Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Why Are We So Afraid of Failure?

In the era where every kid wins a trophy for competing, we are a society focused on making sure people / children have successes. Hence, we are not pushing kids and forcing them face failures. Nothing prepares us more in life than dealing with failures and adversity. This is what makes us better and stronger people and ultimately defines our personality. While other nations around the globe push their children to face failures, we have become the politically correct nation that does not want to challenge kids – it has become offensive and abusive to push children to face failures. In fact, most schools and teachers only care if our kids meet a “minimum” set of watered down requirements in only reading, writing, and math. Our school system is not designed to “maximize” test scores or overall knowledge.

It seems everything is watered down these days so kids and schools feel successful – requirements are lowered (affirmative action is one example) and tests are easier. Parents and teachers do not have the time or the patience to push their kids. Government funding, such as Title I, are there to help under-performing students – no federal monies are designated for over-performing students. This is partly the problem of our school system which is a one size fits all philosophy. It is based on the philosophy all kids learn at the same rate and in the same manner. This is far from the truth.

I have worked with kids in our school system and I want to push them and challenge them. But once it gets too hard they cry and I cannot get parents or teachers to reinforce what I am teaching them. I find it very frustrating but do not want to hurt anyone feelings since I am just a volunteer. Therefore, each year I conform and scale back my expectations. It is hard to do especially when dealing with kids who have so much potential.

Everyone, who lives long enough, will face adversity and failure. It is how we learn to deal with adversity and failure is what will define our persona. It is what will define if we are doing everything in our power to become a better person and live a better life.

In fact, in life, we should face many more failures than successes if we are truly pushing ourselves.

Failure is only a bad thing if we continually make the same mistakes over and over. For instance, this is why I despise big government because they continually make the same mistakes over and over again (Romney Care to Obama Care, adding another entitlement like Obama Care when other entitlements are bankrupting our country, and so forth).

If we want to succeed in the future, our school system needs to push kids to achieve excellence even if it means they must fail along the way.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Can Christie Beat Clinton in 2016?

It may be possible. As Democrats continue to sink in the latest polls since the ObamaCare lie and rollout, Hillary Clinton is still viewed favorably and would crush most Republican hopefuls if the election were held today (a favorable GOP environment). However, Chris Christie is polling very well and could beat Clinton today. If the polls are correct Paul, Cruz, Ryan, and Bush would lose to Clinton by margins greater than Obama’s victory over Romney and maybe even greater than Obama’s margin over McCain. However, polls show Christie beating Clinton in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado – All States won by handily by Obama (at least 5 points). This means Clinton would win the Electoral College 270 to 268 (and this includes having Christie losing both Ohio and Florida). One CNN poll had Clinton beating Christie by 1 point in Ohio and if Christie could win a state like New Hampshire or Nevada (and there have been no polls yet for NH and NV) he would win the White House. Below is a list of the 2016 election polls since Christie won the NJ Governorship on November 5th:

Poll

Polling Company

Result

Advantage

North Carolina: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 45, Clinton 42

Christie +3

North Carolina: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Paul 44

Clinton +4

North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 46, Bush 45

Clinton +1

North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 49, Cruz 41

Clinton +8

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 42, Clinton 41

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Paul 41

Clinton +7

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Bush 39

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Cruz 37

Clinton +13

Michigan: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 43, Christie 40

Clinton +3

Michigan: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Paul 39

Clinton +9

Michigan: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 46, Bush 42

Clinton +4

Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 49, Cruz 38

Clinton +11

New Jersey: Christie vs. Clinton

Monmouth

Christie 46, Clinton 43

Christie +3

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Christie 45, Clinton 48

Clinton +3

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 55, Paul 40

Clinton +15

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 56, Ryan 40

Clinton +16

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 53, Bush 41

Clinton +12

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 52, Rubio 42

Clinton +10

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

McClatchy/Marist

Clinton 57, Cruz 35

Clinton +22

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 46, Clinton 39

Christie +7

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Paul 47, Clinton 45

Paul +2

Colorado: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 47, Bush 43

Clinton +4

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Cruz 45

Clinton +3

Iowa: Christie vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Christie 43, Clinton 38

