Well the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is flaring up again as militants continue to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza, an area that Israeli troops occupied for 38 years until pulling out in 2005. The area is now largely controlled by the radical Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel. Not surprisingly, Israel is considering an invasion of Gaza. Although such an invasion would inevitably result in the loss of innocent lives (both Israeli soldiers who are obligated to serve in the military to defend their country from people in groups like Hamas and Palestinian civilians who will be stuck in the crossfire) it seems to be the necessary course of action for Israel to take. Let us draw a simple analogy: people in International Falls, Minnesota and Burlington, Vermont are being bombarded by rockets and mortars by a bunch of "peace loving," "tolerant" Canadian socialists who hate Americans for being a bunch of capitalist pigs (fortunately Canadian socialists are just a bunch of well meaning stoned, harmless idiots who do not use violence to spread their vulgar ideas). Obviously Americans would be outraged and demand an immediate invasion to squash those floppy headed bomb throwing Canadian terrorists. The international community (with the exceptions of say Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and France) would likely support America in acting in its self defense. Now, is the situation in Israel really that different from this hypothetical?
Now I am not going to use this blog entry to go into the arcane details of the age old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have legitimate claims. But the world is as it is, Israel exists as a sovereign nation and an ally to the United States and this sovereign nation and ally has been under constant attack and threat of attack since it was created after World War II. Has Israel responded unduly harshly at times? Absolutely. An obvious example of undue harshness would be Israel's response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists a couple years ago. Israel responding by essentially destroying Lebanon's entire infrastructure. The only result was a human rights disaster and terrible international PR for Israel. Obviously a response was necessary but Israel responded too harshly.
Israel must learn from its mistake in that conflict by responding to the current threat from Hamas in Gaza in a measured, practical way that targets the terrorists while leaving intact the necessary civilian infrastructure. The United States must stand by its ally and continue its support of Isrrael. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for the Israeli people who live under constant threat from their neighbors, many of whom do not recognize the right of their nation to exist. I sympathize equally with the Palestinian people who have suffered incalculably from the conflict. The left would have you believe that the suffering of the Palestinians is entirely due to the cruelty and injustices committed by Israeli troops and the Americans who provide them with financial and technological support. However, instead of placing the blame on the Israeli's, who are doing what they can to defend their country that is constantly under threat, why not blame the terrorists who refuse to peacefully coexist with Israel? If Hamas thugs were not shooting rockets at civilians and Hezbollah scumbags weren't kidnapping the soldiers of a foreign nation, Israel would have no justification in launching military campaigns against its neighbors. However, until the blind anti-semitism and hatred of Israel in the Middle East subsides, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself. Unfortunately, this will result in the loss of innocent lives. But don't let liberals get away with blaming the plight of the Palestinian people on Israel. Blame the terrorists targeting innocent Israeli civilians.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Obamanomics: Keynesianism, Deficits, Big Government
President elect Barack Obama has made clear that his first priority upon seizing control of the presidency will be an economic "stimulus" package intended to give the ailing economy a shot in the arm. This package will likely look something like the stimulus of this past summer when the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress spent 150 billion dollars to send everyone a few hundred bucks, hoping that this would increase aggregate consumer demand and prevent the economy from entering into a recession... It didn't. That stimulus package proved a complete failure in accomplishing its stated goals while tacking on another 150 billion to the already obscene federal budget deficit. A University of Michigan study showed that only one fifth of people went out and spent this stimulus money, while most people saved it or used it to pay off debts, thus resulting in no substantive benefits to the macroeconomy. Unfortunately, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and co. along with the media wing of their agenda (The New York Slimes... typo) are planning to push forward what will likely be a much bigger stimulus plan. Such an action would be a flat out mistake.
A central component of this ill conceived stimulus plan would be a massive public works program to "rebuild our crumbling infrastructure," one of Barack's million dollar phrases during the campaign cycle. In fact, Obama promises to "create" 2 million jobs in public service projects such as the building of roads and bridges. Obama also promises to spend 15 billion dollars a year that will "create" 5 million "green" jobs in the alternative energy sector. Unfortunately, the Obama plan will not "create" any jobs and will likely result in a net less of jobs, wealth, and productivity. If I went to the money tree in my backyard and pulled a hundred billion dollars from its leaves, I could then use that money to create jobs. I would hire a Swedish model as a personal assistant, find me a personal chef that makes a fine steak, and maybe even by myself a personal zoo and hire people to take care of my giraffes, etc. I'd be overflowing in so much cash that I'd probably even hire some people to build windmills and rebuild our "crumbling infrastructure" (is it really crumbling? I always wished Obama could back that up with facts. I haven't come across any crumbling bridges or highways) like Obama wants. The net result of my acquiring a hundred billion from my money tree would be the creation of many jobs. This would be a great way to boost employment in this tenuous economy. Unfortunately, the federal government does not possess one of my money trees (and I'm keeping mine so they never will). Thus in order to "create" these two million jobs building tunnels, filling potholes, sweeping dirt off the roads, or whatever else Obama has in mind, he needs to take that money from somewhere else. The money used to "create" all of these jobs, will come from two sources: the rich and borrowing (mainly from China). By hiking taxes on the rich, many jobs will be lost to make up for all of the new one's "created." When the rich have less money, there is less investment capital available for start up companies. When these start ups do not receive adequate financial backing, they cannot expand their operations or hire more people. When you tax the rich, money flows out of the markets, causing even further decreases in stock prices. Thus people's savings and retirement plans are hurt, they spend less, companies do not earn as much, and they need to let employees go. When the rich ain't as rich, they let go of their maids, their dog walkers, and those Wall Street guys taking a beating might decide they only need three secretaries rather than four. If instead you decide to borrow the money, you simply have to pay it back later. Thus, for the extra jobs "created" now, we lose jobs in the future (with interest). The government cannot spend its way out of a recession. This is the failed, antiquated idea of John Maynard Keynes, the early 20th century British economist who advocated increased deficit spending during times of recession in order to boost the economy. This is what FDR tried in the New Deal. At first, the economy expanded as more people became employed by his public works programs. However, the economy nosedived again in 1937 because of a lack of private investment capital (because the government took all of your money if you made any) and attempts to repay the ballooning fiscal deficit that paid for earlier New Deal programs. Thus stock prices did not regain their pre-depression values until the 1950's and the New Deal never really got us out of the Depression. This is the path down which the Democrats will take us... more government, less private innovation. If we actually wanted to stimulate the economy, we would reduce marginal tax rates across the board, thus increasing the incentive for people to work and produce. Such tax cuts under JFK led to an economic boom in the 60's which was stifled after years of liberalism, government expansion, excessive regulation and relative stagnation under Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. This trend was of course reversed with the massive tax cuts of Reagan that ushered in a new era of prosperity (even Clinton's tax hikes took us nowhere near pre-Reagan tax levels, allowing the economy to continue its expansion). Even the Bush tax cuts helped pull us out of the 9/11 recession as according to a Goldman Sachs economic model they resulted in significant GDP growth. Instead of following the successful past model of cuts in marginal tax rates to stimulate the economy, we give handouts to all (regardless if you actually pay taxes) and spend government money like it's going out of style. Now, if anybody truly believes that the government is more efficient than the private sector, I would like to challenge that person to a high stakes poker match because that person is clearly an imbecile who just doesn't get it....
Oh yea, and didn't the libs complain throughout the whole campaign cycle about those damned Republicans and their budget deficit? Just wait until we see what they do about deficits, considering that their "stimulus" will tack on at least 300 billion to the debt during Obama's first year alone although the far left (Paul Krugman of the New York Slimes and this year's winner of the Nobel "Commie" Prize in Economics) advocates an even bigger 600 billion dollar budget busting stimulus. And we also have to pay for the libs promises of free health care, free preschool, more government college tuition grants, etc etc on top if this stimulus. The dems promise the world but how will they pay for it?Funny how deficits are only a problem when those Republicans are in office....
A central component of this ill conceived stimulus plan would be a massive public works program to "rebuild our crumbling infrastructure," one of Barack's million dollar phrases during the campaign cycle. In fact, Obama promises to "create" 2 million jobs in public service projects such as the building of roads and bridges. Obama also promises to spend 15 billion dollars a year that will "create" 5 million "green" jobs in the alternative energy sector. Unfortunately, the Obama plan will not "create" any jobs and will likely result in a net less of jobs, wealth, and productivity. If I went to the money tree in my backyard and pulled a hundred billion dollars from its leaves, I could then use that money to create jobs. I would hire a Swedish model as a personal assistant, find me a personal chef that makes a fine steak, and maybe even by myself a personal zoo and hire people to take care of my giraffes, etc. I'd be overflowing in so much cash that I'd probably even hire some people to build windmills and rebuild our "crumbling infrastructure" (is it really crumbling? I always wished Obama could back that up with facts. I haven't come across any crumbling bridges or highways) like Obama wants. The net result of my acquiring a hundred billion from my money tree would be the creation of many jobs. This would be a great way to boost employment in this tenuous economy. Unfortunately, the federal government does not possess one of my money trees (and I'm keeping mine so they never will). Thus in order to "create" these two million jobs building tunnels, filling potholes, sweeping dirt off the roads, or whatever else Obama has in mind, he needs to take that money from somewhere else. The money used to "create" all of these jobs, will come from two sources: the rich and borrowing (mainly from China). By hiking taxes on the rich, many jobs will be lost to make up for all of the new one's "created." When the rich have less money, there is less investment capital available for start up companies. When these start ups do not receive adequate financial backing, they cannot expand their operations or hire more people. When you tax the rich, money flows out of the markets, causing even further decreases in stock prices. Thus people's savings and retirement plans are hurt, they spend less, companies do not earn as much, and they need to let employees go. When the rich ain't as rich, they let go of their maids, their dog walkers, and those Wall Street guys taking a beating might decide they only need three secretaries rather than four. If instead you decide to borrow the money, you simply have to pay it back later. Thus, for the extra jobs "created" now, we lose jobs in the future (with interest). The government cannot spend its way out of a recession. This is the failed, antiquated idea of John Maynard Keynes, the early 20th century British economist who advocated increased deficit spending during times of recession in order to boost the economy. This is what FDR tried in the New Deal. At first, the economy expanded as more people became employed by his public works programs. However, the economy nosedived again in 1937 because of a lack of private investment capital (because the government took all of your money if you made any) and attempts to repay the ballooning fiscal deficit that paid for earlier New Deal programs. Thus stock prices did not regain their pre-depression values until the 1950's and the New Deal never really got us out of the Depression. This is the path down which the Democrats will take us... more government, less private innovation. If we actually wanted to stimulate the economy, we would reduce marginal tax rates across the board, thus increasing the incentive for people to work and produce. Such tax cuts under JFK led to an economic boom in the 60's which was stifled after years of liberalism, government expansion, excessive regulation and relative stagnation under Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. This trend was of course reversed with the massive tax cuts of Reagan that ushered in a new era of prosperity (even Clinton's tax hikes took us nowhere near pre-Reagan tax levels, allowing the economy to continue its expansion). Even the Bush tax cuts helped pull us out of the 9/11 recession as according to a Goldman Sachs economic model they resulted in significant GDP growth. Instead of following the successful past model of cuts in marginal tax rates to stimulate the economy, we give handouts to all (regardless if you actually pay taxes) and spend government money like it's going out of style. Now, if anybody truly believes that the government is more efficient than the private sector, I would like to challenge that person to a high stakes poker match because that person is clearly an imbecile who just doesn't get it....
