Thursday, April 17, 2008
Balance of Power in Europe?
Angela Merkel opposes admission of Ukraine and Georgia on the grounds that it will alter the 'balance of power' in Europe. 'Balance of Power' is sought by those on the short or losing end. NATO has this unique and dissipating window of opportunity, this historical chance to take the upper hand and consolidate their power OVER Russia. Russia does not understand 'balance of power', they only understand 'domination' if you are at all familiar with their history of invasions and land-grab. Appeasing Russia does not work, it never did with any totalitarian system which is identical to Russian tradition. Europe and the West are missing out on a rare, unique opportunity as Russia is rebuilding their military (at the expense of their people, again, at the purest Stalin style), and this alleged 'balance of power' will tilt toward Moscow. Germany, France and others are delivering Ukraine and Georgia to Russia, in the futile hope to appease their appetite. Feeding the monster only makes it stronger. This does not work. This implies sacrificing more lives of Ukrainians and Georgians to the appetite of Russia. This is a stupid decision by all standards, and self defeating. It is also cruel and inhumane.
Graphic
"We must warn you of the graphic contents of the following segment" is used to describe some gory or adult images to follow on tv programs. This equates 'graphic' with 'adult' or 'porn'. This is killing the language.
I guess graphic artists are porn artist now. Is the English language so poor that they need to steal words meant to represent something totally different, to make references to obscene or potential upsetting images?
How about ""We must warn you of the potentially offending contents of the following segment", instead?
I guess graphic artists are porn artist now. Is the English language so poor that they need to steal words meant to represent something totally different, to make references to obscene or potential upsetting images?
How about ""We must warn you of the potentially offending contents of the following segment", instead?
Give Ukraine and Georgia a chance.
Give Ukraine and Georgia a chance.
Four centuries of occupation by Russia, had a profound impact on Ukraine. On their intend to eliminate the Ukrainian identity, Russian became the mandatory language and most vestiges of Ukrainian history were eliminated from history books, museums and architecture. By sending millions of Russians to intermingle and marry the natives, Russia was highly successful in achieving their goal. In fact, the 50%+ of the Ukrainian population willing to join NATO and the CE are a testament to incredible resiliency by peoples who have been systematically assimilated into the civilization of their enemies.
Russians are very cruel occupiers. They created two artificial famines, to break the Ukrainian spirit, killing, for no other reason, over five million Ukrainians. Russians forced thousands of Ukrainians into a Afghanistan, when Moscow decided to invade that Country as well.
Russia has not given up on their expansion and imperialistic goals, not a bit. They occupied sovereign nations long before Communism, and they will continue long after. The Soviet Union is just a small chapter on the history of conquest and atrocities by Russia.
Nobody knows this more than the countries that have been under their control. They also know they are powerless to stop Russia from taking them over again. Ukraine, Georgia and the other nations formerly controlled by Moscow know that their only chance at surviving as independent is by joining NATO.
Since attacking one NATO member is the equivalent of attacking them all, Russia will not dare to make a move on its former colonies.
Accepting and accelerating NATO membership to Ukraine, Georgia and the other nations in similar situation is not only the decent and compassionate thing to do, it is also the smartest. If we stand to the side and allow Russia to take them over again (as they will), we will have to deal with a stronger Russia as an enemy. The cold war is not over.
A legislator in Moscow recently declared “the concept of an independent Ukraine makes no sense”. When Ukraine courageously approached NATO and asked for an admission plan, Putin declared that his nuclear missiles will be pointing at Ukraine.
Ukraine and other nations in similar predicament had suffered enough on the hands of Russia. It is for the decent people of the world to see that this does not happen again. Alone they are helpless.
I traveled to Ukraine twenty times during the past three years, as our Company employs people there. I have firsthand experience on dealing with many of their people as I traveled the Country by road, taking on people asking for rides and talking with them. I had the chance to meet the families of our employees in all four corners of that beautiful Country. 400 years of being dominated, humiliated and massacred left deep marks on these highly intelligent, hard working and ethical people.
Russia also ‘gave’ them Chernobyl. The consequences of the world’s largest man-made disaster are yet to be fully understood. A full half or our employees or their direct family, have immunodeficiency diseases. A large portion of Ukraine will be unfit for human life for forty thousand years. When the explosion occurred, Russia denied the accident for several days, until the Swedish detected it and the New York Times reported it on their first page. Pravda reported a small article in page 9. This allowed for countless more Ukrainians to be contaminated with high levels of radiation.
The cruelty of Russia towards the nations they invaded, knows no limits. The claim that Ukraine, Georgia and others need to follow Russia because they under Russia’s ‘are of interest’ is phony. The only fault of those countries is to border Russia.
Some of us in the West thought that many of the stories we heard about life under the Soviets, were exaggerated if not fabricated by the CIA or American press. Unfortunately those stories are accurate. I had the opportunity to hear it first hand from Ukrainians that lived under the Soviets. Their stories, if anything, are worst than what I read in any American magazine or watched on TV. Control was absolute, there was no freedom at all, dissent was unheard off and those with ‘peculiar’ ideas were in fact sent to mental institutions for ‘rehabilitation’.
They need our help.
