Ted's Daily Thoughts

[Ted S]

Like the old forum, I'm going to start a thread devoted my daily thoughts.

Here's my first thought:

The talking-heads of the left have been telling us that today's republicans are so far to the right that they would reject their hero, Ronald Reagan, for being too moderate.

To this I say hogwash for a couple of reasons.

1. Mitt Romney will be the party's nominee and he's hardly a staunch conservative.  Can you say Romneycare?  And let's not forget that Romney beat Santorum who by most measures is more conservative.

2. Ronald Reagan ran in a different era.  It was 32 years ago but more importantly it was trillions of dollars ago.  When Reagan was running the debt was under 50% of GDP.  Today debt is over 100% of GDP. There is no way of knowing for sure but I bet Reagan would be even more conservative today simply because we are in a much deeper financial hole today.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_debt_chart.html

[Don Houston]

Ted,

Wonderful assesment.  Romney is no conservative.  IMHO Romney and Obama are the people

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

With a few exceptions; liberals want to government to regulate the people, conservatives want the people to regulate the government.

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

Liberals are always telling us that if we just went back to the TAX RATES during the Clinton years everything would be great.  I say fine, but lets go back to the SPENDING LEVELS of the Clinton years too.

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

In less than a generation Detroit has gone from one of America's most vibrant cities to one of it most blighted.



Detroit was also probably America's most highly unionized city.  Coincidence?

[wbcoleman]

Like the old forum, I'm going to start a thread devoted my daily thoughts.

Here's my first thought:

The talking-heads of the left have been telling us that today's republicans are so far to the right that they would reject their hero, Ronald Reagan, for being too moderate.

To this I say hogwash for a couple of reasons.

1. Mitt Romney will be the party's nominee and he's hardly a staunch conservative.  Can you say Romneycare?  And let's not forget that Romney beat Santorum who by most measures is more conservative.

2. Ronald Reagan ran in a different era.  It was 32 years ago but more importantly it was trillions of dollars ago.  When Reagan was running the debt was under 50% of GDP.  Today debt is over 100% of GDP. There is no way of knowing for sure but I bet Reagan would be even more conservative today simply because we are in a much deeper financial hole today.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_debt_chart.html

What is a "staunch conservative"?  Put another way, Mitt Romney is to the left of which of the first 44 Presidents???

[wbcoleman]

Today's thought:

Liberals are always telling us that if we just went back to the TAX RATES during the Clinton years everything would be great.  I say fine, but lets go back to the SPENDING LEVELS of the Clinton years too.

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

[Ted S]

Put another way, Mitt Romney is to the left of which of the first 44 Presidents???

It's hard to know since I'm not familiar with the detailed histories of all the presidents but when measured against some of the recent ones, Romney *could* end up being be to the left of GW Bush and Poppa Bush.  He could more likely end up to the left of Clinton.  He probably will be right of Obama but that's not a certainty in my mind.

[Ted S]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

[wbcoleman]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

Mitt Romney is to the right of each and every one of those guys, without a doubt.  True, he's to the left of Rick Sanctorum...... except, of course, that Sanctorum is a free-spending big government "conservative".

[wbcoleman]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

I would certainly be happy to return to the spending levels of the Clinton/Gingrich years.

[Don Houston]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

Both sides need to see the other side.  We have both a spending and revenue problem.  They go hand in hand.  Failure to acknowledge one with out the other is only going to solve half the problem.  Meaning we still have a problem

[Ted S]

Today's thought:

Universal - Disappointment Wrapped Up In Good Intentions

When started in my first career as a design engineer an old-timer told me the "engineers" definition of the word universal in response to my declaration that some widget I was designing was going to be a universal design meaning that it would be superior because it would fit many different models.

He chuckled and told me; "Son, as you gain more experience you will find the true meaning of the word universal:"

Meant to fit everything; doesn't fit anything well.

And as I have grown older I have come to realize that he was very wise.  I can't begin to tell you how many universal mounting brackets I've battled over my lifetime trying to get some do-dad to fit nicely.

I no longer do mechanical design but in my current position in the Information Technology world the word has the same hidden meaning.

Case in point; today I had a PC crash during a presentation.  I was hosting a meeting and had people dialed in from around the states.  The web seminar completely crashed and I was forced to continue on via the telephone with no video whatsoever.

On investigation it looks like the culprit is the presentation software itself which is written in Java.  Java is a programming language/environment/platform that is intended to make applications run in a cross-platform (universal) environment.  From the perspective of the web seminar hosting company their Java based software is great because it works on Windows, and Mac, and Linux and whatever. This means that they only have to develop one code base.  From the perspective of the user, it kinda sucks sometimes because it's clunky and not dependable.

I'm also battling two other tech issues where a Java update broke an existing application which is affecting 200 or so users.

In theory, Java, and universal mounting brackets, and universal social programs, and universal things in general, are all good ideas.  In practice however, they often make for an equally disappointing experience.

Something to think about: In my estimation Apple computer enjoys a great reputation and strong customer loyalty because to a large degree they have stayed away from adopting the "universal is good" mindset. Their software cannot run on a multitude of hardware brands, it only runs on their own hardware.  Apple simply doesn't allow nearly the variability into their products that say Microsoft or Google/Android does.  For this they lose some customers but they also gain the type of customer who just wants something that works really well and is dependable even though it might not fill their every desire.

[wbcoleman]

How do "social issues" fit into this paradigm?

I'm not sure.  I'm only addressing the simple notion that if the USA were to revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton years, we'd be on the path to prosperity according to some on the left.  I'm simply countering with the obvious idea that one needs to consider the spending side of the equation too.

Both sides need to see the other side.  We have both a spending and revenue problem.  They go hand in hand.  Failure to acknowledge one with out the other is only going to solve half the problem.  Meaning we still have a problem

I respectfully disagree.  I believe the tax burden is high enough, and the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue.

[RWE]

"the scope of government ought to be shrunk to fit the available revenue."

I agree. For decades the American voter has been sending people to Washington who promise lower taxes. These same people should then govern responsibly and spend accordingly. If only...