Sunday, January 29, 2012

Religious Conservatives Track Record on Science

As I was browsing wikipedia - and finding information to rebut a global warming denier - a conservative... something struck me.

This passage:
"During the period of religious conservatism brought about by the Reformation and Counter-ReformationGalileo Galilei unveiled his new science of motion."  

The Father of the modern scientific method faced more than a little unfriendly opposition when he said that the Earth orbited the Sun. 

Mostly from religious conservatives.  People who felt that God made it a different way, even though science provided evidence to the contrary.

How far would those religious conservatives hold onto their beliefs? 

And how wrong did they prove to be?

Well, here is a close-up video of the sun - from a NASA spacecraft - observing solar flares. 
Well, we've now been to the sun.  Does that prove anything?

Does the Earth orbit the Sun?

So - here is my question.

The religious right... aka "religious conservatives," holds a lot of other beliefs. 

What is their track record?  

Consider that they may vehemently oppose something that changes the view of the status quo that they are trying to conserve. 

What have they opposed? 

Well... many believe being gay is wrong... and a choice.  
Despite 1 out of 13 squirrels being gay... and hundreds and hundreds of species including gay members in their populations.

But, maybe that is not good enough. 

This is one example of brain scans showing gay and straight people's brains in comparrison.

They blow off things like evolution and climate change as, "theory."

Gravity is also a theory.  I think they should go see if they disprove it because it is a theory.
Perhaps they should jump off a building and see if something that is a, "theory," can hold water.

So, as conservatives continue to put their perspective forwards on climate change and other issues... I wonder... what is their track record?

What evidence do we have that they have any credibility?

What examples do you think of?

Benjamin Corey Feinblum
Ps.  I am Religious... and somewhat conservative... but, my religion does not ask me to deny science.  It asks me to use the brain that I have to understand the world around me.  Use the gift that makes man different from all other species - insight.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

American Competitiveness

In order to solve a problem, one must have the clearest diagnosis.

This here... appears to be the diagnosis.

A couple key nuances.

1) Taxes: It is not the tax rate, but the complexity of the system.
As a business owner I would 100% concur.  I've been ok so far with all tax rates.  And I despise how much time and effort goes into getting everything right.  It is a huge part of my life.

2) Regulations: I do not want to be Haiti.  When Haiti had the Earthquake the place fell to bits.  I do actually like regulations.  They are complex and often one person in a company... the CEO... in many small businesses... needs to do an extensive study of them prior to building.  This bumps the timeline back very far for the process of opening the doors.

I don't have a problem with any of the single regulations I saw that we had to follow.  I have a problem with the complexity.  And, that if a business is required to buy something to open it's doors - you can be the business who is selling it quadrupled their price and did not have the lower cost model available.

Well, here is the video.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

My Ideals...

My conservative ideals are not... things I follow because I call myself conservative.
Sometimes, conservative ideas will work much better.

My liberal ideals... are not things that I follow because I call myself a liberal.
Sometimes a liberal approach will solve a problem.

If you notice the debates and other expressions - you will see people disparage ideas because of the perspective used to develop the idea.

Nobody stops and says, "But, based on the merits of the idea, will it work?"

And in many cases they ignore the success of the idea in other places, when we are working to replicate success.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Who wrote the Health Care Law?

Here is a video with an interview of a unique person.

He is the man who helped Romney write his plan... and then helped Obama take it national.

Why are the plans so close?

Same team.  Same guy.  Same everything.

Watch Romney running against it.

Real Debate

If you think I don't like the way the debates are held because it brings out mostly false information and doesn't get into any of the issues.

You would be correct.

Contrast with two other debate formats.

The parliament in Great Britain when the Prime Ministers questions are taken.
 - Very factual, on topic, deep into the issues, and at the same time entertaining.

This is not all talking points.  This is the facts that they bring to the table and challenge each other with.

Not only is this good for facts, but the pace creates for some hilarious moments.
Watch when the rapid pace makes things go wrong.

You can tell it is real because it just doesn't go perfectly.  It is not all polled, scripted, rehearsed ad nauseum.

Politics is both real in this case, but also entertaining.
A few things are actual free speech and real feelings occurring.  Which is why it is so funny.

On a more serious note, here is a great woman Prime Minister challenging all the other leaders in the pit.

You can search youtube now for all sorts of links because there are many.

Isn't it fun to attack Obama

(Later I will provide a paragraph that ties together the elements we will discuss here.)

In the past... Black people were never safe.
They were lynched.

Well, what about today?

Have we moved to a new modern form?

Here is the leader of the Republican party in the Senate.  Mitch McConnell.

Here is Romney praising President Obama for the Stimulus composition and how he carried it out.

Here is Romney saying that the individual mandate is the Republican approach to free market health care

Watch him explaining his reasoning in another video here.

Ok... lets take this one step further.  This is the big one.  The SAME MAN wrote Romney's health care law and helped take it national with Obama.  Let's see.  How does he characterize the differences and Romney's honesty on this.

What?  Watch those again.  Romney Praises Obama.  And in 2006 thinks the individual mandate is the greatest idea out there?  Well, that is what Obama did.  And that is the part that is most hotly contested - even by Romney.  Watch this video again and then watch Romney as he goes after Obama for the individual mandate.

Hopefully, the above expressions in Republicans own words.  Particularly the main one running against Obama, shows you that there might be something to my statements.  That Obama is only doing a bad job when the people who want his job and the rest of Democrats jobs feel like it is time to change their mind.

How did Obama develop his health care plan?  In large part, he called the team that developed Romney's plan in Massachusetts and asked.  What worked?  What didn't?

Look at it above.  And watch in shock as I do.  Every time Romney goes after Obama.

Now, I want to get to the larger picture.  All the elements of the puzzle together.
Hopefully, the above videos have convinced you that there just isn't a lot of truth in the arguments against Obama.  There is simply a lot of smoke and mirrors.  And the smoke and mirrors works better than the facts!  Because the facts take time to understand.

Here is the most incredible video I have ever found.  Obama went to the Republican House Caucus and in an hour and 25 minutes... One man - vs the entire Republican House membership and he debunks every single talking point that has been repeated so frequently that they believe it themselves.  He even points out Frank Lutz who is in the room, who writes the talking points that are so false.