We may stereotype Ukrainians as being similar, if not identical, to their tormentors. Nothing further from the truth. During last year’s Independence Day celebrations, in Maidan Square, I had (at first) that impression. Those soldiers came marching down Khreshatik (Kyiv’s main street). They wore uniforms that appear identical to those of the Russian soldiers marching down Red Square, the same goose step, long and powerful, swinging one arm almost violently from side to side, the face severe and topped with that big hat with green, gold and a lot of red. I felt like the lone American about to battle an army of ruthless soldiers… to my amazement, the moment they reached the Square, the music changed to the tune of Strangers in the Night and those same soldiers broke lines and started dancing to a choreography of a Sinatra’s song. These are not the same as the Russians marching in front of Lenin’s tomb!
It is our moral responsibility to admit them into the safety of NATO. It is also the intelligent thing to do, in our own best interests. The fears of Germany, France and Spain of a Russian reaction to the expansion of NATO are misguided. They should fear more an even larger, more powerful Russia encompassing and including those additional countries and their populations now as troops at the command of Russia’s generals. You can’t appease Russia. A disproportionate number of casualties on the Russian side during the invasion of Afghanistan, were Ukrainians. You can see their photos, letters to their mothers, etc. at the Afghan War Museum in Kyiv. They send those troops first.
Four centuries of occupation by Russia, had a profound impact on Ukraine. On their intend to eliminate the Ukrainian identity, Russian became the mandatory language and most vestiges of Ukrainian history were eliminated from history books, museums and architecture. By sending millions of Russians to intermingle and marry the natives, Russia was highly successful in achieving their goal. In fact, the 50%+ of the Ukrainian population willing to join NATO and the CE are a testament to incredible resiliency by peoples who have been systematically assimilated into the civilization of their enemies.
Russians are very cruel occupiers. They created two artificial famines, to break the Ukrainian spirit, killing, for no other reason, over five million Ukrainians. Russians forced thousands of Ukrainians into a Afghanistan, when Moscow decided to invade that Country as well.
Russia has not given up on their expansion and imperialistic goals, not a bit. They occupied sovereign nations long before Communism, and they will continue long after. The Soviet Union is just a small chapter on the history of conquest and atrocities by Russia.
Nobody knows this more than the countries that have been under their control. They also know they are powerless to stop Russia from taking them over again. Ukraine, Georgia and the other nations formerly controlled by Moscow know that their only chance at surviving as independent is by joining NATO.
Since attacking one NATO member is the equivalent of attacking them all, Russia will not dare to make a move on its former colonies.
Accepting and accelerating NATO membership to Ukraine, Georgia and the other nations in similar situation is not only the decent and compassionate thing to do, it is also the smartest. If we stand to the side and allow Russia to take them over again (as they will), we will have to deal with a stronger Russia as an enemy. The cold war is not over.
A legislator in Moscow recently declared “the concept of an independent Ukraine makes no sense”. When Ukraine courageously approached NATO and asked for an admission plan, Putin declared that his nuclear missiles will be pointing at Ukraine.
Ukraine and other nations in similar predicament had suffered enough on the hands of Russia. It is for the decent people of the world to see that this does not happen again. Alone they are helpless.
I traveled to Ukraine twenty times during the past three years, as our Company employs people there. I have firsthand experience on dealing with many of their people as I traveled the Country by road, taking on people asking for rides and talking with them. I had the chance to meet the families of our employees in all four corners of that beautiful Country. 400 years of being dominated, humiliated and massacred left deep marks on these highly intelligent, hard working and ethical people.
Russia also ‘gave’ them Chernobyl. The consequences of the world’s largest man-made disaster are yet to be fully understood. A full half or our employees or their direct family, have immunodeficiency diseases. A large portion of Ukraine will be unfit for human life for forty thousand years. When the explosion occurred, Russia denied the accident for several days, until the Swedish detected it and the New York Times reported it on their first page. Pravda reported a small article in page 9. This allowed for countless more Ukrainians to be contaminated with high levels of radiation.
The cruelty of Russia towards the nations they invaded, knows no limits. The claim that Ukraine, Georgia and others need to follow Russia because they under Russia’s ‘are of interest’ is phony. The only fault of those countries is to border Russia.
Some of us in the West thought that many of the stories we heard about life under the Soviets, were exaggerated if not fabricated by the CIA or American press. Unfortunately those stories are accurate. I had the opportunity to hear it first hand from Ukrainians that lived under the Soviets. Their stories, if anything, are worst than what I read in any American magazine or watched on TV. Control was absolute, there was no freedom at all, dissent was unheard off and those with ‘peculiar’ ideas were in fact sent to mental institutions for ‘rehabilitation’.
They need our help.
We may stereotype Ukrainians as being similar, if not identical, to their tormentors. Nothing further from the truth. During last year’s Independence Day celebrations, in Maidan Square, I had (at first) that impression. Those soldiers came marching down Khreshatik (Kyiv’s main street). They wore uniforms that appear identical to those of the Russian soldiers marching down Red Square, the same goose step, long and powerful, swinging one arm almost violently from side to side, the face severe and topped with that big hat with green, gold and a lot of red. I felt like the lone American about to battle an army of ruthless soldiers… to my amazement, the moment they reached the Square, the music changed to the tune of Strangers in the Night and those same soldiers broke lines and started dancing to a choreography of a Sinatra’s song. These are not the same as the Russians marching in front of Lenin’s tomb!
