President Obama and the Democrats are in political trouble, and they know it. They are projecting to November and anticipating the difficulties their party will likely have, as they are at great risk of losing control of the House of Representatives, as well as lose significant seats in the Senate.
So the President is doing what he can to change perceptions. He continues to use the unpopularity of the Bush presidency as a crutch. He uses it to paint our choices as voters as a black and white choice between his policies, and "going back" to the Bush policies. The President presents this as if there are no other policy choices out there. This is not the case.
Nothing is static, especially in politics. The Republican party is not the same. The mistakes of the Bush administation, the tea party movement, and the aggressively radical policies of the left (lead by President Obama) are factors that have influenced the Republican party today. The party today is no longer the party it was when Bush was in office. Change is unavoidable for both parties. Despite how the President sets the scene, nobody can go back, even if one wanted to go back.
The President is wrong. The choices for direction of the country is not a straight line, either A or B. It's an array of choices in infinite directions. The President wants us to believe we have to either support his policies or support the old Bush policies, a kind of either-with-me-or-against-me credo. This is not so. Americans are wiser. Republicans are wiser. Conservatives are wiser. We have all learned from the failings of the previous big government administrations, whether they were Republican or Democrat. My fear is that it's too late. We've gone too far down the Big Government road to reel it in. Perhaps. One thing of which I am certain; the Obama-left-big government direction of the country can not be sustained, and the direction will eventually change.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Massachusetts Delivered Us in 1775 and Massachusetts May Have Delivered Us in 2010
Hope is not lost!
I'm speaking of Scott Brown's Senate race win in Massachusetts.
This past year plus has been a depressing time for lovers-of-liberty. How refreshing to learn that even in uber-progressive Massachusetts, there's still that undercurrent of liberty that was not able to be held down.
Some thoughts about the events in Massachusetts:
Yes we can!
I'm speaking of Scott Brown's Senate race win in Massachusetts.
This past year plus has been a depressing time for lovers-of-liberty. How refreshing to learn that even in uber-progressive Massachusetts, there's still that undercurrent of liberty that was not able to be held down.
Some thoughts about the events in Massachusetts:
- Is this win actually a positive in the long run for the Democrats? It seemed like there were a lot of sighs of relief from many Democrats (especially those known as the "Blue Dogs"). This Republican victory means the Democrats now have an excuse not to have to vote for a health care reform bill the American people don't want. If the Democrats retain this Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats would be saddled with approving this fiasco of a bill, and would pay even more dearly in 2010 and 2012.
- Scott Brown is not exactly a conservative Republican. It remains to be seen if he can stay true to his campaign promises and avoid a progressive agenda.
- Does this loss cause any soul searching among Democrats, or will they still continue to be a party courting fringe groups of society (unions, minorities, wealthy urbanites) while ignoring "middle America"?
- In an ironic twist, was the Barack Obama win in 2008 exactly what this country needed to wake up and appreciate liberty? Barack Obama may have been the best thing that could have happened for the liberty-movement. Think of how events would have progressed had John McCain won. Things would be mostly business as-usual. There would be no Tea Party movement. No awakening throughout the country. Progressive statists likely would have won in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Perhaps Obama was the shock the country needed to finally be able to identify the anti-American statist progressive agenda.
Yes we can!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
How to Contact Your Representative in Congress
If you ever feel the need to make your voice heard, you can find contact information for you Senators and Representatives at the following link:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obama Cult of Personality Scary
From Wikipedia:
"A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships"
If that definition does not describe the media treatment of Barack Hussein Obama, I don't know what does!
