people.

Hasn't that been happening?

So many government agencies now have their own police force; this means the agencies have arms. People worry about the NSA collecting meta data but when is the last time you heard of them kicking in an American's door and arresting them? None. However, the Bureau of Land Management had no problem invading Bundy's ranch and killing his cows over a tax dispute. Why not a court order? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raided Gibson Guitars over what wood they were using which in the end was shown they did nothing wrong. Couldn't they have sent in an inspector instead of a raiding force?

The point is arms are being raised against the people and that is only two simple examples. However the military is not raising arms against the people but faceless bureaucracies are doing so. This is why people don't recognize the violation for what it is.

We have had the Supreme Court deem it is okay for the government to take your land for financial improvement for the common good and also deem that we can be taxed for our mere existence through the Affordable Care Act.

We are also victims of Congress trying to legislate physics. Fuel efficiency in cars and pollution control causes the design of smaller and or lighter cars that are less safe regardless of their safety features. Incandescent light bulbs were not made illegal by name but made illegal by defining how much energy can be used per lumen. As a result you get bulbs with poisonous mercury or a really expensive LED bulb.

So why do you so love the Second Amendment? Where are the bodies showing you've stood up for your rights? Work within the system you say? Really? The oppression through agencies and regulations are from unelected officials you can not depose. You didn't vote in those judges nor can you kick them out using the system.

We do have elected Congressmen that have passed oppressive laws (A.C.A., light bulbs). Why are they still in power? Is that your version of working within the system?

Recently Gruber, an architect of the A.C.A., said that a tortured language, lack of transparency, and lies were need to pass the A.C.A. because the public were to stupid to approve something he thought was good for them. He's right; you are stupid.

There it is. It has been exposed that for the government to tax you for your existence they had to lie to you because you are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves.

So why are you so attached to the Second Amendment? I see no bodies proving your affection for it. All we get are crazies going into gun free zone and killing innocents; the result is a call for more gun control and you go nuts.

Where are the bodies of those that legislate away your freedoms?

Huh?

I thought so.

You are never going to exercise your Second Amendment rights because as Gruber said you are too stupid.

Our lives are so comfortable that no one wants to rock the boat. People are picked off here and there by the government and there are no repercussions.

Why are you so insatiable for a right you don't want to exercise?

Monday, October 15, 2012

Government Money Handling Insanity

Here's a young man, 40 years old. He discovers he's got AIDS. He's got ten more years to live. Then the government comes along and say "we have to take fifteen percent of your income to provide for your old age after 65."
- Milton Friedman
That was Milton Friedman commenting about social security and how you are not paying for your retirement but other people's retirement. The following is a wonderful interview with this man.




Sunday, October 14, 2012

Energy Independence : What a Crock

I am sick of this "Energy Independence" that the politicians talks about. One set of people mean as switching to renewable energies : solar and wind. Another set of people mean it as drilling for oil and keeping it for ourselves. Granted, this is an over-simplification.

Renewable Energies

If renewable energies were good the companies would not keep going bankrupt! The government has been dumping too much of our money into them. The government has no business doing that!

They can not legislate physics to do what they want!

This means no matter how much legislation you make you can not make renewable energy perform better. Only scientist and research can make it better and only if it is possible. Dump all the money you want into research, it does not mean you will find a way to make it cost effective.

More Oil

Yes, it would be nice if we drilled for more oil. It would mean more jobs here. However, it does not necessarily mean the price of oil would drop. The price of oil is pretty much set by the global economy. The US buying power helps us to purchase it at a reasonable price compared to other countries.

Energy

This energy independence talk is just ridiculous. Our energy is produced here. There are no wires coming in from another country powering us. We produce the energy ourselves.

The issue is fuel. By continuing to talk about "energy" we screw up the conversation. Energy needs to be reframed as different concepts.
  • Fuels
  • Production Methods

Independence

Are we talking about isolation? The independence talk eludes to the idea we will not buy fuel from the global market. Why?

