It's been about a week since the news of George Bush's proposed government buy out of a large sum of failed mortgage securities currently in the hands of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and AIG banking and insurance firms, and it's time PooB took a stance on this issue, so without further adieu, I will present our avid readers with my take on this exceedingly grave issue.
Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.
Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.
Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.
Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.
...Read more
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain and the Magic Blackberry
The latest buzz, McCain invented the Blackberry. Now obviously this is a stretch, we all know he didn't. We all know his campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin just meant that McCain, by being on the Commerce committee, had lead to the innovations of cell phones in every hand. My question, did he even manage that feat? No. What he did was vote against the legislation that gave the FCC the authority to auction various used, unused and poorly-used wireless frequency spectrums. Here's the line that gives that specific authority (emphasis added):
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
48 days left
Two months from yesterday, people will file into the polls and elect someone who inherits a massive national deficit, a crumbling economy and an unpopular occupation of Iraq. I don't want that job. Several people do, John McCain and Barack Obama are two of them. There are many so called 3rd party candidates, but I will focus on the two main parties since they are the most likely to win the election. I admire all them for wanting to take on arguably the hardest job in America. I just wouldn't want that burden on me. The economy has gotten particularly rough, with the collapse of several financial institutions that now have to be propped up by the federal government and the US tax payers.
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Lying Game
It has become painfully obvious, that John McCain has gone beyond stretching the truth in his ads. Factcheck.org, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The Associated Press and many more news agencies and independent groups have proven facts that explain where and when he has lied. What's more offensive about this, is that even when confronted with lies, both Palin and McCain refuse to acknowledge them as being lies. They continue to use the same lines. Does the McCain campaign think the American people are stupid?
This leads to the further question, do we really want a team of people whose path to the White House is paved by deceiving the public? If it were just a reasonable stretch of the truth, I could deal with it. I use the example of Obama's claim that John McCain would leave 100 million Americans without a tax cut. The actual number is closer to 90 million depending on your math, and I don't see a big deal with just saying 90 instead of 100. It is still a large number that should effectively get the point across. McCain has been destroying the truth
1. Obama called Palin a pig. No, he used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase as a description of his policies and how they compare to the policies of the last 8 years.
2. Palin runs a state where she controls 20% of the US domestic production of energy, this gives her great insight into everything from global warming to national security. No, her state produces 14% of all the oil wells in the US and and 1.9% of natural gas. Alaska produces 3.5% of all domestic energy production. Not 20% by even a stretch of the imagination.
3. Palin is the anti-earmark Governor, has never taken earmarks as Governor. She's against them now, but she asked for almost $300 per citizen of Alaska in federal earmarks this year, more than any other state per capita. She has reduced Alaska's requests for earmarks, but still has way more than 0. She also hired a lobbyist that allowed her to get $27 million for a 9000 person town that she was mayor of.
4. The Obama campaign is responsible for many of the negative rumors surrounding the GOP's VP pick. Factcheck.org was particularly miffed at this one. McCain used their banner and quoted their article to make this claim. There was a small problem, the article said exactly the opposite. The article stated that Obama had nothing to do with various internet rumors, just as McCain was not responsible for rumors about Obama.
5. Obama wanted to teach 5 yearolds about sex. Nope, not even close. Obama voted in support of a bill that would offer "age appropriate sex education" for various age groups. For the kindergartners this would amount to small discussion on inappropriate touching and being careful of strangers and potential predators. Several of McCain's managers have viciously tried to spread this lie, even while being confronted with the truth. This bill it might be added, never was passed into law.
6. Palin was always against the "bridge to nowhere." Not quite. Sarah Palin said on October 29, 2006; "I support these infrastructure projects. It will build Alaska, and it's cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow." Once the bridge became more expensive, was highlighted by government spending watchdogs and it became a symbol of federal waste, she came out against it. She did keep the money though, and used it for other projects.
This is just a sampling of what has happened in the last week. Hopefully the next week will bring some honesty so we can look at the real issues, instead of questioning the validity of attack ads. ...Read more
This leads to the further question, do we really want a team of people whose path to the White House is paved by deceiving the public? If it were just a reasonable stretch of the truth, I could deal with it. I use the example of Obama's claim that John McCain would leave 100 million Americans without a tax cut. The actual number is closer to 90 million depending on your math, and I don't see a big deal with just saying 90 instead of 100. It is still a large number that should effectively get the point across. McCain has been destroying the truth
1. Obama called Palin a pig. No, he used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase as a description of his policies and how they compare to the policies of the last 8 years.
2. Palin runs a state where she controls 20% of the US domestic production of energy, this gives her great insight into everything from global warming to national security. No, her state produces 14% of all the oil wells in the US and and 1.9% of natural gas. Alaska produces 3.5% of all domestic energy production. Not 20% by even a stretch of the imagination.
3. Palin is the anti-earmark Governor, has never taken earmarks as Governor. She's against them now, but she asked for almost $300 per citizen of Alaska in federal earmarks this year, more than any other state per capita. She has reduced Alaska's requests for earmarks, but still has way more than 0. She also hired a lobbyist that allowed her to get $27 million for a 9000 person town that she was mayor of.
4. The Obama campaign is responsible for many of the negative rumors surrounding the GOP's VP pick. Factcheck.org was particularly miffed at this one. McCain used their banner and quoted their article to make this claim. There was a small problem, the article said exactly the opposite. The article stated that Obama had nothing to do with various internet rumors, just as McCain was not responsible for rumors about Obama.
5. Obama wanted to teach 5 yearolds about sex. Nope, not even close. Obama voted in support of a bill that would offer "age appropriate sex education" for various age groups. For the kindergartners this would amount to small discussion on inappropriate touching and being careful of strangers and potential predators. Several of McCain's managers have viciously tried to spread this lie, even while being confronted with the truth. This bill it might be added, never was passed into law.
6. Palin was always against the "bridge to nowhere." Not quite. Sarah Palin said on October 29, 2006; "I support these infrastructure projects. It will build Alaska, and it's cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow." Once the bridge became more expensive, was highlighted by government spending watchdogs and it became a symbol of federal waste, she came out against it. She did keep the money though, and used it for other projects.
This is just a sampling of what has happened in the last week. Hopefully the next week will bring some honesty so we can look at the real issues, instead of questioning the validity of attack ads. ...Read more
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Moral Debate
One of the great arguments by conservatives, is the morality of the two parties. One supposedly advocates protecting life, the other, death. While it's a nice way to polarize people, by getting them to think that the obvious choice is the life party, there are many more factors to investigate before you assume the morality of a given party.
It's cut and dry right? McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-death. Well if you ignore the fact that McCain has supported embryonic stems cells in the past, the death penalty for a large number of crimes, abortion for rape and incest, and war before diplomacy. It is true that McCain wants to repeal Roe V. Wade, now. He hasn't always wanted to. Combine that with the exceptions he would leave, is there really any doubt that abortion doctors would just claim that all their patients were raped?
I don't like abortion, I think there are better ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that abortion is wrong and that Obama is the pro-death candidate and that McCain is somehow pro-life with his record of double talk on the issue. I've lived in a city with constant battles with the abortion doctor there. They will do whatever it takes to allow the women who enter their clinics to get the procedure they want. Outlawing abortion for most, but leaving in a loophole, will only mean that more women will use the loophole.
Add to this the fact that the so called "moral" candidate has been making obvious lies about his opponent(this has been documented by numerous news organizations and independent fact checking groups), people should not be deciding who they will vote for on the issue of morality alone. Voting takes a completely informed decision, about all issues. Voting on a single issue is like living with a bag on your head. The people who vote based on one issue, are ignorant, and are wasting the freedom that so many people have fought and died for. I'm not asking you to vote for a particular candidate. I am asking you to vote after informing yourself about a candidate, rather than wasting your vote by ignoring the other issues at stake.
...Read more
It's cut and dry right? McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-death. Well if you ignore the fact that McCain has supported embryonic stems cells in the past, the death penalty for a large number of crimes, abortion for rape and incest, and war before diplomacy. It is true that McCain wants to repeal Roe V. Wade, now. He hasn't always wanted to. Combine that with the exceptions he would leave, is there really any doubt that abortion doctors would just claim that all their patients were raped?
I don't like abortion, I think there are better ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that abortion is wrong and that Obama is the pro-death candidate and that McCain is somehow pro-life with his record of double talk on the issue. I've lived in a city with constant battles with the abortion doctor there. They will do whatever it takes to allow the women who enter their clinics to get the procedure they want. Outlawing abortion for most, but leaving in a loophole, will only mean that more women will use the loophole.