The talking points, as I will provide evidence for below, lead to actions being taken for political purposes, power grabbing, rather than problem solving.  In fact, many of the talking points people come up with are so dangerous that many times Republicans have driven the country to the bring of sheer calamity.  Many of the arguments made do not bear out in economic reality.  No economist in their right mind would support them.  Through the data and videos applied here, you will see what I mean.  I'm working on covering each major topic area with a degree of completion.

How should you use this?  If you hear a talking point, or a specific attack on Obama - scroll down to a headline on that subject.  I am attempting to explain what is happening by subject so you can search the page and get to it.

Review sections at a time until you see how the argument I am stating here - that Obama is essentially being Lynched by Republicans - is the most supportable way of describing the situation that I could find.

I will try to sum up with what they want you to think... and what based on the data, you might consider thinking when you hear particular talking points.

There are several perspectives that I am operating from.
First, as an independent I will vote for the best person for the job.  Huntsman leads that position for me with Republicans.  He is less popular, but I believe he just takes more time to understand.
Second, financial conditions.  Remember the "Shadow Banking System?"  Credit default swaps... derivatives?  This is the stuff that was being traded around the globe that caused the financial collapse.  Well, the shadow system had 10,000 billion dollars flying around in it.  Now there is 6,000 billion because many of the worst parts of the system have been shut down.  We have 4000 billion dollars less circulating through the economy.  This amount equals 26% of the gross domestic product of the country and if back in play would cause an economic explosion.  But, do we want it back?
Third, that money out of the market contributes heavily to housing collapse.
Fourth, the peak in numbers of foreclosures was last summer.  Each foreclosure takes 3 years.  So 3 years from last summer the effects of the foreclosure crisis will be waning.
Fifth, as I write this, under the Obama administration there has been 22 months straight of job growth.  During that time there has been constant cutting of government jobs.  Aka. Government has been getting smaller.
Sixth, Presidential decisions take a long time to implement. They take a long time to have their impact.  For example going to Iraq was a decision.  The buildup took a while... and ten years out we come home.  Many Presidential decisions yield results over such a timescale.  Presidents are not micro-managers.  They don't get involved in the small stuff.  This stuff all takes time.
Seventh, history.  In all forms.  One perspective within history is that Republicans were out of power for decades.  If Obama stormed into office and repaired all the damage that occurred under a Republican administration they would loose power for decades.  This is a very big deal to them as it happened this way in the past.
Eighth, the Democracy broken post earlier sums up major elements of the problem
Nineth, the 24 X 7 media machine pumps all sorts of things into our brains.  Most of it shallow, much of it manipulative.  Where the media cheered the housing market up, they scared everyone to death further and further on the way down and demolished it.  Where they cheered Obama all the way into the white house... now many times they have ripped him down.  They allow talking points too much.  They aim for conflict to keep things interesting.  And they make all the problems worse.  And my belief is that they are a larger force in the economy than the president is today.  They convince everyone how to feel about what is happening.

Here is Fox News talking with Mitch McConnell again.

Getting debt under control how?

They won't allow tax increases, even on billionaires... And they are not even increases.  Temporary tax cuts that had been extended would be allowed to expire.  I applaud the success of billionaires, but I don't pity them for facing normalized tax levels.

So, no revenue increases.  But, they want to get the debt under control.

The other side is cutting spending.

You can either raise revenue, or cut spending.

How do we get this country, "Straightened out," as McConnell asks?

I imagine, spending would come under the purview of the budget.

Well, the Republicans signed the budget each year.  Many of the most costly items were initiated and passed by Bush.  How did we get two wars?  How did we get TARP?  How did we get the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  How did we get the Bush tax cuts that ate away massively from the revenue side?

And, when would be the right time to begin to negotiate on expenditures?

Perhaps, when the budget is passed.

But, no.  That is not what happened.

They signed expenditures that were in the budget.  Added their own items.  Just about everyone added their own earmark spending for their districts.

And when did they decide there was too much spending?

Not when they were signing the budget, or the spending bill.

When the services had been rendered and the bill came due and we had to raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills.

Imagine if you did this.  You signed a mortgage document, bought a house, and then three years in, in protest, decided that you should not pay your bills.

In the effort to get the house in order what did they accomplish?

Mass uncertainty.

How do you get someone booted out of office?  Create enough uncertainty in the economy to scare people from electing that person again.  To scare people from hiring again.  To scare people from spending in the economy again.

What was the "sticking point?"  The tax breaks for the billionaires.  The choice was to loose those, or cut spending elsewhere.  Elsewhere is social security, medicare, the military, health and human services, NASA,  the State Department, the entire government.

What was the result?  To protect tax breaks for billionaires, they created so much uncertainty, were so unwilling to compromise, that the stock market tanked.  My phones stopped ringing for business.

The result was - the value lost in the stock market - value lost to people of all levels of wealth, but including billionaires and millionaires - the value lost in the stock market was greater than what wealthy people would have lost if the tax cut were allowed to lapse in 2014!  They weren't even trying to get the cuts to lapse today during the down economy.  This was for the future.

So - by defending the tax cuts for the wealthy - the wealthy lost more dollars to their net worth than the tax cuts.

Lets take this one step further.  During the manufactured debt crisis.  What do you think Republicans were doing?  Negotiating in good faith.  We'll pay this if you cut that?  Working with democrats?  Or, was the goal to maintain the uncertainty?  The uncertainty that would make it hard for Obama to get re-elected because it held the economy back.

When I speak to some CEO's they say things like, "We just don't know what is going to happen with this guy."  Well, while all the uncertainty was reaching peak levels in the country due to the debt crisis.  What were Republicans doing?

Well - here is the message from Democratic leadership.  Talking about a "Filibuster."  The tool of standing on the floor and saying anything.  It could be reading the dictionary.  To block legislation from being brought to the floor or negotiating.

This video shows what Democrat leaders felt was happening at that time:

Here is Democrat Dennis Kucinich summing up how to get out of debt entirely.  And how to create many jobs.  This is in July - a few weeks before August when we ran out of time.

One point he makes is that we basically print money.  In the context, whenever uncertainty rose in the world, people bought US treasuries - and dollar currency.  That was the safety currency.

