Follow by Email

Monday, October 17, 2011

Who Is Responsible For The US Debt Crisis AND Why President Obama Can't Solve It. Also A Response to an E-mail about a Very Scared Man's Open Letter To Obama.

Here is an e-mail recently sent to me (and many others) about a very scared man, Lou Pritchett, who once wrote an Open Letter to Obama.  Below the letter was my reply, that addressed a few of the false allegations in the e-mail, but was primarily about how the Clinton Administration ended up with a Budget Surplus and why the Obama Administration is unable to make progress on reducing the US Budget Deficit and the US Debt.

(My response follows the email below, and I might add, the response was written by a very good man.  Smiles)

On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM, I received this e-mail:  

Wow SNOPES confirmed 


Subject: FW: Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama... a must read
Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama:


Who would have thought, and yet many are thinking it.     
 
By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER  AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT*  THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE  MOST CHILLING Lou Pritchett is one of  corporate America 's true living legends- an Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the  world's highest Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives  everywhere recognize Him as the foremost leader in change management..  Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to Be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history. 



AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big  surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed Is that good men do nothing.. It's happening right now. 


End of the e-mail I received and the beginning of my reply/response to receiving this email:


To whom it may concern:

I imagine there have been many letters similar to Mr. Pritchett's, just as there have been many accomplished knowledgeable informative supporters of Obama.  One young accomplished supporter happens to be Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, who agrees with Obama that our country's debt is serious and that in order to have a balanced budget, or one with a surplus, we need to raise taxes of the people who earn more than 250,000 dollars a year.  This would reverse the Bush tax cuts on the extremely wealthy to what they were paying under the Clinton Administration.  As you recall, when Clinton left office there was a budget surplus instead of a budged deficit.  Getting our country to this state again (maybe not immediately) is the ONLY way to solve the debt problem of the US, which is in the trillions.  

Under Bush, our country had yearly budget deficits that increased the debt of the United States.  One reason for this was that Bush engaged in two simultaneous wars and increased governmental spending at the same time  he enacted the "Bush Tax Cuts".  This created a huge budget deficit, one we are required to pay sometime in the future.  Unfortunately for all of us, the financial crisis of the banks and investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and AIG also occurred at the end of the Bush Administration.  The TARP bailout of the Bush Administration was crafted by President Bush's Secretary of Treasury, Paulson, who in crafting the bailout of the financial institutions was granted immunity from prosecution.  This passed through congress and Bush of course signed it, after all it was drafted by his Secretary of Treasury.  Obama also supported TARP.  You would be hard pressed to claim that TARP was an extortion of the banks, let alone one that was administered by Obama.

There is one important similarity and one distinct difference in the Clinton and Obama Administration.  At times in both the Clinton and Obama Administration, the executive branch was run by the Democrats and the House was run by the Republicans.  That is the similarity.  The difference is that the Republicans and the Democrats compromised and in doing so created a government that produced a budget surplus.  At the end of the day, our country's economic problems were solved by political compromise. Our country's problems were solved because the political atmosphere was Country over Party, not Party over Country.  Our problems did not get solved by one party remaining stubborn and refusing to compromise, wanting our president to fail.  This is the current attitude of the Republican Party, openly voiced by the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  This is why the Republican Party has been labeled as the Party of NO.  In the end the budget surplus the Clinton Administration was accomplished by compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats.  Both political parties accomplished this feat, it resulted from a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, and not cuts in Social Security.  One of the few things that is preventing our country from the dire 1930's Depression at this point is the combination of Unemployment benefits and Social Security.  However, we are not out of the woods of a significant depression yet and we certainly could march back into one.  In fact the Obama Administration should be increasing the jobs bill to employ far more than 2 million of the unemployed and should be increasing the taxes more dramatically on the very rich, those earning over 5 million a year.

There is a saying in science, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  There should be a saying in politics and economics, that an extraordinary recession requires extraordinary economic policies.  This requires bold leadership of a people demanding a change in the corrupt politics where money is spent buying politicians rather than creating a stable functioning society.

