Yesterday was President Obama's big speech attempting to sell to the nation his decision to increase the United States' military presence in war-torn Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Many people on both sides of the aisle disagreed with this decision, largely believing that the war is too costly and insurmountable. Mr. Obama did sway a few hearts on the issue, and even though I generally swing for the liberals, I am among those supporting Obama's decision.
First, let's take a look at an early precedent set by Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. When the situation in Iraq was as stagnant as the one currently seen in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush sold the nation on a much contested troop surge, which despite the negative ramifications, achieved its goal and put Iraq on the road (albeit the slow one) to true and lasting recovery.
It comes as no surprise to me that Obama reached this decision (after much deliberation with appropriate cabinet and staff members) considering the damage being to America efforts in the largely Taliban controlled state. I've been reading about this surge in the New York Times for weeks, and was totally prepared for this announcement.
Lots of liberals take issue with the idea of "escalation" as though adding more troops to the conflict automatically means more fighting and more death. Yes, these are unfortunate side effects of any conflict, however I am convinced that the increased presence will lead to more effective operations and hopefully root out weapons stockpiles and enemy stronghold leading to an overall decline in violence.
It is important to remember that this decision was not reached lightly, and is in fact one Mr. Obama has been stewing over since the campaign trail. I am largely a pacifist and oppose war as a rule. So how can I possibly agree with this increased military presence? Simply put, the alternative would be worse. If we, as a nation, attempted to do the job we're compelled to do in Afghanistan with the force we currently have there we would never be able to reverse the trend of violence, Taliban control, and governmental corruption (an obvious symptom of decreased security). The sad truth of the matter is that we got into this mess, and while I largely disagree with that and the handling of it for the most part, we cannot simply walk away. To walk away would not only tarnish our reputation as a benevolent nation by invading another and leaving it war torn, but it would leave massive holes into which extremists would funnel and only further decrease the security of this country as well as Afghanistan.
President Obama is not sending an imperial army to subdue the nation of Afghanistan for American profit. Let's face it, the only real product Afghanistan has that Americans are interested in is opium, and you can't even tax that. The troop surge is meant to help reign in a conflict that has gotten out of control. More American forces there will mean better containment of weapons and extremists and can only help to speed our exit from the country when the time is appropriate. I will gladly say that I wish we had never gotten into this conflict or the one in Iraq, but now that we are, we need to finish it as effectively and peacefully as possible and I believe this surge is a good way to do that.
To wrap this up, allow me to paraphrase (very roughly) a quote I read in the New York Times this morning, "I am glad Obama is increasing troop presence in Iraq, but I'm unhappy because I know he is not doing it because he wants to, he's doing it to appease Republicans." (Remember, that is a ROUGH paraphrase) First of all, I hope Mr. Obama is not sending troops because he wants to. Who honestly wants to put America's finest young men and women in harms way? Could it be that the President is taking this action, begrudgingly, because that is what the situation calls for? Yes, he may be compromising typically Democratic ideals, but there is a job to be done, and it needs to be done well, and this has worked before, so hopefully it can work again. I, like many others, am cautiously optimistic about this course of action.
-titus
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Friday, September 26, 2008
$700,000,000,000
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
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
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