Oh yea, and didn't the libs complain throughout the whole campaign cycle about those damned Republicans and their budget deficit? Just wait until we see what they do about deficits, considering that their "stimulus" will tack on at least 300 billion to the debt during Obama's first year alone although the far left (Paul Krugman of the New York Slimes and this year's winner of the Nobel "Commie" Prize in Economics) advocates an even bigger 600 billion dollar budget busting stimulus. And we also have to pay for the libs promises of free health care, free preschool, more government college tuition grants, etc etc on top if this stimulus. The dems promise the world but how will they pay for it?Funny how deficits are only a problem when those Republicans are in office....
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Detroit Bailout Idiocy
Well the incoming Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime has already made clear its intent to lend a hand to America's failing "Big Three" auto companies. The Dems are contemplating rescue measures on the tune 0f 25-50 billion dollars to save these failing companies from bankruptcy. On the surface such a bailout of the auto industry would appear a continuation of the 700 billion dollar TARP plan to rescue America's crumbling financial institutions. However, these plans are fundamentally different.
The TARP plan was clearly a necessity to rescue America's entire financial system. A failure of the financial sector would create a cascade of negative effects that could lead to something like another Great Depression. When banks fail, lending stops, business activity slows, business expansion halts, jobs are lost...... the whole world goes to shits. So the financial bailout was not really a choice- and once these institutions become profitable again as they almost always have been, the taxpayer should get the majority of that money back, and may even end up making money on the deal. Such a positive turn around proves highly unlikely for the auto industry. America's auto companies are a joke - they can't make a decent automobile that Americans actually want to buy in significant numbers. The free market has spoken and people generally prefer German, Japanese, and other foreign cars. "Innovation" is not exactly thriving in Detroit. Toyota makes better cars, and many of those cars happen to be made right here in the USA, creating hundreds of thousands of solid middle class jobs right here at home. Another significant problem for American auto companies is the power of the commie United Autoworkers Union whose demands for benefits have overwhelmed American auto companies to the point where they could hardly turn a profit even if people actually wanted to buy their shitty cars. UAW workers receive about 80 bucks an hour on average in wages and benefits, while Toyota workers in America see about 48 an hour. Thus not only does Toyota make better cars, but they make em cheaper. If the Big Three want to pay their workers that much, fine by me. It's a free country (sort of) and they can pay their employees whatever the hell they want (actually it doesn't quite work that way because of the minimum wage and other pesky government controls on private enterprise). However, I'll be damned if as the taxpayer I have to subsidize these outrageous benefits for employees whose companies are failing. If the government is going to give a single penny in benefits to these failing companies, let the UAW tear up their labor contracts and let's start paying those employees what they're worth, not what their parasitic, commie unions demand. If the UAW thugs get one penny of my taxpayer dollars, I will be throw a hissy fit.
Now to be fair, the TARP plan will also be providing taxpayer dollars to fund the stratospheric bonuses of imbecile Wall Street executives whose reckless trading practices contributed significantly to the current sorry state of the economy (although the consensus is to blame everything on those "greedy bankers" while deflecting all blame from the Democrats and the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to give loans to people in low income areas that they could not afford in order to promote "home ownership"). It is outrageous for the taxpayers to be funding bonuses or even high salaries for these people. Unfortunately, however, we need a stable financial system and financial services happens to be one of the few industries that helps America retain its competitive edge in the global economy. And hopefully the plan won't end up being a "bailout" at all as these companies will return to profitability and pay the taxpayer back for their emergency loans. But those Wall Streeters should be hurting more than they are... and there should not be one penny of bonus dollar to any company executive receiving even a nickel of federal aid. I don't want to pay them bonuses for fucking up.
Now this Detroit bailout scheme really highlights the policy priorities of the left in this country. They want to throw billions and billions in government money to horribly mismanaged auto companies that are controlled largely by parasitic unions while at the same time punishing the evil "Big Oil" which happens to be one of the few profitable industries in this country right now. Instead of thanking "Big Oil" for providing us with that evil gasoline and home heating oil we demand (should we all live in caves by candlelight?), we not only deride them as wanting to destroy the environment (even though they're simply supplying a highly demanded product at a relatively low rate of marginal profit compared to that of other industries) but the Democrats want to create a special tax just for them. The "windfall profits tax" that would make Nancy Pelosi weak at the knees would force oil companies not only to pay their 35% corporate tax (one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world) but would add an additional tax just for them. So the liberals say, "Hey Oil Companies, you're making too much money right now and Barney Frank wants some to pay for welfare programs and tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes." What's next? If another industry is making too much money for the Democrats' comfort will the Democrats create a special tax for them? I love the left... let's punish the winners who are helping our economy grow to provide billions to the losers in Detroit... Capitalism ain't dead but it's dying....
The TARP plan was clearly a necessity to rescue America's entire financial system. A failure of the financial sector would create a cascade of negative effects that could lead to something like another Great Depression. When banks fail, lending stops, business activity slows, business expansion halts, jobs are lost...... the whole world goes to shits. So the financial bailout was not really a choice- and once these institutions become profitable again as they almost always have been, the taxpayer should get the majority of that money back, and may even end up making money on the deal. Such a positive turn around proves highly unlikely for the auto industry. America's auto companies are a joke - they can't make a decent automobile that Americans actually want to buy in significant numbers. The free market has spoken and people generally prefer German, Japanese, and other foreign cars. "Innovation" is not exactly thriving in Detroit. Toyota makes better cars, and many of those cars happen to be made right here in the USA, creating hundreds of thousands of solid middle class jobs right here at home. Another significant problem for American auto companies is the power of the commie United Autoworkers Union whose demands for benefits have overwhelmed American auto companies to the point where they could hardly turn a profit even if people actually wanted to buy their shitty cars. UAW workers receive about 80 bucks an hour on average in wages and benefits, while Toyota workers in America see about 48 an hour. Thus not only does Toyota make better cars, but they make em cheaper. If the Big Three want to pay their workers that much, fine by me. It's a free country (sort of) and they can pay their employees whatever the hell they want (actually it doesn't quite work that way because of the minimum wage and other pesky government controls on private enterprise). However, I'll be damned if as the taxpayer I have to subsidize these outrageous benefits for employees whose companies are failing. If the government is going to give a single penny in benefits to these failing companies, let the UAW tear up their labor contracts and let's start paying those employees what they're worth, not what their parasitic, commie unions demand. If the UAW thugs get one penny of my taxpayer dollars, I will be throw a hissy fit.
Now to be fair, the TARP plan will also be providing taxpayer dollars to fund the stratospheric bonuses of imbecile Wall Street executives whose reckless trading practices contributed significantly to the current sorry state of the economy (although the consensus is to blame everything on those "greedy bankers" while deflecting all blame from the Democrats and the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to give loans to people in low income areas that they could not afford in order to promote "home ownership"). It is outrageous for the taxpayers to be funding bonuses or even high salaries for these people. Unfortunately, however, we need a stable financial system and financial services happens to be one of the few industries that helps America retain its competitive edge in the global economy. And hopefully the plan won't end up being a "bailout" at all as these companies will return to profitability and pay the taxpayer back for their emergency loans. But those Wall Streeters should be hurting more than they are... and there should not be one penny of bonus dollar to any company executive receiving even a nickel of federal aid. I don't want to pay them bonuses for fucking up.
Now this Detroit bailout scheme really highlights the policy priorities of the left in this country. They want to throw billions and billions in government money to horribly mismanaged auto companies that are controlled largely by parasitic unions while at the same time punishing the evil "Big Oil" which happens to be one of the few profitable industries in this country right now. Instead of thanking "Big Oil" for providing us with that evil gasoline and home heating oil we demand (should we all live in caves by candlelight?), we not only deride them as wanting to destroy the environment (even though they're simply supplying a highly demanded product at a relatively low rate of marginal profit compared to that of other industries) but the Democrats want to create a special tax just for them. The "windfall profits tax" that would make Nancy Pelosi weak at the knees would force oil companies not only to pay their 35% corporate tax (one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world) but would add an additional tax just for them. So the liberals say, "Hey Oil Companies, you're making too much money right now and Barney Frank wants some to pay for welfare programs and tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes." What's next? If another industry is making too much money for the Democrats' comfort will the Democrats create a special tax for them? I love the left... let's punish the winners who are helping our economy grow to provide billions to the losers in Detroit... Capitalism ain't dead but it's dying....
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama Anxiety
Well the Dow and the S&P 500 have plunged 10% in the two days since Obama became president. I thought prior to the election that Obama's economic policies would be disastrous for an already struggling economy. It would appear that Wall Street agrees with me. This drop signals the largest two day drop of the market since 1987. I can already feel "change in the air"...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Congratulations Barack Obama!
I want to wish Barack Obama and his supporters my sincerest congratulations on his victory over John McCain. The Obama campaign will go down as one of the most effectively run political operations in American history and the victory was well desserved. The McCain campaign will likely go down as one of the most incompetent. The truth is, however, that any Republican would have faced a daunting task of running for president following the highly unpopular President Bush, whose approval rating now hovers in the mid 20's. McCAin's ability to garner over 47% of the national popular vote as well as win many states shows that the Republican party and the right are alive and well in the USA. Furthermore, Democratic gains in the House and Senate proved significant, though hardly overwhelming, as the Democrats fell short of a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So all in all, it could have been a lot worse.
The Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress will signal the first time since 1994 that the Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Last time the Democrats had full control, the Clinton universal healthcare debacle ensued, leading to the massive Republican Congressional victories of 1994 and the so-called "Contract with America." Whether or not such an immediate backlash will occur against this Democratic monolith, time will tell. If Barack Obama can retain some of the centrism that helped him win the White House, it is likely that he and his party will lead the country for years to come given the current unpopularity of Republicans. If, however, and it worries me, the government takes a massive turn towards the left, a great conservative backlash will ensue in the 2010 Congressional elections, mark my words. This is still a conservative country though we wanted change during a time of crisis. That change is coming. May it be change for the better.
The Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress will signal the first time since 1994 that the Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Last time the Democrats had full control, the Clinton universal healthcare debacle ensued, leading to the massive Republican Congressional victories of 1994 and the so-called "Contract with America." Whether or not such an immediate backlash will occur against this Democratic monolith, time will tell. If Barack Obama can retain some of the centrism that helped him win the White House, it is likely that he and his party will lead the country for years to come given the current unpopularity of Republicans. If, however, and it worries me, the government takes a massive turn towards the left, a great conservative backlash will ensue in the 2010 Congressional elections, mark my words. This is still a conservative country though we wanted change during a time of crisis. That change is coming. May it be change for the better.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
We can still win this thing!