It is our moral responsibility to admit them into the safety of NATO. It is also the intelligent thing to do, in our own best interests. The fears of Germany, France and Spain of a Russian reaction to the expansion of NATO are misguided. They should fear more an even larger, more powerful Russia encompassing and including those additional countries and their populations now as troops at the command of Russia’s generals. You can’t appease Russia. A disproportionate number of casualties on the Russian side during the invasion of Afghanistan, were Ukrainians. You can see their photos, letters to their mothers, etc. at the Afghan War Museum in Kyiv. They send those troops first.
Remove the H1B Visa Cap
Technology is an essential component on the lifecycle of all products and services. The ‘technology component’ plays an ever-increasing role on the quality, price, speed to market and overall competitiveness of anything offered.
Technology workers make it possible. The availability, quality and cost of those workers have a direct impact on the competiveness of governments, companies, products, services and (ultimately) whole economies and countries.
Our system of quotas on the number of H1B visas granted to high tech workers is a godsend to our competition, and a hindrance to our ability to compete and win. Out system allows for few engineers to come and train, only to deny them the right to renew their visas and stay. They leave, join other companies and governments, and compete against us, with the tools we taught them.
The necessity to increase our technology advances is heralded by all presidential contenders, but this will not happen without courageous and deliberate action by Congress and the President. The beginning is to dramatically expand, or eliminate, limits on the number of qualified technology workers admitted into the Country.
Getting down to business, this is what happens: when a company needs to improve their services or products (which is ‘always’ if they want to remain competitive, make better products or reduce costs), they will look for technology workers to do it. They are buyers of technology. If the sellers (the workers) are not available, or are too expensive locally (limited supply), the company will either postpone or eliminate new development, or offshore it.
Should this company postpone development of their services or products, they fall behind and cannot compete globally. Eventually, imports will even affect their domestic market. Under this scenario, we lose.
Should this company offshore development, we lose the opportunity to ‘on-the-job-train’ new workers, increase our technology capital, the tax revenue of salaries not paid to American workers and the income not spent in our economy.
As long as there is a buyer, there is a seller. When we need technology, we will buy it wherever it is. If we find it here, the technology and money stays here. If we buy it overseas, they both go to enrich another country. If we do not buy it, we lose the market to other companies that have readily cheap technology available to them.
We cannot ignore the technology component in all we do, enjoy and buy. Technology does not just ‘happens’, it requires workers. Highly skilled and intelligent engineers from the world over are motivated to come and join our communities and our economy, bringing with them millions of dollars worth of education. Other countries fight for them while we keep them out. This does not make sense; we should open the doors to them, as they will enrich our society in many ways.
Technology is an essential component on the lifecycle of all products and services. The ‘technology component’ plays an ever-increasing role on the quality, price, speed to market and overall competitiveness of anything offered.
Technology workers make it possible. The availability, quality and cost of those workers have a direct impact on the competiveness of governments, companies, products, services and (ultimately) whole economies and countries.
Our system of quotas on the number of H1B visas granted to high tech workers is a godsend to our competition, and a hindrance to our ability to compete and win. Out system allows for few engineers to come and train, only to deny them the right to renew their visas and stay. They leave, join other companies and governments, and compete against us, with the tools we taught them.
The necessity to increase our technology advances is heralded by all presidential contenders, but this will not happen without courageous and deliberate action by Congress and the President. The beginning is to dramatically expand, or eliminate, limits on the number of qualified technology workers admitted into the Country.
Getting down to business, this is what happens: when a company needs to improve their services or products (which is ‘always’ if they want to remain competitive, make better products or reduce costs), they will look for technology workers to do it. They are buyers of technology. If the sellers (the workers) are not available, or are too expensive locally (limited supply), the company will either postpone or eliminate new development, or offshore it.
Should this company postpone development of their services or products, they fall behind and cannot compete globally. Eventually, imports will even affect their domestic market. Under this scenario, we lose.
Should this company offshore development, we lose the opportunity to ‘on-the-job-train’ new workers, increase our technology capital, the tax revenue of salaries not paid to American workers and the income not spent in our economy.
As long as there is a buyer, there is a seller. When we need technology, we will buy it wherever it is. If we find it here, the technology and money stays here. If we buy it overseas, they both go to enrich another country. If we do not buy it, we lose the market to other companies that have readily cheap technology available to them.
We cannot ignore the technology component in all we do, enjoy and buy. Technology does not just ‘happens’, it requires workers. Highly skilled and intelligent engineers from the world over are motivated to come and join our communities and our economy, bringing with them millions of dollars worth of education. Other countries fight for them while we keep them out. This does not make sense; we should open the doors to them, as they will enrich our society in many ways.
Monday, April 11, 2005
The Worst Customer Service: CITIBANK
I banked with them for over a decade, with multiple credit cards, checking accounts, investments and home equity line of credit.
Service used to be great. This is until some genius at HQ decided that great savings could be obtained by Citibank by isolating the customers from the employees. Apparently, an analysis showed that Citibank employees 'waste' too much time taking care of their clients. Clients are a nuisance, in the mind of the corporate genius at Citibank.