Because other countries buy our currency when risks are high, the dollar maintains it's value.
So the US can print money and... our money still gets more valuable.  No other country on the planet can do this.  That is what he was referring to in his speech.

Here is Nancy Pelosi in the middle of this video.  Saying, "we need to finish this so we can focus on job creation."  Pelosi is the most maligned member of Congress.  Pollsters found that her name just worked.  So they piled on every single criticism of Congress leading up to the election where they gained the house - on her name.  Here is what Pelosi was fighting for.

Here is Obama during this time.  Talking about how interest rates are effected under a default.

Well, consider that the borrowing the US government has been doing has been at about zero percent interest rate.  So, yes the debt is higher, but the cost to service the debt and hold it... is non-existent.  But, that default would have caused the interest rate to multiply.  For $200 billion dollars in interest payments due - we may have ended up with $600 billion dollars of annual interest due had we gone further with the default.  In other words, the interest, under a default, would have cost the government more to pay for than the military.

And at the, Yes, higher debt levels, with no interest rate, we are actually paying similar amounts to service the debt as we were before - even though we have higher debt.

Look at this report in Bloomberg News with Geitner talking about the low interest rates we are having and how the costs will change.

Here is a quote:
"While some of the lowest borrowing costs on record have helped the economy recover from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, bond yields are now rising as growth resumes. Net interest expense will triple to an all-time high of $554 billion in 2015 from $185 billion in 2010, according to the Obama administration’s adjusted 2011 budget.
“It’s a slow train wreck coming and we all know it’s going to happen,” said Bret Barker, an interest-rate analyst at Los Angeles-based TCW Group Inc., which manages about $115 billion in assets. “It’s just a question of whether we want to deal with it. There are huge structural changes that have to go on with this economy"
Ben Bernanke - the fed chairman at the time, was offering auctions of long term treasury bills with great success at this time.  He was getting rid of this short term loans and buying long term loans with the low interest rates.  And the Repubicans were BLOCKING this.  Putting us at massive jeopardy.  
Let's begin with a quote from House Republican Leader - the Speaker of the House John Boehner"In a television interview later that day, the speaker said of Bernanke, “I’m glad he’s there.” The chairman is in a “critical job at a very difficult time not only for our economy, but around the world,” said Boehner, who added that he had endorsed Bernanke’s reappointment and has no regrets for doing so."
Then here is what happened a few days later: "However, only days later Boehner joined House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. John Kyl, the minority whip, in sending Bernanke an unprecedented letter telling him not to take further steps to lower interest rates because doing so “may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers.”
Note: The result of a weakened dollar would be that all other currencies have more buying power towards US products.  If the Euro is stronger against the dollar, then it is cheaper for people to buy American products.  And the Republicans were fighting to keep the dollar stronger - even though a weaker dollar would have boosted the manufacturing and export sectors of our economy.   
Well, what they called Operation Twist took place.  Here is how it was defined.  As mentioned above.  Rather than hit a point where servicing the debt cost three times as much, we sell short term treasuries and then buy longer term ones so we keep our interest rate. 
"The FOMC nevertheless went ahead with a plan to reduce longer-term rates by selling about $400 billion worth of short-term Treasuries and buying longer-term ones. However, three of the five reserve bank presidents currently in the voting rotation – others vote at two- or three-year intervals – dissented. They argued the step effort, which quickly became known as Operation Twist, was not needed or wouldn’t do any good."
Republicans nearly destroyed our economy because if they succeeded in stopping Bernanke then the cost to service the interest on the national debt would go from $185 billion in 2010 to $554 billion in 2015.  We could pay that interest by cutting the entire military.  To put it in perspective the NASA budget is around $6 billion.  And with that kind of money we are regularly leaving the planet.  
So, I come back to the question earlier.  While the manufactured debt crisis was happening.  What were Republicans doing on the floor of Congress?  Negotiating?  Now - you saw the video of Democrats saying they were being filibustered.  What does that mean?  
During the debt crisis when we nearly defaulted... Republicans used their treasured time on the floor of Congress to name buildings.  Hundreds of them.  They did not want the crisis to end until confidence in Obama was crushed once and for all.  At the same time, they were crushing the economy.  And risking our interest rates, the ability to print money, and how much we would have to pay to service the debt.  They nearly crippled the country to get their power back.
I watched C-Span as Republicans were naming buildings... not negotiating a deal... not compromising... NAMING BUILDINGS!  And I nearly vomited.  
Here is someone with a little credibility with regards to the budget and job creation.
Under Bill Clinton, 22 million jobs were added and the budget was balanced and the debt was reduced.  The government was in surplus when he left office.

The White House provides, the "White House White Board."  This is a series of videos explaining in detail visually all the specifics.  Watch this and see what the White House, Austan Goolsbee is thinking.  Is the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors clear?  He should be.  He is a Harvard Professor.  He works in the field, but he is also Professor.

Under payroll in the video above, Austan has "Investment."  Tax credits for investment in manufacturing in the US.  Well, the end of 2011, we know it is working.   

Jump forwards:  Quarter 4 of 2011, the last financial results for 2011 showed one of the fastest growing sectors is manufacturing.  We are making more manufacturing jobs now in America.  Put that in context.  Manufacturing job numbers have been shrinking in America for decades!  Look at the list of targeted tax cuts.  

Here is Republican Lou Barletta calling out the misleading statements about debt and calling for cooperation.  This is a Republican that I respect tremendously after seeing this video.  This is the one man calling for working together and not trying to get the perfect deal.  This man changed the dialog.  Whenever I find someone who I agree with on either side.  I post it.  This is a great Republican.
Here is a later example of Rep Barletta working on naming a postal building.  At this time trying to honor a trooper who was shot.  This was an honorable building naming.  Not a filibuster.

And despite rumors, while we owe debt to the Chinese, the majority of the debt is owed to Americans and the US government.  What?  Yes, we borrow most of our money from the Social Security Trust Fund and leave IOU's because the social security trust fund has a surplus every year.  What?  A surplus?  Yes, the crisis with social security is that the surplus is shrinking and we won't be able to use it as a back door tax to fund other government activities.

Now.  Where do they get the idea that Obama raised the deficit tremendously... raised spending... tremendously.

Well, spending was raised.

But, lets review a few elements that may have contributed.

