Sunday, November 20, 2011
Advertisment Reaction Videos
Reactions to Herman Cain's Campaign Ad
More reactions to Herman Cain's Ad: "hes a devider, not a uniter", also a cancer survivor calls in and find it despicable.
A set of religious groups ran an anti-gay ad saying that they could be 'cured'. This meeting was held to express outrage over it. Many religious leaders speak including this reverend.
Campaign Advertisement Videos (not embedded just thought I would share)
Nixon Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Nix
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Ads
Ford's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FordCa
Bush's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisemen
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Nix
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Ads
Ford's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FordCa
Bush's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisemen
"Charmer in Chief vs Disciplined Professional"
Alright, so earlier today was skimming through the Friday's paper when one article caught my attention. It was about Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama speaking at campaign fundraisers. She was not just speaking though, she was giving people a motivational talk.
Michelle has not spent much time in the media light since Obama's election. She does her own work in different health organizations and I do not really know why, but I like her. She seems modest, smart, and a pleasant person.
Barbara Bush does not really have the same appeal. She sort of stands by him and nods at everything but Michelle Obama actually does a lot without receiving attention for it.
My point is that for some reason, one which I want to get to later, I am drawn to someone for their personality without realizing it.
After realizing this, I began to think about how much a candidates personality play into an election. Are they just selling their views? Or are they selling themselves as a total package? Looks, personality, opinion, should they have it all? Are their views really the most determining factors.
Personalities and the Public
An article I round on this topic reads:
"We’ve evolved into a media-driven era of ever-shrinking attention spans and a relentless need to keep ourselves entertained. We enjoy public spectacles, prefer style over substance, and are regularly being bombarded with dueling ideological viewpoints that are too often misrepresented as fact. It stands to reason that with such cultural change comes an alteration in how we evaluate our presidential candidates."
My generation is superficial. I am, we all are. Yeah, I do not really like McCain partially because I do not want a shriveled up old raisin running the country with his old fashioned policies.
Now, put his opinions in a slightly younger, more energetic body, and I am pretty sure my views would be very different.
The article then goes on to say:
"Stuffy individuals like Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry all exuded competence and carried impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their counterparts. Candidates like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came across as genuine and thoughtful."
Mitt Romney seems a little bit stiff and flip-floppy, carefully choosing his answers, but overall he really does seem like the "Disciplined Professional". That's even how he was when he was running Bain Capital. He was said to be tough, he got his own lunch, and charged other top executives 20$ for being late to meetings.
Perry seems like a nice southern gentleman with religious ethics.
Ginrich is a historian, a scholar. He seems like he knows what he is talking about, can be clever at times, but does not really seems like a nice guy.
Ron Paul looks sick of life. But he is one of those candidates that if you put him in another younger, energetic, more personable persona, he would really shine I think. He seems very experienced but a little bit worn out.
Herman Cain is rebel. He does not do politics, he is not a politician, and he is going against the norm; from his outlook on the economy to the way he talks, he's just like us, but that might be a bad thing considering Obama has really Godly persona.
And I almost forgot about Huntsman and Bachman, which is my point. They just do not stand out.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/just-how-important-is-personality-in-presidential-elections/
Michelle has not spent much time in the media light since Obama's election. She does her own work in different health organizations and I do not really know why, but I like her. She seems modest, smart, and a pleasant person.
Barbara Bush does not really have the same appeal. She sort of stands by him and nods at everything but Michelle Obama actually does a lot without receiving attention for it.
My point is that for some reason, one which I want to get to later, I am drawn to someone for their personality without realizing it.
After realizing this, I began to think about how much a candidates personality play into an election. Are they just selling their views? Or are they selling themselves as a total package? Looks, personality, opinion, should they have it all? Are their views really the most determining factors.
Personalities and the Public
An article I round on this topic reads:
"We’ve evolved into a media-driven era of ever-shrinking attention spans and a relentless need to keep ourselves entertained. We enjoy public spectacles, prefer style over substance, and are regularly being bombarded with dueling ideological viewpoints that are too often misrepresented as fact. It stands to reason that with such cultural change comes an alteration in how we evaluate our presidential candidates."