Add to this the fact that the so called "moral" candidate has been making obvious lies about his opponent(this has been documented by numerous news organizations and independent fact checking groups), people should not be deciding who they will vote for on the issue of morality alone. Voting takes a completely informed decision, about all issues. Voting on a single issue is like living with a bag on your head. The people who vote based on one issue, are ignorant, and are wasting the freedom that so many people have fought and died for. I'm not asking you to vote for a particular candidate. I am asking you to vote after informing yourself about a candidate, rather than wasting your vote by ignoring the other issues at stake.
...Read more
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Voter Registration
I just filled out the Advance/Absentee Ballot form for my particular State. I am registered to vote in one county but going to school in another. However, I want to have a say in the politics of what I consider my home, and I would really like to replace one of the incumbent congressmen with one that I actually agree with.
This was one of the most complicated experiences of my life. I am no moron, but this form had me stumped. It had only two places that indicated what information it wanted, the rest I had to deduce from words that even I, an English Major, stumbled over.
It was this form and these words that made it clear to me why, statistically speaking, poor and uneducated people have lower voter turnout rates. Things only got worse as I tried to find out how to mail the form in. None of this, of course, would have been possible without the internet. If I did not have an internet connection here in the dorm I have no idea how I would have even found this form. Clearly if you could not afford an internet connection your chances of voting are even slimmer.
This system makes it quite difficult for a certain demographic to vote. Does it come as any surprise that the demographic excluded by this ridiculously complicated system of voting is typically the most under represented?
Our voter registration system needs to change, all people need to have easy access to the right to vote.
And for clarification, I am in no way referring to a particular race, but a level of income and education. People with a college or less education would have a difficult time even understanding these forms, and people of low income probably have more important things to do with their time then hunting these forms down on the internet, if they even have money to spare on the internet.
Appalling.
...Read more
This was one of the most complicated experiences of my life. I am no moron, but this form had me stumped. It had only two places that indicated what information it wanted, the rest I had to deduce from words that even I, an English Major, stumbled over.
It was this form and these words that made it clear to me why, statistically speaking, poor and uneducated people have lower voter turnout rates. Things only got worse as I tried to find out how to mail the form in. None of this, of course, would have been possible without the internet. If I did not have an internet connection here in the dorm I have no idea how I would have even found this form. Clearly if you could not afford an internet connection your chances of voting are even slimmer.
This system makes it quite difficult for a certain demographic to vote. Does it come as any surprise that the demographic excluded by this ridiculously complicated system of voting is typically the most under represented?
Our voter registration system needs to change, all people need to have easy access to the right to vote.
And for clarification, I am in no way referring to a particular race, but a level of income and education. People with a college or less education would have a difficult time even understanding these forms, and people of low income probably have more important things to do with their time then hunting these forms down on the internet, if they even have money to spare on the internet.
Appalling.
...Read more
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Back from the RW&B
So, I’ve been on a vacation of sorts for the last 12 days. I made a last minute visit to my family. I’m typing up a bunch of stuff while on the plane ride back to Japan, so you’ll see it a few hours after I get back.
The big news, Sarah Palin. A hockey-mom from Alaska, governor for the last 20 months and former mayor of a small town in the same state. She bolsters McCain’s credit with conservatives, but the main goal of the choice was clearly to go after Clinton’s followers. While he will deny it, it has been obvious in both of their speeches, with references to several of Hillary’s statements and/or speeches. The one I found startling, or even amusing, was that Palin claimed that by her being elected VP, with McCain as president, that she would essentially crack the “glass ceiling” that Hillary could not. Last time I check, Hillary wasn’t willing to settle for the number two spot on the ticket. Even if the Republicans win, that ceiling will still be in place.
Right after the RNC, it came out that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. Of course this should pose a problem for a conservative pushing for “family values.” Her removal of a police administrator who refused to fire a police officer who divorced her sister has become a hot topic as well. Also, her involvement with the indicted senator Ted Stevens is being questioned, along with her running of his 527 political action group. The last piece I will talk about, is her experience, or more precisely, the lack there of.
She has less experience in all of her years in various government positions that Obama, but they still are saying that he is inexperienced. One reason I heard for this, was that she had experience running a government, being in charge. Well, being in charge of a state for 20 months and spending at least two months of that on maternity leave isn’t a whole lot. I had 3 years of experience managing a team at Starbucks. By the Republican standard, I should have almost as much experience as Palin.
I heard a great excuse to cover her foreign policy shortcomings, she’s close to Russia. Jon Stewart said it best, “by that logic, she’s close to the north pole so she must know Santa Claus.” The idea that she would have foreign policy experience by being close to another country is ludicrous. The idea that they complain about Obama’s experience is even more so. We shall see how they’re attacks change, and how Palin finally handles an interview when Charlie Gibson talks to her on Wednesday. Hopefully ABC will be less biased than the last Democratic primary debate.
...Read more
The big news, Sarah Palin. A hockey-mom from Alaska, governor for the last 20 months and former mayor of a small town in the same state. She bolsters McCain’s credit with conservatives, but the main goal of the choice was clearly to go after Clinton’s followers. While he will deny it, it has been obvious in both of their speeches, with references to several of Hillary’s statements and/or speeches. The one I found startling, or even amusing, was that Palin claimed that by her being elected VP, with McCain as president, that she would essentially crack the “glass ceiling” that Hillary could not. Last time I check, Hillary wasn’t willing to settle for the number two spot on the ticket. Even if the Republicans win, that ceiling will still be in place.
Right after the RNC, it came out that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. Of course this should pose a problem for a conservative pushing for “family values.” Her removal of a police administrator who refused to fire a police officer who divorced her sister has become a hot topic as well. Also, her involvement with the indicted senator Ted Stevens is being questioned, along with her running of his 527 political action group. The last piece I will talk about, is her experience, or more precisely, the lack there of.
She has less experience in all of her years in various government positions that Obama, but they still are saying that he is inexperienced. One reason I heard for this, was that she had experience running a government, being in charge. Well, being in charge of a state for 20 months and spending at least two months of that on maternity leave isn’t a whole lot. I had 3 years of experience managing a team at Starbucks. By the Republican standard, I should have almost as much experience as Palin.
I heard a great excuse to cover her foreign policy shortcomings, she’s close to Russia. Jon Stewart said it best, “by that logic, she’s close to the north pole so she must know Santa Claus.” The idea that she would have foreign policy experience by being close to another country is ludicrous. The idea that they complain about Obama’s experience is even more so. We shall see how they’re attacks change, and how Palin finally handles an interview when Charlie Gibson talks to her on Wednesday. Hopefully ABC will be less biased than the last Democratic primary debate.
...Read more
Monday, August 25, 2008
MSM notices the Vietnam excuse UPDATED
Reading through the news today, I noticed something stunning. Reuters, part of what many would call the "main stream media," posted an article that briefly noted that McCain was using his experience in Vietnam to deflect question about his house problem.
This is stunning not for the fact that someone noticed, bloggers have been noting this more and more often of the last few months. What is surprising is that a large media company is mentioning it. McCain used to joke that the media was part of his constituency. It's becoming more and more obvious that even the media can't keep sugar coating everything he does. It will be interesting to see if this is a one time fluke, or if it will become more common to notice that he rarely answers questions, instead talking about his military experience and Vietnam.
As many people have already said, being a POW is not a requirement for being president. It also shouldn't be a platform to use to get yourself ahead, playing off people sympathies and avoiding the "straight talk" about many issues.
Update:
It seems Jay Leno picked up on it a little during a tonight show appearance by John McCain. The audience seemed to enjoy watching McCain get skewered by Jay on the housing issue.
...Read more
This is stunning not for the fact that someone noticed, bloggers have been noting this more and more often of the last few months. What is surprising is that a large media company is mentioning it. McCain used to joke that the media was part of his constituency. It's becoming more and more obvious that even the media can't keep sugar coating everything he does. It will be interesting to see if this is a one time fluke, or if it will become more common to notice that he rarely answers questions, instead talking about his military experience and Vietnam.
As many people have already said, being a POW is not a requirement for being president. It also shouldn't be a platform to use to get yourself ahead, playing off people sympathies and avoiding the "straight talk" about many issues.
Update:
It seems Jay Leno picked up on it a little during a tonight show appearance by John McCain. The audience seemed to enjoy watching McCain get skewered by Jay on the housing issue.