Here is a video with Democratic Rep. Peter Welch talking about where the debt came from.  I found this after writing my work below.  So, there is more than one person coming to the same conclusion as I am about to present.  He actually makes most of my argument above and below in his statement.

Here is Senator John Thune giving a full analysis from the Republican side.
Look at what he talks about.  He seems to have a problem with keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from failing.  How would we resolve the mortgage issue... if the two organizations that hold all of the mortgage documents are no longer there?  If the two organizations that insure all mortgages are no longer there in the middle of the foreclosure crisis.  Regulations?

I heard a lot of screaming about regulations when I opened the restaurant.  I was the CFO.  I found that the regulations for things like... fire safety systems, and water fountains that were being complained about... were in existence all along.  There are some Environmental Protection Agency regulations, but there is a problem.  We actually have massive environmental issues - such as using more top soil than is being produced - which cause an even more massive problem in the future.  Well, these problems were exasperated by the Bush administration ignoring the problems for so long.

As a small business, I saw massive tax reductions.  I had the lowest taxes I have had my entire time in business.  How is it that John Thune saw tax increases for small businesses?
I agree with him on Energy.  We need investment because it takes too long to transition.  But, at the same time if energy prices remain low because we keep supply up - then it is not cost effective to purchase any of the new energy technologies, which allows economy of scale, where we buy so much of the new forms of energy that the price comes down.
While Republicans are raving about Taxing and Regulations (their buzz words for decades) small business surveys showed that the largest concerns of small businesses were insurance and customer demand.

Part 1:  The War Spending.
Under Bush, Enron accounting tricks were applied.  The two wars were kept on "Emergency Supplementals."  Do you remember?  Congress approved 60 billion here... 70 billion there?

Take a look here.  The emergency supplementals were logged by wikipedia here.  There are links to all the sources.

Here is 2006 and 2007

  • FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
  • FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
  • FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion

Well all these numbers are hidden off budget as emergency spending and do not show up as deficit.  

How high does it get when the numbers are added up? 
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]

Well, that looks like a lot of money right?  Well, if you look at 2007 that was $170 billion, but it looks like way less.  It looks like less when it is $70 billion here... $100 billion there... well, this is all sleight of hand.  An illusion.  

Well, this kept the wars off the budget.  So two enormous wars.  The most costly exercise of our government were kept off the budget!

Here is an article about Obama changing this:

This is the link to the full speech.
Here is the quote where this was announced.
"Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget.  That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  For seven years, we have been a nation at war.  No longer will we hide its price." ~ Barrack Obama

So, how do spending and deficits look when the wars are added to the budget? 

I don't see a 2010 number, but look here...

  • FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
  • FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]

Less money than in 2007 under Bush, or 2008...

And we have to pay for all the equipment as we pack it to ship home.  

The report quotes a Brown University Study on the total Costs of the wars." 
"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion."[1]

So what action did Obama take?  He stopped hiding the wars off budget.  The costs of war operations are actually lower under Obama.  And he brought the troops home from Iraq, as promised during the campaign, which will remove that cost entirely.

So - the illusion is of greater spending, when really spending is down - Obama just ended the illusion.  He ended the sleight of hand that fooled Americans.

Part 2:  Emergency Stimulus Spending
During the great depression, we were rising out of the depression.  Then the US elected a bunch of conservatives to power.  They pulled their foot off the gas pedal.  And the economy tanked again.
What?  Again?

Yes - the Great Depression was two separate periods actually.  One with the foot on the gas, where the economy began to rise.  Followed by a major dip when conservatives took power and pulled the foot off the gas.  And then, a change back to the rise when conservatives lost some power.

This dialog here captures things pretty well.  Actually, ahead of when they were happening.  Bush was still President and this man is talking about debt being taken on to fuel growth.  Well, Obama took on some debt to break the back of the death spiral the country was in.

Here is the article
Look at the chart here.  Why does GDP start to rise in 1932.  And then collapse in 1936 and then in 1938 start to rise again?  Interesting.  A two year slump.  (Note, election cycles are two years.  Those two years were when conservatives were in power and took the foot off the gas.  The economy fell off a cliff again.)

Well let's look at 1932 the lowest point in the death spiral of the economy.  What happened election wise?
Herbert Hoover was President.  In that year, he lost the election by a landslide and Franklin Roosevelt took office - a Democrat.  Look at the election results here.,_1932

Now - there is one thing we are missing - a trade war.
A trade war occurs when national policy goes protectionist.  And we raise tariffs - the taxes on imports and exports.  We raise taxes on trade from another country thinking it will give our businesses an edge.  In immediate response the opposing country raises taxes on us.

Trade relies on the concept of "comparative advantage."  Basically, we make things in places where it is cheaper to make.  So, when we trade something we make cheap - we make money - they get a good deal.  When they make something cheap - they trade with us - we get a good deal.  Trade deals when written correctly are actually beneficial to all.  They raise the standard of living by increasing the amount and variety of items we can buy.

What were the policies involved in the great depression?

Hoover initiated a trade war with "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

Roosevelt initiated the New Deal between 1933 and 1936.  The same year the GDP went from negative to positive.  Here is a complete article on the New Deal:
Scroll down in the above article and you can see GDP numbers there.

The greatest difference between the Great Depression and Now is that we have had no trade war.
We have not broken down the structure of trade causing massive wreckage in the economy of both countries involved.

How do you think I feel about Mitt Romney?  And why do I like John Huntsman?
Watch this exchange...
Romney is basically calling for what Hoover did with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that obliterated trade and deepened the depression.
Huntsman calls him on it.  Look at what I posted above.  Solution to great depression was New Deal.  A massive cause was a trade war.  Romney set the conditions for the trade war.

What is reality?  China has appreciated their currency about 30% and is moving in our direction as a result of consistent and ongoing negotiations.  The greatest moves in their currency have already taken place.  Obama has been working on it intensely - he appointed Huntsman to go negotiate in fact for several years - and well... without threats China has been persuaded to be more fair.

Note: Appreciating their currency in China causes inflation.  This devalues the savings of the Chinese.  The Chinese people are massive savers.  If their currency appreciates too fast, savings of Chinese people become null and void and you have riots spiraling out of control in a country with more than a billion people.  Would China just take new tariffs on the chin? No.  Well what are they doing now? Transitioning forwards - aiming their economic growth to continue due to inward factors - rather than external trade... which allows them to appreciate their currency over time.