SNOPES confirmed that Mr. Pritchett wrote the letter, NOT that anything within the letter is actually factual, valid, or the truth.  In fact, the one thing that I can say about Mr. Pritchett's letter is that he gives a long list of allegations that is short on facts AND he supplies absolutely no arguments to support his allegations.  Anyone can write a long list of allegations, have Snopes confirm that they wrote it, and then not have it published by a newspaper.  I don't know why any paper would publish a long list of allegations short on facts and without argument.  Who knows if he really sent it to the NY Times.  Personally, I have never heard of Mr. Pritchett, unlike Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffett who are household names.  

There are many responses to Mr. Pritchett's allegations on the internet.  Here are some links I found when I googled: response to Mr. Pritchett's letter:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/lou-pritchet-you-make-me-fear-for-my-nation-an-open-letter-to-lou-pritchett/

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-anti-obama-lou-pritchett.html


There are things I don't like about Obama.  However there are also many things that I don't like about almost all politicians that I have learned about, including the GOP presidential candidates that are allowed to debate.  One GOP presidential candidate I do find intriguing is former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who has not been allowed in the GOP debates.  However, I will be voting for Obama in 2012.

Sincerely,
Phillip Weeks

Please feel free to forward this email to whomever you choose or write me a response.


Who Is Responsible For The US Debt Crisis AND Why President Obama Can't Solve It: and A Response to an E-mail about a Very Scared Man's (Lou Pritchett) Open Letter To Obama.


(forwarded to me, and many others, on October 17, 2011)

To whom it may concern:

I imagine there have been many letters similar to Mr. Pritchett's, just as there have been many accomplished knowledgeable informative supporters of Obama.  One young accomplished supporter happens to be Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, who agrees with Obama that our country's debt is serious and that in order to have a balanced budget, or one with a surplus, we need to raise taxes of the people who earn more 250,000 dollars a year.  This would reverse the Bush tax cuts on the extremely wealthy to what they were paying under the Clinton Administration.  As you recall, when Clinton left office there was a budget surplus instead of a budged deficit.  Getting our country to this state again (maybe not immediately) is the ONLY way to solve the debt problem of the US, which is in the trillions.  

Under Bush, our country had yearly budget deficits, adding to the overall debt of our country.  One reason for this was that Bush engaged in two simultaneous wars and increased governmental spending at the same time  he enacted the "Bush Tax Cuts".  This created a huge budget deficit, one we are required to pay sometime in the future.  Unfortunately for all of us, the financial crisis of the banks and investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and AIG also occurred at the end of the Bush Administration.  The TARP bailout of the Bush Administration was crafted by President Bush's Secretary of Treasury, Paulson, who in crafting the bailout of the financial institutions was granted immunity from prosecution.  This passed through congress and Bush of course signed it, after all his Secretary of Treasury drafted it.  Obama also supported TARP.  You would be hard pressed to claim that TARP was an extortion of the banks, let alone one that was administered by Obama.

There is one important similarity and one distinct difference in the Clinton and Obama Administration.  At times in both the Clinton and Obama Administration, the executive branch was run by the Democrats and the House was run by the Republicans.  That is the similarity.  The difference is that the Republicans and the Democrats compromised and in doing so created a government that produced a budget surplus.  At the end of the day, our country's economic problems were solved by political compromise. Our country's problems were solved because at the end of the day the political attitude was Country over Party, not Party over Country..  Our problems did not get solved by one party remaining stubborn and refusing to compromise, wanting our president to fail.  This is the current attitude of the Republican Party, openly voiced by the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  This is why the Republican Party has been labeled as the Party of NO.  In the end the budget surplus the Clinton Administration was accomplished by compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats.  Both political parties accomplished this feat, it resulted from a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, and not cuts in Social Security.  One of the few things that is preventing our country from the dire 1930's Depression at this point is the combination of Unemployment benefits and Social Security.  However, we are not out of the woods of a significant depression yet and we certainly could march back into one.   

SNOPES confirmed that Mr. Pritchett wrote the letter, NOT that anything within the letter is actually factual, valid, or the truth.  In fact, the one thing that I can say about Mr. Pritchett's letter is that he gives a long list of allegations that is short on facts AND he supplies absolutely NO arguments to support his allegations.  Why would any newspaper print such a letter.  Anyone can write a long list of allegations, have Snopes confirm that they wrote it, and then not have it published by a newspaper.  I don't know why any paper would publish a long list of allegations short on facts and without argument.  Who knows if he really sent it to the NY Times.  Personally, I have never heard of Mr. Pritchett, who unlike Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffett, who are household names for a good reason.  