We are not food independent nor manufacturing independent! Why do we have to be energy independent?

Any leveraging another country might exert against us may drive prices up, but we do have many forms of producing energy. If oil prices worry us, look at what is happening now. So far gas is high and we have a bad economy, but we are still here and we are not rioting like other countries.

We can get through and come up with a way. Chances are at some point private industry may ignore government and just do what must be done. Damn the regulations and step up and provide the country what it needs. More energy, not more laws.

Regulations

We can stop talking about energy independence by talking about regulations. Regulations are out of control.

People believe the regulations protect us and keep the environment clean in regards to mining and extracting fuel. The problem is that there are two tipping points in regulations that end up hurting us and cause production to move out of country:
  • Regulations that deny fuel extraction
  • Regulations that make fuel extraction no longer cost effective

We are hurt in two ways.
  • Loss of jobs
  • Dirty environment

The loss of jobs is obvious, but dirty environment? That is what happens. The countries that end up accessing the fuel do not have as stringent environmental policies as the US. This becomes a case of "not in my backyard" solutions that still affect us.

The environment is supposed to be global, so it does not matter where the pollution happens. In the end by us not having a more reasonable set of regulations we let someone else do it in a dirtier method.

Energy independence. What a crock. No one is making sense.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Department of Justice and Sticky Note Price Protection

Over the threat of a lawsuit from the Department of Justice, 3M has stopped its acquisition of Avery Dennison Corp.’s Office and Consumer Products Group. Avery makes labels and sticky notes.

The DoJ was afraid that the acquisition would make sticky notes expensive and hinder innovation. Really?

Imagine if the public was reduced to writing notes on pieces of paper that were not sticky. Oh the horror of using a piece of tape to put a piece of paper on the wall! Thank you DoJ for saving us from such solutions because sticky notes would become unaffordable!

It seems that if the merger happened that 3M would have 80% of the market share for labels and sticky notes. Has the DoJ forgotten that if 3M did charge more that the public would flock to the other 20% and buy the cheaper product? Do they not understand that 3M charging more would destroy their brand because the 20% would quickly swell to 30%, 40%, or more? 3M would have to stay competitive.

What is the DoJ doing sticking its nose in the business of trivial products that we can do without but use because of convenience? Labels? I'll write with a marker on whatever I was going to label. Sticky notes? Again, paper and tape!

Justice? There was NO CRIME here! NO THREAT! This was business!

If the DoJ is so worried about the price of sticky notes, why isn't it suing the Obama administration over its energy policy and what it has done to the price of gas, which is more necessary than sticky notes?


Saturday, June 2, 2012

Credit Whore

Remember how the government bailed out, or was it purchased, GM and Chrysler? Well, did you see on Obama's campaign sight his "Did you see -" entry for May 31st?

He is taking credit for Ford's success. Ford, the company that didn't take a bailout.


Let us not forget that Ford commercial last Fall in which a Ford owner said he didn't want to buy a car that was from a company that takes bailouts. Then there was the controversy that the Obama administration asked Ford to pull the ad. Ford officially said they ended using the ad because it reached the end of the planned rotation. However, you would think they would keep airing it after it became wildly popular.


It is just so amusing for Obama to highlight a companies success that didn't take government help when he keeps promoting that the government is the solution. It is also amusing that just recently he admitted that green energy cannot survive without government assistance, so we must prop up green energy with government credits.

What a mixed message.


Monday, May 21, 2012

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Kill Jobs - Los Angeles


California is really good at killing jobs. In the middle of a recession, Los Angeles is going to ban a product in the name of stopping littering. What product?

Plastic bags.

What is more ridiculous is this was already done in San Fransisco and it had zero impact on reducing litter.

So a factory that makes these bags may need to layoff 20 to 130 employees. And the bureaucrats that heard arguments against this ban likened the factory to buggy and buggy whip makers. Their thinking was that when the automobile came around that these buggy producers would want to ban the automobile so they could keep their job.