A new Zogby poll has McCain leading 48-47 nationally! Though McCain continues to trail by an average of a few points nationally, I think he has a much better chance than the polls are predicting. Even polls that have Obama up handily have his support hovering around or even slightly below 50%. This election is largely a referendum on Barack Obama; therefore, if undecided voters have not come around to embrace him in this late stage of the game, it is highly likely that that those undecideds will break heavily towards John McCain. This proved a common trend in primary season, where Obama often underperformed his poll numbers against Hillary Clinton, either because of some sort of "Bradley Effect" where some white voters had second thoughts about voting for a black man or simply because voters had some anxiety about Obama's lack of experience or his extremely liberal voting record. Furthermore, the McCain campaign is finally formulating a more cohesive case against Barack Obama, highlighting his elite leftist worldview centered around "spreading around the wealth" and unconditional negotiations with terrorists and the despicable world leaders who provide them with material support. GET OUT AND VOTE! GET YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE AND TOGETHER WE WILL TAKE DOWN THE OBAMA TAX, SPEND, AND REDISTRIBUTE MENACE.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Machiavelli, Obamanomics, and Freebies
Niccolo Machiavelli in his famous work The Prince wrote that "A ruler who pursues a reputation for generosity will always end up wasting all his resources, and he will be ogliged in the end, if he wants to preserve his reputation, to impose crushing taxes upon the people, to pursue every possible source of income, and to be preoccupied with maximizing his revenues. This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects, and will ensure no one thinks well of him, for no one admires poverty. The result is his supposed generosity will have caused him to offend the vast majority and to have won favor with few."
Machiavelli's description of the inevitable demise of a nation whose leader seeks a reputation for generosity can be applied directly to the United States under the reign of the new leftist triumvirate of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The left promises massive increases in domestic spending for a variety of "generous" programs like government healthcare, government childcare, government program after program... and of course the tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes (the most "generous" plan of all). Of course we cannot afford to pay for all of this idealistic spending with our massive budget deficits but no matter... thus as Machiavelli said the inevitable outcome will be to "impose crushing taxes upon the people." Aha! I know what you lefties are thinking already.... Barack Obama promises 95% of Americans a tax cut, so would not his policy benefit the many by harming the few (the rich obviously, fuck them over), thus contradicting Machiavelli, who said that such "generous" plans would instead benefit the few and harm the many? Let us take a closer look: Barack Obama's plan to give hand outs or as he calls them "tax cuts" to 40% of the country that makes too little to pay taxes will certainly benefit the few at the expense of the many, the many being EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO PAYS TAXES. Sure, taxpayers not in the top 5% will see a modest tax cut. However, where do you think all of the money is coming from to give these "tax cuts" to the people who don't pay taxes? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!! (China is also an acceptable answer) ..... Everybody who pays taxes, not just the top 5% that Obama will hammer, pays into the system. Thus when the system is going to fund hand outs for people who pay no taxes, that money is coming from every taxpaying member of society, not just "the rich" or the "corporate fat cats" whose tax increases will surely cause Obama and Pelosi to foam at the mouth. Thus Obama's schemes to "spread around the wealth" are affecting a lot more people than just those rich fellas. So, as Machiavelli said, the few (those who pay no taxes and make little money to begin with but make a little more after their entitlement checks) benefit at the expense of the many (those who do pay taxes and see a significant portion of their income shipped away as freebies) with everybody becoming poorer in the end and as total economic output and growth decline. So next time you hear about all of the liberal "generous spending" plans, remember what Machiavelli said....
Note: This is by no means an endorsement of Machiavelli or his worldview, simply the application of a relevant quotation from a brilliant thinker to contemporary politics
Machiavelli's description of the inevitable demise of a nation whose leader seeks a reputation for generosity can be applied directly to the United States under the reign of the new leftist triumvirate of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The left promises massive increases in domestic spending for a variety of "generous" programs like government healthcare, government childcare, government program after program... and of course the tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes (the most "generous" plan of all). Of course we cannot afford to pay for all of this idealistic spending with our massive budget deficits but no matter... thus as Machiavelli said the inevitable outcome will be to "impose crushing taxes upon the people." Aha! I know what you lefties are thinking already.... Barack Obama promises 95% of Americans a tax cut, so would not his policy benefit the many by harming the few (the rich obviously, fuck them over), thus contradicting Machiavelli, who said that such "generous" plans would instead benefit the few and harm the many? Let us take a closer look: Barack Obama's plan to give hand outs or as he calls them "tax cuts" to 40% of the country that makes too little to pay taxes will certainly benefit the few at the expense of the many, the many being EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO PAYS TAXES. Sure, taxpayers not in the top 5% will see a modest tax cut. However, where do you think all of the money is coming from to give these "tax cuts" to the people who don't pay taxes? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!! (China is also an acceptable answer) ..... Everybody who pays taxes, not just the top 5% that Obama will hammer, pays into the system. Thus when the system is going to fund hand outs for people who pay no taxes, that money is coming from every taxpaying member of society, not just "the rich" or the "corporate fat cats" whose tax increases will surely cause Obama and Pelosi to foam at the mouth. Thus Obama's schemes to "spread around the wealth" are affecting a lot more people than just those rich fellas. So, as Machiavelli said, the few (those who pay no taxes and make little money to begin with but make a little more after their entitlement checks) benefit at the expense of the many (those who do pay taxes and see a significant portion of their income shipped away as freebies) with everybody becoming poorer in the end and as total economic output and growth decline. So next time you hear about all of the liberal "generous spending" plans, remember what Machiavelli said....
Note: This is by no means an endorsement of Machiavelli or his worldview, simply the application of a relevant quotation from a brilliant thinker to contemporary politics
Obama's Revealing Memoir: Moderate or Marxist or Somewhere in Between?
Barack Obama's famous memoir "Dreams of My Father" has been widely commended as an inspirational biographical account of Barack Obama's incredible life story. Criticisms of the book have been muted and have usually consisted of grumblings from the right about Obama' s admitted past drug use (though those right wingers ignore Bush's refusals to answer specific questions about his prior drug use). Unfortunately, little attention has been given to some of the other statements made by Obama in his book, which help paint a picture of his worldview. Obama writes that at Occidental College, "I chose my friends carefully... the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." I only include the entire quote to contextualize the reference to the Marxist professors that he "palled" around with (to use a Sarah Palin term... is palled even english?). Obama's radical associations continued when he transferred to Columbia. He refers to "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union...". Now who is the real Barack Obama? It is hard to say given that the guy has been in the senate for only a few years, has authored no remarkable legislation, and has simply voted with his party (or to the left of his party in a few cases) on almost 100% of the issues. Is he the well spoken moderate we have seen over the past few months or the radical college student who hung around with Marxist professors, attended socialist conferences, and attended for 20 years the church of radical black nationalist, openly racist and anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright while letting slip his plans to "spread around the wealth" as recently as last week? With his lack of a record it is hard to know who the real Barack Obama is. Unfortunately, whoever he is, he will be unchecked in his aspirations, whether they be moderate or Marxist, by the liberal supermarjority in Congress. "Change" isn't looking too pretty for anyone who wants to make a buck in their lives... let's just make everybody poor eh? Then at least our society will be more "equitable" and "fair" and "sensitive" and "tolerant" with greater "social solidarity"... the favorite terms of libs.....
Obama and Biden's Shameless Class Warfare and Destructive Economic Policies
Please check out this article by Jack Kemp and Peter Ferrara on how Obamanomics will inevitably batter the American economy and the markets. Keep in mind that the damage has already begun given the seemingly certain prospect of an Obama victory along with massive democratic majorities in Congress. Investors have been fleeing from the markets in light of the financial crisis yet an "Obama effect" is clear as investors are smart enough to know that an Obama Administration is not their friend. Of course Obama's Robin Hood schemes will make everyone poorer in the long run while destroying any hopes of retaining America's competitiveness in the international market. This article is simple, straight forward, and compelling. Check it out! http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309998514066924
And my offer of a cookie is still out there for any Obama supporter who can convince me that raising income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, the death tax (the pigs tax you while you make it, then take another chunk of it when you die), and decreasing free trade will help our economy in a time of market uncertainty. Forget a cookie, how about a dinner for two at the fucking Union Square Cafe? Well I'm not worried because as much as I enjoy the company of libs, I fail to understand their voodoonomics. The best answer I've heard so far is that an Obama presidency will somehow magically restore Americans' faith in themselves, which would somehow translate into increased economic output, the so-called "Messiah effect." Well personally speaking, my faith in myself would be a lot greater if I was working for myself more of the time and not for the IRS (high income earners under Obamanomics will be working for the IRS about two-thirds of the year while the other 4 months they actually get to keep what they earn). You want CHANGE? WELCOME TO AMERICA THE GREAT 21ST CENTURY WELFARE STATE!
And my offer of a cookie is still out there for any Obama supporter who can convince me that raising income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, the death tax (the pigs tax you while you make it, then take another chunk of it when you die), and decreasing free trade will help our economy in a time of market uncertainty. Forget a cookie, how about a dinner for two at the fucking Union Square Cafe? Well I'm not worried because as much as I enjoy the company of libs, I fail to understand their voodoonomics. The best answer I've heard so far is that an Obama presidency will somehow magically restore Americans' faith in themselves, which would somehow translate into increased economic output, the so-called "Messiah effect." Well personally speaking, my faith in myself would be a lot greater if I was working for myself more of the time and not for the IRS (high income earners under Obamanomics will be working for the IRS about two-thirds of the year while the other 4 months they actually get to keep what they earn). You want CHANGE? WELCOME TO AMERICA THE GREAT 21ST CENTURY WELFARE STATE!
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Great Philosophical Issue of this Election
Barack Obama and John McCain's economic plans present a clear dichotomy of their and their supporters' economic values. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid believe that the government should decide how to spread around the resources in this country. Their schemes will take from the few and give to the many, the kind of shameless economic populism that Americans have constantly rejected throughout history. When Barack Obama promises 95% of Americans a tax cut, he really means a giant giveaway to tens of millions of people who pay no taxes from the other 5% as well as a modest tax cut for middle income taxpayers. Obama and his crew will stymie growth by jacking up capital gains and corporate dividend taxes as well as income tax on high incomes. This will obviously result in decreased GDP output and even worse performing markets. Then there will be less and less money at the top to pay for all of these programs. The top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of all federal taxes so if they get hammered the only option will be to start reaching into the pockets of the middle class to pay for these handouts and spending schemes. Thus is the inevitable downward spiral of socialism: punish the rich hard enough and they become less and less rich, some move away to lower tax countries, others work less because it's not worth it when you're slaving away for the IRS two thirds of the time.... and then whom do you take from??? John McCain's policies will CREATE wealth by making investment more profitable through a reduction in the capital gains tax as well as job training programs to help workers adjust to the new economy. Barack Obama will DESTROY hundreds of billions in wealth through his protectionist, anti-free trade agenda that he espoused in the Senate, coupled with his tax hikes. So sure, he'll spread around the pie, but the pie is going to keep getting smaller and smaller. If you believe that the government can spend people's money better than they can, then of course vote blue this election. But if you trust the people to innovate, invest, and spend their money to stimulate the economy then vote red. Enjoy the free market people because it might not be around as we know it much longer (what's left of it post bailout)... if only the McCain campaign can pull of a miracle to dethrone the already coronated darling of the elite liberal media...
