It is a sad day when I am actually more in agreement with the French government and the German government and Europe in general than I am with my own country's President. President is pushing such socialist agendas that the European Union's head, when asked about how he felt about Obama's ecomonic proposals, replied they are the "road to hell". Switzerland, which is a fairly socialist country, has been refusing to get involved with the Swiss automaker Saab, essentially stating that the getting involved in the auto industry is not the government's job.
President Obama, on the other hand, has decided to get the U.S. involved as much as possible. For the first time ever, the U.S. government forced out a private corporation CEO, G.M.'s Rick Waggoner. The decision not to oust the UAW's head, Ron Gettelfinger, makes me question where Obama's motives lie. If it is a new direction that G.M. needs, why should just the executives be held accountable? In my opinion Gettelfinger is just as responsible for G.M.'s position today as Waggoner.
The most pressing quesitons is, why does President Obama think that it is the government's job to ensure nobody ever faces unemployment? It has been reported that the Obama administration will get involved with determining what types and models of cars should be sold by the nation's automakers. How do these things show any sort of respect for even the basic functions of the marketplace?
On another side note, the State of Iowa's legislature is trying to remove the Federal Income Tax deduction from the state's income tax form. This would result in increases in taxes for almost half of Iowa's families, REGARDLESS OF TAX BRACKET. I don't think anybody who looks at this objectively, right or left, would see this as a good idea.
It has been a sad day.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
the 912 project
Hello everybody,
I know it has been a few days since I updated. Sorry about that. I was out of the country for a while with no internet.
I would like to encourage anybody reading this blog to visit the website for the 9/12 project. This is a project designed with the purpose of getting those in power in this country to realize we expect more from them. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike are screwing over this country, and we need the leadership to understand that the American people will not stand for this kind of stuff anymore. Do a little research on the project, and if you agree with the 9 principles and the 12 values, I encourage you to join.
I know it has been a few days since I updated. Sorry about that. I was out of the country for a while with no internet.
I would like to encourage anybody reading this blog to visit the website for the 9/12 project. This is a project designed with the purpose of getting those in power in this country to realize we expect more from them. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike are screwing over this country, and we need the leadership to understand that the American people will not stand for this kind of stuff anymore. Do a little research on the project, and if you agree with the 9 principles and the 12 values, I encourage you to join.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Global Warming and the President.
First things first. I am still working on my stimulus plan, as it turns out to be pretty complicated with some of the logic and calculations involved. But, it is on the way.
Well, here is my question: Should the government really be as focused on climate change policies right now, with the economy in a tailspin (The Dow is below 7000, less than half of what it was at its peak last year), Iran pushing hard for nuclear weapons (here & here), and a growing movement within the scientific community (here & here) that argues that climate change is not what Al Gore has led us to believe? There are some major economic negatives that would result from the so-called cap & trade approach that President Obama is so strongly advocating. There are some real advantages to "clean" energy, in that most of them can be produced here in the U.S., moving us closer to energy independence. However, for real energy independence, all of our energy sources must be utilized, including our own oil reserves and our coal (the U.S. is like the middle east of coal). If we allowed U.S. companies to go after all of these energy sources, that could be very beneficial in the long run. Unfortunately, President Obama's absolute acceptance of global warming is forcing him to put harsh restrictions on our most valuable energy sources (oil and coal). In today's world, is this acceptance really going to do us that much good?
As always, comments are welcome and encouraged.
Well, here is my question: Should the government really be as focused on climate change policies right now, with the economy in a tailspin (The Dow is below 7000, less than half of what it was at its peak last year), Iran pushing hard for nuclear weapons (here & here), and a growing movement within the scientific community (here & here) that argues that climate change is not what Al Gore has led us to believe? There are some major economic negatives that would result from the so-called cap & trade approach that President Obama is so strongly advocating. There are some real advantages to "clean" energy, in that most of them can be produced here in the U.S., moving us closer to energy independence. However, for real energy independence, all of our energy sources must be utilized, including our own oil reserves and our coal (the U.S. is like the middle east of coal). If we allowed U.S. companies to go after all of these energy sources, that could be very beneficial in the long run. Unfortunately, President Obama's absolute acceptance of global warming is forcing him to put harsh restrictions on our most valuable energy sources (oil and coal). In today's world, is this acceptance really going to do us that much good?