Christie +5

Iowa: Paul vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Paul 41

Clinton +6

Iowa: Ryan vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 46, Ryan 43

Clinton +3

Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 45, Rubio 41

Clinton +4

Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Cruz 40

Clinton +7

Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 42, Christie 41

Clinton +1

Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Paul 40

Clinton +10

Ohio: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Ryan 41

Clinton +8

Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Bush 37

Clinton +13

Ohio: Rubio vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 48, Rubio 39

Clinton +9

Ohio: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Cruz 35

Clinton +15

Pennsylvania: Christie vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Christie 48, Clinton 44

Christie +4

Pennsylvania: Paul vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 51, Paul 43

Clinton +8

Pennsylvania: Bush vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 48, Bush 44

Clinton +4

Pennsylvania: Cruz vs. Clinton

PPP (D)

Clinton 53, Cruz 41

Clinton +12

Virginia: Christie vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Christie 44, Clinton 42

Christie +2

Virginia: Paul vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 50, Paul 43

Clinton +7

Virginia: Cruz vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 51, Cruz 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 45, Christie 41

Clinton +4

Florida: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 51, Paul 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Bush vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 47, Bush 45

Clinton +2

Florida: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Ryan 42

Clinton +8

Florida: Rubio vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 50, Rubio 43

Clinton +7

Florida: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 52, Cruz 36

Clinton +16

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 46, Clinton 38

Christie +8

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Paul 47, Clinton 44

Paul +3

Colorado: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Ryan 45, Clinton 43

Ryan +2

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 44, Cruz 44

Tie

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Christie 43, Clinton 42

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Paul 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 49, Ryan 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Quinnipiac

Clinton 51, Cruz 36

Clinton +15

Friday, December 13, 2013

2012 Election Model: House Races

In the last post I modeled the change in turn out from 2008 to 2012 (at the county level) to see if there was any statistical significance with electorate demographics and economic factors for the presidential race. In this post, I performed the same regression analysis, but instead on the House races. House races, like the Presidency, are on the ballot for every U.S. citizens. On the other hand, governor and Senate races are harder to evaluate for trends because not every seat is up for election during presidential election cycles. Of course, all house seats were up for election during 2010, but this analysis will only look at the voter difference between 2012 and 2008 House races because the turnout is more comparable and much higher than mid-term elections. In fact, the turn-out between 2008 and 2012, though smaller, was very similar demographically – The ideological breakdown favored Democrats in 2008 by +7 and in 2012 by +6; Minorities made up 26% of electorate in 2008 and 28% of the electorate in 2012; and women made up 53% of the electorate in 2008 and 2012. In both cases the economy was also in bad shape. Here is the breakdown:

Age – Just as in the Presidential race, there was plenty of statistical significance, but the results were inconclusive. For males the Democrats had strong statistical significance in 5 age segments, but weak significance in 8 whereas the Republicans has strong significance in 6 age segments and weak significance in 5. On the female side the Democrats were strong in 6 and weak in 5 and the Republicans were strong in 4 and weak in 4 others. Overall the trend was a bit more favorable to Republicans as one would suspect since they won a majority of the vote.

Race – The results were surprising here. Democrats showed not only weak significance among Whites, but with African Americans! Not surprisingly, Democrats were strong with Hispanics. Republicans, on the other hand, had strong significance with Whites and weak significance among Asians and Hispanics.

Income and Employment – Republicans had strong statistical significance among the wealthy and the Democrats among the poor, but there was no correlation along employment status for either group. In other words, the economy had no impact on voters’ decisions.

Gender – Surprising, there was no gender gap that is evident in the Presidential race. There is absolutely no evidence that women overwhelmingly support Democrats and men overwhelmingly support Republicans.

Education – Republicans had strong significance with all demographic groups with at least a high school diploma. Republicans had weak significance with those who did not have a high school diploma. However, surprisingly, the Democrats had significance with any groups.