...Read more
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Meet Joe Biden - UPDATED
It is official, Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate. If you've been living under a rock for the last 3 days this is news to you. Not a big star as far as the average citizen is concerned, but he has worked on foreign affairs for many years, and is considered a good mate to have to help with the white working class that everyone seems to think Obama can't get. I suppose we shall see. I personally like Joe, but maybe it's the fact that we share the same name.
McCain is going to anounce his running mate on his birthday in a week, he turnes 72. Some people suspect he will choose Romney, others are saying he has to because of of his own lack of domestic experience. I don't know if Romney would be the best choice, but in this election year you could do worse. A running mate that wasn't a senator or really involved with Bush at all might take the bite out of the "McSame" remarks. I honestly haven't seen any other person being talked about for his VP, most of the early ones got dropped off because them made some stupid remarks that made them look like an idiot, and McCain doesn't want that kind of press. CHarlie Crist has always been a contender, but it remains to be seen if McCain would pick a VP based on trying to win one state as opposed to widen his broader appeal.
Update:
I finally was able to watch the full video of Obama announcing Biden as his running mate. I must say that it seems like a really good match. Obama is a soft toned person when he's in a debate or at a press conference, a big difference from his ability to stir up a crowd when he's at a campaign stop. Biden on the other hand, isn't as good at stirring up the crowd, but he has the attack skills of a lion. His skill with dismantling McCain attacks should be well proved in the coming weeks. I enjoyed the quip about him being the 5th most senior member of the senate, while being the 6th youngest. That just shows how old congress has gotten, because he's only 7 years younger than McCain.
McCain and Biden are supposedly friends, but Biden had some rough words for McCain's policies. I suspect wee will hear a lot more of the difference between a "good soldier" and a "great leader." McCain will still try to discredit his friend's foreign policy experience, as this is his strongest suit. Somehow I doubt this will be a walk through the park for McCain.
...Read more
McCain is going to anounce his running mate on his birthday in a week, he turnes 72. Some people suspect he will choose Romney, others are saying he has to because of of his own lack of domestic experience. I don't know if Romney would be the best choice, but in this election year you could do worse. A running mate that wasn't a senator or really involved with Bush at all might take the bite out of the "McSame" remarks. I honestly haven't seen any other person being talked about for his VP, most of the early ones got dropped off because them made some stupid remarks that made them look like an idiot, and McCain doesn't want that kind of press. CHarlie Crist has always been a contender, but it remains to be seen if McCain would pick a VP based on trying to win one state as opposed to widen his broader appeal.
Update:
I finally was able to watch the full video of Obama announcing Biden as his running mate. I must say that it seems like a really good match. Obama is a soft toned person when he's in a debate or at a press conference, a big difference from his ability to stir up a crowd when he's at a campaign stop. Biden on the other hand, isn't as good at stirring up the crowd, but he has the attack skills of a lion. His skill with dismantling McCain attacks should be well proved in the coming weeks. I enjoyed the quip about him being the 5th most senior member of the senate, while being the 6th youngest. That just shows how old congress has gotten, because he's only 7 years younger than McCain.
McCain and Biden are supposedly friends, but Biden had some rough words for McCain's policies. I suspect wee will hear a lot more of the difference between a "good soldier" and a "great leader." McCain will still try to discredit his friend's foreign policy experience, as this is his strongest suit. Somehow I doubt this will be a walk through the park for McCain.
...Read more
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Plans: Energy
John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. " Undoubtedly in reference to his support for offshore drilling. Most people are aware, as experts have said, that drilling off the coast of this nation will not produce even a drop of oil for at least ten years. Long after McCain's term has ended. The fact is that oil has to be found to be drilled. Finding oil is hard enough to find WITHOUT millions of gallons of salt water sitting on top of it (this whole energy crisis is proof of that). After this oil is found, a rig must be built and oil extracted, which, again, is hard enough to do sans the many atmospheres of H2O weighing it down. His second bullet is a reworded version of this one so we move on.
Here McCain addresses the "clean" aspect of his energy plan with statements of his support for a zero-emission car tax rebate and funding for a privately developed battery for use in plug in hybrids. He also addresses the need to move away from food-corn based ethanol to cellulostic ethanol which is produced essentially from waste. Here is where things get really hazy because McCain's site only sparsely uses an affirmative vow to action on a given issue. Read for yourself:
"John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car"
(It should be noted that $5,000 is no where near enough to offset the cost of a fuel cell vehicle compared to a gasoline one, and that a similar tax credit ALREADY exists.)
"A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
"John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. "
"John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices."
He follows this with:
"The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. "
a simple statement on the nature of cellulosic ethanol and no plan for implimenting it, or even a commitment to do so. In fact, no part of his website's Energy Policy includes any form of guaranteed governmental support for renewable energy of any kind. The closest authentically green energy gets to a comitment from John McCain is this: "John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."
"John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards."
Excellent! He will carry out his Constitutional duty as President to enforce a law Congress has already enacted...
I could take this blog much further addressing the rest of McCain's energy plan, but I'm sure you all will agree this is quite long enough. For the rest of the info I encourage you to go to his website and read about it, then be sure to visit Obama's for the comparison. Having read both policies I have personally drawn the conclusion that McCain's plan is essentially shooting in all directions hoping to hit something, unfortunately instead of having a detailed direction for our nation's energy future he has a series of statements that simplistically outline the nature of the problem. He's not offering real answers, just making statements hoping that people will ignore the fact that he has promised little more than to find more oil, and enforce existing regulations. The true nature of McCain's energy policy is probably best detailed by his accepting $1.3 million dollars from oil execs and lobbyists, and his loyal devotion to Bush's policies. McCain has voted with increasing support (100% this past year) for the President's plans on EVERYTHING.
Again, read McCain's written policy (if you can even get through the various errors in his web page) and tell me what plan or commitment is to be found.
Then go read Obama's, and I can promise it will be clear that he not only has a plan for change, it is the best plan for this nation's energy. Or just wait until next week when I will outline Obama's plan.
...Read more
Here McCain addresses the "clean" aspect of his energy plan with statements of his support for a zero-emission car tax rebate and funding for a privately developed battery for use in plug in hybrids. He also addresses the need to move away from food-corn based ethanol to cellulostic ethanol which is produced essentially from waste. Here is where things get really hazy because McCain's site only sparsely uses an affirmative vow to action on a given issue. Read for yourself:
"John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car"
(It should be noted that $5,000 is no where near enough to offset the cost of a fuel cell vehicle compared to a gasoline one, and that a similar tax credit ALREADY exists.)
"A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
"John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. "
"John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices."
He follows this with:
"The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. "
a simple statement on the nature of cellulosic ethanol and no plan for implimenting it, or even a commitment to do so. In fact, no part of his website's Energy Policy includes any form of guaranteed governmental support for renewable energy of any kind. The closest authentically green energy gets to a comitment from John McCain is this: "John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."
"John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards."
Excellent! He will carry out his Constitutional duty as President to enforce a law Congress has already enacted...
I could take this blog much further addressing the rest of McCain's energy plan, but I'm sure you all will agree this is quite long enough. For the rest of the info I encourage you to go to his website and read about it, then be sure to visit Obama's for the comparison. Having read both policies I have personally drawn the conclusion that McCain's plan is essentially shooting in all directions hoping to hit something, unfortunately instead of having a detailed direction for our nation's energy future he has a series of statements that simplistically outline the nature of the problem. He's not offering real answers, just making statements hoping that people will ignore the fact that he has promised little more than to find more oil, and enforce existing regulations. The true nature of McCain's energy policy is probably best detailed by his accepting $1.3 million dollars from oil execs and lobbyists, and his loyal devotion to Bush's policies. McCain has voted with increasing support (100% this past year) for the President's plans on EVERYTHING.
Again, read McCain's written policy (if you can even get through the various errors in his web page) and tell me what plan or commitment is to be found.
Then go read Obama's, and I can promise it will be clear that he not only has a plan for change, it is the best plan for this nation's energy. Or just wait until next week when I will outline Obama's plan.
...Read more
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
News of the week
Big news of the last few days:
The Georgian-Russian conflict is becoming a talking point for both presidential campaigns because of one lobbyist on John McCain's staff, Randy Scheunemann. He has made a lot of money lobbying on behalf on the Georgian government, and it is becoming obvious that lobbyists continue to shape John McCain's policies. Even though both campaigns are, and should be, concerned with the invasion of Georgia, a sovereign nation, by Russia, lobbyists should not shape policy when they are being paid to have that concern.