Barack Obama's Self Declared Marxist Goals
The Drudge Report headline this morning provides a link to a Barack Obama radio address in 2001 in which he criticized the Supreme Court for not addressing the issue of "redistribution of wealth." This soundbite from several years ago should come as no surprise given Obama's recent claim to want to "spread the wealth around." During this same 2001 interview Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Supreme Court, by far the most left wing court in the history of the United States, "wasn't that radical." Barack further complained that he was "not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts... [although] I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts." Well even though bringing about Obama's desired "redistributive change" through the courts proves highly unconstitutional due to Congress needing to pass any tax increases, in 8 days it appears that Obama will finally be granted his Marxist fantasies that he never thought would be realized back in 2001. With Barack Obama as President of the United States, radical San Francisco leftist Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and highly partisan left wing ideologue Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, the Democrats will finally achieve their desired socialist redistribution of wealth schemes. In fact, influential Massachussetts Congressman Barney Frank recently proposed "massive increases in spending" when the Democrats seize power and that now was no time to worry about deficits and that we have a "lot of very rich people we can tax" to pay for these programs. If you believe that the government should enact a massive wealth redistribution bureaucracy in the middle of an investment crisis then vote for change. But I don't know how you can tell me these people aren't socialists. I just hope that the idiots running the McCain campaign can jump on Obama and expose him and his allies for the far left wing partisans that they are.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Social Security: Pro-Growth vs. Socialist Voodoonomics
The Obama campaign has recently launched a series of ads in swings states with large elderly populations such as Florida and Pennsylvania that attacks John McCain for wanting to "gamble" with seniors' retirements. The Obama campaign's ads refer to John McCain's plan to give taxpayers the option of investing a portion of their social security in the stock market. As when George W. Bush proposed giving taxpayers the option of investing a portion of their social security in the market, the left cried "foul" with enough allies on the right to stymie any such reforms. With the temporary downturn of the market it would indeed appear foolish to let seniors squander away their retirements in risky investments. However, historically the stock market has far outperformed the social security trust fund, which is going broke soon. Thus in the long run, those seniors making the CHOICE to invest a portion of their social security in the stock market would be walking away on average with more benjamins than those opting for the current plan. Now more than ever is the time to give people the option to invest part of their social security in the stock market as such a flow of capital into the market would be great news for markets that have been battered by a mass exodus of capital from mutual funds in recent weeks. Whether you agree with the partial privatization plan or not, agree with me that something drastic and innovative must be done to reform a system that is doomed to insolvency in the coming decades. John McCain's plan: optional partial privatization that would give the markets a badly needed influx of capital. Now turning to the Obama plan....
Surprise, surprise, surprise the Obama plan on social security consists of RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH GUYS. In spite of Senator Obama's promises of "hope" and "change" I see nothing promising or innovative about his social security plan. Obama's plan consists of extending the payroll tax (that funds social security) to include all income over 250,000. Currently, only income up to 250,000 is taxed, with people receiving proportionally roughly what they put into the system. Social Security has been such a popular program for so long because it is "contributory," meaning that everyone pays and everyone benefits based on what they pay. Barack Obama's plan will change the nature of this program from that of a retirement plan bound for bankruptcy into that of a socialist wealth redistribution scheme that is also bound for bankruptcy. The additional revenue into social security from Obama's plan will only extend the solvency of the program for an estimated three years. The changing population demographic with retiring baby boomers that is straining Social Security requires an innovative solution to a complex problem: Obama's solution of saddling the rich with more taxes that will do nothing but postpone the sytem's failure for a few more years is hardly innovative: another example of his commitment to the old failed policies of big government, tax and spend liberalism. John McCain's plan will restructure the system into one that on average will increase returns dramatically and take much of the strain off the cash strapped federal government. I had a discussion with a liberal today who warned that partial privatization of Social Security was a bad idea because people are stupid and cannot be trusted to invest their money wisely. I have heard this argument time and time again from liberals. First of all, it would be easy to open up investment only to safe index type funds that will not allow people to gamble their retirements in highly risky investments. Second of all, this liberal argument underscores the fundamental ideological difference between liberals and conservatives on the economy: liberals believe that Washington can spend Americans' money better than the people who earned it while conservatives would trust the people with their own money. It's never felt so good to be a Republican.......
Surprise, surprise, surprise the Obama plan on social security consists of RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH GUYS. In spite of Senator Obama's promises of "hope" and "change" I see nothing promising or innovative about his social security plan. Obama's plan consists of extending the payroll tax (that funds social security) to include all income over 250,000. Currently, only income up to 250,000 is taxed, with people receiving proportionally roughly what they put into the system. Social Security has been such a popular program for so long because it is "contributory," meaning that everyone pays and everyone benefits based on what they pay. Barack Obama's plan will change the nature of this program from that of a retirement plan bound for bankruptcy into that of a socialist wealth redistribution scheme that is also bound for bankruptcy. The additional revenue into social security from Obama's plan will only extend the solvency of the program for an estimated three years. The changing population demographic with retiring baby boomers that is straining Social Security requires an innovative solution to a complex problem: Obama's solution of saddling the rich with more taxes that will do nothing but postpone the sytem's failure for a few more years is hardly innovative: another example of his commitment to the old failed policies of big government, tax and spend liberalism. John McCain's plan will restructure the system into one that on average will increase returns dramatically and take much of the strain off the cash strapped federal government. I had a discussion with a liberal today who warned that partial privatization of Social Security was a bad idea because people are stupid and cannot be trusted to invest their money wisely. I have heard this argument time and time again from liberals. First of all, it would be easy to open up investment only to safe index type funds that will not allow people to gamble their retirements in highly risky investments. Second of all, this liberal argument underscores the fundamental ideological difference between liberals and conservatives on the economy: liberals believe that Washington can spend Americans' money better than the people who earned it while conservatives would trust the people with their own money. It's never felt so good to be a Republican.......
Forget Joe the Plumber: How about Joe Investor?
The terribly mismanaged McCain campaign has been blowing a lot of steam recently about its new messiah "Joe the Plumber" whom Obama's tax plan would allegedly hurt. This strategy (like many in McCain's poorly executed campaign) backfired after a background check into this Joe fellow revealed that he is not even a licensed plumber and is a partisan republican rather than an undecided voter as he claimed to be. McCain's appeals not to "raise Joe's taxes" also lacked ammunition given that it appeared Joe's taxes would actually go down under Obama's plan. Another brilliant campaign move by a McCain campaign that allowed Obama to have a 3 to 1 fundraising advantage by taking public financing while for reasons that I cannot explain has chosen to ignore Senator Obama's close association with his radical, openly racist and anti-American preacher of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright. McCain's campaign will go down as one of the worst run campaigns in American history.... and I haven't even mentioned the buffoon Sarah Palin yet....
So instead of a bunch of gibberish about "Joe the Plumber" and Sarah Palin's nonsensical talk about appealing to "Real America" (whatever that means) let's talk about my hypothetical acquaintance: Joe the Investor. World financial markets have been battered by the domino effect of a housing bubble fueled by speculation and risky loans coupled with the inability of Alan Greenspan and an overly libertarian Fed to regulate derivatives trading. However, my friend Joe the Investor has some cash on hand and is looking to invest somewhere though he's not sure where. In Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's America, Joe will be looking at the prospect of his capital gains taxes on investment profit rising from 15% (current level) to either 20 or 28% (Obama at one point said raise it to 20% and at another suggested 28% was better or more "fair" or whatever). John McCain, on the other hand, wants to lower capital gains to 7.5%. So in this global economy with so many potential places to invest one's money around the world, in whose America does it make more sense to invest: Obama's or McCain's? Investment creates jobs and growth, both of which we desperately need right now. America must retain its competitive edge in this global economy. It is time to put a temporary moratorium on the capital gains tax. If somebody can convince me that raising the capital gains tax will somehow help America's economy, I will give that person a cookie. Expect entries every day until the election.... peace
So instead of a bunch of gibberish about "Joe the Plumber" and Sarah Palin's nonsensical talk about appealing to "Real America" (whatever that means) let's talk about my hypothetical acquaintance: Joe the Investor. World financial markets have been battered by the domino effect of a housing bubble fueled by speculation and risky loans coupled with the inability of Alan Greenspan and an overly libertarian Fed to regulate derivatives trading. However, my friend Joe the Investor has some cash on hand and is looking to invest somewhere though he's not sure where. In Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's America, Joe will be looking at the prospect of his capital gains taxes on investment profit rising from 15% (current level) to either 20 or 28% (Obama at one point said raise it to 20% and at another suggested 28% was better or more "fair" or whatever). John McCain, on the other hand, wants to lower capital gains to 7.5%. So in this global economy with so many potential places to invest one's money around the world, in whose America does it make more sense to invest: Obama's or McCain's? Investment creates jobs and growth, both of which we desperately need right now. America must retain its competitive edge in this global economy. It is time to put a temporary moratorium on the capital gains tax. If somebody can convince me that raising the capital gains tax will somehow help America's economy, I will give that person a cookie. Expect entries every day until the election.... peace
Why I'm voting straight ticket Republican this election
Well as I write this entry nine days before election day it appears that Barack Obama will win the presidency by a comfortable margin (though some polls suggest the race is tightening) while the democrats are certain to win overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress with a possibile 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Two weeks ago, I would have been jumping with joy at this prospect. Now, I'm about to shit my pants.
I voted for Barack Obama in the New Hampshire first in the nation primary, I donated 35$ to his primary campaign, I volunteered going door to door for the Obama campaign in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this summer, I proudly wore my Obama tshirt and my Obama button around periodically over the past 6 months, I had an Obama sticker on my door until last week, I really like Barack Obama, but come next Tuesday I am voting for John McCain and for the Republicans in my hotly contested House of Representatives and Senate races. Yes, I think Barack Obama is a brilliant, capable man. I identify a lot more with Barack Obama and Joe Biden on social issues than I do with John McCain and Sarah Palin. However, in the midst of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, I am voting for the ticket that will do the best job of keeping America competetive in the global economy by promoting the free market principles that have made the American economy the financial titan that it is today. True, excessive deregulation and risky trading practices have contributed to the current financial mess, but the blame lies every bit as much on the democrats and their buddies at Fannie and Freddy (who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama and other democrats this election cycle) pushing for risky loans in low income areas as it does on the Republicans and their laissez-faire economics. Yes, the free market is experiencing a hiccup but now is not the time to abandon the greatest economic system on earth: capitalism. Unfortunately, placing Barack Obama in in the presidency, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader will create an ironclad liberal supermajority that I believe will fundementally subvert the free market capitalist principles that have made America's economy the greatest and most dynamic in the world.