Food Stamps – People who did not collect food stamps overwhelmingly voted against Democrats, but other than that there was no other statistical significance.

Marriage – No surprise here, married folks broke heavily for Republicans, but single family household showed no statistical significance towards Democrats or Republicans.

So how did Republicans hold the House and win a majority of the vote while Obama defeated Romney by 3.5 points? There are several key differences in voting trends for the Presidency and the House. First, African-Americans may be more likely to abstain from voting in House races. Secondly, women are more likely to vote for a Republican. Thirdly, people on food stamps are also more likely to abstain from voting in House elections.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

How ObamaCare Infringes on Our Freedoms and Rights

Liberals claim that healthcare is a right of all human beings. But ObamaCare, or for that matter any government run healthcare system, is the antithesis of supplying the populous a human freedom or right.

Nobody likes being told what to do or how to think. And this is what makes America great; everyone has the right or freedom to choose what they want do and how we think. ObamaCare takes away many of the freedoms we have because it takes away our right to choose. Here are several reasons as to why ObamaCare takes away our freedoms and rights:

  • ObamaCare rules and mandates dictate what healthcare coverage we must choose and therefore, cancels our plans of choice if they do not meet the criteria of the law. For instance, old people need to have maternity coverage and young people need to have mental and chronic disease coverage.
  • ObamaCare increases the cost of most insurance plans because it reduces competition, especially across state lines.
  • ObamaCare dictates, in many cases, what doctors and hospitals we must use.
  • ObamaCare decreases competition, and in many cases, people only have one or two insurance companies to choose from. In fact, ObamaCare is the first step to a single payer system in the U.S. And of course a government run single payer system will have absolutely no competition or choice for Americans to choose from. This is ironic since most liberals hate corporate monopolies and created the Sherman Antitrust Act to prevent such cases – another liberal hypocrisy.
  • ObamaCare fines people who choose not to have health insurance because they are young and healthy.
  • ObamaCare fails to treat Americans equally. One reason ObamaCare is over 2000 pages long is because there are many exceptions to laws, rules, mandates, and provisions within the law. For instance, people belonging to unions receive better coverage at lower rates than non-union members. In other words, the law picks winners and losers and that is not a freedom or right; that is an injustice and sham to win votes. There is no question that the winners from this law are the individuals, groups, and companies who had the money to pay for lawyers to lobby for them.

The bottom line is that ObamaCare is simply unfair to most Americans because it infringes on their right and freedom to choose healthcare insurance, doctors, and hospitals of their choice.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Liberal Extortion

Extortion is illegal, but liberals have found a way to legalize it – at least for them to win elections. One definition of extortion is the illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage. Patronage is defined as the power to distribute or appoint people to governmental or political positions.

Democrats cry foul over rulings such as Citizens United allowing companies and groups to donate as much money as they want (no cap) to political candidates. They are afraid this may yield an unfair advantage to Republicans who are largely supported by corporations. But in the 2012 election Democrats far outraised Republicans. This is mainly due to the fact that Wall Street also backs Democrats and Democrats have a huge advantage in contribution from union factions. In fact, Democrats held nearly a 5 to 1 advantage in funding in the recent Virginia governor’s race. However, in actuality, the funding advantage for Democrats is much greater than what it appears on paper.

Let’s think about this further. Democrats use taxpayer money every single day of the year to buy (extort) votes from the American public to win political elections. State and federal governments spent nearly one trillion dollars this past year on anti-poverty spending. And the people who collect these monies overwhelmingly vote democratic. Sure, it is true the wealthy support Republicans, but there are only a few of them. Nearly half of the American populous receives some sort of government subsidy whereas the top 10% of earners pay for these benefits. To compound matters people collecting food stamps can have earnings 4 times higher than the poverty rate – hence, a large population qualifies for this subsidy.