More after the jump
John Edwards admitted to having an affair sometime in 2006 with his videographer for his campaign. He denies that the child she now has is his, that the relationship ended long before she became pregnant. He apparently told his wife about the affair in 2006 and is just now admitting to the affair with the public.
There is speculation as to whether Hillary Clinton will have her name added to the role call for the voting delegates at the DNC convention in two weeks. Some people are speculation that she wants to scare Obama into giving her the VP slot, while others are saying that she just wants her supporters to feel appreciated. I think at this point we should be past all of this political chess game and should be focusing on the national race, not the one that finished in June.
Congress continues to bicker over offshore drilling and a new energy bill. Behind all of the mud slinging while they are on break, a group of 10 members of congress, 5 from each party, have gotten together to create a deal on offshore drilling and renewable energy tax credits. Something for both parties. Obama has come out with tentative support for the measure, waiting for full support until after the final legislation comes out. McCain has been skeptical, while still waiting for the bill to be finished before giving a full opinion.
Today Cindy McCain injured her wrist while shaking hands with supporters. Might be time to increase those calcium supplements.
...Read more
The Georgian-Russian conflict is becoming a talking point for both presidential campaigns because of one lobbyist on John McCain's staff, Randy Scheunemann. He has made a lot of money lobbying on behalf on the Georgian government, and it is becoming obvious that lobbyists continue to shape John McCain's policies. Even though both campaigns are, and should be, concerned with the invasion of Georgia, a sovereign nation, by Russia, lobbyists should not shape policy when they are being paid to have that concern.
More after the jump
John Edwards admitted to having an affair sometime in 2006 with his videographer for his campaign. He denies that the child she now has is his, that the relationship ended long before she became pregnant. He apparently told his wife about the affair in 2006 and is just now admitting to the affair with the public.
There is speculation as to whether Hillary Clinton will have her name added to the role call for the voting delegates at the DNC convention in two weeks. Some people are speculation that she wants to scare Obama into giving her the VP slot, while others are saying that she just wants her supporters to feel appreciated. I think at this point we should be past all of this political chess game and should be focusing on the national race, not the one that finished in June.
Congress continues to bicker over offshore drilling and a new energy bill. Behind all of the mud slinging while they are on break, a group of 10 members of congress, 5 from each party, have gotten together to create a deal on offshore drilling and renewable energy tax credits. Something for both parties. Obama has come out with tentative support for the measure, waiting for full support until after the final legislation comes out. McCain has been skeptical, while still waiting for the bill to be finished before giving a full opinion.
Today Cindy McCain injured her wrist while shaking hands with supporters. Might be time to increase those calcium supplements.
...Read more
Monday, August 4, 2008
Back from Vacation
I spent two weeks off taking a break, and four days off to enjoy my free time at home. Back into the fray, lets see a few of the events I missed:
McCain criticized Obama for not visiting the injured troops while on his world tour. Of course Obama was told he could not bring the media that spend the whole trip on his plane with him, that's official DoD policy, so he decided it would be best not to try and politicize their wounds. McCain was rejected for the same type of trip in the Spring, because it was during his primary run and the DOD saw the conflict that it would create.
Click the link for the rest.
Obama's suggestion that inflating our tires would help reduce gas consumption (the DoE has said this may help up to 4%) was immediately mocked by the McCain campaign, they released some tire gauges with "Obama's Energy Plan" on them. Of course McCain says that properly inflating tires is the right thing to do.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a top McCain advisor, said that raising raising taxes on Social Security is not out of the question as part of a comprehensive reform package that the McCain campaign is offering. McCain has repeatedly said that he, unlike Obama, would refuse to raise any taxes and would only reduce them.
The Democrats have refused to vote on offshore drilling, while the Republicans have refused to allow votes on any comprehensive energy plan. Both of them blame each other, and the American people lose.
Walmart is forcing managers to go to meetings that focus on the negatives of an Obama presidency, higher wages, health care, carbon taxes. Mostly they are afraid of being forced to open their workforce up to unions.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was indicted on 7 counts of failing to report several hundred thousand dollars worth of renovations to his home from an oil company that has pushed for drilling in ANWR. Sen. Stevens himself has been a large advocate of opening up ANWR to drilling and has repeatedly been scrutinized for his connections to donors.
Bruce Ivans, the main suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks, killed himself as the FBI began to close in around him. Charges were set to be filed, after his lawyer got a phone call indicated what the charges would be, he apparently took a large amount of prescription Tylenol with codine.
When asked about experts opinions that offshore drilling wouldn't produce oil until 2020 at the earliest at an event last week, McCain said that the oil executives he met with told him it could be done within months, maybe 2-3 years at the most. In addition to that, McCain's joint campaign fund with the RNC (which allows him to raise money but avoid nagging problems like $2000 caps on donations) raised over $880,000 from oil companies after June 16th, the day he came out in support of offshore drilling. He raised less than $50,000 in the previous 17 months of his campaign from that same business sector.
A small sampling of the events taking place while I was slacking off.
...Read more
McCain criticized Obama for not visiting the injured troops while on his world tour. Of course Obama was told he could not bring the media that spend the whole trip on his plane with him, that's official DoD policy, so he decided it would be best not to try and politicize their wounds. McCain was rejected for the same type of trip in the Spring, because it was during his primary run and the DOD saw the conflict that it would create.
Click the link for the rest.
Obama's suggestion that inflating our tires would help reduce gas consumption (the DoE has said this may help up to 4%) was immediately mocked by the McCain campaign, they released some tire gauges with "Obama's Energy Plan" on them. Of course McCain says that properly inflating tires is the right thing to do.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a top McCain advisor, said that raising raising taxes on Social Security is not out of the question as part of a comprehensive reform package that the McCain campaign is offering. McCain has repeatedly said that he, unlike Obama, would refuse to raise any taxes and would only reduce them.
The Democrats have refused to vote on offshore drilling, while the Republicans have refused to allow votes on any comprehensive energy plan. Both of them blame each other, and the American people lose.
Walmart is forcing managers to go to meetings that focus on the negatives of an Obama presidency, higher wages, health care, carbon taxes. Mostly they are afraid of being forced to open their workforce up to unions.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was indicted on 7 counts of failing to report several hundred thousand dollars worth of renovations to his home from an oil company that has pushed for drilling in ANWR. Sen. Stevens himself has been a large advocate of opening up ANWR to drilling and has repeatedly been scrutinized for his connections to donors.
Bruce Ivans, the main suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks, killed himself as the FBI began to close in around him. Charges were set to be filed, after his lawyer got a phone call indicated what the charges would be, he apparently took a large amount of prescription Tylenol with codine.
When asked about experts opinions that offshore drilling wouldn't produce oil until 2020 at the earliest at an event last week, McCain said that the oil executives he met with told him it could be done within months, maybe 2-3 years at the most. In addition to that, McCain's joint campaign fund with the RNC (which allows him to raise money but avoid nagging problems like $2000 caps on donations) raised over $880,000 from oil companies after June 16th, the day he came out in support of offshore drilling. He raised less than $50,000 in the previous 17 months of his campaign from that same business sector.
A small sampling of the events taking place while I was slacking off.
...Read more
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Form Letter Reply from Senator Roberts
Dear Mr. Titus:
Thank you for sharing your views regarding United States policy towards Iran. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me.
Recently, the intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stating with "high confidence" that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. However, as the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale in open defiance of binding UN resolutions. Thus, regardless of whether Iran axed a particular program in 2003, it continues to aggressively pursue a broader nuclear agenda that could be turned into a weapons program at any time. And it is doing so in defiance of international law.
Iran poses a clear and present danger to the entire region, and the world. In addition to the country's continued antagonistic rhetoric, a source within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed Iran has the blueprints to case uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core. The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile and there is considerable evidence that Iran has also been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion.
Even assuming Iran is not seeking a bomb right now, it is far from reassuring that they are developing technologies that could bring them within a steps of one. As former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a former Marine, I believe a nuclear Iran is a significant roadblock to peace in the region. It is also an unacceptable security risk to the United States and the world. Iran continues to provide financial and material support to terrorist groups that use violence against the United States and our allies in the region.
Because of Iran’s demonstrated hostile intentions, I will continue to support policies that promote the containment of Iran until it agrees to comply with international law. It is my hope that the United Nations Security Council will continue to work collectively and decisively to stifle the Iranian regime's dangerous attempts to exert influence over the international community. Again, thanks for writing. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov.