As I watched the crowd wildly cheer a man who has yet to accomplish anything real, I can understand how dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were able to control the masses. It frightened me. Not to say that Barack Hussein Obama is in any way comparable to these evil dictators. However, the behavior of the crowd and the Obama-ites in general made me realize that it would not be impossible for the American people to be subjugated by a despot. I once thought this behavior was impossible from the American people. I now see that it is not. Paraphrasing Michelle Obama, for the first time in my adult life I was scared for the future of my country. This makes the fight for liberty all the more important for the rest of us non-kool aide drinkers. To listen to the mass media one would think Barack Hussein Obama could do no wrong. Even with his (along with Chief Justice Roberts) colossal screw up during the swearing-in, Barack Hussein Obama was treated with god-like reverence.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over
Listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, one might forget that nearly half the country voted for John McCain. These networks totally ignore the 47% or so that did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Is it any surprise why Fox News, which actually tries to address both sides, dominates the other news networks? Is it any surprise that the more balanced Wall Street Journal has a significantly larger newspaper circulation than the left wing New York Times?
President Barack Hussein Obama has a lot of power. All presidents have great power, but with the media and the lemming-like masses bowing at his feet, Barack Hussein Obama has more power than most. Let's hope he uses his power to increase, and not attack, liberty.
P.S.
Barack Hussein Obama likes to draw parallels between himself and Abraham Lincoln. Lest we forget Lincoln's greatness, I've included the Gettysburg Address below. Perhaps it's been a while since you've read it. I ask you to consider taking a moment to re-read this speech. While reading, be sure to consider the circumstances the country was under at the time Lincoln delivered the speech.
I've had the opportunity to read the Gettysburg Address at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D. C. and at the cemetery in Gettysburg, PA where the speech was originally delivered. The profundity of the speech impacts me every time I read it.
Barack Hussein Obama may be good, but he's no Lincoln!
"A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships"
If that definition does not describe the media treatment of Barack Hussein Obama, I don't know what does!
As I watched the crowd wildly cheer a man who has yet to accomplish anything real, I can understand how dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were able to control the masses. It frightened me. Not to say that Barack Hussein Obama is in any way comparable to these evil dictators. However, the behavior of the crowd and the Obama-ites in general made me realize that it would not be impossible for the American people to be subjugated by a despot. I once thought this behavior was impossible from the American people. I now see that it is not. Paraphrasing Michelle Obama, for the first time in my adult life I was scared for the future of my country. This makes the fight for liberty all the more important for the rest of us non-kool aide drinkers. To listen to the mass media one would think Barack Hussein Obama could do no wrong. Even with his (along with Chief Justice Roberts) colossal screw up during the swearing-in, Barack Hussein Obama was treated with god-like reverence.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over
Listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, one might forget that nearly half the country voted for John McCain. These networks totally ignore the 47% or so that did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Is it any surprise why Fox News, which actually tries to address both sides, dominates the other news networks? Is it any surprise that the more balanced Wall Street Journal has a significantly larger newspaper circulation than the left wing New York Times?
President Barack Hussein Obama has a lot of power. All presidents have great power, but with the media and the lemming-like masses bowing at his feet, Barack Hussein Obama has more power than most. Let's hope he uses his power to increase, and not attack, liberty.
P.S.
Barack Hussein Obama likes to draw parallels between himself and Abraham Lincoln. Lest we forget Lincoln's greatness, I've included the Gettysburg Address below. Perhaps it's been a while since you've read it. I ask you to consider taking a moment to re-read this speech. While reading, be sure to consider the circumstances the country was under at the time Lincoln delivered the speech.
I've had the opportunity to read the Gettysburg Address at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D. C. and at the cemetery in Gettysburg, PA where the speech was originally delivered. The profundity of the speech impacts me every time I read it.
Barack Hussein Obama may be good, but he's no Lincoln!
The Gettysburg Address
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Democrat Bail Out Logic Fails
No MBA. No PhD. Just a citizen with a belief that there has to be a better way.
Follow the logic here...