In a recent election model I ran, the most conclusive reason as to why President Obama won reelection was due to food stamps. There was a high statistical significance between people voting for Obama and people collecting food stamps. Under Obama the food stamp program has doubled in both revenue and populous. And people collecting food stamps were more likely to turn up at the polls. In other words, Obama won the election by extorting votes by expanding entitlement spending. And he and liberals are attempting to do the same thing with ObamaCare.

What’s worse, the model I ran showed no statistical significance to other economic indicators. Unemployed or underemployed people were not more likely to vote for Romney. What this means is that people were okay with being unemployed as long as they continued to receive their welfare checks. Yes, that is right, welfare checks were more important to people than getting a job! Liberals understand this concept and use it to extort votes. It is hard to compete against a Party that has funding at its disposal equivalent to 7% of GDP to win elections.

And to compound matters, one trillion dollars in anti-poverty spending is enough money to completely wipe out poverty (15% of Americans who live below the poverty line). However, when Democrats spread the wealth around to 50% of the American public the result is that poverty continues to grow and persist, but the Democrats win more votes.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Our Beggar-In-Chief

How low has the President stooped over the past several years (and I do not mean approval numbers)? He has evolved from whining, blaming, deceit, excuses, and lying to the lowest form or trait of liberalism – begging! Obama is begging people to sign up for ObamaCare on the campaign trail. Yes, Obama is no different than that person begging for money on a street corner. In fact, Obama is worse, because he is actually using taxpayer money and the media sensationalism to target and sell his abysmal law.

If healthcare is right, then why do people have to pay for it and why don’t people want to sign up for it? Because it is not a human right! People are expressing their right of freedom to choose and buy what they want. Rights are not something tangible, but something every person living in America is born with. The right of freedom to live their life anyway they see fit and the right to express their opinions openly and freely. Every person in the United States is afforded the same opportunity to use their rights to be what they want to be. Sure, some people face more adversity than others, but it how we deal with those adversities is what defines us. And usually people who overcome more adversity as a youth end up becoming the better person later in life and have a positive impact on society. Adversity is bad, but everyone who lives long enough will face it so it is imperative that people learn to deal with it in a positive matter. It is easy to give in or give up because times are tough, but winners will overcome and be better for it. That is what life is about; there is nothing easy in life if you are doing it right. Life is a challenge and good people continually push themselves to get better. A person should have the right be able to choose if they want to eat McDonalds every day, or if they want to buy healthcare from the ObamaCare system. A human right is the right to choose and unfortunately ObamaCare takes away human rights – people are losing their affordable plans, doctors, and hospitals of choice. ObamaCare is the antithesis of a human right.

How many CEO’s do you see making commercials begging people to try their product? If you have a good product you merely only have to show it is available and explain what it can do. People will buy the product – For example, Ipads, Iphones, computers, TVs, etc. Obama is begging because he is desperate simply since he’s selling a bad product. The commercials for ObamaCare have been worse because they are riddled with misinformation and bad storylines trying sell the product.

Sure, I believe the responsible thing for people to do is to have health insurance – but we do not need ObamaCare (thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and government control) for that to happen. I also do not believe in eating fast food or junk food, but that does mean I have the right to say others cannot choose this route.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Obama’s Work Ethic Epitomizes Liberalism

It is obvious that Obama’s foreign and domestic policies mimic liberalism to a tee. Whether it is the trillion dollar stimulus, entitlement spending including ObamaCare, massive deficit spending, or the na├»ve foreign policy that he can negotiate with terrorists and or rogue nations – these Obama policies are liberalism at its best.

All of that said the way Obama runs his White House also epitomizes liberalism. Here are some common work habits (tricks) of a liberal:

Liberals claim to care about others, but in actuality liberals are all about themselves (actions speak louder than words – for instance see how much a liberal donates to charity). And nobody is more narcissistic than Obama. Think about it; how does Obama spend most of his time as president? The answer to that is campaigning! Even though Obama is term limited, he still spends most of his time campaigning and raising money. In fact, he spent more energy creating a metadata system to help him win elections than what was put into creating the ObamaCare website. Liberals are all about helping others just so long as it does not create any sacrifices on their part. What did Obama do after the Benghazi attack? He got a plane to attend a campaign fundraiser in Nevada. What’s worse, playing golf and basketball are also more important than going to national security meetings.