With every best wish,
Does this sound at all like something you have heard before?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Jokes are hard to come by...
I'm sure you've all seen the cover of the latest "New Yorker." Of course a lot of people are upset about it. While slightly offensive, it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is hard to take a joke in this election campaign. Sadly it is a perfect image of satire, but without an article to go along with it, it is completely out of context. It would've made a better picture inside the magazine than on the cover. Gladly, Obama seems to have brushed it off without much concern for the misguided outrage that has been set off.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Twisting the truth.
Every politician does it. We all do it to a certain extent. Telling a date we're more athletic than is the reality. Telling a job interviewer we had a few more responsibilities than we did. It is just something we all have learned to do to get ahead. When public figures do it however, there are plenty of people who are willing to throw in their two cents(with the price of gas I'm now charging a nickle for my thoughts.) I'm learning to laugh at the weekly spins, and becoming more disheartened at the increase in flat out lies.
It has become common practice to use what your opponent says against them by carefully selecting what you quote, then telling everyone how they're wrong or "out of touch." While obnoxious and slightly misleading, it is the bigger stuff that hurts the average voter and will send many to apathy this year. There are still people questioning Obama's religion. Even people who know about all the news with his former pastor still think he might not be a Christian.
It would seem to me that lately, the GOP has been trying to over spin more than normal. I would guess they are trying to fight off accusations of bringing a 3rd Bush to the White House along with all the other scars from the current president. It feels like they're willing to say anything to get people to vote for their party over the ones they are competing with. Topics like Iraq, where suddenly, when Obama said he would listen to his commanders on the ground and adjust his plan accordingly, people are saying he's on McCain's side and he is waffling on his own policies. When did listening to strategy from the people who know more about a topic turn into giving up? I guess McCain was giving up on reducing the deficit when he suggested millions in business tax breaks?
The answer of course is no. Obama is not going to stay in Iraq, he still plans to withdraw, but he is saying, and has said since the primaries, that he would accept suggestions for how to accomplish this from his commanders. McCain is not giving up on the budget deficit, he plans on dealing with it, his priority is assisting businesses with their taxes first. Hopefully that will trickle down and help the economy (I compare it to pouring water on a 3 foot stack of paper towels, some of the water might leave a wet spot on the bottom, but the top towels will be soaked.)
Personally I enjoy watching the creative way people are spinning news now. Obama says he won't take public financing? Everyone is up in arms over the "disadvantage" McCain will have on the advertising front. The GOP just started a $3 million ad campaign in 4 states using an "independent expenditure committee." In simple terms is a group of people who collect money on behalf of a party, not a candidate, and they can spend it however they want. It is almost like a dreaded 527 group, except it is run by a party instead of a group of like-minded people who have no certain political affiliations, just common policy goals. Considering that the GOP has well over $50 million in the bank, they should have no problem keeping up with Obama's juggernaut of donors. I'm sure they plan to complain the whole way though.
...Read more
It has become common practice to use what your opponent says against them by carefully selecting what you quote, then telling everyone how they're wrong or "out of touch." While obnoxious and slightly misleading, it is the bigger stuff that hurts the average voter and will send many to apathy this year. There are still people questioning Obama's religion. Even people who know about all the news with his former pastor still think he might not be a Christian.
It would seem to me that lately, the GOP has been trying to over spin more than normal. I would guess they are trying to fight off accusations of bringing a 3rd Bush to the White House along with all the other scars from the current president. It feels like they're willing to say anything to get people to vote for their party over the ones they are competing with. Topics like Iraq, where suddenly, when Obama said he would listen to his commanders on the ground and adjust his plan accordingly, people are saying he's on McCain's side and he is waffling on his own policies. When did listening to strategy from the people who know more about a topic turn into giving up? I guess McCain was giving up on reducing the deficit when he suggested millions in business tax breaks?
The answer of course is no. Obama is not going to stay in Iraq, he still plans to withdraw, but he is saying, and has said since the primaries, that he would accept suggestions for how to accomplish this from his commanders. McCain is not giving up on the budget deficit, he plans on dealing with it, his priority is assisting businesses with their taxes first. Hopefully that will trickle down and help the economy (I compare it to pouring water on a 3 foot stack of paper towels, some of the water might leave a wet spot on the bottom, but the top towels will be soaked.)
Personally I enjoy watching the creative way people are spinning news now. Obama says he won't take public financing? Everyone is up in arms over the "disadvantage" McCain will have on the advertising front. The GOP just started a $3 million ad campaign in 4 states using an "independent expenditure committee." In simple terms is a group of people who collect money on behalf of a party, not a candidate, and they can spend it however they want. It is almost like a dreaded 527 group, except it is run by a party instead of a group of like-minded people who have no certain political affiliations, just common policy goals. Considering that the GOP has well over $50 million in the bank, they should have no problem keeping up with Obama's juggernaut of donors. I'm sure they plan to complain the whole way though.
...Read more
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
White House trying to bury the truth again.
Bush is at it again. His administration is trying to block and edit the EPA's findings on the dangers of CO2 and the ability of the US government to regulate emissions. The EPA is releasing this statement based on a Supreme Court decision that the EPA can and should regulate CO2 using the Clean Air Act. The White House is trying to block the original draft and get it changed so that they can say the CAA is broken and needs to be replaced (more than likely with some weaker policies and regulation). What are they trying to hide?
According to leaked copies of the draft, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if the US government changed fuel standards for cars to "well above 35 mpg." The White House has repeatedly tried to block things like this from being released, while would require them to act on it. This kind of editing and censoring of government agency's opinion and public releases should not be happening.
If the EPA, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. decide that something is/is not happening and releases a statement on it, it should not be edited. I understand the security concerns for things such as terrorism, but this has nothing to do with that. This is simply a piece of work that directly challenges the idea that acting on CO2 would hinder the US/world economy. The EPA is saying the this is just not true, and Bush wants to silence that, since it is his biggest argument for not doing anything on climate change in the last 7 years. The Executive branch should not be allowed to censor things that they just don't agree with. The EPA is just doing what it is paid to do, and Bush just wants it to say what he wants, not what the data says.
I think given the way Obama and McCain have been touting their energy plans, they should stand up and take a side on this. Either you believe that the EPA is right, and the US can effectively regulate CO2 and avoid hurting (or in this case actually assisting, by $2 trillion) the economy, or you think that Bush is right for trying to have it removed. I imagine neither will speak on it, and that it is really a pipe dream that someone would stand up and say what is happening is just plain wrong. Hopefully it will either be release as is was intended soon, or the EPA will be able to stall until a White House administration that will allow it to publish what it has spent millions of taxpayer dollars researching. ...Read more
According to leaked copies of the draft, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if the US government changed fuel standards for cars to "well above 35 mpg." The White House has repeatedly tried to block things like this from being released, while would require them to act on it. This kind of editing and censoring of government agency's opinion and public releases should not be happening.
If the EPA, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. decide that something is/is not happening and releases a statement on it, it should not be edited. I understand the security concerns for things such as terrorism, but this has nothing to do with that. This is simply a piece of work that directly challenges the idea that acting on CO2 would hinder the US/world economy. The EPA is saying the this is just not true, and Bush wants to silence that, since it is his biggest argument for not doing anything on climate change in the last 7 years. The Executive branch should not be allowed to censor things that they just don't agree with. The EPA is just doing what it is paid to do, and Bush just wants it to say what he wants, not what the data says.
I think given the way Obama and McCain have been touting their energy plans, they should stand up and take a side on this. Either you believe that the EPA is right, and the US can effectively regulate CO2 and avoid hurting (or in this case actually assisting, by $2 trillion) the economy, or you think that Bush is right for trying to have it removed. I imagine neither will speak on it, and that it is really a pipe dream that someone would stand up and say what is happening is just plain wrong. Hopefully it will either be release as is was intended soon, or the EPA will be able to stall until a White House administration that will allow it to publish what it has spent millions of taxpayer dollars researching. ...Read more
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Update:Are we really that sensitive?
I just watched the whole video of Clark's statement. This is just the same old crap, taking quotes out of context to fit what ever design you need it to. McCain should be ashamed of his campaign turning this into and issue, and Obama should be ashamed for not standing up by his general. See for yourself:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/what-wesley-cla.html
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/what-wesley-cla.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
Are we really that sensitive?