Throughout this campaign season Democrats have been claiming that this is the "worst economy since the great depression" for the working and middle class Americans that make up the majority of the populace. Democrats further claim that if we do not pass a $700 billion dollar economic bail out package, Wall Street will collapse resulting in a severe drop in stock prices. Given these two premises I pose the question: Why would a drop in stock prices hurt the struggling "little guy"? If the working and middle class are doing so bad, how would they be able to own significant amounts of stock? Using the Democrat's logic, working and middle class people are in such bad economic shape that they could not possibly afford to own significant caches of stocks. Therefore, again using Democrat logic, a stock market crash would have no impact on working class people!
Ahh, but you counter by saying "A crash on Wall Street would trickle down to Main Street." I heard this line over and over again in the first presidential debate. Wait a minute! According to Democrats there's no such thing as trickle down economics! How can this be?!
Ignoring this incongruity in Democrat economic dogma, let's suppose that a Wall Street failure could indeed trickle down to the working class, and eventually cause mass unemployment. Although highly unlikely (boardering on impossible), let's even go as far to assume that it could cause Great Depression-level unemployment. If that's the case, then why would we not let the free market purge Wall Street through the natural market forces, then set the $700 billion aside for the "little people" in anticipation of the great mass of unemployment and hardship that could follow? Let's assume the $700 billion doesn't make it to Wall Street and an economic meltdown follows. Let's do some math, using approximate numbers and some general assumptions, to see what $700 billion could do:
There are approximately 300 million people in the USA.
Out of those 300 million, about 70 million are children.
About 50 million people are already retired.
That leaves 180 million people.
There are about 14 million non-working spouses (a.k.a. stay-at-home moms/dads)
That leaves 166 million.
Out of that 166 million, let's assume 5% of the people are unemployable in any economy.
That leaves us with about 158 million workers that have the potential to lose their jobs if massive Great Depression-like job losses were to occur.
Jobless rates during the Great Depression reached into the 30% range.
30% of 158 million means that we are looking at a potential pool of 47 million unemployed workers at absolute worst case levels.
Even at those crazy-high, sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rates, $700 billion would be enough to give about $15,000 of benefits to each and every one of these unemployed people.
Now, $15,000 would not be a fortune, but remember it would be $30,000 for 2 income families. With the median annual family income in the US at about $50,000, this $30,000 could possibly keep a family afloat for nearly a year assuming they tightened their belts (which is not an outrageous assumption considering they are out of work). Also, consider that this money would be in addition to any state provided unemployment insurance that currently exists. Needless to say, even in this economic Armageddon situation, the $700 billion would go a long way in getting a family back on their feet.
Being more optimistic, assume that instead of 30% the unemployment level would double to about 12%. It sounds low compared to the 30%, but it would represent a huge economic issue in the US.
12% of 158 million is about 19 million workers.
With 19 million unemployed, the $700 billion could provide a whopping $38,000 in benefits per person. A 2-income family would get $76,000. That's $26,000 more than a median income family would make working for a year! In other words, their share of the $700 billion would be a raise.
That's the numerical look.
So, what's my point? Do I really believe the government should hold $700 billion in anticipation of 30% unemployment levels? Of course not. Do I think the government should lay back and just let the economy collapse? Definitely not. My point is that $700 billion is a lot of money, there are a lot of ways that $700 billion could be used. However, the only option being discussed is a Wall Street bail out.
Our government leaders should use this No-vote as an opportunity to reevaluate their approach. Maybe I'm dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice if the so-called economic experts came up with some innovative alternatives for $700 billion besides a Wall Street bail out? In the end, a Wall Street bail out may still be the best option, but is it too much to ask for our leaders to come up with some alternatives to at least consider?
As much as I believe it makes sense to now consider other alternatives, I my expectations remain low. After all, how can I expect anything other than a Wall Street bail out approach to the current economic slide when the Senate Banking Committee Chairman is in the back-pocket of the Wall Street banks. See the graphic below courtesy of The Hartford Courant showing the top 20 donors to Senator Chris Dodd. Jeez! Money drives behavior. With that list, why would we expect anything different. It's been said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results...
Follow the logic here...