As always, comments are welcome and encouraged.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Self-reliant? Not so much
Independence. Freedom. Self-reliance. Rugged individualism. These used to be words that described the American spirit. Nobody expected anything that they didn't earn. All anybody wanted was the chance to make it on their own, and for the government to stay out of their way. This was a central idea in the United States. People just wanted the chance to make it on the basis of their own ideas and talents. And in reality, why should we ask for more.
I said these used to be words that described the American spirit. Now? It is hard to tell. People have decided that it is their RIGHT to have "free" health care provided by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a job secured by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a comfortable lifestyle guaranteed by the government. It is their RIGHT to be able to have the biggest house they want, even if they cannot afford it. Why have we reached this point?
This idea absolutely irritates me. In order for all of these "rights" to be guaranteed, we will have to give the government unprecedented levels of control over our lives, as well as authorize them to spend unprecedented amounts of money. Newsflash: Life has hard times people. It is a part of life. The government cannot stop this. The path we are on now is merely going to create temporary (if at all successful) solutions while creating much bigger problems farther down the road. When the extremely moderate (if not leftist) Senator John McCain is denouncing the recently passed stimulus package as one that is "stealing from our children", it is clear that these so-called solutions are not really solving anything.
Every time President Obama says that the government MUST ACT NOW! because Americans are going through hard times, I ask myself why? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that Americans are losing jobs and having to make difficult decisions. But I also understand that at the moment unemployment is less than a third of what it was during the depression. It isn't even in double digits yet. I can't help but feel the President and the actions of Congress are in fact doing more harm than good. Lets put this in perspective. The Great Depression essentially lasted the entire decade of the 30's, and was only fixed by WWII. There is a very strong argument that the depression would have been much, much shorter if it was not for the "New Deal" policies of the Roosevelt administration. We are heading down the same road. Why don't we as a country face the hard times, scale back a little bit, and endure this crisis based on our own abilities?
So, you ask, what is my solution? We obviously cannot let the economy just go the way it has been. Okay, we are in agreement. The government's current solutions are not the answer. The answer, my friends, will be revealed soon, on this very blog. Probably sometime next week. I am dead serious when I say that I will want to take this idea nationwide. When I reveal it, I will want feedback, but more importantly, I will want ideas about how to spread it, and help spreading it. This idea will return to individuals the ability to control their own destiny again, and rely less upon the government for this help. Be on the lookout, and know that answers are on the way.
I said these used to be words that described the American spirit. Now? It is hard to tell. People have decided that it is their RIGHT to have "free" health care provided by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a job secured by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a comfortable lifestyle guaranteed by the government. It is their RIGHT to be able to have the biggest house they want, even if they cannot afford it. Why have we reached this point?
This idea absolutely irritates me. In order for all of these "rights" to be guaranteed, we will have to give the government unprecedented levels of control over our lives, as well as authorize them to spend unprecedented amounts of money. Newsflash: Life has hard times people. It is a part of life. The government cannot stop this. The path we are on now is merely going to create temporary (if at all successful) solutions while creating much bigger problems farther down the road. When the extremely moderate (if not leftist) Senator John McCain is denouncing the recently passed stimulus package as one that is "stealing from our children", it is clear that these so-called solutions are not really solving anything.
Every time President Obama says that the government MUST ACT NOW! because Americans are going through hard times, I ask myself why? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that Americans are losing jobs and having to make difficult decisions. But I also understand that at the moment unemployment is less than a third of what it was during the depression. It isn't even in double digits yet. I can't help but feel the President and the actions of Congress are in fact doing more harm than good. Lets put this in perspective. The Great Depression essentially lasted the entire decade of the 30's, and was only fixed by WWII. There is a very strong argument that the depression would have been much, much shorter if it was not for the "New Deal" policies of the Roosevelt administration. We are heading down the same road. Why don't we as a country face the hard times, scale back a little bit, and endure this crisis based on our own abilities?