Change, hope, the key phrases of the Obama campaign that inspired me and millions of other Americans to hop on the Obama bandwagon seeking a breath of fresh air following the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. True, it was always a little vague what Barack Obama stood for, but his optimism was highly refreshing in today's depressing political climate. Barack Obama has inspired a grassroots enthusiasm that has made millions of people who were previously apathetic care about politics. As a student of politics, I can greatly appreciate the enthusiasm that his campaign has generated. However, as his promises of hope and change became translated into definitive policies, my inspiration turned to disgust. The truth is that Barack Obama does not represent true change: his promises for hope and a new kind of bipartisan politics contrast greatly with his voting record and campaign promises which show him to be little more than another tax the rich and spend on social problems leftist with THE MOST partisan left wing voting record in the Senate. The truth is that an Obama presidency coupled with a Congress dominated by the far left will bring no innovative change: simply a return to the failed liberal tax and spend policies of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter that hiked taxes to confiscatory levels to spend on a variety of programs that were demonstrated failures in reducing poverty. Right now in the midst of a financial crisis is the very worst time to be enacting these types of destrucive socialist policies.
I am mystified at how the left wing intellectual elite believes that raising capital gains taxes, raising income taxes on the wealthy, raising corporate taxes, and placing increasingly restricitve burdens on free trade will help the economy out of a recession. In a global economy, America must do everything that it can to encourage investment in America and attract high wage earners to this country. Increasing taxes on investment will only deter foreign investment while punishing the investor class in a time of depressed markets is pouring gasoling on the economic fire. Barack Obama's tax plan is hard on socialism: he plans to give 95% of America a "tax cut" which is completely misleading seeing as 40% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes. Thus these people will be getting 500 or 1000$ entitlement checks from the IRS. This plan will simply turn the IRS from a revenue collection agency into a wealth redistribution agency that will surely further Obama's stated agenda of "spreading the wealth around." Furthermore, Obama plans to turn social security from a government backed pension program into a massive redistribution of wealth scheme. Obama will add the payroll tax of 15% on all income over 250,000$ while not extending these people increased benefits. Thus social security, once a pension plan where you paid in and took out based on what you paid in, will become a thinly veiled plan to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor- this is flat out socialism. Under the Obama plan, a high wage earner in New York City will see their federal income tax rise from 35 to 39 percent, tack on another 15% for the social security tax, add on the 8% New York state tax and the 4% NYC income tax and you're forking over about two thirds of your hard earned cash to the IRS (these numbers are estimates but theyr'e pretty accurate). Now, do we really expect a society with confiscatory tax rates on its highest wage earners to encourage innovation and entrepaneurship? I don't think so. Add on Obama's plan to force businesses to cover their employees with health insurance, not to mention his environmental regulations, and America all of the suddenly looks like a much worse place to do business. Oh yea, and free trade? Any economist will tell you that opening up free trade is a mutually beneficial relationship that will add billions of dollars to an economy. The Obama and Pelosi crew have successfully blocked free trade agreements with Colombia and Nicaragua in the Senate just to mention a couple. Obama's plan is Hoovernomics: raising taxes + increasing protectionism during a recession = depression. No Obama supporter that I have confronted has been able to convince me that this socialism will help the American economy: in fact we need only to look across the pond to our friends in Europe to see what these policies do to a nation's macroeconomy.
Ah Europe, land of double digit unemployment, free commie care (universal healthcare) for all, and stagnant economic growth that is making the European Union increasingly irrelevant in the world economy with each passing year. That is the direction where Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will take America - Obama promises higher taxes on the rich to pay for all Americans to receive the same healthcare that members of Congress receive... great... in theory. The problem is that healthcare resources are finite: long waits for doctors appointments are already common in America. So if we open up that system to 50 million or so people who previously had no access to it, expect the quality of healchare for every person currently covered to deteriorate significantly. In Europe, for example, cancer survival rates are consistently lower than in America because the socialist healthcare systems mandate such long waits to see a doctor. So under the liberal plan, you pay a shitload more in taxes and receive shitty healchare in return, not the country that I want to live in. If we want to punish success with confiscatory taxes, spend countlesss sums on free preschool, more unemployment benefits, and whatever else Barney Frank and co. can stab the rich to pay for, then let's vote for Change. You want change? Change is coming... McCain Palin 08! Vote Republican for Congress!
I voted for Barack Obama in the New Hampshire first in the nation primary, I donated 35$ to his primary campaign, I volunteered going door to door for the Obama campaign in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this summer, I proudly wore my Obama tshirt and my Obama button around periodically over the past 6 months, I had an Obama sticker on my door until last week, I really like Barack Obama, but come next Tuesday I am voting for John McCain and for the Republicans in my hotly contested House of Representatives and Senate races. Yes, I think Barack Obama is a brilliant, capable man. I identify a lot more with Barack Obama and Joe Biden on social issues than I do with John McCain and Sarah Palin. However, in the midst of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, I am voting for the ticket that will do the best job of keeping America competetive in the global economy by promoting the free market principles that have made the American economy the financial titan that it is today. True, excessive deregulation and risky trading practices have contributed to the current financial mess, but the blame lies every bit as much on the democrats and their buddies at Fannie and Freddy (who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama and other democrats this election cycle) pushing for risky loans in low income areas as it does on the Republicans and their laissez-faire economics. Yes, the free market is experiencing a hiccup but now is not the time to abandon the greatest economic system on earth: capitalism. Unfortunately, placing Barack Obama in in the presidency, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader will create an ironclad liberal supermajority that I believe will fundementally subvert the free market capitalist principles that have made America's economy the greatest and most dynamic in the world.
Change, hope, the key phrases of the Obama campaign that inspired me and millions of other Americans to hop on the Obama bandwagon seeking a breath of fresh air following the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. True, it was always a little vague what Barack Obama stood for, but his optimism was highly refreshing in today's depressing political climate. Barack Obama has inspired a grassroots enthusiasm that has made millions of people who were previously apathetic care about politics. As a student of politics, I can greatly appreciate the enthusiasm that his campaign has generated. However, as his promises of hope and change became translated into definitive policies, my inspiration turned to disgust. The truth is that Barack Obama does not represent true change: his promises for hope and a new kind of bipartisan politics contrast greatly with his voting record and campaign promises which show him to be little more than another tax the rich and spend on social problems leftist with THE MOST partisan left wing voting record in the Senate. The truth is that an Obama presidency coupled with a Congress dominated by the far left will bring no innovative change: simply a return to the failed liberal tax and spend policies of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter that hiked taxes to confiscatory levels to spend on a variety of programs that were demonstrated failures in reducing poverty. Right now in the midst of a financial crisis is the very worst time to be enacting these types of destrucive socialist policies.
I am mystified at how the left wing intellectual elite believes that raising capital gains taxes, raising income taxes on the wealthy, raising corporate taxes, and placing increasingly restricitve burdens on free trade will help the economy out of a recession. In a global economy, America must do everything that it can to encourage investment in America and attract high wage earners to this country. Increasing taxes on investment will only deter foreign investment while punishing the investor class in a time of depressed markets is pouring gasoling on the economic fire. Barack Obama's tax plan is hard on socialism: he plans to give 95% of America a "tax cut" which is completely misleading seeing as 40% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes. Thus these people will be getting 500 or 1000$ entitlement checks from the IRS. This plan will simply turn the IRS from a revenue collection agency into a wealth redistribution agency that will surely further Obama's stated agenda of "spreading the wealth around." Furthermore, Obama plans to turn social security from a government backed pension program into a massive redistribution of wealth scheme. Obama will add the payroll tax of 15% on all income over 250,000$ while not extending these people increased benefits. Thus social security, once a pension plan where you paid in and took out based on what you paid in, will become a thinly veiled plan to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor- this is flat out socialism. Under the Obama plan, a high wage earner in New York City will see their federal income tax rise from 35 to 39 percent, tack on another 15% for the social security tax, add on the 8% New York state tax and the 4% NYC income tax and you're forking over about two thirds of your hard earned cash to the IRS (these numbers are estimates but theyr'e pretty accurate). Now, do we really expect a society with confiscatory tax rates on its highest wage earners to encourage innovation and entrepaneurship? I don't think so. Add on Obama's plan to force businesses to cover their employees with health insurance, not to mention his environmental regulations, and America all of the suddenly looks like a much worse place to do business. Oh yea, and free trade? Any economist will tell you that opening up free trade is a mutually beneficial relationship that will add billions of dollars to an economy. The Obama and Pelosi crew have successfully blocked free trade agreements with Colombia and Nicaragua in the Senate just to mention a couple. Obama's plan is Hoovernomics: raising taxes + increasing protectionism during a recession = depression. No Obama supporter that I have confronted has been able to convince me that this socialism will help the American economy: in fact we need only to look across the pond to our friends in Europe to see what these policies do to a nation's macroeconomy.
Ah Europe, land of double digit unemployment, free commie care (universal healthcare) for all, and stagnant economic growth that is making the European Union increasingly irrelevant in the world economy with each passing year. That is the direction where Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will take America - Obama promises higher taxes on the rich to pay for all Americans to receive the same healthcare that members of Congress receive... great... in theory. The problem is that healthcare resources are finite: long waits for doctors appointments are already common in America. So if we open up that system to 50 million or so people who previously had no access to it, expect the quality of healchare for every person currently covered to deteriorate significantly. In Europe, for example, cancer survival rates are consistently lower than in America because the socialist healthcare systems mandate such long waits to see a doctor. So under the liberal plan, you pay a shitload more in taxes and receive shitty healchare in return, not the country that I want to live in. If we want to punish success with confiscatory taxes, spend countlesss sums on free preschool, more unemployment benefits, and whatever else Barney Frank and co. can stab the rich to pay for, then let's vote for Change. You want change? Change is coming... McCain Palin 08! Vote Republican for Congress!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama: Young Messiah, McCain: Old Fart
Well Barack Obama's much anticipated Berlin speech went down today much as expected: a half hour of articulate rhetoric and promises delivered to an audience of thousands of screaming, eager Berliners. Obamamania is already sweeping through Europe as Barack enjoys widespread support in that continent. If only Europeans could vote in American elections..... Overall, I was very impressed with the content of Senator Obama's speech: it was full of his trademark optimism and promises to reshape the world as we know it as president. As opposed to some of Obama's rhetoric towards the beginning of the campaign when his promises of "change" were backed up with little substance, this speech had some real meat. Obama touched on a variety of issues from the economy to the environment to nuclear proliferation and Iran's nuclear ambitions just to name a few. Obama, citing nuclear terrorism as a grave threat to the United States, also solidified his position of taking aggressive action to secure and destroy old Soviet nukes in order to protect America's national security. It was a pretty fucking good speech.
All matters of substance aside, how fucking good did Obama look? I mean, this guy looks and sounds every bit the part: he has to be one of the best, most captivating, inspirational speakers alive. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you have to admit this guy makes a damn good impression with his youth, optimism, and fucking incredible ability to express himself...... And right wingers claim "left wing" media bias when the media flock to covering Obama's foreign tour over McCain's... whatever the fuck it is that he does in between naps. Barack Obama has JFK written all over him: this guy is the real deal: a good Columbia man may I add: he is the embodiment of the multiculturalism and progressive "academic elitism" that the right despises. Put that next to John McCain, headline reads: "Old conservative white male to keep shit the way it is" Fuck that...