Throughout this campaign season Democrats have been claiming that this is the "worst economy since the great depression" for the working and middle class Americans that make up the majority of the populace. Democrats further claim that if we do not pass a $700 billion dollar economic bail out package, Wall Street will collapse resulting in a severe drop in stock prices. Given these two premises I pose the question: Why would a drop in stock prices hurt the struggling "little guy"? If the working and middle class are doing so bad, how would they be able to own significant amounts of stock? Using the Democrat's logic, working and middle class people are in such bad economic shape that they could not possibly afford to own significant caches of stocks. Therefore, again using Democrat logic, a stock market crash would have no impact on working class people!
Ahh, but you counter by saying "A crash on Wall Street would trickle down to Main Street." I heard this line over and over again in the first presidential debate. Wait a minute! According to Democrats there's no such thing as trickle down economics! How can this be?!
Ignoring this incongruity in Democrat economic dogma, let's suppose that a Wall Street failure could indeed trickle down to the working class, and eventually cause mass unemployment. Although highly unlikely (boardering on impossible), let's even go as far to assume that it could cause Great Depression-level unemployment. If that's the case, then why would we not let the free market purge Wall Street through the natural market forces, then set the $700 billion aside for the "little people" in anticipation of the great mass of unemployment and hardship that could follow? Let's assume the $700 billion doesn't make it to Wall Street and an economic meltdown follows. Let's do some math, using approximate numbers and some general assumptions, to see what $700 billion could do:
There are approximately 300 million people in the USA.
Out of those 300 million, about 70 million are children.
About 50 million people are already retired.
That leaves 180 million people.
There are about 14 million non-working spouses (a.k.a. stay-at-home moms/dads)
That leaves 166 million.
Out of that 166 million, let's assume 5% of the people are unemployable in any economy.
That leaves us with about 158 million workers that have the potential to lose their jobs if massive Great Depression-like job losses were to occur.
Jobless rates during the Great Depression reached into the 30% range.
30% of 158 million means that we are looking at a potential pool of 47 million unemployed workers at absolute worst case levels.
Even at those crazy-high, sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rates, $700 billion would be enough to give about $15,000 of benefits to each and every one of these unemployed people.
Now, $15,000 would not be a fortune, but remember it would be $30,000 for 2 income families. With the median annual family income in the US at about $50,000, this $30,000 could possibly keep a family afloat for nearly a year assuming they tightened their belts (which is not an outrageous assumption considering they are out of work). Also, consider that this money would be in addition to any state provided unemployment insurance that currently exists. Needless to say, even in this economic Armageddon situation, the $700 billion would go a long way in getting a family back on their feet.
Being more optimistic, assume that instead of 30% the unemployment level would double to about 12%. It sounds low compared to the 30%, but it would represent a huge economic issue in the US.
12% of 158 million is about 19 million workers.
With 19 million unemployed, the $700 billion could provide a whopping $38,000 in benefits per person. A 2-income family would get $76,000. That's $26,000 more than a median income family would make working for a year! In other words, their share of the $700 billion would be a raise.
That's the numerical look.
So, what's my point? Do I really believe the government should hold $700 billion in anticipation of 30% unemployment levels? Of course not. Do I think the government should lay back and just let the economy collapse? Definitely not. My point is that $700 billion is a lot of money, there are a lot of ways that $700 billion could be used. However, the only option being discussed is a Wall Street bail out.
Our government leaders should use this No-vote as an opportunity to reevaluate their approach. Maybe I'm dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice if the so-called economic experts came up with some innovative alternatives for $700 billion besides a Wall Street bail out? In the end, a Wall Street bail out may still be the best option, but is it too much to ask for our leaders to come up with some alternatives to at least consider?