So, you ask, what is my solution? We obviously cannot let the economy just go the way it has been. Okay, we are in agreement. The government's current solutions are not the answer. The answer, my friends, will be revealed soon, on this very blog. Probably sometime next week. I am dead serious when I say that I will want to take this idea nationwide. When I reveal it, I will want feedback, but more importantly, I will want ideas about how to spread it, and help spreading it. This idea will return to individuals the ability to control their own destiny again, and rely less upon the government for this help. Be on the lookout, and know that answers are on the way.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Hey! An update!
Well, first of all, let me apologize for failing to update this bad boy for a number of weeks. I have been incredibly busy with class or work. This, however, is no excuse and I hope to be better in the future. Maybe not posting every day, but at least a couple of times a week.
I have been incredibly tempted to rant and rail on the so-called stimulus package. But to what end? Instead, I have been working on my own economy fixing idea that, should I get the support of the proper individuals, I intend to try and get out into the public debate and maybe get the attention of some of our lawmakers. This idea is so unique that I doubt it has occurred to anyone. However, it is also incredibly simple. Look for more on it in the coming week.
So, what is the topic for today? The push by Senator Boxer (D-California) for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. treaty on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a treaty passed in 1989. A link to the original convention can be found here. I read through most of it, and a lot of it sounds good on the surface. However, there is a reason that the U.S.A is alone with Somalia as being the only nations not to ratify the treaty, and pretty much every family rights organization in America is oppossed to its passage. It presents a major threat to two different things: 1.) U.S. sovereignty & 2.) Parent's rights. As per Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by the U.S. government are binding over the laws of the state and federal governments of the country. For example, lets say that the commission decides that corporal punishment is inhumane. This means that parents would not longer be allowed to spank their kids. (When California, one of the most liberal states in the country, could not get legislation passed to ban spanking, it is indicative of the punishment's importance to American parents.) This is a very real possibility. In some cultures, it may not be necessary for spanking. I do not know. What I do know is that I do not want France, or Venezuela, or just Europe in general to be deciding how I will be raising my kids someday.
The fact that Senator Boxer is pushing so hard for us to pass this treaty, which has remained stagnant after former president Bill Clinton signed it but the U.S. Senate refused to pass it, is both the epitome of arrogance and incredibly insulting. "Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face"was what she said, which to me implies that she thinks our refusal to ratify this treaty is the cause of the acid in the face problem. I doubt our decision to refuse to ratify the treaty has caused the acid throwers to say "oh, the USA didn't ratify the treaty, it must be alright to throw this acid in this little girl's face." Give me a break.
The other really annoying thing about this is the fact that the United Nations is involved. Why should we ever be signing our sovereignty over to that pitiful organization? Between the rabid anti-American ideology, the Security Council, Kofi Annan (research oil-for-food), and the raping peacekeepers, just to name a few of the MANY U.N. problems, have we not had enough of the United Nations? Why would we give them control over the rights of our parents?
I, for one, do not want the United Nations raising my future kids.
I have been incredibly tempted to rant and rail on the so-called stimulus package. But to what end? Instead, I have been working on my own economy fixing idea that, should I get the support of the proper individuals, I intend to try and get out into the public debate and maybe get the attention of some of our lawmakers. This idea is so unique that I doubt it has occurred to anyone. However, it is also incredibly simple. Look for more on it in the coming week.
So, what is the topic for today? The push by Senator Boxer (D-California) for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. treaty on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a treaty passed in 1989. A link to the original convention can be found here. I read through most of it, and a lot of it sounds good on the surface. However, there is a reason that the U.S.A is alone with Somalia as being the only nations not to ratify the treaty, and pretty much every family rights organization in America is oppossed to its passage. It presents a major threat to two different things: 1.) U.S. sovereignty & 2.) Parent's rights. As per Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by the U.S. government are binding over the laws of the state and federal governments of the country. For example, lets say that the commission decides that corporal punishment is inhumane. This means that parents would not longer be allowed to spank their kids. (When California, one of the most liberal states in the country, could not get legislation passed to ban spanking, it is indicative of the punishment's importance to American parents.) This is a very real possibility. In some cultures, it may not be necessary for spanking. I do not know. What I do know is that I do not want France, or Venezuela, or just Europe in general to be deciding how I will be raising my kids someday.