It is almost impossible to get to talk with anyone that knows anything at Citibank. To start, they hide their phone numbers. Go to Citibank.com and try to find a local number for any branch. They are not listed.
When I found what appeared to be a local number for their Coral Springs, FL branch, I got into VR (Voice Response) hell. Several options are given for 'self-servicing' (aka: help yourself and don't interrupt us, we have better things to do that waste our time talking to our customers). You are asked to enter your account number 'to help our associates'. I did not call to 'help their associates' but to have the 'associates help me'!
Then a second menu of options is available, with none of them allowing you to actually speak with a human being. '0' will generate a response: "sorry, we did not understand your choice". Yes, they do understand that '0' means 'I want to talk to someone', but they don't want that.
After much frustration I got a person: in India. Quite far from my branch in Coral Springs. This person, taking enormous amount of (my) time being very polite, respectful, asking permission to do anything short of breathing while talking with me, very courteously indicated that she could not provide me with the local phone number to my branch. She does not have that information... believe that!
Of course, I was asked to repeat my account number, the same I had entered on the phone keypad a few minutes earlier.
So I asked to be transferred to the branch, beginning with the branch manger down the line to simply 'anybody' ('can you please get the janitor on the line?' included) but they all were busy talking with other customers...
I could not get connected with anyone at the branch, not even given their real phone number to call them directly.
I am sure Citibank is saving big time by keeping us, pesky customers, away from their employees who are busy at work.
I suggest an even better way of saving money for Citibank: shut the doors, close your operations and you won't have to spend another dime!
Pablo Vitaver.
Service used to be great. This is until some genius at HQ decided that great savings could be obtained by Citibank by isolating the customers from the employees. Apparently, an analysis showed that Citibank employees 'waste' too much time taking care of their clients. Clients are a nuisance, in the mind of the corporate genius at Citibank.
It is almost impossible to get to talk with anyone that knows anything at Citibank. To start, they hide their phone numbers. Go to Citibank.com and try to find a local number for any branch. They are not listed.
When I found what appeared to be a local number for their Coral Springs, FL branch, I got into VR (Voice Response) hell. Several options are given for 'self-servicing' (aka: help yourself and don't interrupt us, we have better things to do that waste our time talking to our customers). You are asked to enter your account number 'to help our associates'. I did not call to 'help their associates' but to have the 'associates help me'!
Then a second menu of options is available, with none of them allowing you to actually speak with a human being. '0' will generate a response: "sorry, we did not understand your choice". Yes, they do understand that '0' means 'I want to talk to someone', but they don't want that.
After much frustration I got a person: in India. Quite far from my branch in Coral Springs. This person, taking enormous amount of (my) time being very polite, respectful, asking permission to do anything short of breathing while talking with me, very courteously indicated that she could not provide me with the local phone number to my branch. She does not have that information... believe that!
Of course, I was asked to repeat my account number, the same I had entered on the phone keypad a few minutes earlier.
So I asked to be transferred to the branch, beginning with the branch manger down the line to simply 'anybody' ('can you please get the janitor on the line?' included) but they all were busy talking with other customers...
I could not get connected with anyone at the branch, not even given their real phone number to call them directly.
I am sure Citibank is saving big time by keeping us, pesky customers, away from their employees who are busy at work.
I suggest an even better way of saving money for Citibank: shut the doors, close your operations and you won't have to spend another dime!
Pablo Vitaver.
The Death of Customer Service
How can you beat routing your customer service calls offshore to benefit from much lower costs? The calls go through VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) which is basically free and they are handled by people making a fraction of our domestic counterparts.
Corporate America figured this long ago, and now most large corporations route their calls elsewhere in the globe.
Besides the downside to the Nation resulting on the exporting of so many jobs, the service we receive is consistently lousy.
When we call Customer Service or Technical Support, an English speaking person on the other end is not enough.
A language is made of more than using and understanding the right words. It includes the rhythm, energy level and all the nuances implicated in 'communicating' orally.
I.e. if I call and describe my entire question or issue while the agent patiently waits for the whole explanation only to say (at his/her turn) that I am talking with the wrong person and I need to be transferred just to start again, from scratch. This would not happen if my call is handled locally, as we allow for the apparent rudeness of 'interruption" as I am describing the wrong problem to the wrong person.
In that case I expect to be interrupted, as a way to save my time. Politeness indicates these foreign call-takers to let me talk, and waste my time.
I also need somebody that will go right to the point, quickly, saving me time. I don't need to talk with someone that spends half of her/his (and my) time apologizing for putting me on hold, asking permission again and again to put me on hold, reciting my name at every chance, etc. Just solve my problem, and do it fast. That is the real American Way.
I also expect the person to emphasize what is important, not to have a low, monotone, polite tone of voice out of 'respect' for me. True respect is for my time.
None of this works with foreign call takers in remote locations. Service rendered abroad really sucks.
Pablo Vitaver.
Corporate America figured this long ago, and now most large corporations route their calls elsewhere in the globe.
Besides the downside to the Nation resulting on the exporting of so many jobs, the service we receive is consistently lousy.