As much as I believe it makes sense to now consider other alternatives, I my expectations remain low. After all, how can I expect anything other than a Wall Street bail out approach to the current economic slide when the Senate Banking Committee Chairman is in the back-pocket of the Wall Street banks. See the graphic below courtesy of The Hartford Courant showing the top 20 donors to Senator Chris Dodd. Jeez! Money drives behavior. With that list, why would we expect anything different. It's been said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Spending Taxpayer Money Is The One True Bipartisan Issue
Citizens constantly hear the call for bipartisanship from whinny politicians looking to divert blame away from their culture of do-nothingness, and from a left-leaning media hoping Republicans, which they view mostly as irrelevant, kooky pests, will come over to the left side of the aisle in the name of “cooperation”. But, as much as we hear these misguided pleas, gridlock and personal-attack politics between Democrats and Republicans mostly remain the standard of the day…except on one issue -- spending taxpayer money.
As congress contemplates a $700 billion bank bailout, there has been little quibbling between the parties. The Democrat-controlled congress seems to be in unprecedented agreement with the Republican Bush administration. Oh, there have been a few descending voices, especially from the right, but for the most part both branches of the government are eager to write off an jaw-dropping chuck of taxpayer money. Never before have we witnessed such a love-fest between Bush and the liberal-controlled congress.
To put $700 billion in perspective, the national debt is about $9.2 trillion. We spend over $400 billion per year servicing interest on the national debt. This bail out would be equal to 8% of the enormous national debt that has been built every year since the 1970s. The federal budget is about $2.9 trillion dollars. The $700 billion bail out would be equal to about 24% of the federal budget.
To put the proposed bailout into individual terms, if you have a total personal debt (mortgage, car loans, credit cards, etc.) of $250,000 (this is reasonable since the median home price in the US is about $212,000), the bail out would represent a one-time payout of $20,000. I don’t know about you, but I think most middle class families would have a tough time dumping $20,000.
Thinking of the bailout in terms of income, the median household income in the US is about $50,000. If you had a $50,000 household budget, this bailout would be the equivalent of dishing out $12,000.
Whether the number is $12,000, $20,000, or $700 billion, the point is that it’s a big number relative to US government finances. Republicans and Democrats both belly-up-to-the-bar when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, but seem to rarely live up to their tough talk in practice. George Bush, a supposed conservative who’s run up record spending and record deficits is a great example of the lip-service-only philosophy politicians of both parties seem to exhibit towards fiscal responsibility once they get to Washington. When it comes to politicians in practice, there seems to be no such thing as fiscal responsibility, regardless of party. Democrats don’t even bother to pretend to have fiscal responsibility. Their party platform for years has been based on reckless spending and redistribution of wealth in an attempt to buy votes with give-away programs. Their party-first philosophy gives no thought to the ramifications of their actions on the welfare of the nation. I’ve come to expect fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. However, I expected more from our so-called free market-loving, fiscally conservative Republican leaders.
As congress contemplates a $700 billion bank bailout, there has been little quibbling between the parties. The Democrat-controlled congress seems to be in unprecedented agreement with the Republican Bush administration. Oh, there have been a few descending voices, especially from the right, but for the most part both branches of the government are eager to write off an jaw-dropping chuck of taxpayer money. Never before have we witnessed such a love-fest between Bush and the liberal-controlled congress.
To put $700 billion in perspective, the national debt is about $9.2 trillion. We spend over $400 billion per year servicing interest on the national debt. This bail out would be equal to 8% of the enormous national debt that has been built every year since the 1970s. The federal budget is about $2.9 trillion dollars. The $700 billion bail out would be equal to about 24% of the federal budget.
To put the proposed bailout into individual terms, if you have a total personal debt (mortgage, car loans, credit cards, etc.) of $250,000 (this is reasonable since the median home price in the US is about $212,000), the bail out would represent a one-time payout of $20,000. I don’t know about you, but I think most middle class families would have a tough time dumping $20,000.
Thinking of the bailout in terms of income, the median household income in the US is about $50,000. If you had a $50,000 household budget, this bailout would be the equivalent of dishing out $12,000.