Gen. Wesley Clack recently questioned how McCain's Vietnam experience relates to being president, raising a valid point that no one event, or experience automatically makes you perfect for a specific job. Suddenly McCain is condemning the remarks, and Obama is distancing himself from a potential VP candidate. Why are we suddenly so sensitive, that we immediately condemn a reasonable question, instead of answering it.
Clark made a valid point, even if he went around it the wrong way. McCain's time in Vietnam does not automatically qualify him to be an expert on foreign relations and nation security. Being a former navy pilot does not give you the right to be president. Why then is everyone acting like Clark was waging a personal attack against McCain?
We as a society, are becoming far too sensitive. We see something that might be considered offensive, and immediately reject it as being hateful or disrespectful. In this day of PC, we need to step back and look at how crazy we've all gotten if we cannot open our mouths without worrying that we will be ostracized for speaking our mind. There is a difference between open questions and attacks.
All McCain had to do was say that he's got all this other experience that allows him to be much more knowledgeable on topics such as the war in Iraq. Instead he took some kind of personal offense that he did not have the right to be president because he was a POW. The media helped fuel this controversy by playing into it. They're always looking for the next big story, and in a week where candidates would normal just trade barbs over the economy and climate change, they saw a chance to make some headlines. It is becoming almost a weekly occurrence to have a big story, that isn't really a story at all. I wonder if those reporters are ever going to see the light and realize they are cheapening their own profession.
...Read more
Clark made a valid point, even if he went around it the wrong way. McCain's time in Vietnam does not automatically qualify him to be an expert on foreign relations and nation security. Being a former navy pilot does not give you the right to be president. Why then is everyone acting like Clark was waging a personal attack against McCain?
We as a society, are becoming far too sensitive. We see something that might be considered offensive, and immediately reject it as being hateful or disrespectful. In this day of PC, we need to step back and look at how crazy we've all gotten if we cannot open our mouths without worrying that we will be ostracized for speaking our mind. There is a difference between open questions and attacks.
All McCain had to do was say that he's got all this other experience that allows him to be much more knowledgeable on topics such as the war in Iraq. Instead he took some kind of personal offense that he did not have the right to be president because he was a POW. The media helped fuel this controversy by playing into it. They're always looking for the next big story, and in a week where candidates would normal just trade barbs over the economy and climate change, they saw a chance to make some headlines. It is becoming almost a weekly occurrence to have a big story, that isn't really a story at all. I wonder if those reporters are ever going to see the light and realize they are cheapening their own profession.
...Read more
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Local Action, National Microcosm?
In Wichita, Kansas (pop. roughly 3-400,000) an interesting request has come before the local City Council: a loan. Local business man, Bill Warren, is asking the City of Wichita to grant him and his movie theater chain, Warren Theatres, for a six million dollar loan to help him offset the loses of his destination theater in the middle of a recently redeveloped section of downtown Wichita. The City of Wichita approached Warren early in the stages of redeveloping what is now called "Old Town Plaza" requesting that he build a theater there to be the main tenant of the new area hoping that the theater's local popularity, and relatively high caliber would attract other tenants to the area. It has been about five years since the "Old Town Warren Theatre (LLC)" opened for business and, along with other tenants in the area the theater claims to have been losing money since day one.
The money Warren hopes to borrow at a low interest rate (no interest for the first five years, 1.25 percent for the remaining five) will be used to renovate the Old Town Warren. Removing the "Oscar" bar which has done poorly due to many other more accessible drinking establishments in the area and putting an additional auditorium in its place. Thereby cutting the loss of the bar in favor of a potentially increased variety of movies that the relatively small (currently only six screens) downtown destination can offer. The six million would also go to pay for digital projection and sound equipment as well as expanding the food services offered to include a banquet room. The Warren family of theaters and restaurants (located within the theaters) have been good to Wichita and its citizens. Providing many diverse jobs, and top rate theaters for years now, and Wichita has been good to Warren. Warren started in Wichita and has since expanded to neighboring states Missouri and Oklahoma. Is it the duty of the taxpayers to take on the burdens of a local business man?
While most see the Warren theaters as an asset to the city and a great place to see a movie, and maybe get a bite to eat. Others see it as a locally grown monopoly. Many "small" theaters have been forced to close or be purchased by Warren simply because his theaters were able to very successfully dip in, way in, to their customer base. Now this type of rise and fall is simply free market economy, but people, and economies, almost always tend to be at loss for the passing of a local "ma and pa" run business.
The whole situation begs the question of who the responsibility for this should fall on. Should the city handle what could be seen as a poor development move in encouraging the wrong kind of business(es) in the wrong part of town? Should the businessmen assume the loss they befell their investment? Should the taxpayers and patrons have a say? First things first, as a country partially founded on the outrage of taxation without representation it should be no question that the taxpayers should have some say. Is simply picking a city council member to stand behind adequate representation? Or should the loan go to a general vote so that taxpayers are given a chance to either decline or support a single company's request. In the free market a consumer is given the choice of which product to buy and from which company. If one does not like a product for any reason or a company for its actions or investments they have the right to take their money elsewhere.
In Wichita there are many opposed to the Warren because of their relative control of price and content over locally shown movies, and these opponents who are unwilling to give their money freely may also be unwilling to give it via council approved spending even if they support their council member. It could be that the movie goers have chosen to boycott the Old Town Warren for one reason or another. If this happens to be true can, and should the City override what its citizens have already decided? The City has spent nearly ten million to develop the area this theater is in, and did as the theater to build their. If the theater is forced to close, and presumptively the area fails with it, the city will likely be unable to retrieve their investment to repay the bonds used for the development meaning a huge loss for taxpayers. Not only is the money lost, the area is as well.
Considering the City's initial ten million dollar investment maybe they have done all they need to in making the area welcome to these business men and women and it should now be their responsibility to save their own loss. No one forced the theater to build there. I am not certain but I do not believe that any incentive was offered other than a public plaza and improved public streets and parking for the theater to build. The investors took a risk and lost. That is the investment game after all. Maybe they should take this all back upon themselves and try to find a solution not involving tax dollars. However, if the City does award the loan the theater would agree to stay open in its current location for at least ten years, the life of the loan. Also the City will be first on any foreclosure or bankruptcy claim should the loan fail to stymie the decline.
A further question to ask is, "What if National Government worked this way?". Well what if? What if a failing national, or international company could ask the federal government for a loan to supplement their profits or the lack thereof? In a few situations this is the case. Take "Big Oil" for instance. Congress has been fighting for months over whether or not to remove the tax cuts and levy additional taxes on oil industry leaders. Are the current tax breaks, which the companies claim they need to compete globally, anything like the six million dollar loan that Bill Warren and his business partners are asking for? In what is supposed to be a free market economy, where success or failure is in the hands of the American consumer, should the government, local or federal, be awarding money to individual companies to help keep them afloat? Or should our governments simply be setting general economic guidelines like taxes on industries and companies that harm the health or security of our nation and planet; laws against what can and cannot be in food, clothes, or children's toys; incentives for companies that help America become more independent in more than just energy but natural resources as well; tax breaks for companies that increase our standard of living by keeping jobs here and the nation and our planet clean? The days of laissez faire economics are over.
People have demanded safeguards for food and medicine (the FDA), a clean world to live in (the EPA), safe places to work (OSHA) and many others. This does not mean that a free market is, or should be, out of the question. The government does the work of the people, all of these agencies and the rules they have laid out we, as voters and consumers, have asked for in one way or another, or at least we accept them. These organizations keep corporations making better, safer, cleaner, more efficient, easier to use products. Progress that, if were left totally up to the laws of demand, may take years. The government's role in the free market should be to lay the ground rules. Encourage what we the people want, and discourage what we the people are sick of. It is hardly a free economy when a company's loses are being bought off by a city, or a corporation's profits not subjected to the same taxes as others. The consumers should decide what the profits and loses of any given company look like. The government need only assure that the products brought to market are in the best interest of the nation and the world. ...Read more
The money Warren hopes to borrow at a low interest rate (no interest for the first five years, 1.25 percent for the remaining five) will be used to renovate the Old Town Warren. Removing the "Oscar" bar which has done poorly due to many other more accessible drinking establishments in the area and putting an additional auditorium in its place. Thereby cutting the loss of the bar in favor of a potentially increased variety of movies that the relatively small (currently only six screens) downtown destination can offer. The six million would also go to pay for digital projection and sound equipment as well as expanding the food services offered to include a banquet room. The Warren family of theaters and restaurants (located within the theaters) have been good to Wichita and its citizens. Providing many diverse jobs, and top rate theaters for years now, and Wichita has been good to Warren. Warren started in Wichita and has since expanded to neighboring states Missouri and Oklahoma. Is it the duty of the taxpayers to take on the burdens of a local business man?