When we call Customer Service or Technical Support, an English speaking person on the other end is not enough.
A language is made of more than using and understanding the right words. It includes the rhythm, energy level and all the nuances implicated in 'communicating' orally.
I.e. if I call and describe my entire question or issue while the agent patiently waits for the whole explanation only to say (at his/her turn) that I am talking with the wrong person and I need to be transferred just to start again, from scratch. This would not happen if my call is handled locally, as we allow for the apparent rudeness of 'interruption" as I am describing the wrong problem to the wrong person.
In that case I expect to be interrupted, as a way to save my time. Politeness indicates these foreign call-takers to let me talk, and waste my time.
I also need somebody that will go right to the point, quickly, saving me time. I don't need to talk with someone that spends half of her/his (and my) time apologizing for putting me on hold, asking permission again and again to put me on hold, reciting my name at every chance, etc. Just solve my problem, and do it fast. That is the real American Way.
I also expect the person to emphasize what is important, not to have a low, monotone, polite tone of voice out of 'respect' for me. True respect is for my time.
None of this works with foreign call takers in remote locations. Service rendered abroad really sucks.
Pablo Vitaver.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Bush is a Good Friend
George W. Bush is a great friend, to his friends. That is a friend you would like to have.
He is such a good friend, that he will do this for them:
Destroy Social Security so his broker friends can reap commissions on trading on private accounts.
Give tax breaks, so you 'create jobs' with the money you don't have to give the IRS
Help your heirs keep all of your money, as you don't have to pay taxes on your parents' estate.
Pass a new bankruptcy law that allows you to keep a multimillion dollar home, while the blue-collar workers lose it all, and still have to pay the credit card companies.
Same, so his Financial Industry friends can keep collecting from people that lost it all due to any reason: including disease, divorce, etc.
Alloy you to fire everybody, move your business elsewhere in the world, continue to sell here like before, but with additional tax advantages.
Expatriate your Corporation Headquarters to Bermuda or elsewhere, and still sell to the Federal Government, undercutting your stupid competitors that insist on paying taxes to Uncle Sam.
What a Friend you've got!
He is such a good friend, that he will do this for them:
Destroy Social Security so his broker friends can reap commissions on trading on private accounts.
Give tax breaks, so you 'create jobs' with the money you don't have to give the IRS
Help your heirs keep all of your money, as you don't have to pay taxes on your parents' estate.
Pass a new bankruptcy law that allows you to keep a multimillion dollar home, while the blue-collar workers lose it all, and still have to pay the credit card companies.
Same, so his Financial Industry friends can keep collecting from people that lost it all due to any reason: including disease, divorce, etc.
Alloy you to fire everybody, move your business elsewhere in the world, continue to sell here like before, but with additional tax advantages.
Expatriate your Corporation Headquarters to Bermuda or elsewhere, and still sell to the Federal Government, undercutting your stupid competitors that insist on paying taxes to Uncle Sam.
What a Friend you've got!
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Farming of the Sea
We are stealing the life out of the oceans.
There should be a worldwide ban on farming international waters.
We should only catch the fish we can grow ourselves in fish farms.
In the meantime, we can do a small part by only buying (at the market and in restaurants) fish that have been harvested in fish farms.
There should be a worldwide ban on farming international waters.
We should only catch the fish we can grow ourselves in fish farms.
In the meantime, we can do a small part by only buying (at the market and in restaurants) fish that have been harvested in fish farms.
Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh
I admire Lou Dobbs and I agree with most of his causes.
I also find it surprising that he never published any of the emails I sent him, mostly supporting his position but with a different perspective.
I never found a Hispanic name under the emails that he reads and publishes.
I also admire and agree with many issues that Rush Limbaugh supports. I called many times to his show. I was never allowed to voice my opinion on his show.
Am I being paranoid?
I also find it surprising that he never published any of the emails I sent him, mostly supporting his position but with a different perspective.
I never found a Hispanic name under the emails that he reads and publishes.
I also admire and agree with many issues that Rush Limbaugh supports. I called many times to his show. I was never allowed to voice my opinion on his show.
Am I being paranoid?
We are so used to it...
If you use the expression "How much are you worth" with most any foreigner, he/she will be appalled beyond description.
The idea that a person's value is determined by his/her money, is repugnant in most cultures.
The idea that a person's value is determined by his/her money, is repugnant in most cultures.
Flat Tax
The Flat Tax (or tax simplification) initiative is a Trojan horse.
Tax simplification has universal appeal and it is an easy sale. How would not want to have a simplified tax system, potentially saving us tax-preparation fees, time, etc.?
But the proposed solution of a Flat Tax, or tax on consumption is a trap.
A blue-collar worker spends all of his/her income; therefore, his/her entire wage will be taxed.
Bill Gates spends a much smaller portion of his income: most of his gains will be tax free.
Taxing the spending does not promote savings: most Americans have to spend most of what they make to survive, they don't have the choice of saving or spending.
Tax simplification has universal appeal and it is an easy sale. How would not want to have a simplified tax system, potentially saving us tax-preparation fees, time, etc.?
But the proposed solution of a Flat Tax, or tax on consumption is a trap.