Speaking of John McCain, I was watching some debate show with couple conservatives arguing with a couple lefties. One of the dems brought up Senator McCain's age, only to be rebuked immediately by the righties for even bringing up the issue: "ageism" is not cool I guess. Is it really not a legitimate issue though? If John McCain is elected president, he'll be knocking on 80 at the end of a potential second term. Not only is the potential for serious health problems great at that age, but the possibility of mental deterioration is even greater. Take Ronald Reagan: by the end of his second term the guy was so fucking senile that he was absolved of any wrong doing by the Tower Commission investigating the Iran Contra scandal because of his lack of oversight (it is widely reported and believed that Reagan's had early stage Alzheimer's in the White House). Now, with the multitude of problems facing our country, do we really need a senile old fart in the White House? Fuck that...
All matters of substance aside, how fucking good did Obama look? I mean, this guy looks and sounds every bit the part: he has to be one of the best, most captivating, inspirational speakers alive. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you have to admit this guy makes a damn good impression with his youth, optimism, and fucking incredible ability to express himself...... And right wingers claim "left wing" media bias when the media flock to covering Obama's foreign tour over McCain's... whatever the fuck it is that he does in between naps. Barack Obama has JFK written all over him: this guy is the real deal: a good Columbia man may I add: he is the embodiment of the multiculturalism and progressive "academic elitism" that the right despises. Put that next to John McCain, headline reads: "Old conservative white male to keep shit the way it is" Fuck that...
Speaking of John McCain, I was watching some debate show with couple conservatives arguing with a couple lefties. One of the dems brought up Senator McCain's age, only to be rebuked immediately by the righties for even bringing up the issue: "ageism" is not cool I guess. Is it really not a legitimate issue though? If John McCain is elected president, he'll be knocking on 80 at the end of a potential second term. Not only is the potential for serious health problems great at that age, but the possibility of mental deterioration is even greater. Take Ronald Reagan: by the end of his second term the guy was so fucking senile that he was absolved of any wrong doing by the Tower Commission investigating the Iran Contra scandal because of his lack of oversight (it is widely reported and believed that Reagan's had early stage Alzheimer's in the White House). Now, with the multitude of problems facing our country, do we really need a senile old fart in the White House? Fuck that...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Obama's Foreign Tour
Well there has been a good deal of media coverage lately surrounding Barack Obama's current world tour that has elevated him to "rockstar" status in the words of some journalists. The enthusiasm of journalists surrounding Obama's trip starkly contrasts with the lack thereof surrounding John McCain's travels. I mean why on earth would a young, attractive, articulate, historically significant candidate like Obama be a more interesting story than some old right wing yawwwn... has been fuckhead hawk who is maybe a 50-50 shot of surviving a hypothetical first term in office? Senator Obama is a press dream and his favorable coverage reflects that plain and simple. John McCain is a boring old fuck who wants 4 more years of Bush... even if Obama's "change" might be a little vague is that not better than McCain's "4 more years of Bush! Let's stay in Iraq for 100 years! Fuck universal healthcare and those other Pinko Communist schemes... wait what's my stance on healthcare again?... So much shit to fucking remember... I'm so fucking old....." But I digress.
True, the press does love to cover Obama and is really hyping up his foreign tour but this seems relevant news to me. In fact, I think it highly important to know that the potential future leader of the free world is engaged in an open dialogue with other world leaders. Obama's demonstrated willingness to look beyond America's borders and work together with its allies will help him regain America's respected status in the world community that George Bush did everything to squander short of personally killing a baby from every country in the whole world. A man criticism of Obama is his "lack" of foreign policy experience that would compromise his judgment. It thus seems to be a highly relevant news story when Obama is using his valuable time to enhance his understanding of international issues. I'm sure the press would flock to covering Senator McCain if the old man could remember what day of the week it is and that we INVADED THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY AFTER 9/11 which McCain supported all along. Minor details John....
My only worry about the Obama tour is that his immense popularity internationally (especially in Westerm Europe) could actually backfire at home. Remember, America does not want a president that will take the country as far left as most of Europe. However, I think America should be relieved at having the possibility of a next president who is loved rather than despised by our most important allies... even if those allies include those pinko communist cheese eating french... Kick some ass, Barack!
True, the press does love to cover Obama and is really hyping up his foreign tour but this seems relevant news to me. In fact, I think it highly important to know that the potential future leader of the free world is engaged in an open dialogue with other world leaders. Obama's demonstrated willingness to look beyond America's borders and work together with its allies will help him regain America's respected status in the world community that George Bush did everything to squander short of personally killing a baby from every country in the whole world. A man criticism of Obama is his "lack" of foreign policy experience that would compromise his judgment. It thus seems to be a highly relevant news story when Obama is using his valuable time to enhance his understanding of international issues. I'm sure the press would flock to covering Senator McCain if the old man could remember what day of the week it is and that we INVADED THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY AFTER 9/11 which McCain supported all along. Minor details John....
My only worry about the Obama tour is that his immense popularity internationally (especially in Westerm Europe) could actually backfire at home. Remember, America does not want a president that will take the country as far left as most of Europe. However, I think America should be relieved at having the possibility of a next president who is loved rather than despised by our most important allies... even if those allies include those pinko communist cheese eating french... Kick some ass, Barack!
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Book Review: Economics Beaurocracy and Race by Judith Russell
I recently had the pleasure of reading Economics Beaurocracy and Race by Dr. Judith Russell, whose Introduction to American Politics class I had the pleasure of taking this past semester. This book provides a highly detailed, complex analysis of the economic policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that culminated in the ultimately unpopular and ineffective War on Poverty. Professor Russell argues convincingly that the problem of deep seeded persistent poverty in the United States resulted largely from structural unemployment and the inability of male heads of houses in impoverished communities to retain steady, adequately paying jobs. She therefore concludes that a major government commitment towards job training and public works programs during the 1960's could have done much to address this persistent problem of poverty. However, the Kennedy Administration elected instead to implement a major tax cut to stimulate the economy and increase aggregate demand. This tax cut was very effective in stimulating business spending and the stock market but did nothing to alleviate the persistent poverty still felt by many Americans. The Johnson Administration's subsequent war on poverty focused excessively on so-called Community Action Programs that sought to improve communities through a variety of initiatives aimed to reduce a so-called "culture of poverty" rather than directly approaching the problem of unemployment through job training and public works programs. Russell ultimately blames the failure of the war on poverty on the lack of consensus on the cause of unemployment in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, beaurocratic inefficiencies in the Labor Department, and a general lack of commitment towards alleviating poverty in poor, black communities.
Dr. Russell presents her case in a way that provides an excellent background of the economic situation in the 1960's in which structural unemployment kept certain segments of the population (mainly poor urban blacks and rural whites) from sharing in the prosperity of that time. Russell applies relatively simple economic concepts to analyze the highly complex social problem of poverty in a very interesting manner. After reading this book I understand the relationship between unemployment and poverty in much greater depth. It also helped me see how economic prosperity brought on by increased aggregate demand from tax cuts does not necessarily extend towards the lower classes and unemployed.
While Dr. Russell convinced me that certain government programs geared towards jobs could have enhanced the effectiveness of the war on poverty, I am not convinced that excessive government spending towards public works programs would have been the best decision. Dr. Russell advoctes a New Dealesue plan to address unemployment that guarantees every American the right to a job. The cost of such programs would have been extremely prohibitive and would have required a significant tax increase that would have ultimately hurt the U.S. economy. Remember that the New Deal did nothing to end the Great Depression - it only helped ease some of the suffering of those hardest hit by the Depression. Roosevelt's policies placed confiscatory taxes (approaching 100 %) on wealthy Americans that stifled investment. A massive training and public works program during the 1960's could have had a similar effect. While Professor Russell convinced me that some of the money from the Kennedy tax cut could have been better spent on job training and that jobs programs would have been more effective than Community Action Programs in fighting poverty, I cannot ultimately agree with her conclusions. Economics Beaurocracy and Race is a great read for anyone interested in applying economic concepts to social policy and people with a paticular interest in the causes of poverty and unemployment.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Gore's CRRAAAAZZZZYYY Goal
Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the nation today to convert its electricity ENTIRELY to solar, wind, and other environmentally friendly energy sources within ten years. Imagine Mr. Gore's happy country, Midwestern prairies full of windmills, solar panels propping up in the burbs, etc. I guess I could imagine myself having a giant solar panel as a roof but honestly how the fuck are we really going to do this?
I am as strong an advocate for alternative energy research as anybody. Such research will be the key to preserving the world economy as oil prices continue to skyrocket and fossil fuels fade away due to their deleterious environmental impact. But the United Sates as a nation is nowhere near the point where it can realistically convert entirely to alternative sources within the next decade. We are addicted to greenhouse gases as a nation, and that will be hard to break. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are certainly great alternatives but technology is nowhere near a point where they could produce all of the electricity that we need as a country. While we certainly need to continue pursuing these technologies aggressively, they are not a near term fix by any means.
Fortunately, a relatively inexpensive altenative to fossil fuels is available right now and actually contributes significantly to the grid already: nuclear. I know Americans never trust the French about anything (cheese eating Socialist snob assholes.... moi je n'ai pas de probleme") but the French have enjoyed ample, relatively clean electricity through their extensive network of nuclear plants that provide approximately 76% of the country's energy. The United States, on the other hand, only receives 19% of its energy from nuclear power. With the current technologies available, the only way for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a signficant manner would be to build nuclear plants aggressively throughout the country, continue to pursue other alternative sources, immediately enact stricter fuel economy standards for cars and reinstate tax breaks for buying hybrid and other highly fuel efficient cars (that Bush scrapped, fucking asshole got rid of the tax break to buy hybrid cars- why does George Bush hate trees and babies?). Al Gore is living in a dreamworld if he really thinks this country can convert entirely to alternative sources in ten years without increasing nuclear production - even if the technology was available the cost would be astronomical. Come on Al, the optimism is great but stop taking so many fucking crazy pills.
Now check out the new poll question....
I am as strong an advocate for alternative energy research as anybody. Such research will be the key to preserving the world economy as oil prices continue to skyrocket and fossil fuels fade away due to their deleterious environmental impact. But the United Sates as a nation is nowhere near the point where it can realistically convert entirely to alternative sources within the next decade. We are addicted to greenhouse gases as a nation, and that will be hard to break. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are certainly great alternatives but technology is nowhere near a point where they could produce all of the electricity that we need as a country. While we certainly need to continue pursuing these technologies aggressively, they are not a near term fix by any means.
