Where is modern civilization heading?

As a society are we heading in the same direction as the ancient Romans? If so the question becomes.......

Are our leaders fiddling while civilization burns?

While we ponder the question I will post my personal thoughts on this blog. Often I will focus on current events that catch my interest, however I am not and do not pretend to be a news organization. I'm simply a guy with his own thoughts on issues that I believe affect our country and society.

Be forewarned, I have been accused of being a right wing thinker and if that is offensive please move on. Remember, this is my blog and my opinions, and unlike many facets of our already over-governed modern society they are not being forced on anyone.

However, please feel free to leave your comments, good, bad or indifferent, after all this is a free society we live in (at least for now).

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Stormy Seas Ahead?

Over the last 6 months there has been tremendous focus on the Presidential election and what it's outcome would be. Well it's old news now and President Obama has another four years to fix Americas economy or continue it on the road to no return. Like most individuals I hope it is the former , not the latter, but unfortunately the man doesn't have a great track record up to this point.

My personal feeling is that Mitt Romney was a more qualified individual and better suited for the task ahead, simply based on his past experience. President Obama walked into the Oval Office with no real life business experience, Mitt Romney on the other hand has a lifetime of practical experience  running a large corporation. Now I for one am not against a bit of  "on the job" training in most instances, but I believe that most sensible people would agree that the Whitehouse is not the ideal  place for it.

However, no point in dwelling on what might have been, the fact is that Mr Obama is back for another term, like it or not. So am I just being negative towards the guy, well lets see how others view his re-election

The stock market took a sharp downturn Wednesday, just a day after President Obama’s re-election. The Dow Jones average dropped about 313 points, or 2.4 percent, as if my writing this it is down 4%!

- How about job creation, or maybe the real indicator is job loss. So how many Americans lost jobs since the President secured another term. Here's a short list of layoffs that have taken place on or since November 6 in about a 3 day period .

Bristol-Myers – 480 Sales Related Jobs in NJ

ING – 2,350
Husqvarna AB – 600
U.S. Cellular – 980
Energizer Holdings Inc – 1500
Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – 100
Boeing – 30% of Executives at Defense Unit
Hawker Beechcraft - 240
Vesta Wind Systems - 3000

Now trust me when I say the above list is but a small portion of layoff announcements I was able to find in short order, yet in just the 3 days after the election the list totals over 10,000. What confuses me is the fact that Mr Obama claimed during his campaign that he was the one that could create good paying manufacturing jobs. Seems he forgot to mention his abilities to the companies listed above. My personal belief is that the timing of these layoffs was not coincidental, they occurred right after Mr Obama's election for a very good reason. I suspect many of these companies held off on downsizing hoping beyond hope that the Oval Office would have a new tenant and Obamacare would be repealed. No such luck, so the pink slips went out. Now the count of those seeking government entitlements has increased by over 10,000, throw in the 18,500 jobs the unions killed over at Hostess and there are nearly 30,000 jobs down the pipe simply due to greed and stupidity (on both Obama's and the Unions part). Now the fact is that some of these jobs may come back if business feels a bit of confidence, but some are lost forever (i.e Hostess). But even as jobs come back Mr Obama has already laid the groundwork for a future workforce of part-time rather than full time jobs, he did this through Obamacare which defines a full-time position (for the purposes of health insurance coverage) as 30 hours per week! Think about it, the easiest way for employers to avoid the onerous costs of Obamacare is simply to hire employees on a 25 - 28 hour workweek (just shy of 30 to be safe), so Obama has just reduced the standard 40 hour workweek to 28 in his wisdom. His logic behind this is brilliant, any time the government quotes new job figures all of these part-time positions will fall into them and instead of having two (40 hour workweek positions), and assuming that employers commit to the same umber of work hours (80 per week) they will now count three (25-28 hour workweek positions) and an increase in the number of new positions of 50%! So the government looks like a hero, except of course to the guy that is short 12 hours a week on his paycheck.

Unfortunately while it seems that Mr Obama has the support of a good deal of the population who depend on government entitlements, he is not inspiring any confidence amongst the companies that create the jobs the American population is hoping for. Oops, I hope that statement didn't cause too much grief amongst those of you who are under the delusion that the President or any other politician can actually create meaningful employment, sorry I burst your bubble. All any politician can do is foster an economic and political climate that ensures that employers are confident enough to invest in creating jobs. Unfortunately, continuously bad mouthing the financially successful, and beating the drum of tax increases and additional employer costs (Obamacare) has exactly the opposite affect. I guess that's what one should expect when you have a community organizer in the Oval Office, rather than a successful businessman. Obama's roots as a community organizer are showing through, when he needs more money he just assumes the government will provide it.


  1. RE: “. . .Mitt Romney on the other hand has a lifetime of practical experience running a large corporation. Now I for one am not against a bit of ”on the job” training in most instances, but I believe that most sensible people would agree that the Whitehouse is not the ideal place for it.. .”

    On the contrary, my dear fellow – - – The White House is the only place on the planet where a newly-elected President can get on-the-job training and I am fairly certain that no one enters upon a new presidency fully experienced in all the exigencies of being a president.

    It is one thing to be able and skilled enough to oversee the operations of giant corporations (Profit making structures as I recall – - commercial establishments – - money makers – - -) but I am not so certain that the requisite skills for running a business come anywhere near those needed to preside over the affairs of a nation.

    There is far more to being the president of The United States than there is in answering to a bunch of stock holders.

    Business organizations do not, for example, have any responsibility for being concerned with human needs on a human level.

    Businesses are rightly concerned with productivity and raking in the money, but I doubt if many of them include watching over the general welfare of their employees or board members in their operational agendas.

    It is true that Obama came into office with little or no experience in being President of the United States but that is a non-starter because if Romney had been elected he would have come to the oval office just as devoid of presidential experience as anyone who has ever ascended to that high office.

    Now the president has had 4 years of experience in the office and that far outstrips the presidential experience that would have been brought to the job if Romney had won the election.

    So tell us again – - – what is the point you are trying to make with the “experience” argument?

  2. RE: ". . .but some are lost forever (i.e Hostess)"

    Anyone who wants to do so can readily access information that shows this company was in trouble long before the strike that is being blamed for it's demise. There were reportedly internal management problems, problems with profits and problems with market share due to declining public interest in products.

    The strike was the least of the factors leading to this momentous announcement and most experts seem to believe that - - - despite what the intransigent wish to believe and to spread as propaganda - - neither organized labor nor the president of the United States carries any blame for this occurrence.

  3. Yes Hostess has struggled for some time, there is no question about that.
    Another fact is that the plug was finally pulled on the company because of the outright refusal of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union to take an 8% wage cut. Apparently they felt they had to hold their ground even if it meant dragging other workers down with them. Again, so much for union solidarity.

    Fortunately for those other workers a bankruptcy judge has stepped in to put an end to such stupidity by asking both sides to join him in mediation tomorrow. So maybe we will see an example of the "one for all, all for one" labour solidarity that unions like to preach. Who knows, stranger things have occurred.

  4. Hey by the way, isn't your first comment the same one you posted on two other sites that my article appeared on? Jeez, talk about cut and paste.

    I would have thought that with the little amount of thought and effort you put into your comments that at least you could be original on different blog boards. But who am I to get in the way of one man's ranting.


Here at Dwindling Empire we welcome your comments. Although we ask that you refrain from profanity, sexist, racist, or comments of a sexual nature.

However you can poke fun at Frustrated Joe all you want, but we warn you if your going to disagree with him try to do so with some facts, this will garner you a lot more respect from everyone.
Greatly Appreciated