My generation is superficial. I am, we all are. Yeah, I do not really like McCain partially because I do not want a shriveled up old raisin running the country with his old fashioned policies.
Now, put his opinions in a slightly younger, more energetic body, and I am pretty sure my views would be very different.
The article then goes on to say:
"Stuffy individuals like Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry all exuded competence and carried impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their counterparts. Candidates like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came across as genuine and thoughtful."
Mitt Romney seems a little bit stiff and flip-floppy, carefully choosing his answers, but overall he really does seem like the "Disciplined Professional". That's even how he was when he was running Bain Capital. He was said to be tough, he got his own lunch, and charged other top executives 20$ for being late to meetings.
Perry seems like a nice southern gentleman with religious ethics.
Ginrich is a historian, a scholar. He seems like he knows what he is talking about, can be clever at times, but does not really seems like a nice guy.
Ron Paul looks sick of life. But he is one of those candidates that if you put him in another younger, energetic, more personable persona, he would really shine I think. He seems very experienced but a little bit worn out.
Herman Cain is rebel. He does not do politics, he is not a politician, and he is going against the norm; from his outlook on the economy to the way he talks, he's just like us, but that might be a bad thing considering Obama has really Godly persona.
And I almost forgot about Huntsman and Bachman, which is my point. They just do not stand out.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/just-how-important-is-personality-in-presidential-elections/
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Mitt Romney the business man - profits & lay-offs?
In one of the past debates Mitt Romney explained one of his tax theories: if you give big companies tax breaks, they will have more money, will be able to profit, and will then be able to have more workers.
The money trickles down from top to bottom, also known as Reaganomics or the trickle down theory.
The New York Times this past Sunday published an article on Mitt Romney the bussines man and told us the story of how he ran his company- how he profitted, laid off thousands of workers, then ran his company into bankrupcy.
This series of events is quite opposite to his trickle down theory in terms of what a company does when it profits.
Bain Capital and Dade International
Once upon a time Mitt Romney was executive chief of Bain Company, which he also owned. His company was a private equity firm.
It simple terms, private equity firms manage investments. They go into companies, analyze what they are doing and find ways for the companies to make better profits.
They are sort of like house flippers, (I think I have the right name for that), where they buy something, make it better, and then sell it for more than what they bought it for.
They had also done this sort of thing for other companies such as Staples and the Gartner Group.
In 1994 it led the buy of Dane. Funny enough, it was on the investment adventure with Goldman Sachs, a firm that was involved in the financial crisis.
"Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets."
Dade International doubled in size, and Bain Capital also bought two of its competitors while also receaiving a profit of eight times what it had invested.
Then came another business opportunity. Dade was considering buying DuPont, a medical equipment manufacturing company which could be useful for Dade.
Bain pushed for the buy and it became a success and Dade continued to grow. After this time of growth and profits soaring however, there came many odd consequences. Lay-offs.
Tough love or just mean?
Around 1997 plants began to close and around 1,700 workers were laid off. It was to save the company money and increase revenue.
"There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused." Said one of the former human resources managers.
This was after workers were persuaded to move from Puerto Rico to Miami after their plant shut down there to find that the one in Miami had been shut down also.
Why?
The article states that "cost-cutting became a mantra". Earlier in it however, it stated that Mitt Romney, as an executive, was a tough love kind of guy. He believed that sometimes the medicine was bitter, but at least the patient would be saved.
When comparing some of his business strategy to his political strategy he says that this tough love view also applied. That GM should have gone down, the housing market should have fallen, the government should cut wasteful spending, and that businesses that made bad decisions should have hit bankruptcy and not been bailed out.
This is approach is I think what lead to all the lay-offs. The company was trying to cut costs by all means even while it was profiting greatly.
Bankrupcy, almost
[alright I have to admit this part sort of confuses me but I am going to try my hardest]
After a while, Bain decided it would cut Dade lose meaning, it wanted to sell it. It was offered a good sum by a company but it was not satisfied with the amount the company proposed.