While most see the Warren theaters as an asset to the city and a great place to see a movie, and maybe get a bite to eat. Others see it as a locally grown monopoly. Many "small" theaters have been forced to close or be purchased by Warren simply because his theaters were able to very successfully dip in, way in, to their customer base. Now this type of rise and fall is simply free market economy, but people, and economies, almost always tend to be at loss for the passing of a local "ma and pa" run business.
The whole situation begs the question of who the responsibility for this should fall on. Should the city handle what could be seen as a poor development move in encouraging the wrong kind of business(es) in the wrong part of town? Should the businessmen assume the loss they befell their investment? Should the taxpayers and patrons have a say? First things first, as a country partially founded on the outrage of taxation without representation it should be no question that the taxpayers should have some say. Is simply picking a city council member to stand behind adequate representation? Or should the loan go to a general vote so that taxpayers are given a chance to either decline or support a single company's request. In the free market a consumer is given the choice of which product to buy and from which company. If one does not like a product for any reason or a company for its actions or investments they have the right to take their money elsewhere.
In Wichita there are many opposed to the Warren because of their relative control of price and content over locally shown movies, and these opponents who are unwilling to give their money freely may also be unwilling to give it via council approved spending even if they support their council member. It could be that the movie goers have chosen to boycott the Old Town Warren for one reason or another. If this happens to be true can, and should the City override what its citizens have already decided? The City has spent nearly ten million to develop the area this theater is in, and did as the theater to build their. If the theater is forced to close, and presumptively the area fails with it, the city will likely be unable to retrieve their investment to repay the bonds used for the development meaning a huge loss for taxpayers. Not only is the money lost, the area is as well.
Considering the City's initial ten million dollar investment maybe they have done all they need to in making the area welcome to these business men and women and it should now be their responsibility to save their own loss. No one forced the theater to build there. I am not certain but I do not believe that any incentive was offered other than a public plaza and improved public streets and parking for the theater to build. The investors took a risk and lost. That is the investment game after all. Maybe they should take this all back upon themselves and try to find a solution not involving tax dollars. However, if the City does award the loan the theater would agree to stay open in its current location for at least ten years, the life of the loan. Also the City will be first on any foreclosure or bankruptcy claim should the loan fail to stymie the decline.
A further question to ask is, "What if National Government worked this way?". Well what if? What if a failing national, or international company could ask the federal government for a loan to supplement their profits or the lack thereof? In a few situations this is the case. Take "Big Oil" for instance. Congress has been fighting for months over whether or not to remove the tax cuts and levy additional taxes on oil industry leaders. Are the current tax breaks, which the companies claim they need to compete globally, anything like the six million dollar loan that Bill Warren and his business partners are asking for? In what is supposed to be a free market economy, where success or failure is in the hands of the American consumer, should the government, local or federal, be awarding money to individual companies to help keep them afloat? Or should our governments simply be setting general economic guidelines like taxes on industries and companies that harm the health or security of our nation and planet; laws against what can and cannot be in food, clothes, or children's toys; incentives for companies that help America become more independent in more than just energy but natural resources as well; tax breaks for companies that increase our standard of living by keeping jobs here and the nation and our planet clean? The days of laissez faire economics are over.
People have demanded safeguards for food and medicine (the FDA), a clean world to live in (the EPA), safe places to work (OSHA) and many others. This does not mean that a free market is, or should be, out of the question. The government does the work of the people, all of these agencies and the rules they have laid out we, as voters and consumers, have asked for in one way or another, or at least we accept them. These organizations keep corporations making better, safer, cleaner, more efficient, easier to use products. Progress that, if were left totally up to the laws of demand, may take years. The government's role in the free market should be to lay the ground rules. Encourage what we the people want, and discourage what we the people are sick of. It is hardly a free economy when a company's loses are being bought off by a city, or a corporation's profits not subjected to the same taxes as others. The consumers should decide what the profits and loses of any given company look like. The government need only assure that the products brought to market are in the best interest of the nation and the world. ...Read more
Monday, June 16, 2008
How candidates deal with fuel prices
Price of gas is well over $4 where you live? Join the rest of the country. It's starting to affect everything from the cost of grain, to the cost of steel. Since the oil crisis of the 1970's, we have based our entire economy on petroleum. For the previous quarter century, oil was cheap and easy to use to keep our country moving. That is no longer the case. We're going to extreme lengths to get oil, from squeezing it out of sand in Canada, to setting new records for deep water drilling. The new extremes coupled with the shortage of refinery capacity and the unending appetite of the planet for fuel have cause a crisis that may go beyond $140 oil.
So what can we do? McCain continues plead for his gas tax holiday, but recently has suggested a new plan. More drilling in our backyard. This would provide oil from some of the most secure source in the world, while also providing new sources of income for American companies and that states they drill in. While he suggests drilling more off our coastal waters, he is still opposed to drilling in Alaska, giving a good view of both sides of his coin. This basic rhetoric, of more domestic drilling to provide energy security and lower prices, has recently been touted by Dick Cheney. McCain also supports development of alternative and bio fuels.
Obama has made reducing dependence on foreign oil, and oil in general, a core to his campaign. By supporting not only the recently passed increase in fuel economy for vehicles, but also increasing those fuel standards and helping US automakers in achieving them, his plan would reduce overall oil consumption. This is in stark contrast to the way McCain has behaved by skipping many of the important votes on environmental bills. Both Clinton and Obama made the effort the return for those votes, even with their busy pre-primary schedules. McCain's answer has become increased production.
Unfortunately the suggestion that drilling in the US will lower the price of gas and oil is far from reality. Recent studies have shown that even drilling the massive oil reserve of Alaska would only bring down the price of oil by potentially 1% by 2025. Now if the price of oil reaches $200 like some major economists believe, that would be a whole $2. If you consider how much oil we might have, we might be able to bring the entire country's price down 5-7%. That is only if we started drilling everywhere we have oil in the next 5 years. Given many oil companies' lethargic attempts to increase production and capacity, I don't see that happening.
Since we opened the oil markets, crude oil has become a publicly traded commodity. This is why, even with the recent announcement of Saudi Arabia's increase in production, the price of oil will not drop significantly over the next 6 months. Consumption is starting to slow in the US, as people take more public transportation and move away from large SUV's, but not fast enough to make a dent. This long term price increase would theoretically give rise to alternative fuels that are too expensive for $50 oil. We should take advantage of this time, and the public's dissatisfaction with the price of gas to develop ways to get ourselves off oil. In 30 years we will be short on places to find oil, and petroleum fuels will skyrocket.
This is why short term solutions won't work. We need to invest in technologies that may not be ready for 5-10 years, but that will help remove oil from our dominant fuel by the time it starts running out. The side benefit to all this is that we can combat global warming at the same time. Sadly, it seem that McCain may only be providing the body of this country a band aid for a broken bone. I suppose it is still better than Bush's wait-and-see attitude, hoping it heals itself.
...Read more
So what can we do? McCain continues plead for his gas tax holiday, but recently has suggested a new plan. More drilling in our backyard. This would provide oil from some of the most secure source in the world, while also providing new sources of income for American companies and that states they drill in. While he suggests drilling more off our coastal waters, he is still opposed to drilling in Alaska, giving a good view of both sides of his coin. This basic rhetoric, of more domestic drilling to provide energy security and lower prices, has recently been touted by Dick Cheney. McCain also supports development of alternative and bio fuels.
Obama has made reducing dependence on foreign oil, and oil in general, a core to his campaign. By supporting not only the recently passed increase in fuel economy for vehicles, but also increasing those fuel standards and helping US automakers in achieving them, his plan would reduce overall oil consumption. This is in stark contrast to the way McCain has behaved by skipping many of the important votes on environmental bills. Both Clinton and Obama made the effort the return for those votes, even with their busy pre-primary schedules. McCain's answer has become increased production.
Unfortunately the suggestion that drilling in the US will lower the price of gas and oil is far from reality. Recent studies have shown that even drilling the massive oil reserve of Alaska would only bring down the price of oil by potentially 1% by 2025. Now if the price of oil reaches $200 like some major economists believe, that would be a whole $2. If you consider how much oil we might have, we might be able to bring the entire country's price down 5-7%. That is only if we started drilling everywhere we have oil in the next 5 years. Given many oil companies' lethargic attempts to increase production and capacity, I don't see that happening.