Psychological impact of stimulus is more powerful than the stimulus.  Watch as Republicans circle the wagons screaming about how the stimulus won't work.  "Oh this is Keynsian economics!  Everybody knows that won't work."  Republicans wanted the stimulus to fail so that Obama would fail.  Obama would fail because the country would fail.  What a risky risky game of Russian Roulette.

Reduction in Tax Revenue due to economic downturn

Consumer protection
Watch this video on the person Obama wanted to put in the consumer protection agency.  
Ahead of the crisis she was doing a complete speech on the impending collapse of the middle class.  Republicans blocked her being put in place to fix the problems she saw.  And now she is running for the Senate and likely to become a Senator - Elizabeth Warren

Oil spill crisis: How did this happen?  If you look.  Republicans blocked who Obama was putting in to the minerals regulation body of the government.  Who was in power?  A Bush appointee.  Bush appointed a lobbyist who worked for the oil industry to run the minerals regulation body.  And we get the biggest oil spill in our history.

But, if you look at video from the time, Republicans ripped Obama over and over again because after the crisis he didn't clean it up fast enough.  Go find some video of Secretary Chu the person Obama sent to be on site.  He is an absolute genius.  Watch any video of him and you will be impressed.  

And now, watch the Republican's campaigns again... what are they calling for, "Less regulation."  Hmmm... does this sound like a good idea to you?  Didn't we try that...?  How did it turn out?

Watch Senator Bernie Sanders talking about the overall problems.
A huge thing he says is how GE came to America for a 16 billion dollar bailout and then took the jobs to China.  And the revenue went up massively for wealthy people and at the same time we dropped the taxes for them.

Conclusions that I want to bring to a short video.

Watch Bill Clinton defending himself when Conservatives came after him with selective memory.
When he was in office, he was told he was too Obsessed with Bin Laden by conservatives.
After out of office, the Conservatives in power held no meetings on Bin Laden.
And then, once something happened said that Bill Clinton should have done more to get Bin Laden.
The difference now.  With youtube.  Above, I have supplied all the videos showing the candidates before and you get to see them now - after.

Here is Clinton challenged on Fox News and his response.  It seems people change their tone when they don't pick up on something in advance and want to blame for failures, or own all the success.

My goal is to have a video with the basic premise that brings people to the longer analysis.
I want to organize the topics very carefully into a table of contents so people can just pick a topic from the discussion and read more and see all the analysis on each topic.

Video name:  Sleight of Hand

Beginning: Premise Republicans are like a lynch mob trying to take out Obama

I am sorry I cannot make this shorter for you.  These are complex issues.
We will cover Stimulus, Health Care, and Jobs.  The biggest areas Obama has worked on.
And we will cover the motives and deceit behind the people who now seem to oppose them.
I will show you the results.  The facts about how they worked.

1) Mitch McConnell - One term President.
2) Mitt Romney a. Calling the Individual mandate the Republican free market approach to prevent the free rider problem.    b. praising Obama on the stimulus.

Middle: Specific cases.
1) Stimulus and Gross Domestic Product.
2) Health care, new covered, and drop in GDP because of health care.
3) Direction of Jobs.

1) Why would Romney praise Obama on the stimulus?
Well, first, Senator Olympia Snowe was one of three Republicans to sign it and She was pushing constantly for the stimulus to be smaller.  The level it was signed is the level she would allow.

Then, a year and a half later - we found that the economy was far worse - once the data was crunched than we knew.

When the economy crashed before Obama took office, the last quarter 2008 GDP shrank in a death spiral by 8.9%.  The entire output of the economy collapsed by 8.9% in the quarter before Obama took office!

Then the stimulus was passed.

And by third quarter, as the stimulus dollars began to work into the economy GDP was in positive territory.

Now this is a swing from -8.9% to positive territory and the total swing was 14.5% in the entire output of the US economy.  Remember Romney praising Obama as the stimulus was being passed?  There is a reason why.

2) The health care law is being rolled into place a step at a time.  You saw Romney in support of an individual mandate before it was unpopular with Republicans.  (He was the first to pass individual mandate when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Obama's team worked directly with those who created Romney's individual mandate, and Romney's health care law and copied it.  Obama's team asked, what worked?  What didn't work?  And then Obama's team put the best elements of the law Romney passed into his health care law.  Romney is against it because he is running against Obama.

In 2011, when people up to age 26 were legally allowed to stay on their parents health care care plan 3.5 million.  That is 3,500,000 young people were added to the health care rolls.  

And in the last quarter of 2011 what happened to GDP?  Well, it grew, but not as much as expected.  What knocked it down?  Here's a peak behind the headline.  Initially, you might think 2.4% GDP growth - a faster growing economy is better than one that grew 1.8%... right?

Well, no.  If you look behind the headline, we lost half a point of GDP because health care spending fell off a cliff.  In the context of adding 3,500,000 more young people to the insured Americans.


Context:  In this country you can go against the leader for legitimate reasons verbally and take his power.  In  another country, or another time, or perhaps in China today, going against a leader the way Romney is would be considered treason.  In some times in history, he could loose his head.

With that right he is running around the country spreading all these falsehoods, outright lies (go to and to see what is true and what is not) about Obama and what Romney really supported until it was no longer politically expedient.

We questioned Herman Cain's character.  Well, what about Romney and the Republican party.  The moment they had power their number one aim was to get more power.  Their number one approach was to deceive the American public on a massive scale.  Circle the wagons.  And rave about things until Americans believed what Republicans were saying is true.

They wished for the failure of the President.  For the President to fail, the economy had to fail.
They wished for the failure of the US Economy under Obama so that Republicans would get more power.
They aimed at blocking every single jobs measure.  And they vocally undermined all laws Obama passed, even the biggest ones that they publicly supported Obama on.

Inoculations restated:
If you hear Romney say, "This President, or Under this President," question is he telling the truth?  Or, is he just coming out after something that he strongly supported, passed, was implemented and then all the sudden hating what he thought was the best idea too?  If you hear, "This President," just think... well, didn't Obama apply Romney's plans?  