The fact that Senator Boxer is pushing so hard for us to pass this treaty, which has remained stagnant after former president Bill Clinton signed it but the U.S. Senate refused to pass it, is both the epitome of arrogance and incredibly insulting. "Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face"was what she said, which to me implies that she thinks our refusal to ratify this treaty is the cause of the acid in the face problem. I doubt our decision to refuse to ratify the treaty has caused the acid throwers to say "oh, the USA didn't ratify the treaty, it must be alright to throw this acid in this little girl's face." Give me a break.
The other really annoying thing about this is the fact that the United Nations is involved. Why should we ever be signing our sovereignty over to that pitiful organization? Between the rabid anti-American ideology, the Security Council, Kofi Annan (research oil-for-food), and the raping peacekeepers, just to name a few of the MANY U.N. problems, have we not had enough of the United Nations? Why would we give them control over the rights of our parents?
I, for one, do not want the United Nations raising my future kids.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thoughts on the Inaguration and transition - Part 1: An open letter to George W. Bush.
President Bush,
Thanks for all you did. I think you messed a lot of things up, and you could have done a lot of things better, but you always had the best intentions, and you stuck to your principles, even when it cost you all the political capital you had. You certainly handled 9/11 a lot better than Al Gore would have. Your tax cuts were a serious victory for the economy. Your Supreme Court appointments appear to have all the makings of quality justices that will be strict constructionists rather than individuals who will try to legislate from the bench. I truly believe you went into Iraq based on bad information, but with the best intentions based on that bad information. You also impressed me with your willingness to admit the Iraq strategy was not working, and rather than withdraw, you listened to McCain, your joint chiefs, and others and actually initiated the surge that is leading us to victory in Iraq. So, I say thank you. I will enjoy not having you in the White House anymore, but I will always be grateful for the way you handled the situation 9/11 presented you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life as a citizen.
My thoughts on the ceremony tomorrow.
Thanks for all you did. I think you messed a lot of things up, and you could have done a lot of things better, but you always had the best intentions, and you stuck to your principles, even when it cost you all the political capital you had. You certainly handled 9/11 a lot better than Al Gore would have. Your tax cuts were a serious victory for the economy. Your Supreme Court appointments appear to have all the makings of quality justices that will be strict constructionists rather than individuals who will try to legislate from the bench. I truly believe you went into Iraq based on bad information, but with the best intentions based on that bad information. You also impressed me with your willingness to admit the Iraq strategy was not working, and rather than withdraw, you listened to McCain, your joint chiefs, and others and actually initiated the surge that is leading us to victory in Iraq. So, I say thank you. I will enjoy not having you in the White House anymore, but I will always be grateful for the way you handled the situation 9/11 presented you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life as a citizen.
My thoughts on the ceremony tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Hillary: Like her or Not. I am kind of both.
Hillary Clinton. My feelings towards that woman have changed so much over the last 2 years. 2 years ago, when the election cycle was starting to take off, my number one fear was that Hillary Clinton would be taking the White House as the first female President of the United States. It was ridiculous. My fear that Hillary would win made me think a Rudy Guliani nomination would be okay (the man's record left a little something to be desired for conservatives), just because I thought he could win New York from Billary in a general election. I mean, Hillary. This was a dislike Hillary stage.
Well, then Barrack Obama jumped onto the national scene, with his radical associations and naive (or else something more sinister) view of foreign policy/relations, and Hillary became my hero. I was literally following every single primary of the Democratic party, hoping and praying that Hillary would win the Democratic nod, solely because she was much more reasonable than Obama on so many things. Who would have thought that I would ever want Hillary to win anything? This was a "like" Hillary stage.
Well, we all know how it turned out. Obama won both the primary elections and the general election. One of my biggest fears was that Obama would be appointing someone as ridiculous as himself to Secretary of State, or worse, someone like Jeremiah Wright. So, imagine my surprise when he appointed Hillary. As far as his cabinet appointments go, Hillary was probably my favorite. She has a lot of respect in the foreign community, and is not an uber-radical. That said, she has a major problem at the moment: Bill Clinton and their William J. Clinton Foundation. A lot of foreign entities have given large sums of money to this foundation, creating a strong conflict of interest. The biggest problem lies in the fact that several of the major donors are Arab, and one of the major things Hillary will have to deal with as Secretary of State is Arab-Israeli relations.