In 1999 they persuaded Dade to borrow money to buy half of Bain's shares. This borrowing is what lead to the company going deep into debt while also giving Bain's executives gracious bonuses, 242 million bonus to be exact.
Many agree that it was this transaction that set the company deep into debt and looking back, they say it was probably not the best move but at least they got some cash out of it.
After this Dade fired a few hundred more people and as it was going into bankruptcy it was bought by another company.
"Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, which he owned and ran as chief executive, is a cornerstone of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — a credential, he argues, that showcases the management skills and business acumen that America needs to revive a stalled economy. Creating jobs, Mr. Romney says, is exactly what he knows how to do."
The end
So... the next time Mitt Romney says "How do you create jobs? You cut corporate taxes and then companies profit. Then what do they do? They can then hire more workers."
WRONG, and he should know better.
The money trickles down from top to bottom, also known as Reaganomics or the trickle down theory.
The New York Times this past Sunday published an article on Mitt Romney the bussines man and told us the story of how he ran his company- how he profitted, laid off thousands of workers, then ran his company into bankrupcy.
This series of events is quite opposite to his trickle down theory in terms of what a company does when it profits.
Bain Capital and Dade International
Once upon a time Mitt Romney was executive chief of Bain Company, which he also owned. His company was a private equity firm.
It simple terms, private equity firms manage investments. They go into companies, analyze what they are doing and find ways for the companies to make better profits.
They are sort of like house flippers, (I think I have the right name for that), where they buy something, make it better, and then sell it for more than what they bought it for.
They had also done this sort of thing for other companies such as Staples and the Gartner Group.
In 1994 it led the buy of Dane. Funny enough, it was on the investment adventure with Goldman Sachs, a firm that was involved in the financial crisis.
"Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets."
Dade International doubled in size, and Bain Capital also bought two of its competitors while also receaiving a profit of eight times what it had invested.
Then came another business opportunity. Dade was considering buying DuPont, a medical equipment manufacturing company which could be useful for Dade.
Bain pushed for the buy and it became a success and Dade continued to grow. After this time of growth and profits soaring however, there came many odd consequences. Lay-offs.
Tough love or just mean?
Around 1997 plants began to close and around 1,700 workers were laid off. It was to save the company money and increase revenue.
"There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused." Said one of the former human resources managers.
This was after workers were persuaded to move from Puerto Rico to Miami after their plant shut down there to find that the one in Miami had been shut down also.
Why?
The article states that "cost-cutting became a mantra". Earlier in it however, it stated that Mitt Romney, as an executive, was a tough love kind of guy. He believed that sometimes the medicine was bitter, but at least the patient would be saved.
When comparing some of his business strategy to his political strategy he says that this tough love view also applied. That GM should have gone down, the housing market should have fallen, the government should cut wasteful spending, and that businesses that made bad decisions should have hit bankruptcy and not been bailed out.
This is approach is I think what lead to all the lay-offs. The company was trying to cut costs by all means even while it was profiting greatly.
Bankrupcy, almost
[alright I have to admit this part sort of confuses me but I am going to try my hardest]
After a while, Bain decided it would cut Dade lose meaning, it wanted to sell it. It was offered a good sum by a company but it was not satisfied with the amount the company proposed.
In 1999 they persuaded Dade to borrow money to buy half of Bain's shares. This borrowing is what lead to the company going deep into debt while also giving Bain's executives gracious bonuses, 242 million bonus to be exact.
Many agree that it was this transaction that set the company deep into debt and looking back, they say it was probably not the best move but at least they got some cash out of it.
After this Dade fired a few hundred more people and as it was going into bankruptcy it was bought by another company.
"Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, which he owned and ran as chief executive, is a cornerstone of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — a credential, he argues, that showcases the management skills and business acumen that America needs to revive a stalled economy. Creating jobs, Mr. Romney says, is exactly what he knows how to do."