If you hear Romney say, "This President," think... wasn't Obama applying the best parts of a health care law that Romney created?

If you hear, "This President grew government," ask, hey Romney didn't you support all the largest spending measures publicly?

If you hear, "This President grew government," remember the chart.  Unemployment is higher today because of how many government jobs have been cut.

If you hear, sure the "President has killed jobs," remember we have had 22 months straight of private sector job growth.  When Obama took office we were loosing 800,000 jobs per month.  If that rate continued for 22 months we would have lost 17.6 million jobs.  Instead we gained millions.  And the last month of 2011, wast the best.

If you hear, "The President has killed jobs," remember where we came from.  American jobs numbers were falling off a cliff and now, we have grown jobs for 22 months.  Millions of them.

We are headed in the right direction.  Just because the Republicans seem loudest.  Doesn't mean they are being honest.  It doesn't mean that they are right.

The loudest bully with the biggest megaphone... isn't the one who has the facts straight.  

You will hear, "The President should be the biggest cheer leader for the economy."  Really?
And how is he supposed to do that when he has to spend all day dealing with Republican lies.

Republicans.  I am a magician.  Leave the sleight of hand to me!

Links with video:
My believe in America fan page.
I believe in America.  Follow all the reasons why by liking this fan page.

My blog post.
Massive and detailed research is behind this.  Search by topic for full data and video evidence on each topic.  Point-by-point research on every topic.  Get smart on one topic at a time.  

Entertainment idea?  Can I make a video of political satire.  Piano maybe.  A little singing.  Magic.  And express this through that method?

The chorus is... Oops those pesky facts get in the way...

Monday, January 9, 2012

Military Spending Cuts

I want a strong military, just like the rest of us.

It is a liberal idea that by working together we can create something great.

In the case of the military; I believe that by our 50 states working together we do create something great.

Right now, we are talking about Obama cutting military spending.

Issue 1: If you look at the Republican response, they are up in arms.  However, that seems to be a trend.  They have been against all spending cuts, or revenue increases.  They are against the level of deficit and debt, but also against anything that would fix it.  The military was up-sized for two wars and the way we are fighting has been changing.  We don't need the same form of military.

Issue 2:  When I watched the Republicans blocking every job creating measure... and doing things aimed at creating uncertainty while Obama was President - so that they in Mitch McConnel's words could make him, "A one term President," I knew they Republicans were voting against America for a period of four years.

During those four years, every dollar of economic growth missed because jobs measures were not passed, was going to be a future cut because we would not rebuild the base of government revenue by kick-starting the economy.
(Search youtube for Romeny praising stimulus.  He liked what Obama was doing... until he realized he was running against Obama later.)

The military and government is a reflection of the strength of our economy.  Strong economy and we can afford big guns.  Big recession, tax revenue falls off a cliff and it looks like someone has been spending like crazy... but, nobody has been depositing in his bank!

So, watching Republicans block jobs measures, so they could keep unemployment high, and then regain congress and the White House, I said, "This is going to hit our military," and here it is.

Massive cuts are being locked in right now.

But, I'm not entirely against this.

Here is why.

1) When we have it we are more prone to use it.
2) Nobody has the guts to trim it back.  May as well trim it back some while Leon Penetta and Obama looking at budget numbers see that it is necessary.
3) Trimming the military creates a, "peace dividend," that helped Clinton balance the budget.  I think it works here.  I've also probably seen enough war this decade.
4) Under whose leadership do we need a military capable of carrying out two simultaneous wars in different countries?

I will go into this one further.

Obama used US force in Libya, but no boots on the ground.  The French and others had their boots on the ground and we used some air power.

Look, the assumption that we need all this power is based on the idea that we'd have to fight two wars alone.  Well... Iran is the only place aggressively posturing right now.  We aren't sure about North Korea since Kim Jong Il died... And as in the example above, it seems under Obama we have allies who will work with us.

What do I see already that gives hints for the future?

Well, we've gotten the foot in the door with the other nations.  They are making commitments to work with us on Iran and share the efforts.  It has begun with the sanctions.

China, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Europe... all trimming back oil purchases and other economic activity with Iran.  Saudi Arabia is turning up the nozzle of oil production to meet any demand that used to be covered by Iran.

First, if you agree with my premise that the strength of the military is only as good as the economy that builds it... that amount of economic force is about to demolish the military of Iran.

It is only a matter of time before they can't sustain much of anything.

Second, this is a military tactic that varies from the Bush administration.  They wanted, "shock and awe," and "annihilation" of the enemy.  They dropped a gazillion bombs on Iraqi people's heads, scared the piss out of them, and wondered why Iraqi's didn't like us.  Then they tried to kill everybody.  And we went in there almost entirely alone and lost allies we had along the way.

The tactic is attrition.  The depletion of the resource base that a military rests on.
In world war two, in Germany, we didn't necessarily go after all the German Air Union's airplanes in the sky.  We did a great job of bombing airplane factories.  We did a great job of bombing supply rail lines.  And the German war machine... well, it was powerful, but they literally ran out of gas.  Add to that, any plane we destroyed in the air was not being replaced after we blew up their factories.

Consider the specific case of Iran.  Iran exports crude oil, but imports refined oil.
They actually do not have strong refining capacity within their country.

How does that effect the equation?
For one, it supports the logic that Iran wants to move to nuclear power because they don't want to burn their chief export.
Number two, if we target their oil trade and have all these other countries on board, very shortly their economy will go into a free-fall greater than what happened in America under the financial crisis.  I mean a serious, serious free-fall.

I would not be surprised to see Iran come to the table sooner rather than later... after probably trying to show all sorts of signs at how powerful they are... which will occur on the cusp of them feeling the weakest.

A general once described to me.  We are either at peace, or conflict with a nation.  There is a spectrum of conflict, escalation of conflict, but if we are not at peace we are in conflict.

We are in conflict with Iran.  All options are on the table.

But, I ask you to consider this idea.

If we have a smaller military... and the world wants to take out the government of Iran... and they cannot say, "Oh the US will just take care of it..." do you think they are more likely to contribute to a cause they believe in?

By touting how we have the largest military in the world, we set the discourse globally that we don't need help.

With a smaller military, if produced right, we can be more effective than we are today.