Since we opened the oil markets, crude oil has become a publicly traded commodity. This is why, even with the recent announcement of Saudi Arabia's increase in production, the price of oil will not drop significantly over the next 6 months. Consumption is starting to slow in the US, as people take more public transportation and move away from large SUV's, but not fast enough to make a dent. This long term price increase would theoretically give rise to alternative fuels that are too expensive for $50 oil. We should take advantage of this time, and the public's dissatisfaction with the price of gas to develop ways to get ourselves off oil. In 30 years we will be short on places to find oil, and petroleum fuels will skyrocket.
This is why short term solutions won't work. We need to invest in technologies that may not be ready for 5-10 years, but that will help remove oil from our dominant fuel by the time it starts running out. The side benefit to all this is that we can combat global warming at the same time. Sadly, it seem that McCain may only be providing the body of this country a band aid for a broken bone. I suppose it is still better than Bush's wait-and-see attitude, hoping it heals itself.
...Read more
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Economic Bickering
Obama and McCain have been going back and forth the last few days, arguing about whose policy is worse for the country. Obama says that letting the Bush tax cuts continue past 2010 would just give more money back to corporate bigwigs and the richest parts of America. McCain says they will give American companies the ability to compete on a global scale, keeping good paying jobs in the country. McCain also says that Obama's tax increases would amount to the largest tax increase since WWII, and would hit middle class families and business owners, even some low income families. What's the average person to do?
Well, pull your head out for starts. It's basically been proven, that no matter how much money or tax breaks we give to big companies(or the people that run them), they're going to keep sending jobs to India or Mexico as long as they can bring the goods back into the country cheaply. Obviously part of the solution needs to be fixing our import/export system so that we're competitive with the lower production costs of foreign workers. Continuing the tax breaks already given, won't get our jobs back any faster. Unless we start moving to Vietnam.
There is some concern about Obama's plan hitting middle class and small business owners. If you actually believe that capital gains tax increases will hurt low income families, go down to your local "projects" and ask to see their investment portfolio. The small businesses and middle class families would be mostly covered by new tax breaks and amendments to the AMT. Which is even now ensnaring many of these same people as the Bush administration sits on its hands.
McCain's proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts, as well as a general repeal of the AMT, would cause a $300 billion reduction in revenue for the government(how do you keep funding a war by throwing away that much money?). Obama's modest(they may be the largest dollar amount, but any economist will tell you that percentage of GDP matters most, and this is ranked 5th since 1943) tax increases for big business and the people who run them would be dumped back into the economy for investment in health care and renewable energies. Both of those would represent a huge savings to the entire country if health care costs were down and energy wasn't brought by tankers into this country from places like Iran.
Really, the "trickle down" approach to taxation will not help solve our economic problems. Giving the money to the top will hardly make down the hill as everything on the way down takes its "share." McCain claims to want to give the free market a chance to fix the economy on its own, without government interference. We did that for 7 years and it has put us in the worst economic downturn in maybe 30 years.
...Read more
Well, pull your head out for starts. It's basically been proven, that no matter how much money or tax breaks we give to big companies(or the people that run them), they're going to keep sending jobs to India or Mexico as long as they can bring the goods back into the country cheaply. Obviously part of the solution needs to be fixing our import/export system so that we're competitive with the lower production costs of foreign workers. Continuing the tax breaks already given, won't get our jobs back any faster. Unless we start moving to Vietnam.
There is some concern about Obama's plan hitting middle class and small business owners. If you actually believe that capital gains tax increases will hurt low income families, go down to your local "projects" and ask to see their investment portfolio. The small businesses and middle class families would be mostly covered by new tax breaks and amendments to the AMT. Which is even now ensnaring many of these same people as the Bush administration sits on its hands.
McCain's proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts, as well as a general repeal of the AMT, would cause a $300 billion reduction in revenue for the government(how do you keep funding a war by throwing away that much money?). Obama's modest(they may be the largest dollar amount, but any economist will tell you that percentage of GDP matters most, and this is ranked 5th since 1943) tax increases for big business and the people who run them would be dumped back into the economy for investment in health care and renewable energies. Both of those would represent a huge savings to the entire country if health care costs were down and energy wasn't brought by tankers into this country from places like Iran.
Really, the "trickle down" approach to taxation will not help solve our economic problems. Giving the money to the top will hardly make down the hill as everything on the way down takes its "share." McCain claims to want to give the free market a chance to fix the economy on its own, without government interference. We did that for 7 years and it has put us in the worst economic downturn in maybe 30 years.
...Read more
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Clinton steps out, keeps the spotlight.
Hillary Clinton finally announced that she was suspending her campaign. Most people saw it as a chance to mend ties and make sure that her avid supporters are lead into the Obama fold. She kept repeating that they should "elect Barack Obama the next president." Obviously she either realized, or caved to the party leaders, that she needed to thoroughly endorse him. Really she just spent most of the time blowing her own horn.
I'm not a sexist person, I never felt like Clinton didn't deserve to be the nominee. I just liked Obama better. Some people would say that the media gave the nomination to him, but in reality he won it fair and square. Michigan and Florida had violated the rules, and that should have been a non-issue. There were some people who obviously had issues with Hillary as a woman (read: Tucker Carlson), but I think that most Americans have no issue with a woman as a leader. Many would even welcome it.
That leads us back to the speach this weekend. Hillary was there to endorse Obama and thank her supporters, while carefully ending her campaign. She spent most of the time talking about how great it would be to have a woman president and how great she is. She managed to squeeze in a few things about Obama being the first black nominee, but from my computer, it was all about her. She was respectful of Obama, but she did little to try and sway the woman's groups that are refusing to support the Democratic nominee.
Then there is the VP debate. Is Hillary a help or a hinderance? I think in the situation that they have been through, she is easily both. She would bring with her a large group of rabid supporters that would do what she asks like people buying books from Oprah's list. On the other side, she has been a very devisive character and has burned many bridges with friends and collegues. It is not a thought to be taken lightly, and the Obama campaign has clearly said that he will take his time. There are plenty of potential VP's and they all have pluses and minuses.
At least now this chapter over. Potentially. I think we haven't heard the last of the sexism debate, but that it will fade away quickly as the focus drifts to the fall elections and the fight with McCain. It will be interesting to watch this play out. McCain has been trying to paint Iraq as a neccessary war on terrorism, while distancing himself from Bush and his policies. The recent disaster of the climate change bill in congress will hang a noose around some necks, and it will be up to the voters to decide in November if they should pull the rope.
...Read more
I'm not a sexist person, I never felt like Clinton didn't deserve to be the nominee. I just liked Obama better. Some people would say that the media gave the nomination to him, but in reality he won it fair and square. Michigan and Florida had violated the rules, and that should have been a non-issue. There were some people who obviously had issues with Hillary as a woman (read: Tucker Carlson), but I think that most Americans have no issue with a woman as a leader. Many would even welcome it.
That leads us back to the speach this weekend. Hillary was there to endorse Obama and thank her supporters, while carefully ending her campaign. She spent most of the time talking about how great it would be to have a woman president and how great she is. She managed to squeeze in a few things about Obama being the first black nominee, but from my computer, it was all about her. She was respectful of Obama, but she did little to try and sway the woman's groups that are refusing to support the Democratic nominee.
Then there is the VP debate. Is Hillary a help or a hinderance? I think in the situation that they have been through, she is easily both. She would bring with her a large group of rabid supporters that would do what she asks like people buying books from Oprah's list. On the other side, she has been a very devisive character and has burned many bridges with friends and collegues. It is not a thought to be taken lightly, and the Obama campaign has clearly said that he will take his time. There are plenty of potential VP's and they all have pluses and minuses.
At least now this chapter over. Potentially. I think we haven't heard the last of the sexism debate, but that it will fade away quickly as the focus drifts to the fall elections and the fight with McCain. It will be interesting to watch this play out. McCain has been trying to paint Iraq as a neccessary war on terrorism, while distancing himself from Bush and his policies. The recent disaster of the climate change bill in congress will hang a noose around some necks, and it will be up to the voters to decide in November if they should pull the rope.
...Read more
Friday, June 6, 2008
Simplifying the complex?
I'm going to start this political blog, if only for the fact that things are going crazy in the world right now, and most people have no idea what is happening and why. I will try to stay objective, but be warned, I hate stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