A blue-collar worker spends all of his/her income; therefore, his/her entire wage will be taxed.
Bill Gates spends a much smaller portion of his income: most of his gains will be tax free.
Taxing the spending does not promote savings: most Americans have to spend most of what they make to survive, they don't have the choice of saving or spending.
Rewards to the Rich
The rich have already being rewarded by the simple fact that they are already rich.
Do we need to cut their taxes, such as the inheritance tax and the dividends tax cuts?
Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. History shows us what happens when the gap becomes overwhelming, and this is something the rich should be interested in preventing.
Some are, Warren Buffet among others decried the abolition of the inheritance tax. He is being generous as much as intelligent.
Do we need to cut their taxes, such as the inheritance tax and the dividends tax cuts?
Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. History shows us what happens when the gap becomes overwhelming, and this is something the rich should be interested in preventing.
Some are, Warren Buffet among others decried the abolition of the inheritance tax. He is being generous as much as intelligent.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
This is a tax cut for individuals, not corporations.
Corporations create jobs, not individuals.
To equate richer individuals (that save on taxes) with job creation is a stretch at best and not the result of logical thinking. There is no relation of cause and effect to that proposition.
Corporations create jobs, not individuals.
To equate richer individuals (that save on taxes) with job creation is a stretch at best and not the result of logical thinking. There is no relation of cause and effect to that proposition.
Distorted Messages
Often repeated lies, become true. This was the basis for the Nazi propaganda (a lie repeated often enough becomes truth).
The problem is that we loose the original meaning of words and entire concepts as a result.
I.e.: doctors like to lease space in office buildings strategically located next to hospitals, and they often call those facilities "Medical Arts Building".
I hope that medicine remains a science, not an art. I.e.: I expect a very precise incision in my body from a scalpel of a very knowledgeable doctor, not a pretty cut.
The problem is that we loose the original meaning of words and entire concepts as a result.
I.e.: doctors like to lease space in office buildings strategically located next to hospitals, and they often call those facilities "Medical Arts Building".
I hope that medicine remains a science, not an art. I.e.: I expect a very precise incision in my body from a scalpel of a very knowledgeable doctor, not a pretty cut.
Stolen Symbol
A yellow ribbon used to signify "bring them home".
Karl Rove and his team identified this and radically changed the meaning of this powerful and powerful message.
By writing on it "Support Our Troops", it replaced the original meaning of the yellow ribbon with a new message that is very hard to oppose.
We all support our troops. That is why we want them back, safe and sound.
Karl Rove and his team identified this and radically changed the meaning of this powerful and powerful message.
By writing on it "Support Our Troops", it replaced the original meaning of the yellow ribbon with a new message that is very hard to oppose.
We all support our troops. That is why we want them back, safe and sound.
RE: House Vote on Corporate Tax Havens, refused.
American companies based on the US pay corporate taxes and contribute to our Treasury and help pay for America’s bills. Companies that decided to dodge their tax responsibility chose to move their business address elsewhere, making us pickup the tab that belongs to them.
Since a corporation’s main (and sometimes sole) purpose is to increase their bottom line, why would any US corporation decide to stay here? It is more expensive to remain ‘American’, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to those that bailed out to Bermuda and other tax havens.
In fact, to remain here is a bad decision under the present rules.This is the current state of affairs, one that Congress and the Presidency created: precisely the same people that swore to protect and defend America. If they don’t care about America, why should anyone else (including every single remaining American corporation)?
These are the people we elected because they promised to protect us and look after our welfare and interests.To use the people’s money to do business with these expatriate-of-convenience corporate former citizens is a disgrace and an affront to all Americans. These corporations that show no loyalty to the US are the same that ship the jobs overseas for the same reason they moved out their corporate headquarters to a mailbox in an island.
Their only ‘allegiance’ to America is to the American market where they dump their goods and services.Since the House sided with them, the process of expatriation of corporate headquarters will only accelerate; they have the green light, even the enticement, from our elected officials. Not to move out would be negligent, bad business practice and should lead to the firing of any CEO that is reluctant to joining the bandwagon.
Every day a corporation remains American, it lose money without any redeeming or equivalent benefit to their business. The message from Congress and the Presidency is clear: if you chose to stay here and pay our taxes you are stupid.
The bill defeated in the House was not meant to stifle international competition, as it was not directed to impede any foreign company from doing business here: it was directed only to American companies that chose to move out, with the only goal of avoiding paying our taxes.
Shame on those legislators that defeated this bill!
Since a corporation’s main (and sometimes sole) purpose is to increase their bottom line, why would any US corporation decide to stay here? It is more expensive to remain ‘American’, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to those that bailed out to Bermuda and other tax havens.
In fact, to remain here is a bad decision under the present rules.This is the current state of affairs, one that Congress and the Presidency created: precisely the same people that swore to protect and defend America. If they don’t care about America, why should anyone else (including every single remaining American corporation)?
These are the people we elected because they promised to protect us and look after our welfare and interests.To use the people’s money to do business with these expatriate-of-convenience corporate former citizens is a disgrace and an affront to all Americans. These corporations that show no loyalty to the US are the same that ship the jobs overseas for the same reason they moved out their corporate headquarters to a mailbox in an island.