Whether the number is $12,000, $20,000, or $700 billion, the point is that it’s a big number relative to US government finances. Republicans and Democrats both belly-up-to-the-bar when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, but seem to rarely live up to their tough talk in practice. George Bush, a supposed conservative who’s run up record spending and record deficits is a great example of the lip-service-only philosophy politicians of both parties seem to exhibit towards fiscal responsibility once they get to Washington. When it comes to politicians in practice, there seems to be no such thing as fiscal responsibility, regardless of party. Democrats don’t even bother to pretend to have fiscal responsibility. Their party platform for years has been based on reckless spending and redistribution of wealth in an attempt to buy votes with give-away programs. Their party-first philosophy gives no thought to the ramifications of their actions on the welfare of the nation. I’ve come to expect fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. However, I expected more from our so-called free market-loving, fiscally conservative Republican leaders.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Neil Cavuto is a New Liberty Alert Hero
I'm a little late to the party on this one, but Neil Cavuto of the Fox News Network has become my new hero for this week. Up to this point, I have not seen a lot of Neil, but the other day I happened to catch an interview he conducted with New Jersey Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone regarding off-shore oil drilling. Neil Cavuto totally whipped the floor with this clueless congressman. You can see the transcript of the interview here:Unfortunately I was not able to find a video of the interview. However, since I was so impressed with this interview, I searched for other Neil Cavuto interviews. Check out this one on YouTube:
It's refreshing to finally see a reporter that does not take any bull from these double talking politicians.
I can't speak for Neil Cavuto's entire body of work, but these recent interviews really impressed me. I will be looking to catch Neil's show on the Fox News Network in the future. Neil's show is called Your World with Neil Cavuto. A link to the show is below:
Thursday, July 31, 2008
"Republicans get out of my bedroom! Democrats get out of my wallet!"
This was a great quote I heard today while listening to the Jim Vicevich radio show on WTIC.com. Jim is a Libertarian leaning Republican who has a radio show from 10 to 12 AM Eastern time on WTIC 1080 in Hartford, and WTIC.com. Jim has a great show. His views and core values regarding government are the closest to my own that I have found in all media (print, TV, radio, etc.). I recommend the show. I've put a link to his show further down on the right side of this blog. Jim also has a blog here on blogger at radiovice.blogspot.com. I have not had much time to explore his blog, but I hope to in the future.
I thought this quote from Jim summed it up nicely.
Just a quick post today because I think the quote speaks for itself.
Let's hear your thoughts, supporting or opposing.
I thought this quote from Jim summed it up nicely.
Just a quick post today because I think the quote speaks for itself.
Let's hear your thoughts, supporting or opposing.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
What the US Government Should Do About High Oil Prices -- Nothing
Nearly everyone in the US is struggling with the high price of gasoline driven by the recent run up in crude oil prices. Rightly so. In the United States, gasoline is closer to a utility service than a luxury item. The layout of the country requires gasoline to drive the economy. Where in Europe their transportation infrastructure was built upon rail travel, the United States has the greatest car-based infrastructure in the world. To get to the point, the US needs gasoline. So naturally, when prices go up, people look for relief. The question to ponder is; should US citizens look to government for that relief?
The US exists in what is supposed to be a free market economy. A free market has proven to be the most successful economic system. When government gets out of the way, the natural ambition of people is able to thrive. One needs only to look at the recent rise of the Chinese economy after the government loosened the reigns and moved towards a free market system to see the power of a free market economy. A free market is intended to be just that: free. Free from government meddling. Given time, free economies have been able to correct themselves. The forces of supply and demand are powerful. Perhaps even more powerful than anything the US government can do.
However, it's an election year. Candidates love to make promises to people. Republican or Democrat alike rarely miss an opportunity to promise government action to alleviate any ill. And what is government action? Essentially it's spending money. What is government money? It's our money! Spending money to try to save money does not make sense, especially when you consider the device spending the money is the highly inefficient government machine. Regardless, this does not stop the pandering from politicians. I'm reminded of the old saying "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Government seems to believe that more government is the only solution to any problem. Perhaps even more troubling than the political pandering on the campaign trail is the citizenry demand for government action. The victim-mentality of a large segment of the population constantly looks to government to solve every problem. This fuel that drives the growth of Big Government. Unfortunately, the price of that fuel seems to be all too low these days. Let it be known that although the Democrats are synonymous with Big Government, the Republican party is hardly innocent of the recent build up of Big Government.