What?

Buggy and buggy whip makers were not legislated out of existence to make way for the car. Consumerism did that.

If there was a replacement for plastic bags and it was better, it would force its way into the market. But there is no such product. LA is just going to make plastic bags illegal. That is like making buggies and buggy whips illegal before the car was invented to pave the way for cars.

My head hurts. See the video below if you don't believe me.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Immoral Tree Planting

FairWarning.org has a pretty interesting article about Robert, a whistle blower, suing Lamar Advertising Co., a billboard company, about an unjust firing. In turn the billboard company is being investigated for illegally killing trees.

According to the article it looks like the company broke the law. The article is written to make Lamar and other billboard companies look bad. However, if you really pay attention, it is the state that is acting completely and wholly immoral.

Trees, the environment, and other touchy feely green things are touted as more important than companies today. Government wastes our money on this stuff. Remember the recent story of California moving a bush at a cost of over $200,000? Well this billboard issue is not about spending money on nature, but extorting money from companies by leveraging the touchy feely trend.

In brief, this is the problem. Billboard companies are killing trees so that you can see their billboards. Sound evil? Well ask yourself, why are there trees in the way? The state planted them!

So now we have destruction of state property. But as I said, this is a scam. These trees are part of beautification projects for the highway. If you want to have beautification of the highways, why not stop licensing billboards?

This is why.
  1. Company pays fees, licensing, and/or permits for billboards
  2. State plants trees in front of billboards
  3. State extorts more money from company because
    • Company pays for a tree trimming permit
      and/or
    • Company gets fined for killing trees
Even if a company gets a permit to trim trees they may still end up killing them. The image below is an image from the article that shows trees that were neutralized in relation to a billboard. Remember that when sitting in a car your line of sight is lower than when standing. If you were to trim a tree so that you could see the billboard you would have to "top" the trees.
Topping is bad for trees. It can be very unhealthy for the tree. If the state was truly concerned about the trees they would not allow trimming to make billboards visible. Killing the trees is less expensive than "topping" that produces sick and hazardous trees.

The article also mentions that wild trees are killed. That is worse, right? If it is bad then how bad is it that our tax dollars were used to destroy many more trees to make the highway. The billboards companies are just participating in the exact same practice that we funded the state to do.

Due to this illogical and immoral campaign of planting trees in front of billboards by the state, the billboard companies take measure to remove them. Robert, the litigant mentioned at the beginning, had the job of killing trees. He suffered a back injury and insisted that he needed a light duty job and could no longer kill trees. He no longer works at Lamar. Lamar claims that they did not fire Robert. The article does not clarify this any further.

Robert should sue the state, not Lamar. The state's extortion practise put him in the position of filling an "illegal practice" job. Now he has no job since he refuses to do it. His whistle blower status gives him protection. I can only assume Lamar never thought Robert would do this for fear of prosecution for participating in the illegal activities.

In the end I would be willing to bet that Lamar will be fined and the state will get a windfall of cash. I am sure the state will let Lamar continue to operate billboards. The state has too much money to make from permits, fines, and lawsuits.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

17 Million Children

That's right! Now $17 million children will be denied health care due to the system going bankrupt. Or the children might pass because of a waiting period for treatment. Or there may be no care available because it will not be profitable to become a doctor or the government does not approve enough doctors for the specialty. Maybe a panel of 15 bureaucrats might deny the care for administrative reasons.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone will be paying for it. And if everyone pays for it, every one will try to get some. What will be left over for the children?

Monday, February 13, 2012

No 'MoveOn', It Does Not Make Sense

I like to point out some of the idiocy at MoveOn.org because they are just a logic train wreck; no matter how horrible it is, the fascination forces you to stare at the wreck.

MoveOn is railing against small government. Click on the screen-capture posted below or go to the MoveOn page.
As MoveOn writes : "Does this make any sense?"

Welfare is a big government program. The government drug testing citizens at taxpayer expense sounds like a big government program. And yet MoveOn relabels this as 'Small Government.'