Fortunately, a relatively inexpensive altenative to fossil fuels is available right now and actually contributes significantly to the grid already: nuclear. I know Americans never trust the French about anything (cheese eating Socialist snob assholes.... moi je n'ai pas de probleme") but the French have enjoyed ample, relatively clean electricity through their extensive network of nuclear plants that provide approximately 76% of the country's energy. The United States, on the other hand, only receives 19% of its energy from nuclear power. With the current technologies available, the only way for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a signficant manner would be to build nuclear plants aggressively throughout the country, continue to pursue other alternative sources, immediately enact stricter fuel economy standards for cars and reinstate tax breaks for buying hybrid and other highly fuel efficient cars (that Bush scrapped, fucking asshole got rid of the tax break to buy hybrid cars- why does George Bush hate trees and babies?). Al Gore is living in a dreamworld if he really thinks this country can convert entirely to alternative sources in ten years without increasing nuclear production - even if the technology was available the cost would be astronomical. Come on Al, the optimism is great but stop taking so many fucking crazy pills.
Now check out the new poll question....
Thursday, July 17, 2008
One Dollar, One Vote
First off, I want to thank everyone who has been posting great comments in response to my last couple of posts. I have replied to all of the issue oriented comments and will continue doing so until the volume of comments is too great for me to respond to each individually. I encourage everyone reading this blog to at least check out these comments as they are very insightful and also provide well supported opinions that in many cases differ from my own. Also, in the future please post your comments directly to the blog - a couple of you have sent me messages on facebook and asked me to transfer them to the blog which I did but in the future it is easiest to post directly on the blog. Also, I plan to add some new poll questions over the next few days so be sure to keep checking the bottom of the page. Before writing my entry of the day I want to share a little joke that Ian Clunie sent me on facebook that should make you chuckle:
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Hahahahahahah
The Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised a very impressive 52 million dollars in June, its second best fundraising month of the year and a relief to skeptics who worried that the hype of his campaign was fading after its lackluster fundraising performance in May. The impressive June totals are especially important as they bring Obama and the DNC on more even ground with McCain and the RNC. Currently Obama and the DNC are sitting on a combined warchest of 92.3 million dollars, just shy of McCain and the RNC's combined warchest of 95 million. This is very good news as the right wing war machine has been outfundraising the dems ever since Bush's record fundraising totals in 2000 and 2004. The prolonged fundraising success of the right hardly comes as a surprise as wealthy republicans with their pockets overflowing in Bu$H tax cut money are happy to pay up in order to ensure a continuation of this administration's reactionary economic policies that have created a wealth disparity in this country the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. Fortunately, wealthy Americans with graduate degrees (maligned by right wingers as "elitist, out of touch limousine liberals") overwhelmingly support Democrats, an increasingly prominent trend in this country that is helping level the fundraising playing field. Not surprising that educated people who actually know what the fuck is going on are overwhelmingly liberal...... but I digress.......However, the core of Obama's fundraising comes from small donations, as his average contribution was only 68 dollars. This is a testament to the true grassroots nature of the Obama campaign.
While I am certainly pleased that Obama and the Democrats can now compete financially with McCain and the Republicans, it really sickens me how fundraising has become such a focal point of politicians at all levels of government. It is impossible to run for office in this country without massive amounts of cash, a fact that forces politicians to pander to deep pocketed individuals and special interests in order to acquire the necessary funds to run for office. True, an individual cannot conbribute more than 2300$ to a presidential candidate in a given election cycle but when wealthy individuals can contribute to individual campaigns, national and state parties, PACS, and non-party affiliated "527" groups , clearly the impact of big money on campaigns is far from diluted. This is a phenomenon that affects both parties as each caters to a different sets of interest groups. Not only do politicians need to pander in order to get the dough they need, but they WASTE SO MUCH FUCKING TIME RAISING MONEY RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES. Yes, fundraising is such an integral part of any campaign that members of the House of Representatives typically start fundraising for their reelection campaigns shortly after getting elected - it is a never ending cycle.
Look, if we really want democracy (or a fair representative republic) we need to take money out of politics. Period. If every voice is to be heard equally come election day, a person's wealth should have no effect on whether or not politicians listen to them. The best way to take money out of politics would be to provide candidates and political parties with public financing and ban all private political fundraising. "527" groups (with no limits on contributions whatsoever) would still prove a problem but if they are not allowed air time, their impact will be lessened dramatically. Also, with guaranteed public financing, politicans will be able to spend much more time making clear their stances on issues and when in office planning reelection, actually doing their job rather than spending the entirety of their time campaigning and fundraising. America needs to revert to its democratic principles of one person, one vote, rather than putting so much emphasis on the ability of candidates to attract the $$$$$$$$. Both presidential candidates are staunch campaign finance reformers so I have a lot of faith that the problem of money in politics will be addressed during the next administration. Later.
-Artie
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Hahahahahahah
The Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised a very impressive 52 million dollars in June, its second best fundraising month of the year and a relief to skeptics who worried that the hype of his campaign was fading after its lackluster fundraising performance in May. The impressive June totals are especially important as they bring Obama and the DNC on more even ground with McCain and the RNC. Currently Obama and the DNC are sitting on a combined warchest of 92.3 million dollars, just shy of McCain and the RNC's combined warchest of 95 million. This is very good news as the right wing war machine has been outfundraising the dems ever since Bush's record fundraising totals in 2000 and 2004. The prolonged fundraising success of the right hardly comes as a surprise as wealthy republicans with their pockets overflowing in Bu$H tax cut money are happy to pay up in order to ensure a continuation of this administration's reactionary economic policies that have created a wealth disparity in this country the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. Fortunately, wealthy Americans with graduate degrees (maligned by right wingers as "elitist, out of touch limousine liberals") overwhelmingly support Democrats, an increasingly prominent trend in this country that is helping level the fundraising playing field. Not surprising that educated people who actually know what the fuck is going on are overwhelmingly liberal...... but I digress.......However, the core of Obama's fundraising comes from small donations, as his average contribution was only 68 dollars. This is a testament to the true grassroots nature of the Obama campaign.
While I am certainly pleased that Obama and the Democrats can now compete financially with McCain and the Republicans, it really sickens me how fundraising has become such a focal point of politicians at all levels of government. It is impossible to run for office in this country without massive amounts of cash, a fact that forces politicians to pander to deep pocketed individuals and special interests in order to acquire the necessary funds to run for office. True, an individual cannot conbribute more than 2300$ to a presidential candidate in a given election cycle but when wealthy individuals can contribute to individual campaigns, national and state parties, PACS, and non-party affiliated "527" groups , clearly the impact of big money on campaigns is far from diluted. This is a phenomenon that affects both parties as each caters to a different sets of interest groups. Not only do politicians need to pander in order to get the dough they need, but they WASTE SO MUCH FUCKING TIME RAISING MONEY RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES. Yes, fundraising is such an integral part of any campaign that members of the House of Representatives typically start fundraising for their reelection campaigns shortly after getting elected - it is a never ending cycle.
Look, if we really want democracy (or a fair representative republic) we need to take money out of politics. Period. If every voice is to be heard equally come election day, a person's wealth should have no effect on whether or not politicians listen to them. The best way to take money out of politics would be to provide candidates and political parties with public financing and ban all private political fundraising. "527" groups (with no limits on contributions whatsoever) would still prove a problem but if they are not allowed air time, their impact will be lessened dramatically. Also, with guaranteed public financing, politicans will be able to spend much more time making clear their stances on issues and when in office planning reelection, actually doing their job rather than spending the entirety of their time campaigning and fundraising. America needs to revert to its democratic principles of one person, one vote, rather than putting so much emphasis on the ability of candidates to attract the $$$$$$$$. Both presidential candidates are staunch campaign finance reformers so I have a lot of faith that the problem of money in politics will be addressed during the next administration. Later.
-Artie
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Congress.... Sucks
So the U.S. economy is getting more and more fucked every day... in fact, today's inflation numbers showed that inflation in June shot up 1.1 percent from May, the largest month to month increase in 26 years. This news, coupled with the continuing housing crisis and the obscene price of oil will only work to continue fucking the U.S. economy over with a giant pointed stick. So, to whom do we turn in the midst of this economic crisis? Congress, of course! I mean Congress can always be trusted to provide a hastily thought out, poorly designed plan to solve any national crisis, right? Now is no exception.
Congress recently implemented a 168 billion $ "economic stimulus" package in which the government sent Americans checks of up to 600$ in order to give the economy a little boost..... of course the real purpose of this package was to tell Americans, "we know you fucking hate us and the country's going to hell so here's a few hundred bucks in beer money to keep you from going completely bonkers on us and taking a collective national shit on Capitol Hill Lawn." Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed receiving my check of 180 bucks in the mail, which I promptly used to stimulate the economy (the underground economy is still part of the economy). But come on, does anyone on Capitol Hill really think that sending people a few hundred bucks will do anything to solve the country's highly complex, multifaceted economic problems? I doubt it. True, it would be difficult for the Democratic Congress to pass any legislation of substance as it would face an immediate veto from President Bush. But is this really the best they can do? Apparently so....
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced today that Congress is considering implementing another similar stimulus package because the effects of the last stimulus were largely negated by ever-rising energy prices. Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled to get a couple hundred bucks more from the assholes in Washington but as a public policy this is just plain DUMB. First of all, the Democratic Congress is following the failed Bush model of cutting taxes during times of both record spending and record budget deficits. The government is in no position to be granting these hand outs right now. And no shit the effects of the last stimulus were cancelled out by rising gas prices - so why don't the boneheads on Capitol Hill actually attempt to formulate a cohesive energy and economic policy that will address the issues of high gas prices and the lagging economy in general? That would be far too much to ask of the morons in Congress who care a lot more about their own reelection campaigns and pandering to the special interests in their districts than in enacting meaningful legislation to address the country's long term problems. SENDING EVERYONE A FUCKING CHECK FOR A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO APPEASE PISSED OFF AMERICANS WHO ARE FED UP WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT. Now I beg Congress: sit down and fucking do something!!!!... Later
Congress recently implemented a 168 billion $ "economic stimulus" package in which the government sent Americans checks of up to 600$ in order to give the economy a little boost..... of course the real purpose of this package was to tell Americans, "we know you fucking hate us and the country's going to hell so here's a few hundred bucks in beer money to keep you from going completely bonkers on us and taking a collective national shit on Capitol Hill Lawn." Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed receiving my check of 180 bucks in the mail, which I promptly used to stimulate the economy (the underground economy is still part of the economy). But come on, does anyone on Capitol Hill really think that sending people a few hundred bucks will do anything to solve the country's highly complex, multifaceted economic problems? I doubt it. True, it would be difficult for the Democratic Congress to pass any legislation of substance as it would face an immediate veto from President Bush. But is this really the best they can do? Apparently so....
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced today that Congress is considering implementing another similar stimulus package because the effects of the last stimulus were largely negated by ever-rising energy prices. Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled to get a couple hundred bucks more from the assholes in Washington but as a public policy this is just plain DUMB. First of all, the Democratic Congress is following the failed Bush model of cutting taxes during times of both record spending and record budget deficits. The government is in no position to be granting these hand outs right now. And no shit the effects of the last stimulus were cancelled out by rising gas prices - so why don't the boneheads on Capitol Hill actually attempt to formulate a cohesive energy and economic policy that will address the issues of high gas prices and the lagging economy in general? That would be far too much to ask of the morons in Congress who care a lot more about their own reelection campaigns and pandering to the special interests in their districts than in enacting meaningful legislation to address the country's long term problems. SENDING EVERYONE A FUCKING CHECK FOR A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO APPEASE PISSED OFF AMERICANS WHO ARE FED UP WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT. Now I beg Congress: sit down and fucking do something!!!!... Later
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bush's Dumbass Energy Policy
First of all I want to thank all of you who have voted in my polls and posted comments on the site. All of your feedback was very helpful. I apologize for the not so reader friendly text - I'm working on presenting my enlightened ideas in a more visually pleasing manner.