I would have no problem with this situation, if the Foundation was shut down during her tenure, or all financial records were put out in the open. This could at least keep her and Bill honest, and give her a justifiable defense if problems/accusations arise and are attributed to dealings with the foundation. But no. All that is required is that new donors will be examined and donations from previous donors will be examined IF the amount donated is significantly different than the previous donation.
I foresee potentially dark times ahead.
Well, then Barrack Obama jumped onto the national scene, with his radical associations and naive (or else something more sinister) view of foreign policy/relations, and Hillary became my hero. I was literally following every single primary of the Democratic party, hoping and praying that Hillary would win the Democratic nod, solely because she was much more reasonable than Obama on so many things. Who would have thought that I would ever want Hillary to win anything? This was a "like" Hillary stage.
Well, we all know how it turned out. Obama won both the primary elections and the general election. One of my biggest fears was that Obama would be appointing someone as ridiculous as himself to Secretary of State, or worse, someone like Jeremiah Wright. So, imagine my surprise when he appointed Hillary. As far as his cabinet appointments go, Hillary was probably my favorite. She has a lot of respect in the foreign community, and is not an uber-radical. That said, she has a major problem at the moment: Bill Clinton and their William J. Clinton Foundation. A lot of foreign entities have given large sums of money to this foundation, creating a strong conflict of interest. The biggest problem lies in the fact that several of the major donors are Arab, and one of the major things Hillary will have to deal with as Secretary of State is Arab-Israeli relations.
I would have no problem with this situation, if the Foundation was shut down during her tenure, or all financial records were put out in the open. This could at least keep her and Bill honest, and give her a justifiable defense if problems/accusations arise and are attributed to dealings with the foundation. But no. All that is required is that new donors will be examined and donations from previous donors will be examined IF the amount donated is significantly different than the previous donation.
I foresee potentially dark times ahead.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The "state" of Illinois and racism.
Well, finally, the U.S. Senate is going to do the right thing, and more importantly, the only thing it had the right to do: Seating soon to be IL Senator Roland Burris. For those of you who have not followed the story, a summary of it can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-30-gov-illinois_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip Also, the Senate's response to the appointment of Burris can be summarized here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-30-senate_N.htm .
There have been a lot of calls by people all over the country and within both the Illinois and U.S. government for the appointment of Burris to be blocked. On the surface, this sounds good. I mean, who wouldn't want to block the appointment made by a man who did the unthinkable, trying to use the power given to him by the people of Illinois for personal financial gain. However, there is a deeper issue at stake here. Blagojevich had every right and capability to appoint Burress. He was still the governor when he made the appointment. In fact, he had not yet even been indicted. All that had been done against him was a criminal complaint. He had just as much right and obligation to fill that seat and ensure that the State of Illinois had equal representation as he would have had he not been accused of the crimes he has. Obviously the man is very corrupt, but if the people of Illinois wanted Blagojevich out, they should have pressured their legislature to take action against Blagojevich when they had the chance. The Illinois legislature had several weeks of opportunity to take the necessary steps to prevent Blagojevich from appointing Burris.
However, the people of Illinois do have every reason to be upset with the fact that Blagojevich was left in a position of being able to make the appointment. Maybe this event will open their eyes to the level of corruption that has sullied the government of Illinois. Even if it doesn't prevent them from electing corrupt politicians in the future, this event should and rightfully does anger many citizens of Illinois.
The people who have no right to be involved in this process were those on Capitol Hill. Once the state of Illinois went through their pre-set method of determining president-elect Obama's replacement, the U.S. Senate had no obligation or right to do anything other than seat the man or woman sent to represent Illinois. In my opinion, the Senate overstepped its authority in refusing to seat Burris, and it committed one of the greatest sins that it can commit: It purposefully acted in a way that prevented the people of Illinois from having equal representation guaranteed it in the Constitution (albeit for a very short amount of time). The time frame matters not. Illinois sent somebody to represent the state, and Harry Reid denied the people of Illinois just representation. I firmly believe if Reid felt he could successfully deny Burris his seat, he would have, and the people of Illinois would have just had to suck it up and deal with it.