You're right MoveOn. You don't make sense.

Here's another little gem. The page is a bit too big for a screen capture, so I've linked to the content.

Let it sink in and do the math.
The Math
98% of Catholics are women.
2% of Catholics are Bishops.

Seems legit.

1 2

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Burden

There are many reasons the economy has tanked. One of the biggest reasons is government intrusion. This intrusion makes companies wary of hiring people and people wary of starting companies. This greatly impacts the chances of the economy to recover.

Here is a simple explanation of why people are reluctant to start a new company.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Do you like your Internet?

Again, do you like your Internet?

Do you want to see your favorite political site disappear?

The great thing about "Drinking with Bob" is that he gets all angry for me.


SOPA! SOPA! SOPA!

Friday, December 9, 2011

On Again, Off Again, American Values?

What did you think of the President's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas? If you want to know what I think, just roll over the highlited areas of the speech posted below. You can see the original posting of the speech here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, please have a seat. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Good afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who've joined us today. We've got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here. (Applause.) We have your superintendent Gary French in the house. (Applause.) And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. (Applause.) And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex -- (laughter) -- state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I'm sure you're all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent -- and my values -- from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton's Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. Good. I hope the President believes in those values too. (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you'd take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today, we're still home to the world's most productive workers. Well, not really. The Unions do allow workers to be lazy. We're still home to the world's most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. What are you talking about!? In the 80's we pulled out of a recession. In the 90's we had an economic slow down that turned into a roaring economy. Jubs were plenty! Fast food companies were paying above minimum wage begging for workers! Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Again, what!? Look how many people are carrying phones and computers in their pockets! Most American's have air-conditioning and heat! Sharing in success is not getting rich but being able to enrich your life! Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up. People are living beyond their means. They are going broke from buying houses, cars, and other items on credit. People are not going broke from buying food.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn't afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Did you just call your constituents stupid? Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people's money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn't have the authority to look at all. WRONG! We were warned in 2005 and congress ignored the warnings. [link][link][link]

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. No. The government meddled in the housing market requiring banks to give these bad mortgages. The banks had to save themselves from the government trying to make them slit their own throats. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we're still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.They were not innocent. They willfully went to the bank and got a mortgage they could not afford. They did NOT meet their responsibility which is why they were forclosed on and why we had a crash!

And ever since, there's been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it's sparked protests and political movements -- from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It's left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. Do you realize that this is you and your party that want to continue the policies that caused the collapse? In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Really? I have never heard someone say that.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I'm here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own. Are you talking about collectivism? I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, Sounds like capitalism. Good. when everyone does their fair share, What is that? when everyone plays by the same rules. Do you mean congress men and women will have to follow the laws they pass? Probably not. (Applause.) These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn't the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.You just made all of that up. Farmers? The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th centuries, not the 20th century. [link] There was no great moment in history where we saw these changes happening all at once requiring a decision. It all happened gradually and was handled as needed.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know Do you Mr. President? is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it's made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans. When there is progress we will lose old technology jobs and get new technology jobs. People had to get a different job. So what!

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 -- or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn't just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet. We also saw an insane explosion of new markets and jobs!

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you're somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don't have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty. Somehow I don't think "they" have ever said this. "They" argue that failure will not happen.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. In the beginning of your speech you gave this system credit for the rise of the middle-class! (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security. Are you kidding me!? We just had the technology-internet bubble burst! Then we got attacked and went to war! Is your world view so narrow that you think tax cuts caused this problem!?

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy. I'm going to have to ask you to start citing your sources. Problems keep coming about from the government meddling.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent. You want to compare decades of one group with one decade of another group that only covers an economic depression? How about comparing apples to apples, not oranges.

Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study Please cite. showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class -- 33 percent.