There are many responses to Mr. Pritchett's allegations on the internet.  Here are some links I found when I googled: response to Mr. Pritchett's letter:





There are things I don't like about Obama.  However there are also many things that I don't like about almost all politicians that I have learned about, including the GOP presidential candidates that are allowed to debate.  One GOP presidential candidate I do find intriguing is former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who has not been allowed in the GOP debates.

Sincerely,
Phillip Weeks

Please feel free to forward this email.




BEGINNING OF FORWARDED EMAIL: 

On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM
Wow SNOPES confirmed







Subject: Fwd: Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama... a must read







Subject: FW: Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama... a must read





---
 

   Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama

  

 
 Who would have thought, and yet many are thinking it.

  
 
 

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER  AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT*  THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE  MOST CHILLING

Lou Pritchett is one of  corporate America 's true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the  world's highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives  everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management..  Lou changed the way
    America does business by creating an audacious  concept that came to
Be known as "partnering." 
Pritchett rose from soap  salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for  Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made  corporate history.
 

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: 
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have  lived and unlike Any of the others, you truly scare me. 
You scare me because after months of exposure, I  know nothing about you. 

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for  your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and  housing with no Visible signs of support. 
You scare me because you did not spend the formative  years of youth Growing up in America and culturally you are not an  American. 
You scare me because you have never run a company or  met a payroll. 
You scare me because you have never had military  experience, thus Don't understand it at its core. 
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class',  always blaming others. 
You scare me because for over half your life you  have aligned Yourself with radical extremists who hate America     and you refuse to Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see   America fail.. 
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the  'blame America ' Crowd and deliver this message abroad. 
You scare me because you want to change America to a  European style Country where the government sector dominates  instead of the private sector. 
You scare me because you want to replace our health  care system With a government controlled one. 
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to  responsibly Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale  reserves. 
You scare me because you want to kill the American  capitalist goose That lays the golden egg which provides the highest  standard of Living in the world. 
You scare me because you have begun to use  'extortion' tactics Against certain banks and corporations. 
You scare me because your own political party  shrinks from Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible  spending proposals. 
You scare me because you will not openly listen to  or even consider Opposing points of view from intelligent  people. 
You scare me because you falsely believe that you  are both Omnipotent and omniscient. 
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass  on everything You do. 
You scare me because you demonize and want to  silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer  opposing, Conservative points of view. 
You scare me because you prefer controlling over  governing. 
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second  term I will Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. 
Lou Pritchett * * This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never  acknowledged it. Big  surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it  has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed Is that good men do nothing.. It's happening right  now.*http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp<http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp>
On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM

  

Saturday, September 10, 2011

The Political System's Manipulation of the Media



When a political party's propaganda against the media marginalizes the electorate, everyone should be outraged.  Unfortunately this is exactly what has been accentuated with the formation of the Tea Party, where one of their modus of operation has often been to run away from and/or ignore reporters and their questions.  It has even gone as far as a candidate refusing to debate before a general election, as seen in the last gubernatorial election of incumbent Gov. Rick Perry.


Everyone in the US should be outraged that the Republican/Tea Party thinks the media should coddle them the way Fox panders to them. Whenever Tea Party/Republicans are asked a probing or difficult question they complain about the fictional "liberal" media. This mischaracterization of the media is one of the most horrendous lies ever propagated on the American public. Fox and the Republican Party have abused journalistic standards by attempting to create “softball” forums where journalism does not exist and information and the truth are casualties to entertainment.  Journalism requires reporters to ask difficult questions so that the public is informed and elections have meaning.  A political system that manipulates journalistic standards and has contempt for the truth has stolen democracy from the electorate.  Sadly this is the current state of the American political system.  Any candidate, regardless of party, who directly answers a question, uninterrupted, and then complains about unfair journalism is not worthy of being elected.  Any show that interrupts or does not allow the interviewee to directly and honestly answer a question does a disservice to journalism and the American public.