Nobody is outraged by this injustice for two reasons: 1.) Blagojevich is a corrupt guy (does anybody else think that he sounds a lot like the corrupt mayor of Springfield from The Simpsons?), and so the focus is on the fact that the seat may be tainted. 2.) We as Americans have begun to think of the Federal government as a cohesive body, and forget that the rights of States should come first and foremost. Those elected to the U.S. Legislature should make the needs of the country a high priority, but the needs and rights of the state that elected them should be the highest priority. To deny a state that representation like Reid and Durbin tried to do is a travesty, but the American people largely fail to look at it this way. 100 years ago, this would have been inconceivable.
I hope this has provided an alternative viewpoint to the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. As always, comments and discussion are always welcome.
There have been a lot of calls by people all over the country and within both the Illinois and U.S. government for the appointment of Burris to be blocked. On the surface, this sounds good. I mean, who wouldn't want to block the appointment made by a man who did the unthinkable, trying to use the power given to him by the people of Illinois for personal financial gain. However, there is a deeper issue at stake here. Blagojevich had every right and capability to appoint Burress. He was still the governor when he made the appointment. In fact, he had not yet even been indicted. All that had been done against him was a criminal complaint. He had just as much right and obligation to fill that seat and ensure that the State of Illinois had equal representation as he would have had he not been accused of the crimes he has. Obviously the man is very corrupt, but if the people of Illinois wanted Blagojevich out, they should have pressured their legislature to take action against Blagojevich when they had the chance. The Illinois legislature had several weeks of opportunity to take the necessary steps to prevent Blagojevich from appointing Burris.
However, the people of Illinois do have every reason to be upset with the fact that Blagojevich was left in a position of being able to make the appointment. Maybe this event will open their eyes to the level of corruption that has sullied the government of Illinois. Even if it doesn't prevent them from electing corrupt politicians in the future, this event should and rightfully does anger many citizens of Illinois.
The people who have no right to be involved in this process were those on Capitol Hill. Once the state of Illinois went through their pre-set method of determining president-elect Obama's replacement, the U.S. Senate had no obligation or right to do anything other than seat the man or woman sent to represent Illinois. In my opinion, the Senate overstepped its authority in refusing to seat Burris, and it committed one of the greatest sins that it can commit: It purposefully acted in a way that prevented the people of Illinois from having equal representation guaranteed it in the Constitution (albeit for a very short amount of time). The time frame matters not. Illinois sent somebody to represent the state, and Harry Reid denied the people of Illinois just representation. I firmly believe if Reid felt he could successfully deny Burris his seat, he would have, and the people of Illinois would have just had to suck it up and deal with it.
Nobody is outraged by this injustice for two reasons: 1.) Blagojevich is a corrupt guy (does anybody else think that he sounds a lot like the corrupt mayor of Springfield from The Simpsons?), and so the focus is on the fact that the seat may be tainted. 2.) We as Americans have begun to think of the Federal government as a cohesive body, and forget that the rights of States should come first and foremost. Those elected to the U.S. Legislature should make the needs of the country a high priority, but the needs and rights of the state that elected them should be the highest priority. To deny a state that representation like Reid and Durbin tried to do is a travesty, but the American people largely fail to look at it this way. 100 years ago, this would have been inconceivable.
I hope this has provided an alternative viewpoint to the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. As always, comments and discussion are always welcome.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
There is no Santa Claus.
President-elect Obama is giving me a good bit of material for this post. He is outlining his new economic plan, a potentially trillion+ dollar (that is 12 zeros) bill that, at any other time, would be laughed out of congress as the largest pork plan ever.
There were 8 things that stuck out to me as being worthy of note from this speech.
1.) President-elect Obama opened up by saying that this recession could last for years. In my opinion, that statement is intended to clear him of wrongdoing if this trillion dollar spending plan does not actually work.