It's heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That's inexcusable. It is wrong.You're correct that it is wrong. The assumption is definitely wrong. They will have a chance to work and get into the middle-class. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that's not a future that we have to accept, because there's another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country -- a view that's truer to our history, a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society's problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.What does this mean? If you do nothing, you get nothing, or it should be that way. But there is welfare so that people do not have to do "their fair share." (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today's economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That's a race to the bottom that we can't win, and we shouldn't want to win that race. (Applause.) Those countries don't have a strong middle class. They don't have our standard of living.Please cite.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top -- the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America.The world is shifting towards innovation? It has always favored innovation. This is not new! Nobody does it better. (Applause.) No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one's workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now -- we should be hiring them. (Applause.) We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. (Applause.) We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college -- we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.It is possible. The problem is when a student doesn't work and go to school, or don't take a little bit longer to get the degree as they pay for it. (Applause.)

In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don't have an economy that's built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. (Applause.) Because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. (Applause.) This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America. (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world.Didn't you claim that business was being done in countries where labor was cheap and they pollute? And that's why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools -- (applause) -- all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we've always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed.True. Like voting out Carter and voting in Reagan. (Applause.) And historically, that hasn't been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II -- including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham -- the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas -- (applause) -- who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. They're not free. And so we've also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share.What do you mean by this!? Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.What? Where is this logic coming from? Unlimited resources means no taxes and we could spend with no income coming in for lack of taxes? Seriously? But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.We will come November 2012.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I've proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that's set to expire at the end of this month. (Applause.) If we don't do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That's the short term.That is the problem. When tax cuts are temporary, or need to be voted on year after year, it makes businesses feel uncertain about the future. It makes it impossible to make a business plan longer than a year. You are forcing businesses to look short term. Tax cuts or hikes need to be permanent so businesses can plan.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing -- all those things that helped make us an economic superpower?No we do not. We are seeing what the government is doing to education and we want it stopped! Research and manufacturing is done by private business! Didn't you just scrap our space exploration in favor of private enterprise handling it? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?There is no tax break for the wealthiest Americans. As long as there is a progressive tax system there is no tax break. The wealthy will stil be paying more per dollar than other people. Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let's just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. (Applause.) Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn't like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent. This isn't even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Then get rid of them! Simplify the tax code! Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent. One percent.Data does not exactly support that claim. [link]

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong.If you mean your fact is wrong, then yes. It is wrong. (Applause.) It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It's wrong for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans -- Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.If these wealthy citizens would agree to it, why aren't they doing it already? There is a spot on the tax form that allows them to pay more! You just said that the wealthy are using loopholes to pay less. They obviously have a problem with paying more! You just told us that!

This isn't about class warfare.Of course it is! This is about the nation's welfare. It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.I see you conveniently left out the government. (Applause.) As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn't go back to business as usual. And that's why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a homeYou just said "we wouldn't go back to business as usual." This is business as usual. This is why we are in this bad economy! You are repeating the problem! or send their kids to college.

Now, we're not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way.Of course they are! The government forced them to give bad loans and too many people thought it was the banks doing! Why would they want to do it again? But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you're a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes. (Applause.) There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers' deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.Totally unAmerican. The government dictating pay or giving others the power to set someone elses pay. Why can't voters decide Congress' salaries and yours?

This is the law that we passed. We are in the process of implementing it now. All of this is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you're a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life -- worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I've come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren't enforced.The government is dictating salaries of non-government employees! Of course they are fightinh it. It is a dangerous premis to set!

I'll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors.Does this now mean that all of our dealing with a bank go through government inspection? The government will have a say in all of our private economic decisions? And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he's not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?No, but it was government policy and regulations. Strike those bad policies instead of heaping another government agency on top of the problem.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces -- because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff -- could be tricked into a loan that they can't afford -- something that happens all the time.Banks do not want to give bad loans! They never did! It is a bad business model to lend money you won't get back! Get rid of the government policy to get more people into homes! And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. (Applause.) And I intend to make sure they do. (Applause.) And I want you to hear me, Kansas: I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place. (Applause.)