Their only ‘allegiance’ to America is to the American market where they dump their goods and services.Since the House sided with them, the process of expatriation of corporate headquarters will only accelerate; they have the green light, even the enticement, from our elected officials. Not to move out would be negligent, bad business practice and should lead to the firing of any CEO that is reluctant to joining the bandwagon.
Every day a corporation remains American, it lose money without any redeeming or equivalent benefit to their business. The message from Congress and the Presidency is clear: if you chose to stay here and pay our taxes you are stupid.
The bill defeated in the House was not meant to stifle international competition, as it was not directed to impede any foreign company from doing business here: it was directed only to American companies that chose to move out, with the only goal of avoiding paying our taxes.
Shame on those legislators that defeated this bill!
As published in Matt Miller Online.
Before Social Security, the social security of each individual was on his/her own hands: no one was prevented from saving and investing on their own, during their productive years, to self-secure the remaining of their lives. Social Security was created to provide everyone a safety net, whether the individuals are good at saving and investing, or not.
The prospect (and actuality) of having seniors die homeless, sick and unable to feed themselves was too real and too great to ignore.At the beginning, social security was private. It did not work for many, so Social Security was enacted. The wellbeing and even survival of so many is way too important to tag it to the upturns and downturns of Wall Street or the financial savvy of each individual.
To ‘privatize’ all or part of it today is to go full circle and ignore the lessons of our history.It is also a way for Government to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible handling of the Social Security funds, by passing on the problem to the individuals: “After all, if you don’t know how to invest your own social security money to obtain the return you need to carry on, it becomes your problem, not the Government’s.”By privatizing any part of Social Security, Government is no longer responsible to provide a reasonable income to the retirees; it becomes ‘their own problem’.
This is a smart way for Washington to get this ‘hot potato’ out of their hands and dodge their responsibility. It also provides a windfall the Stock Brokers, Bankers and Financial Advisors, all of which will benefit from it regardless of the outcome for the retirees.Pablo Vitaver
The prospect (and actuality) of having seniors die homeless, sick and unable to feed themselves was too real and too great to ignore.At the beginning, social security was private. It did not work for many, so Social Security was enacted. The wellbeing and even survival of so many is way too important to tag it to the upturns and downturns of Wall Street or the financial savvy of each individual.
To ‘privatize’ all or part of it today is to go full circle and ignore the lessons of our history.It is also a way for Government to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible handling of the Social Security funds, by passing on the problem to the individuals: “After all, if you don’t know how to invest your own social security money to obtain the return you need to carry on, it becomes your problem, not the Government’s.”By privatizing any part of Social Security, Government is no longer responsible to provide a reasonable income to the retirees; it becomes ‘their own problem’.
This is a smart way for Washington to get this ‘hot potato’ out of their hands and dodge their responsibility. It also provides a windfall the Stock Brokers, Bankers and Financial Advisors, all of which will benefit from it regardless of the outcome for the retirees.Pablo Vitaver
Death Penalty
No doubt certain crimes are so repugnant in nature that it is only 'natural' to want the perpetrator disposed off (killed) as a deterrent to others and to protect our Society from having such person walk our streets ever again.
The problem might be the process to determine if the person really committed the crime that so horrifies us.
As we see that OJ Simpson was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers, and dozens of people serving life had been proven innocent by means of DNA testing... this brings into question the ability of our juries (and judges) to accurately asses the innocence or culpability of anyone.
Would you like them to decide, let's say, your involvement and responsibility in regards to ANY crime? They decide, literarily, if you will live or die.
It is sad to find out that our legal system has so many flaws. But it is even more sad if we refuse to admit to it, and act in consequence.
Our fallible legal system should not be able to decide on terminating anyone's life.
Pablo Vitaver.
The problem might be the process to determine if the person really committed the crime that so horrifies us.
As we see that OJ Simpson was deemed innocent by a jury of his peers, and dozens of people serving life had been proven innocent by means of DNA testing... this brings into question the ability of our juries (and judges) to accurately asses the innocence or culpability of anyone.
Would you like them to decide, let's say, your involvement and responsibility in regards to ANY crime? They decide, literarily, if you will live or die.
It is sad to find out that our legal system has so many flaws. But it is even more sad if we refuse to admit to it, and act in consequence.
Our fallible legal system should not be able to decide on terminating anyone's life.
Pablo Vitaver.
Sail Across The Ocean
The Author:
Pablo Vitaver (Pablov) runs two companies he owns.
http://www/CrossTheOcean.com is a sailboat charter concern with one vessel: S/V Alegria, a Hylas 44 Sloop equipped with every piece of equipment for around the world navigation in comfort, safety and speed. With an USCG Captain's license, Pablo takes people from island to island in the Caribbean during weekly trips, and across the ocean for passages to and from Europe.
http://www.Vitaver.com is an IT staffing firm in business since 1993, providing for IT staff augmentation in the field of information technology. Vitaver sources computer programmers, system architects, technical writers, QA testers, Desktop Support Specialists, Data Base Administrators and Managers, Project Managers, Network Administrators and Security Experts to his clients.