So...... I'm reading the headlines and the price of oil just dropped 9$ a barrel today upon President Bush's decision to remove the current moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States. With oil companies permitted to drill in the oil rich waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off Southern California, an influx of oil to the American market should help reduce prices over the next decade or so. I have to give Bushee a thumbs up for this one as I support increased drilling in order to alleviate the burden of obscenely high gas and home heating oil prices on lower and middle income Americans. Sorry Greenpeace - I love the dolphins, whales, spotted owls, even the fucking Caribou, but I care more about people, namely Americans getting fucked by these prices.
And........ Bush's energy policy kind of stops there. Sure, he's paid lip service and meagerly funded some alternative energy research but he made absolutely no commitment towards ending our dependence on foreign oil or making a transition towards alternative energy sources. You put two oil men in the White House and what the fuck do you expect to happen? Cha Ching$$$$$
Now we get to the part the really pisses me off... When asked whether Americans should attempt to conserve energy, President Bush replied: "They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not." Haha, do you really expect Bushy to ask Americans to conserve? Americans conserve = Big Oil takes less money from Americans = Bush's oil buddies get really pissed off, join the Minutemen, and start shooting Mexicans cause they have to wait an extra year before buying their new fucking G5. So we'd better not get Bush's oil buddies upset by.... gasp.... trying to conserve energy. I mean who gives a fuck if Greenland is melting, storms are getting stronger, fires more severe, and heat waves more deadly? Oh yea, and no matter how much we drill oil won't be around all that much longer. But why conserve? Although nobody really listens to anything Bush says anymore.... my call to my fellow Americans is CONSERVE!!! Help us end our dependence on foreign oil and stop destroying our environment. Anybody can use 15% percent fewer resources in their daily lives without inconveniencing them if they really think about it.
It's a sad fact that during 8 critical years during which America could have taken so many steps to reduce its carbon emissions and decrease its dependence on oil from the Middle East, we have done NOTHING.... Just another way Bush has worked to fuck over America and the rest of the world.... psychotic fuckhead...... Bush's environmental policy is so disastrous that one of John McCain's commercials emphasizes how McCain stood up to Bush on climate change... Even his fellow conservative republicans are kind of pissed off how the Bush Administration took a giant shit on the earth for eight years.
How about a simple energy policy that makes sense? Fuck SUVS.... we need substantial increases in fuel economy standards for all vehicles sold in the US NOW. And we need to make a real commitment towards alternative energy research... a Manhattan Project of sorts in which the greatest scientific minds can work together in order to fix the looming energy and climate crisis facing the world... Just another way for Bush to cement his legacy as one of the worst presidents in American history...
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mortgage/Banking Crisis
So the big news of the day is the federal government's plan to bail out some more major financial institutions that have been crippled by the developing mortgage and banking crisis. For those of you who don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, let me give you a little background on this crisis that poses a serious threat to the American economy. During the recent housing boom in which American housing prices skyrocketed over a period of several years, it became increasingly difficult for Americans to afford homes as wages did not keep pace with the price increases. Therefore, the only way for many Americans to afford homes was by taking out ultra-risky mortgages such as interest only loans that would keep their payments affordable. The problem is that these kinds of loans are SO FUCKING RISKY AND STUPID TO TAKE OUT. People with interest only loans could be living in their home for months or even years without paying any principal on their mortgage, meaning they own exactly 0% of their home. So when the time comes to actually start paying the principal down and they still can't afford it, they say, no big deal we'll just sell the thing because it will keep appreciating in double digits FOREVER. Wrong!!!! So when people can't just unload these houses that they could never really afford to begin with they are... fucked, foreclosed. So of course foreclosures are at a record high right now and with prices declining the banks are sure having a fucking hard time getting rid of all these houses that are losing their value and that nobody really wants. So the banks are fucked too, so fucked in fact that the two biggest underwriters of U.S. mortgage debt, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not be able to survive much longer without a multibillion dollar bailout package from our federal government (wait, the federal government doesn't have money either, I mean don't we have a7 trillion dollar national debt or something... fuck it we'll borrow more from China). While I guess the federal government has little choice in bailing out these financial behemoths as failing to do so would wreak havoc on the already beleaguered financial sector. I really question the principal of the government's new policy of bailing out these giant corporations. I mean, nobody forced Fannie and Freddie to offer these dumbass loans to people trying to buy homes they could not possibly afford. It was the typical greedy banker mentality that really couldn't give a rats ass if the loan they were offering Joe Schmoe was probably going bad in a few years as long as the banker got his commission that day. These irresponsible loaning practices created a positive feedback loop of increased housing prices when increased demand from a new class of buyers that could never afford homes with traditional loans forced prices up and up. So now the banks are fucked and the government is bailing them out, how nice of them. So far the government has already bailed out the ex-super sexy master of the universe Wall Street giant Bear Stearns... sure the stock might have collapsed but all the company's bigwigs walked away fat and happy as the company fell apart. The same scenario occurred a few days ago when the government announced its multibillion dollar assistance package to the failing California bank, IndyMac. The feds could never possibly let such titans as these fail.
Now as I previously stated, the government has little choice but to intervene here or the economy would really collapse (imagine where the Dow would go if the two companies owning half the mortgage debt in the U.S. all of the suddenly went bankrupt. Put me on the next flight to Australia...). It seems kind of like a huge crock of horseshit though when the Bearn Stearns' and Freddie Mac's of the world are too big and important to fail according to the government. Look to the passage in the constitution that says: "If you're a major bank the government will not let you fail, we will put the country further and further into debt and save your big fat incompetent asses with billions in free money." That's a couple lines above where it says, "Oh yea and for the rest of you, when the economy goes to shits and everything sucks you can go fuck yourselves. There's a bunch of empty parking spaces outside Best Buy so buy a shitty used van, park it there, sleep in it, eat shit, and shut the fuck up or you'll be "interrogated" wink wink in a CIA prison overseas." This is an unacceptable double standard: major financial giants are given billions in government aid to prevent them from going bankrupt while small business owners who create two thirds of the jobs in this country can eat shit and die when their business fails... God bless America, land of the free, with opportunities for all.
Okay so I've concluded that the government does need to bail out some of these big companies but that's it's hypocritical bullshit... so what now? Now we figure out how the hell we got into this sordid mess in the first place: NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE SHENANIGANS. That's right... Dick Cheney, please make sure your pacemaker is working if you plan to continue reading this. We need to regulate, period. The Great Depression was largely caused by reckless trading practices on Wall Street during the 1920's that created millions in imaginary wealth overnight, only to fuck the whole world's economy up for the next 13 years or so when people realized how overvalued those stocks were. The stock market crash of 1987 was widely blamed on the lack of oversight on Wall Street as that fucking prick Ronald Reagan did everything he could to deregulate the financial industry during his 8 years as warlord. And of course, the tech bubble that burst in 2000 was caused by irrational exuberance on Wall Street and people funneling billions of dollars into these little tech companies that not only had no earnings but I still have no fucking clue what half of them did. But hey, why have the government get in the way of the market? After all, the market represents the will of the people and anyone who wants to interfere is an economic elitist snob, right? WRONG! Capitalism and regulation are not mutually exclusive. The government can and should regulate financial markets in order to ensure a stable economy. The government needed to intervene and stop the banking industry from offering so many risky loans to people that were too ignorant, stupid, or easily manipulated to make financially sound decisions. True, such regulation would have kept housing prices from skyrocketing so much, but it also would have prevented the current meltdown in the banking industry. It's okay for the government to intervene in markets. Period. Capitalism is a great economic system for creating wealth and provides sufficient incentives for people to try and further their own economic self interests. However, as history has shown us time and time again, unrestricted capitalism creates instability in markets and ultimately recession. Hopefully America will learn its lesson this time and do a better job stabilizing its great economy. I'm hitting the gym, peace.
Now as I previously stated, the government has little choice but to intervene here or the economy would really collapse (imagine where the Dow would go if the two companies owning half the mortgage debt in the U.S. all of the suddenly went bankrupt. Put me on the next flight to Australia...). It seems kind of like a huge crock of horseshit though when the Bearn Stearns' and Freddie Mac's of the world are too big and important to fail according to the government. Look to the passage in the constitution that says: "If you're a major bank the government will not let you fail, we will put the country further and further into debt and save your big fat incompetent asses with billions in free money." That's a couple lines above where it says, "Oh yea and for the rest of you, when the economy goes to shits and everything sucks you can go fuck yourselves. There's a bunch of empty parking spaces outside Best Buy so buy a shitty used van, park it there, sleep in it, eat shit, and shut the fuck up or you'll be "interrogated" wink wink in a CIA prison overseas." This is an unacceptable double standard: major financial giants are given billions in government aid to prevent them from going bankrupt while small business owners who create two thirds of the jobs in this country can eat shit and die when their business fails... God bless America, land of the free, with opportunities for all.
Okay so I've concluded that the government does need to bail out some of these big companies but that's it's hypocritical bullshit... so what now? Now we figure out how the hell we got into this sordid mess in the first place: NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE SHENANIGANS. That's right... Dick Cheney, please make sure your pacemaker is working if you plan to continue reading this. We need to regulate, period. The Great Depression was largely caused by reckless trading practices on Wall Street during the 1920's that created millions in imaginary wealth overnight, only to fuck the whole world's economy up for the next 13 years or so when people realized how overvalued those stocks were. The stock market crash of 1987 was widely blamed on the lack of oversight on Wall Street as that fucking prick Ronald Reagan did everything he could to deregulate the financial industry during his 8 years as warlord. And of course, the tech bubble that burst in 2000 was caused by irrational exuberance on Wall Street and people funneling billions of dollars into these little tech companies that not only had no earnings but I still have no fucking clue what half of them did. But hey, why have the government get in the way of the market? After all, the market represents the will of the people and anyone who wants to interfere is an economic elitist snob, right? WRONG! Capitalism and regulation are not mutually exclusive. The government can and should regulate financial markets in order to ensure a stable economy. The government needed to intervene and stop the banking industry from offering so many risky loans to people that were too ignorant, stupid, or easily manipulated to make financially sound decisions. True, such regulation would have kept housing prices from skyrocketing so much, but it also would have prevented the current meltdown in the banking industry. It's okay for the government to intervene in markets. Period. Capitalism is a great economic system for creating wealth and provides sufficient incentives for people to try and further their own economic self interests. However, as history has shown us time and time again, unrestricted capitalism creates instability in markets and ultimately recession. Hopefully America will learn its lesson this time and do a better job stabilizing its great economy. I'm hitting the gym, peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