Today Chris Wallace continued the political propaganda of labeling the media as “liberal” in criticizing Brian Williams for his moderation of the GOP debate.  The remark that Chris Wallace and Bernie Goldberg took exception to was Brian Williams' question to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.  Brian Williams asked if Rick Perry “struggled to sleep at night” wondering if he had ever executed an innocent person in his state.  On “Fox and Friends” Chris Wallace said that Goldberg was “spot on” for criticizing the question as having a liberal bias.  This behavior by Chris Wallace and Brian Goldberg on the O’Reilly Factor shows contempt for journalism and a disregard for an informed American public.  It is an attempt by the Fox organization and the Republican party to castrate American journalism and the goal is to prevent an informed electorate.       

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Does the Tea Party/Republican Economic Policy Include You?

Interpreting the widespread political actions supported by the Republican/Tea Party and the refusal of those funding the party to reverse the Bush Tax Cuts despite our immense debt burden:


I am not an economist, but this is what I am seeing. For the last 20 years there has been a shift in the economic power from industrialized nations to those considered emerging markets. The wealthy realize that the US consumer is no longer going to be able to purchase products cheaply from the rest of the world and will have to begin manufacturing goods instead. However, the cost of labor in the US is currently too high for companies to make an obscenely large margin of profit.  Therefore, there is a concerted effort by organizations supported by the Koch brothers to set up the framework to destroy the middle class. 


They are doing this by supporting state governors and legislatures that are destroying unions, starting with public workers' unions, weakening child labor laws (increase the labor pool by bringing in younger workers), and destroying social security (increase the labor pool by bringing in older workers). In addition they are working to disenfranchise the poor in multiple states by making it more difficult to register to vote.   This of course limits opposition against their policies from the poor and the middle class.


Currently the Republican/Tea Party wants to cut entitlements such as social security instead of increasing revenue by rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts so that when the opportune time for investment occurs, they will be able to profit immensely. (at your and my expense of course)

Friday, August 19, 2011

Will Rick Perry's Texas Strategy Work On The National Stage?

Today's political campaigns are covered by the media, documented by youtube videos, tweeted, found on Facebook, and covered on blogs.  With campaigns capable of 24/7 propaganda and the media's ever present microphones and cameras following politicians, the American public should have a greater understanding and knowledge of the politician, his character and policies than anytime in history.  Unfortunately this is not true and it cheapens our democracy.


If you have seen Rick Perry communicate since declaring his presidential ambitions you know Rick's swagger, his hyperbole in describing the actions of the Federal Reserve as treasonous, and his brash and flippant attack on the scientific community are part of his persona.  

Presidential candidates running this style of campaign without serious substantive explanations and citations justifying their harsh criticism are using an irresponsible, reckless rhetoric.  It is the responsibility of reporters and journalists to demand a prompt explanation from the candidate.  A serious Presidential candidate would provide his/her explanation immediately following serious accusations against individuals and communities so the accused could respond promptly.  Ignoring reporters and refusing to clarify accusations while running for a public office shows blatant disrespect not only to the accused but to his electorate.  This is a disservice to voters and cheapens our democracy.  

Rick Perry's Texas strategy of governing and communicating with his electorate includes refusing to answer questions at a 2010 National Conference of Editorial Writers in Dallas.  This prompted an open letter from Tom Waseleski to Gov. Perry, admonishing him for blatantly ignoring reporters' questions and prompted his 2010 gubernatorial challenger, Bill White, to remark, "A room full of informed questioners is career politician Rick Perry's worst nightmare."  This type of political strategy has shown to result in voter's remorse as seen by Rick Scott's disastrous approval ratings soon after being elected Governor of Florida.

Unfortunately, Gov. Rick Perry's atrocious strategy of ignoring his electorate by refusing to field reporters' questions doesn’t stop there; as governor he refused to participate in the 2010 Texas gubernatorial debates despite requests from his opponents.  Gov. Rick Perry is now among the front-runners of the GOP presidential candidates, and as such it is time for him to abandon his Texas Strategy of bravado and showing contempt for his electorate.  His persona is neither Presidential nor will it strengthen a country trying to regain its footing after one of the greatest financial catastrophe's in our history.    

As to the question, "Will Rick's Texas strategy work for the rest of the US?", hopefully the electorate will remember the remark of a very similar Texan politician, George W Bush:  
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." 



It has been 7 days since Gov. Rick Perry made unsubstantiated accusations against unnamed climate scientists.  Gov. Perry we are waiting for you to address the veracity of your accusations.