The end
So... the next time Mitt Romney says "How do you create jobs? You cut corporate taxes and then companies profit. Then what do they do? They can then hire more workers."
WRONG, and he should know better.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
So where does money come from?
During the November 9th debate, Ron Paul mentioned the Federal Reserve, it prinitng money, and interest rates going up. He has also mentioned in the past that he has wanted to abolish it.
He questioned what it is. Why should the U.S payback money to the Federal Reserve? What is it anyway? Where does it get money? He asks.
And aggree with him? How does the Federal Rerserve just produce money?
A while back a heard a program on This American Life about where money comes from, what it is, and who owns the Federal Reserve. It brought up the very questions that me and Ron Paul ask.
No one knows from where the Federal Reserve produces money from. The more the FD prints money, the less value existing money has. It then brings interest rates up and by that the government attempts to attract investors.
The program went into an interesting story about how Brazil solved it's financial crisis. Before it had many problems. Inflation rates kept going up and the economy was getting worse and worse. So what did they do? They replaced the currency and gave their currency a fixed value so it could not go up and down.
People bought into it and it solved a big problem. The message of the story to me, at least, is that the value or the worth of money is determined by people's belief in it.
That example proves it along with how the stock go up and down. Three major companies that have recently suffered are Bank of America, Netflix, and Apple.
Bank of America suffered by introducing its five dollar fee which has been taken back, after costumers were outraged and began to leave. Netflix lost worth when it introduced Quickster people were horrified and left Netflix. Apple suffered when people publicly did not believe that the company would be the same without Jobs.
Investors were watching the entire time and I'm sure they felt uneasy which brought down the companies worth.
Another example of how bizarre money's worth is the radio shows section on an indigenous culture that uses stones for currency. The stones don't move, they do no even physically have to be traded but people know who those stones belong to.
If it falls in the water or it cannot be moved, it does not matter. People believe in its worth.
How is having a credit card any different? Or trading money digitally? Or the Federal Reserve just producing money? The only thing it takes for that to work is people believing that it works.
To conclude, I agree with Ron Paul's statement. Why should we pay back the Federal Reserve? In fact the last time this country had no debt was during Andrew Jackson's presidency when there was no Federal Bank.
He questioned what it is. Why should the U.S payback money to the Federal Reserve? What is it anyway? Where does it get money? He asks.
And aggree with him? How does the Federal Rerserve just produce money?
A while back a heard a program on This American Life about where money comes from, what it is, and who owns the Federal Reserve. It brought up the very questions that me and Ron Paul ask.
No one knows from where the Federal Reserve produces money from. The more the FD prints money, the less value existing money has. It then brings interest rates up and by that the government attempts to attract investors.
The program went into an interesting story about how Brazil solved it's financial crisis. Before it had many problems. Inflation rates kept going up and the economy was getting worse and worse. So what did they do? They replaced the currency and gave their currency a fixed value so it could not go up and down.
People bought into it and it solved a big problem. The message of the story to me, at least, is that the value or the worth of money is determined by people's belief in it.
That example proves it along with how the stock go up and down. Three major companies that have recently suffered are Bank of America, Netflix, and Apple.
Bank of America suffered by introducing its five dollar fee which has been taken back, after costumers were outraged and began to leave. Netflix lost worth when it introduced Quickster people were horrified and left Netflix. Apple suffered when people publicly did not believe that the company would be the same without Jobs.
Investors were watching the entire time and I'm sure they felt uneasy which brought down the companies worth.
Another example of how bizarre money's worth is the radio shows section on an indigenous culture that uses stones for currency. The stones don't move, they do no even physically have to be traded but people know who those stones belong to.
If it falls in the water or it cannot be moved, it does not matter. People believe in its worth.
How is having a credit card any different? Or trading money digitally? Or the Federal Reserve just producing money? The only thing it takes for that to work is people believing that it works.
To conclude, I agree with Ron Paul's statement. Why should we pay back the Federal Reserve? In fact the last time this country had no debt was during Andrew Jackson's presidency when there was no Federal Bank.