2.) One of the points that President-elect Obama emphasized made was that only the government can pull America out of this recession. My question is: Why? He says that only the government can make the sort of spending necessary to push the economy forward, and that businesses are too limited by credit and the like. But, he should remember, there is no Santa Claus. This money the government wants to spend has to come from somewhere.
3.) President-elect Obama did admit that yes, this trillion+ dollar plan will greatly inflate the federal deficit. But, he asks his listeners to consider the alternatives. We might have a REALLY BAD recession...
4.) Another thing he said that scares the heck out of me was something along the lines of "It is now the job of the government to end this destructive economic cycle of bubble and burst, and create a new, stable economy." I am sorry, even Reagan could not rewrite the laws of economics. The trick is to promote policies that play the economy to its fullest potential within those laws. There will always be bubbles and bursts. The question, therefore, is not can we eliminate the bubbles and bursts, but rather, can we limit the negative impact of the cycle. President-elect Obama is approaching this the wrong way.
5.) The President-elect flat out admitted that a spending plan of this magnitude is unprecedented (it is both in actual dollars and adjusted dollars), but he justifies it by saying that so is the crisis we face. Really? Is this crisis an entirely new phenomenon? Or is the magnitude one that America has never faced before? Has Obama never heard of THE GREAT DEPRESSION? During the Depression the unemployment rate in America was around 25%. Right now our unemployment rate is not even in double digits yet. The Depression lasted essentially from 1929 to WWII, a span of about ten years. We have not officially been in a depression for more than a couple of months. Lets consider his justification for this spending plan. It is a statement aimed at the uninformed, making a mockery of the intelligence of the rest of us who don't just accept everything Obama says as God-ordained truth.
6.) "We must reform a weak and outdated regulatory system." I wonder if Obama means that he is going to strip all of the unnecessary government regulation that has been imposed on both the financial and auto industry... Oh, right, he means more regulation. Yeah, that's gonna help.
7.) Obama said towards the end of his speech that we as Americans should not ask what is best for us right now, but rather what is good for the country our children will inherit. This is an effective counter argument to all of what he has said in this speech. The money for this plan has to come from somewhere. My generation and my future children's generation are already footing a debt we still cannot fathom. And Obama wants to add over $1,000,000,000,000 to that? This whole thing is about trying to avoid as much pain at the present moment. Nothing in Obama's plan is truly good for future generations.
8.) Obama rightly pointed out that there are many Americans who are skeptical of this spending plan, because the government has already thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem. However, the president-elect argues that this spending plan is different because we are not throwing money at the problem, we are investing in the future through new infrastructure, etc. This argument may have some merit, but there is still strong reason to have doubts about the government spending any more money to address this problem.
Those 8 things are just tidbits from Obama's speech that made me very uncomfortable. I am sure there were other important things he said, but I did not have time to catch them all.
And now, some suggestions as to how Obama could help the economy through the government:
A.) Cut the tax rate for corporations from 35% to 20% or below. That money could be used much more efficiently by businesses than the government. Yes this could cut government revenues (maybe, the Laffer curve might argue differently), but if the government would cut spending like Obama promised on the campaign trail, then the offset of the revenue would not matter while still stimulating the economy and promoting free-markets.
B.) Update regulations, but the other way. Remove them. Let the markets work, especially the auto industry. It can be argued that regulations and pressures by the U.S. Government put the financial, auto, and housing markets all into their current spin. Lets move towards free markets again and stop this trend towards socialism that we are sprinting towards.
C.) We are in a recession, no doubt about it. And yes, times will be tough. But, if we bite the bullet in the short term, we can make a real investment in the long term. At the moment, we are merely trying to hold off the inevitable problem while creating even more problems. Obama has said many times that there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. The way we have been doing things the last couple of months is the wrong way.
I hope this has been enlightening, or at the very least, thought provoking. As always, comments are welcome.
There were 8 things that stuck out to me as being worthy of note from this speech.
1.) President-elect Obama opened up by saying that this recession could last for years. In my opinion, that statement is intended to clear him of wrongdoing if this trillion dollar spending plan does not actually work.