With the impact on allies and how our leadership has contributed to cooperation with those we are at conflict with... we don't need the massive military.

With the war of attrition taking place first, prior to any war of annihilation of the enemy... given enough time... we might see the Iranian army crippled to the weakness of a balloon full of hot air.  (Loudest right as it pops.)

In the global system we exist in today, diplomacy, and our economic power can actually be far stronger than our military.

And if for example, by cutting military spending now, we can have less cuts on education... maybe we have a smarter populace, stronger economy because of that, and investments we make here give us the capacity for an even larger military in the future.

Lets consider the global context.

Russia is our greatest partner in outer space right now.  We can't demonize the Russians via propaganda.  Three of the six astronauts on the space station, working in great partnership with us, on a mission of shared national pride, are Russian.  We worked with 72 nations to build that.

More democracies are forming.  In the history of democracies, not one democracy has gone to war with another.

Democracies also move slower and need public opinion behind them and this lowers the frequency of war.

Saudi Arabia is a strong ally and instead of us building up a massive military in the middle east, we just completed a contract of a massive arms deal with them.  They bought all the equipment from us.  And their guns will be aimed at Iran.  There are other nations in that boat.

The straight of hormuz is heavily heavily defended by us, the French navy and others.  And if Iran blocked it, their economy would shut down entirely.  Most of Iran's products move through there.

Iraq's oil production is growing rapidly, so that source of tension may be weakened.  The US oil production has grown and higher efficiency and less driving during the recession means we are exporting oil... so... energy shock not so likely...

We've been providing liquidity to the European financial system so they don't crash...

China isn't going to attack us.  Look how many dollars they would loose.  They like our money, but they also like our products.  We are positioning the US military so that if China were to hit Hong Kong, or a smaller neighbor that they would like to own... we'll have bases there and they know they would be starting a larger conflict they wouldn't want to deal with.  (This is part of Obama's military restructuring plan to make less forces in Europe, more in Asian areas.)

On another note.  Romney's language towards China is a bit militant considering the context.
China has allowed it's currency to appreciate by about 30% based on our negotiations.

Each year it is either 4%, 8%... or 12% that it appreciates, but we can't force it.

And the only thing that separated this Great Recession from an all out depression was 1) Action to stop the free fall and 2) During the great depression the leaders created trade wars, which made things worse.

Romney's approach might create a trade war in a context where China has been moving in the direction they want us to showing that they are working with us.

[One more note of context.  China has to look out for it's people.  Chinese people are savers.  So any change in the value of their currency effects the dollars they have.  Allowing he Chinese currency to appreciate too quickly makes the value of all the money those people have saved worth nothing.  Inflation devalues the buying power of a currency in a place where everyone has saved and has actual dollars in the bank.

China is growing the economy now by creating infrastructure and pointing production towards internal markets.  Aka.  Selling more to Chinese people than to outside than before.  This is a weaning process that allows China to slowly appreciate the value of it's currency.  We force them to go too fast, we actually stop what is developing our markets over there.

So we want to allow things to flow as they are with regards to China.  Obama formed a trade block of all the Asian countries.  And we all setup lucrative deals that will benefit all of us.  I noticed that he met with the Chinese premier the day before at the White House, but that China was not invited to the Asian trade block.  So, Obama says... alright... right now we aren't happy with you so... we'll find some other partners.  We'll still trade with you, but we won't be expanding it until you play by the rules.

The Asian trade block action was also a hedge against possible crisis in Europe.  Europe is one of our biggest trading partners and their economy is in trouble.  So, Obama did the trade agreements to accelerate our trade with Asian nations as a counter balance.  Another wave of alliances are strengthened.

That is the context with regards to our largest future potential adversary]  

The global context has changed.  Before we went to war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was firing surface to air missiles at our jets that were enforcing our no fly zone.  We were in active conflict there.

But, who after that?  Who after Iran?

Syria?  Sure... the next door neighbor.

Already, Hezbollah is having major problems because Syria and Iran can't fund them with all the internal turmoil.

North Korea?  My sense is, they may want another 15 years to groom their new leader before they set him free on anything big.   Kim Jong Un might flex his muscles a bit with some action... but, so far... radio silence.  And after what happened to the leader of Iraq, Egypt, and maybe soon Iran and Syria... North Korea might just be in a mood to save their necks.

So, we invested in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We invested diplomatically around the globe.

Should we get a return on investment?

My belief... the best one would be the ability to have a smaller military.

Well, under the current realities of the government bank account... I think that is the only choice we have.

When you hear Republicans taking to the streets about Obama's military cuts.  I want you to notice one thing.  They have been against all cuts.  And all revenue increases.  Including, allowing the tax cuts for billionaires to expire a year after they were supposed to, so taxes return to normal levels.

So, no spending cuts, no tax increases - and Republicans are furious with this out of control spending and deficits... well... without spending cuts or revenue increases... there is no solution.  And they are just the party trying to assure that Obama is not elected.

In fact, if you search google for a chart of monthly government job losses, you will see that under Obama he has been shrinking the employment rolls of the public sector heavily since taking office.  So much for, "big government."  The data speaks for itself.

So - military spending cuts may take a dead-weight off the US government budget.
And part two, in none of the savings from health care reform have we factored in cost savings from 35 million people, or more, in the country that may now have better health care and overall might have better health in a decade or so.  That can save massive amounts of money.  Health care is 17% of the GDP of the country.

So... I am seeing a formula where over time... with increased revenue due to a growing economy... decreased spending... and (pppsssst on more scary thing) inflation... we'll be ok.

Eek - I just introduced inflation!

Well, year 2013, 2014... at some point soon I expect it.  Buy your large assets now.  Your dollar will go further now.  And if you pay $1400 on a mortgage now, you will when there are more dollars available and the costs of houses go up and everyone else is paying $2000.  Get your main assets now.

But, one more detail.  Yeah... we have a huge debt.  Sure.

But, we've gotten incredibly low interest rates on it.  We are paying almost nothing to people who invest in treasuries and our government got free money.  (Most of the debt we take on is from Americans, not China.  And a lot of it is IOU's from the social security trust fund because social security creates a surplus every year.)

And - what did I saw about China? Inflation would devalue the currency people held in their bank accounts.  Hmm... Inflation here would devalue the relative cost of the debt.  More dollars will be flying around all over the place, which causes market prices to go up (that's how inflation works), and our debt just doesn't bite that much anymore.