My mental dilemma with the private sector
Alright, I'm going to make this a bit like a diary entry, just to mental sort, so not all might make sense.
So last week's discussions got me thinking about what necessities should be private sector versus government controlled.
Republican's say it is socialist, or its not providing people with enough options, to have medicaid/medicare or Obama care. Medical insurance should not be a government run program. People should not be required to pay for that kind of stuff with their taxes.
Then I think about how a class mate of mine pointed out that we already do that with police or transportation. Imagine privatizing MTA and letting people choose what kind of transportation or privatizing police enforcement. That last one sounds scary does it not?
On the other hand, there is a video i posted about what Newt Gingrich said about great innovations beings produced in the private sector. So... I admit, there needs to be a private sector. Great things come from companies or people being able to choose what they do.
However, people are greedy.
Another thing I noticed that there are so many private companies that do not produce anything. The people who actually make innovations are not the one's profiting. Companies used to be owned by the people making products.
The small pizza place across the street from me for example. A family owns it and the people who make the money are the ones working in the kitchen. It's not the same way with Round Table. Its not the same with huge companies that make things to profit rather than making it to please people.
Companies are started to give people what they want and what they need, that is their essence or it used to be. The idea about a strong private sector is great it just does not work because people become greedy.
Isin't one of the first rules about running a successful business 'its not about the company, its about the customer'? I do not believe people working behind medical insurance feel that way.
And this leads me to my point. Ideas of private sectors providing good quality and competition is unrealistic. In the end they are just going to want to profit.
The idea of a state run agency that provides medical insurance is also scary because people are going to want to profit.
I find it very funny that Republicans fear big government and corruption because they seem the ones most corrupted by power. I always feel like people are paranoid about things when they are already guilty themselves.
Anyways to conclude. Medical attention is a need, just like the other things we pay for in our taxes like police, street lights, infrastructure, transportation, food stamps for some, etc. It would be far to dangerous to privatize some of those things and like those things, medical care is too important to put into companies' hands.
Should their be private research facilities that make great discoveries and cures? Sure, that's awesome. But not immediate necessary services.
So last week's discussions got me thinking about what necessities should be private sector versus government controlled.
Republican's say it is socialist, or its not providing people with enough options, to have medicaid/medicare or Obama care. Medical insurance should not be a government run program. People should not be required to pay for that kind of stuff with their taxes.
Then I think about how a class mate of mine pointed out that we already do that with police or transportation. Imagine privatizing MTA and letting people choose what kind of transportation or privatizing police enforcement. That last one sounds scary does it not?
On the other hand, there is a video i posted about what Newt Gingrich said about great innovations beings produced in the private sector. So... I admit, there needs to be a private sector. Great things come from companies or people being able to choose what they do.
However, people are greedy.
Another thing I noticed that there are so many private companies that do not produce anything. The people who actually make innovations are not the one's profiting. Companies used to be owned by the people making products.
The small pizza place across the street from me for example. A family owns it and the people who make the money are the ones working in the kitchen. It's not the same way with Round Table. Its not the same with huge companies that make things to profit rather than making it to please people.
Companies are started to give people what they want and what they need, that is their essence or it used to be. The idea about a strong private sector is great it just does not work because people become greedy.
Isin't one of the first rules about running a successful business 'its not about the company, its about the customer'? I do not believe people working behind medical insurance feel that way.
And this leads me to my point. Ideas of private sectors providing good quality and competition is unrealistic. In the end they are just going to want to profit.
The idea of a state run agency that provides medical insurance is also scary because people are going to want to profit.
I find it very funny that Republicans fear big government and corruption because they seem the ones most corrupted by power. I always feel like people are paranoid about things when they are already guilty themselves.
Anyways to conclude. Medical attention is a need, just like the other things we pay for in our taxes like police, street lights, infrastructure, transportation, food stamps for some, etc. It would be far to dangerous to privatize some of those things and like those things, medical care is too important to put into companies' hands.
Should their be private research facilities that make great discoveries and cures? Sure, that's awesome. But not immediate necessary services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)