2.) One of the points that President-elect Obama emphasized made was that only the government can pull America out of this recession. My question is: Why? He says that only the government can make the sort of spending necessary to push the economy forward, and that businesses are too limited by credit and the like. But, he should remember, there is no Santa Claus. This money the government wants to spend has to come from somewhere.
3.) President-elect Obama did admit that yes, this trillion+ dollar plan will greatly inflate the federal deficit. But, he asks his listeners to consider the alternatives. We might have a REALLY BAD recession...
4.) Another thing he said that scares the heck out of me was something along the lines of "It is now the job of the government to end this destructive economic cycle of bubble and burst, and create a new, stable economy." I am sorry, even Reagan could not rewrite the laws of economics. The trick is to promote policies that play the economy to its fullest potential within those laws. There will always be bubbles and bursts. The question, therefore, is not can we eliminate the bubbles and bursts, but rather, can we limit the negative impact of the cycle. President-elect Obama is approaching this the wrong way.
5.) The President-elect flat out admitted that a spending plan of this magnitude is unprecedented (it is both in actual dollars and adjusted dollars), but he justifies it by saying that so is the crisis we face. Really? Is this crisis an entirely new phenomenon? Or is the magnitude one that America has never faced before? Has Obama never heard of THE GREAT DEPRESSION? During the Depression the unemployment rate in America was around 25%. Right now our unemployment rate is not even in double digits yet. The Depression lasted essentially from 1929 to WWII, a span of about ten years. We have not officially been in a depression for more than a couple of months. Lets consider his justification for this spending plan. It is a statement aimed at the uninformed, making a mockery of the intelligence of the rest of us who don't just accept everything Obama says as God-ordained truth.
6.) "We must reform a weak and outdated regulatory system." I wonder if Obama means that he is going to strip all of the unnecessary government regulation that has been imposed on both the financial and auto industry... Oh, right, he means more regulation. Yeah, that's gonna help.
7.) Obama said towards the end of his speech that we as Americans should not ask what is best for us right now, but rather what is good for the country our children will inherit. This is an effective counter argument to all of what he has said in this speech. The money for this plan has to come from somewhere. My generation and my future children's generation are already footing a debt we still cannot fathom. And Obama wants to add over $1,000,000,000,000 to that? This whole thing is about trying to avoid as much pain at the present moment. Nothing in Obama's plan is truly good for future generations.
8.) Obama rightly pointed out that there are many Americans who are skeptical of this spending plan, because the government has already thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem. However, the president-elect argues that this spending plan is different because we are not throwing money at the problem, we are investing in the future through new infrastructure, etc. This argument may have some merit, but there is still strong reason to have doubts about the government spending any more money to address this problem.
Those 8 things are just tidbits from Obama's speech that made me very uncomfortable. I am sure there were other important things he said, but I did not have time to catch them all.
And now, some suggestions as to how Obama could help the economy through the government:
A.) Cut the tax rate for corporations from 35% to 20% or below. That money could be used much more efficiently by businesses than the government. Yes this could cut government revenues (maybe, the Laffer curve might argue differently), but if the government would cut spending like Obama promised on the campaign trail, then the offset of the revenue would not matter while still stimulating the economy and promoting free-markets.
B.) Update regulations, but the other way. Remove them. Let the markets work, especially the auto industry. It can be argued that regulations and pressures by the U.S. Government put the financial, auto, and housing markets all into their current spin. Lets move towards free markets again and stop this trend towards socialism that we are sprinting towards.
C.) We are in a recession, no doubt about it. And yes, times will be tough. But, if we bite the bullet in the short term, we can make a real investment in the long term. At the moment, we are merely trying to hold off the inevitable problem while creating even more problems. Obama has said many times that there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. The way we have been doing things the last couple of months is the wrong way.
I hope this has been enlightening, or at the very least, thought provoking. As always, comments are welcome.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sorry
No update today as promised. It has been one heck of a day. I will get one tomorrow (hopefully in the morning).
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Just info... for now
Well, I promised a blog, and here it is. I hope to update on a daily or semi-daily basis, depending on how life intervenes. The goal here is to provide commentary on current events and news, with a perspective that hopefully will educate the reader to think deeper into the issue or see them as they relate to the bigger picture. Comments will always be welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)