So, in the larger context here.  With the military cuts and overall approach to the balance sheet.  I think we are headed in the right direction.  The change won't happen over night, but it will be dramatic.

And if Romney is elected, he will get credit for the budget numbers you see described above.
And in about 2016 I will be pointing you to a little blog post where I said, "hey, the US budget is going to be just fine in a few years... and whomever we elect as President will get the credit for Obama putting us in the right direction."

Well, watch and see.  I have a knack for predicting the future.

The Future is Now - ISS

The International Space Station - Earthrise

As I thought about the 100 billion dollar space station, orbiting the Earth today - with six astronauts on board. The product of 72 different nations working together. I wondered... what are they working on?

 What are they studying? 

It seems that a top goal is to test technology that will allow humans to explore space without receiving supplies from Earth.

All water is recycled... Oxygen reused... and slowly the technology is developing so cargo ships may not need to resupply humans where they live in space.

 Not long ago - crossing America meant some of the people we went with would die along the journey. Now, we are perfecting living in space.

A good place to see more interesting photos is the ISS calendar!

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Global Climate Change

At a show, I just spoke to two PHD level NASA climate scientists.  One was mentored directly through his PHD program by the man supplying the main data against climate change.  Both are still close.  The man stated that the data against climate change cannot be shown.  The source can not be given.  And it comes from such an obscure location that apparently it is unavailable to even top NASA scientists.

NASA climate scientists are in 100% agreement on global climate change because they have tremendous data, over time, from temperature imaging.  Not even individual data points.  In the way that an infra-red camera can see temperature through walls, or night vision goggles can see at night - NASA can look at temperature (and X-rays, Gamma rays...etc).

Here is the data between 2001 and 2011.  In the context of the period of time between 1950 and 1980 where temperature changed .6 degrees.

Here is a video of NASA data on ice retreating in Greenland.  Look on a map for the location of Greenland.  You will see it is in a zone where temperature went up 4 degrees.

Note the areas over Russia where temperature over the last decade increased by 4 degrees.
2011 and 2010 looked about the same for Russia during the summers.  The most extreme heat wave in over 1000 years.

Russia, previously a climate change skeptic (who happens to have massive amounts of oil they want to make money from) has now leapt to a leadership role in changing their impact on the environment and persuading others to work to prevent climate change.

Here is a Discovery News story.  Look at the satellite images of the smoke.  Watch the video in full screen and see if you can get a feel for why they might have changed their tune.

You can search the temperature imaging data here by setting your own conditions/data criteria.

The environmental protection agency has this tool for you to calculate your own emissions and ideas for things you can adjust.

For a complete set of all the data GISS puts out go here.

Friday, January 6, 2012

It Sounds Healthy!

It Sounds Healthy, but You Have To Ask
When you see a fruit smoothie advertised at a booth in the mall.  Stop.  
Are you seeing reality... or the appeal of fruit and the thought of health - being used for marketing.

What do I mean by this?
I almost bought a "fruit" smoothie the other day.  And I asked the man if there was any fruit in the strawberry kiwi smoothie.  He quickly said, "no." 

So wait a minute.  Do we want to buy something because it tastes like kiwi.  Or, do we want to buy something for the health benefits. 

I am going to look for the chemical compound that is created in a lab to generate kiwi flavor and post it later.  If you find it first.  Post in comments please.  

Here is a sample of all sorts of Kiwi flavored things.
Looks like kiwi.  The photos are of kiwis... but, doesn't it say kiwi flavor?  Not... kiwi?
Here is a really interesting twist.  For fake electronic cigarettes to help you be more healthy by quitting smoking... you can get fake kiwi flavor.

Here is the chemical yellow pages.  You can order all sorts of fruit flavored chemicals by part number.
Hmmmm... why aren't Americans all healthy?

Here is an article on the health benefits of Wasabi.  The benefits are followed by a statement that in America they use green food coloring on horse-raddish... what???

Fooled again!

But, next time you see something that you think might be healthy stop.  Think for a moment.  Then ask.  Is that really made of what should be healthy? 

Feb 22nd 2012: Boston Market smoothies are apparently made of real fruit.  Can't promise it is healthy, but calories are low too.

Other examples:
Salads.  First off, don't go with non-fat dressing they are all awful.  You should enjoy your salad.  
Get the regular dressing.  However, make a choice after that.  

Get the dressing on the side and use about 1/3rd of what they give you.  

When I worked salads in a restaurant during high school I learned that some servings of dressing have 32grams of fat.  A huge portion of your entire day's fat, while you are trying to be healthy. 

So when you see a salad.  Go for the best dressing you can find.  Then use 1/3rd of it and you will be much healthier.

The first bite is the one your tongue can sense the most.  So, early on in your salad get a bite with a lot of dressing and then it will all taste like the dressing.

So the illusion is that the salad you bought to be healthy is healthy.  The reality is, you need to manage this closer because they have counteracted your best and healthiest intentions.  

Fat free items
I am working on understanding this more deeply.  But, from what I have learned.  When the fat free revolution took place that is when we all began to get much fatter.  

First, I am skinny as a rail and I eat all the fat I can find everywhere.  
Yes, I am intensely active and can burn things off... but, what is happening here?
Why when everyone was not concerned with the fat content of the food - early 1970's was everyone thinner?  

From my understanding insulin plays a large role in food being converted to fat in the body.  I use that loosely because it is particular forms of sugars that are involved...etc. 
The biggest problem is eating between meals.  That causes an insulin spike when it needs to be moderating.
During that spike between meals you get your food sticking to your body as fat.

But, what if you are eating a regular meal... and your fat free item replaces the fat with something else? 
Like for example, sugar? 

Well, fat is the flavor.  So, to improve the flavor after taking out the fat... salt... maybe some other chemicals manufactured to taste like something... and sugar are the options for replacing flavor.

The sugars will spike your insulin.  Engaging the mechanism for storing energy as fat.

So less fat in the food.  More fat sticking to your body... huh?

Confusing as hell eh?  

How many people have it right.  Look around and see who has a belly and watch their choices.  


Benjamin Corey Feinblum
Here is a list of some of the most unhealthy!