Pablo Vitaver (Pablov) runs two companies he owns.
http://www/CrossTheOcean.com is a sailboat charter concern with one vessel: S/V Alegria, a Hylas 44 Sloop equipped with every piece of equipment for around the world navigation in comfort, safety and speed. With an USCG Captain's license, Pablo takes people from island to island in the Caribbean during weekly trips, and across the ocean for passages to and from Europe.
http://www.Vitaver.com is an IT staffing firm in business since 1993, providing for IT staff augmentation in the field of information technology. Vitaver sources computer programmers, system architects, technical writers, QA testers, Desktop Support Specialists, Data Base Administrators and Managers, Project Managers, Network Administrators and Security Experts to his clients.
Mediocre Decisions Producing Exceptional Results
It is a self-evident absurdity.
We look at mediocrity with disdain, but by definition, we settle for mediocre decisions. We make decisions by vote of the majority. The majority is the average.
Average and mediocre are the same. The mass, the mayority can only make mediocre decisions, as the median -the average in this case- is the average intelligence, capacity, etc. of any community, state or country. Some of us act surprised by the results we get when in reality, any other outcome would be surprising.
The only way to obtain better representatives (congressmen, president, etc.) is to raise the level of our 'mediocre' population by means of education. People can only make choices with the tools (education, information and intelligence) they posses. By increasing them, we improve our chances at getting better government and a better Country as a result of the decisions that such government will make.
That is the magic of Democracy; you will have a government as good as the people can chose. We can apply this reasoning to other nations as well. When we export Democracy to nations whose populance is overwhelmingly fanatic of the religious kind (fundamentalists) they will chose such government in a very democratic fashion.
That is Democracy to them, in it's purest form. This will produce nations governed by religious fanatics, 'a la Iran'. From a non-democratic stand point: is this good for America and the Western World at large? Is this good for the planet (assuming that it wants to keep the diverse life that inhabits it, including animals and plants)?
We already decided that we have the right to posses nuclear weapons and they don't. This is not a very democratic concept, but we agreed to look the other way, as it is evident that fanatics in power should not have the option of launching nuclear weapons. Are we willing to carry this thought all the way through?
At which point we decide that we turn from a position of dominance over other people's will, to a principled posture of 'everyone deserves to live in a Democracy, everywhere'? There is a disconnect somewhere in the middle, which creates an indefensible position that becomes increasingly unpopular, dichotomy and (let us face it) unfair, hypocritical and... undemocratic. So, are we for respecting the will of the majorities, everywhere? Is Democracy the answer to all and everyone, everywhere?
Maybe we should be honest and declare that we will not allow fanatics, tyrants or (basically) anybody we don't like to have the power to destroy us together with the rest of civilization. And follow up with steps that are consistent with that declaration. Removing the secular governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria (on their own territory and in Lebanon) may not be a smart move at this point of evolution of their own people.
I suspect that previous American Administrations, wisely, helped install those governments. We should continue with that tradition. We should not break dams unless we are thoroughly prepared to deal with the ensuing flood.
Pablo Vitaver.
We look at mediocrity with disdain, but by definition, we settle for mediocre decisions. We make decisions by vote of the majority. The majority is the average.
Average and mediocre are the same. The mass, the mayority can only make mediocre decisions, as the median -the average in this case- is the average intelligence, capacity, etc. of any community, state or country. Some of us act surprised by the results we get when in reality, any other outcome would be surprising.
The only way to obtain better representatives (congressmen, president, etc.) is to raise the level of our 'mediocre' population by means of education. People can only make choices with the tools (education, information and intelligence) they posses. By increasing them, we improve our chances at getting better government and a better Country as a result of the decisions that such government will make.
That is the magic of Democracy; you will have a government as good as the people can chose. We can apply this reasoning to other nations as well. When we export Democracy to nations whose populance is overwhelmingly fanatic of the religious kind (fundamentalists) they will chose such government in a very democratic fashion.
That is Democracy to them, in it's purest form. This will produce nations governed by religious fanatics, 'a la Iran'. From a non-democratic stand point: is this good for America and the Western World at large? Is this good for the planet (assuming that it wants to keep the diverse life that inhabits it, including animals and plants)?
We already decided that we have the right to posses nuclear weapons and they don't. This is not a very democratic concept, but we agreed to look the other way, as it is evident that fanatics in power should not have the option of launching nuclear weapons. Are we willing to carry this thought all the way through?
At which point we decide that we turn from a position of dominance over other people's will, to a principled posture of 'everyone deserves to live in a Democracy, everywhere'? There is a disconnect somewhere in the middle, which creates an indefensible position that becomes increasingly unpopular, dichotomy and (let us face it) unfair, hypocritical and... undemocratic. So, are we for respecting the will of the majorities, everywhere? Is Democracy the answer to all and everyone, everywhere?
Maybe we should be honest and declare that we will not allow fanatics, tyrants or (basically) anybody we don't like to have the power to destroy us together with the rest of civilization. And follow up with steps that are consistent with that declaration. Removing the secular governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria (on their own territory and in Lebanon) may not be a smart move at this point of evolution of their own people.
I suspect that previous American Administrations, wisely, helped install those governments. We should continue with that tradition. We should not break dams unless we are thoroughly prepared to deal with the ensuing flood.
Pablo Vitaver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)