We shouldn't be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability.I'm getting some mixed signals here. You gave them bailout money, but you believe in accountability. Hmmmm. I'll give you another example. Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I'll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don't see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis.How can they when you are pushing them to do the same lending practises again? They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home.If the homeowner is responsible then they made their payments. They won't get kicked out. What "work" do they need to do? We're going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven't yet benefited from historically low interest rates. And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks' own long-term financial interest. What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed.Giving more money to schools does not change the fact it is still a government school. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.Like a flat tax? And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules.Aren't the rules actually laws? So laws to make you follow the law? That's what will transform our economy. That's what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other's success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children's education. It will require students to study harder. (Applause.) It will require some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can't afford.Finally said something smart obvious and correct. They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people's needs. That's why we're cutting programs that we don't need to pay for those we do. (Applause.) That's why we've made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That's why we're not just throwing money at education, we're challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don't just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best. He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I've achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it's time to bring jobs back to the United States -- (applause) -- not just because it's good for business, but because it's good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company's success. (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota. It's called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin's competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. But Marvin's did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees -- not one. In fact, they've only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin's grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin's when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners.Didn't you complain earlier about wages have gotten lower. Now you are praising lowering wages? As one owner said, “You can't grow if you're cutting your lifeblood -- and that's the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” (Applause.) For the CEO of Marvin's, it's about the community. He said, “These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That's how America was built. That's why we're the greatest nation on Earth. That's what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It's about building a nation where we're all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.What? Didn't you start off your speech claiming this, then in the middle you claimed this did not work? That the system failed? And now you believe in it again? (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie -- (applause) -- maybe even some of your ancestors -- on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we've changed in many ways since Roosevelt's time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn't changed -- what can never change -- are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other's success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others -- is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Monday, August 8, 2011

Will the Government ban brown bag lunches?

Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people. -Henry Kissinger

Will the government cut parents out of the loop when it comes to lunch at school? What if they ban students bringing lunch in from home? Will your child be forced to buy lunch at school?

To justify banning something it needs to be deemed unsafe. Today, bag lunches that we have eaten for generations have been reported as reaching temperatures that facilitate food borne illnesses. The study was conducted with preschools, but a bag lunch is a bag lunch and could apply to any student of any age.

The federal government has proposed some "voluntary" guidelines for businesses to follow in advertising food that qualify as healthy targeted towards children. The National Restaurant Association is pushing back because:
"The proposed standards are unworkable for the industry and for consumers. They impose impractical nutritional standards that will significantly compromise the taste and palatability that consumers demand and underestimate the technical limitations of the industry."
Would the government really make such regulations? The government didn't ban the incandescent light bulb; it made regulations for light bulbs that physics cannot meet with the incandescent model. Will this force restaurants to only serve a low calorie nutritious gruel to children?

San Francisco and Santa Clara County have banned McDonalds from putting a toy in the "Happy Meal" because it targets kids to order an unhealthy meal. Is there a healthy choice at McDonalds? Yes. But shouldn't parents decide what their children eat and not the government?

Will the government really tell us what we can eat? California, Baltimore, and New York City have banned trans fats; other cities and States are proposing to do the same. New York is even proposing a ban on restaurants using salt. The FDA has a ten year plan to limit how much salt is in the food we buy. Across the pond in Stockport, England, they will no longer have salt shakers on the table. If you want salt you will have to ask for it.

What else will the government say we cannot eat? How else will it dictate marketing? Are we close to a ban on bag lunches?

Control the food ...

Monday, August 1, 2011

CAFE Standards Kill People

This is a must read at Pajamas media. This article explains how government intervention hurts our own economy and kills people.

What business is it of the government to define what mileage a car gets or how much energy a lightbulb uses? This intervention does not protect people. It changes the direction of NEW research to research of improving old technology to meet new standards.

If you ever invent something new, do not release it. The government will tell you how what YOU designed should operate.

Update : Aug 3

Another article on this issue.