Another liberal flaw is their inability to be accountable and responsible. No president has blamed their predecessor more than Obama. Today, Obama is blaming Republicans for his flawed roll out of ObamaCare. In fact, Obama has claimed to have known nothing about major scandals within his administration: Fast and Furious, IRS targeting conservative non-profit groups, DOJ targeting conservative journalists, EPA targeting conservative non-profit groups, the Benghazi terrorist attack, NSA spying, and the gross failure of the ObamaCare website, and so forth. I believe this to be true, because liberals are great at being unaccountable for the actions of people who work for them. And if all of this is not bad enough, not one person has been held accountable for any of the Obama administration great screw ups. Nobody has been fired or sent to prison for breaking any rules, regulations, or laws in the Obama administration.

Liberals are also great at creating a crisis to deflect attention or using a crisis to win public favorability. Obama clearly used the Newtown massacre to push for gun control and he was willing to have the government shutdown to avert attention from the failed ObamaCare rollout.

Liberals also like to bend the rules in their favor. No one has flipped flopped more on policy than Obama. Obama has changed his position on the debt ceiling, NSA metadata, drone strikes, trade agreements, filibusters, civil liberties for terrorists, and campaign financing, to name a few. Obama has defied the Constitution and moved unilaterally to go to war (Libya), create czar positions with no congressional oversight, and to change parts of legislation without congressional approval (he has done this numerous times concerning ObamaCare provisions such as the corporate mandate).

The final liberal trait possessed by Obama that epitomizes liberalism is the ability to lie and make excuses. No president since Nixon and Clinton has been caught in more lies. Whether it was the Benghazi cover story or all the lies about the ObamaCare law, the Obama administration is full of excuses, lies, and misinformation. Liberals continuously change the meaning the words to appease their ideology and ego. They will do anything possible to win elections – that is all that matters.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Liberal Words Versus Actions

ObamaCare is a great example of how liberal actions are much different than their words. Now that liberals have seen how the new healthcare law works (and they would have known this had they read the legislation), they are against the law. Why? Because it affects them personally! Sure, liberals say they want everyone to get healthcare coverage and claim it is a human right. That is fine and dandy but liberals did not expect that the law would affect them personally in a negative manner – higher rates, dropped plans, dropped doctors and care providers, and so forth.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped nearly 10 points (now in the high 30 percent range) since ObamaCare implementation started. And the only way this could have occurred is if Democrats have turned on Obama. This also explains why the liberal media has been covering the shortcomings of the healthcare law – because the law has also affected the people working for these outlets negatively.

A majority of liberals will say they support morally superior ideas: higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for entitlements; saving the planet by going green; gun control; multiculturalism; and so forth. But actions speak louder than words. Liberals would be appalled if they were held to the same carbon emission standards as corporations. Can you imagine the outrage if big brother was not only monitoring but placing limits on carbon emissions for each person? Liberals want more wind farms but they do not want them in their backyard. We have already seen from ObamaCare that most liberals are not okay with the idea of sacrificing their healthcare plans and costs to pay for someone else’s healthcare. Liberals may say the morally correct thing, but they expect other people to make the sacrifices to achieve their ideological goals.

Why is this true? We live in the era of the narcissist (you need to look no further than social media outlets to witness narcissism). Everyone is out for themselves. Liberals claim to care about others and say conservatives hate the poor, minorities, the planet, and so forth. None of this is true because a majority of liberals are hypocrites. It is easy to ask other people (such as the wealthy) to pay more taxes because it does not affect them.

I have no business or right to expect another group, organization, company, or individual to make sacrifices that I am not willing to implement on myself. This is a simple rule to live by and would make America a much less divisive place to live.

I do not care what a person’s political ideology is, but I expect that person to practice what they preach.