I urge people to have a little patience and a little faith. Understandable that can be difficult, but it's necessary. I'm right in the high gas price fox hole with the rest of you. But I have faith in the free economy. Without any government action whatsoever, the price of oil has gone down for 2 weeks in a row. Again, the forces of supply and demand are at work. The market could not sustain such high gas prices. People are changing their habits. Americans are using less gasoline. Demand is down. Prices have followed. All this with no government action. I'm hardly naive enough to believe that were are out of the high-oil woods. The price can certai
nly spike back up. It can continue to climb. And if that happens, the free market will again react. Technology will step in. New technology that we have not even yet anticipated would eventually come to fruition. It might not happen over night, but I have the highest faith that the market would certainly respond quicker and more effectively than any government action.So, is there anything the government can do? Certainly there are actions the government can take to promote beneficial behaviors. First and simplest, they could reduce regulations on drilling, allowing for more drilling. This is a great example of how government intervention staggers a free market economy. Loosening the regulations would allow the free market to respond to the natural market demand. I'm also open to hearing about potential government economic incentives. Perhaps tax breaks on alternative energy companies or users. However, beware of government intervention in the free market! Ridiculous ideas like a "wind-fall profits tax" is one of the scariest things I have ever heard escape the lips of a politician. What's even scarier is that when those words were uttered, the crowd cheered.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Obama Wants People to Pay Down Hillary's Campaign Debt
So Hillary Clinton has sold out again. During her failed campaign to secure the Democratic party presidential nomination, Hillary has apparently racked up over $20 million in debt. Now Mrs. Clinton has embarked on a joint begging tour as a tag-along to Senator Barack Obama as he continues his fundraising. Hillary is asking the American people, specifically Democratic supporters of Barack Obama to pay off her debt. What's next for the former First Lady; panhandling? I suppose we should not be surprised. Hillary Clinton has a history of selling out her values for personal gain. She has proved time and again that she is a woman that knows no shame. She sold out 
her marriage by staying with a cheating husband that any other reasonable wife would have been expected to divorce. She sold out her roots by moving to New York simply because there was an open Senate seat there. This is a state in which neither of the Clinton's had previously had any residence. S
he's the true definition of a carpetbagger (look it up if you've never heard the expression). Would she have established residence in Alaska if they were the state with the open seat? She acts and talks now as if she's been a New Yorker all her life. However, isn't funny that when she made political stump speeches in the south she suddenly found her southern twang? Now she is selling out her own ego to beg for money. Has the woman no pride? What's even more appalling is that she expects the American people to pay this debt. Last I checked, nobody forced Mrs. Clinton to run over by $20 million in her campaign. If that's the kind of fiscal responsibility that Mrs. Clinton showed in her political campaign, imagine how she would have handled the national finances!
her marriage by staying with a cheating husband that any other reasonable wife would have been expected to divorce. She sold out her roots by moving to New York simply because there was an open Senate seat there. This is a state in which neither of the Clinton's had previously had any residence. S
he's the true definition of a carpetbagger (look it up if you've never heard the expression). Would she have established residence in Alaska if they were the state with the open seat? She acts and talks now as if she's been a New Yorker all her life. However, isn't funny that when she made political stump speeches in the south she suddenly found her southern twang? Now she is selling out her own ego to beg for money. Has the woman no pride? What's even more appalling is that she expects the American people to pay this debt. Last I checked, nobody forced Mrs. Clinton to run over by $20 million in her campaign. If that's the kind of fiscal responsibility that Mrs. Clinton showed in her political campaign, imagine how she would have handled the national finances!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
