Obama made a slip of the tongue last week when he tried to use the United States Postal Service to defend the government option in health care. He said that UPS and FedEx are doing fine. It's the Post Office that is always having problems. Actually the Post Office will be approximately 7 - 10 billion dollars in debt by the end of this year.
We currently have three main sources for healthcare funding in the US: Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of the three which I mentioned are bankrupt. I'm sure you can figure it out. If the government can't run a nationalized program on a small scale. How will it run it for the whole country without bankrupting the whole country.
I haven't even mentioned other govt failures like Social security and cash for clunkers. I know people may say its the morally right thing to do, but why wait till people get sick? Why not have universal housing? People will get sick if they don't have housing. What about universal clothing and universal food. People will get sick if they don't have proper nourishment.
Obama claims that this is to increase competition. To keep people honest. Thats great if you hold this position throughout. This has little to nothing to do with competition rather than control. If he was really an advocate for competition he would open up the educational system to competition with the school voucher program. When Obama was trying to find a school for his kids, he visited public and private schools and had a few choices.
However, he would deny the rest of us this choice. With the school voucher program, parents who are not happy with their school district could take their tax money and select a school of their choice for their kids. The schools that are underperforming would have to reform or close down. The winners would be the parents because they would have more choices in selecting a school and wouldn't be forced to send their kids to a public school.
Competition is great unless you are owned by the teacher's union and is not politically convenient. This type of hypocrisy can be seen on both sides of the aisle of course. If Obama really cared about competition then he would open up education to competition.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I'm Pro-Choice
I have to admit that I'm pro-choice. I'm not referring to abortion but rather to my medical care. Obama used an example of Doctor's taking tonsils out when a child has a sore throat. This was an interesting example and actually a poor one at that.
The way things are right now it would ultimately be the parent's choice. The doctor can recommend surgery but the parents can get a second opinion and then have the choice to say yes or no. Under Obama's scenario of government run health care, if there was a child who had a legitimate reason to have there tonsils removed the decision would be up to a government bureaucrat rather than the doctor and patient.
Obama has not even read the HealthCare bill he is trying so hard to ram down our throats. Why is that important? Because he is making claims that are completely untrue and is contrary to what is written in the bill.
Right now everyone is concerned about the 50 million who don't have insurance and they are willing to screw the 100+ million who do have insurance and are happy with what they've got. The 50 million number the president speaks of is very debatable. Some argue that there are millions of people who should be excluded such as those who aren't American citizens (10 million), those who can afford insurance but choose not to take it and people who qualify for government coverage but don't sign up.
The President and the Democratic controlled congress are about to add 50 million people to the healthcare system but with the same number of doctors and nurses. There is a nursing shortage as things stand and the govt is thinking about adding an additional 50 million people. The only choice is for the government to ration health care. The people who will suffer the most will be the elderly. Recently, a woman asked Obama if her 105 year old mother who got a pacemaker at the age of 100 would have gotten a pacemaker with his plan. His response was for her to take a painkiller.
In Canada and in other places with socialized medicine, patients have to wait months to see a doctor. For instance, someone with Arthritis the average wait time is 9 months. Here in the US you can see your doctor immediately. Anytime the government gets involved it only screws things up. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. Social Security is going broke and next will be government run health care.
"In Obama's interview on ABC, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
At the end its all about choice and Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress wants to take that away from us.
The way things are right now it would ultimately be the parent's choice. The doctor can recommend surgery but the parents can get a second opinion and then have the choice to say yes or no. Under Obama's scenario of government run health care, if there was a child who had a legitimate reason to have there tonsils removed the decision would be up to a government bureaucrat rather than the doctor and patient.
Obama has not even read the HealthCare bill he is trying so hard to ram down our throats. Why is that important? Because he is making claims that are completely untrue and is contrary to what is written in the bill.
Right now everyone is concerned about the 50 million who don't have insurance and they are willing to screw the 100+ million who do have insurance and are happy with what they've got. The 50 million number the president speaks of is very debatable. Some argue that there are millions of people who should be excluded such as those who aren't American citizens (10 million), those who can afford insurance but choose not to take it and people who qualify for government coverage but don't sign up.
The President and the Democratic controlled congress are about to add 50 million people to the healthcare system but with the same number of doctors and nurses. There is a nursing shortage as things stand and the govt is thinking about adding an additional 50 million people. The only choice is for the government to ration health care. The people who will suffer the most will be the elderly. Recently, a woman asked Obama if her 105 year old mother who got a pacemaker at the age of 100 would have gotten a pacemaker with his plan. His response was for her to take a painkiller.
In Canada and in other places with socialized medicine, patients have to wait months to see a doctor. For instance, someone with Arthritis the average wait time is 9 months. Here in the US you can see your doctor immediately. Anytime the government gets involved it only screws things up. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. Social Security is going broke and next will be government run health care.
"In Obama's interview on ABC, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1)At the end its all about choice and Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress wants to take that away from us.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Let's Review
I wanted to take a look at some of the highlights or lowlights of the last few months.
1) Creation of generational debt
I believe the biggest mistake of this administration was the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. In order to pay for this, the govt will have to borrow, print and most likely increase taxes. None of which will help us. The president came out and said last week that the stimulus did what it was intended for --to extend unemployment benefits. However, Obama is only treating a symptom and not the problem. Rather than extend unemployment benefits why not get people off of unemployment and into the workforce.
Obama promised that stimulus wouldn't allow the unemployment rate to go above 8 percent but now we are sitting with an unemployment rate close to 10%.
Approximately 10% of the stimulus money has been spent. The defenders of the stimulus say that the reason for this is because government is cumbersome, slow and inefficient and it could take many more months. However, these same people want to give government control to health care, auto and the financial sector.
It is also interesting to note that the groups that benefited the most from the stimulus package were Obama's key supporters such as unions, ACORN and many other organizations. Just last week USA Today uncovered that stimulus money was going to Obama supporters in a very partisan way when the actual numbers are broken down and analyzed.
Now there is talk of a second stimulus package!
2) Iraq and Afghanistan
A good decision that he made was to stay the course in Afghanistan. The problem is that he campaigned as the anti-war president. He said that he would pull out of Iraq as soon as he was elected. None of those promises were kept so I'm sure people on the left may not be too happy with this flip flop.
3) Closing Guantanamo bay
This is where Obama drew the moral line and said no more torture. However, in cases of national security Obama can authorize the use of torture or as it is called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Basically nothing has changed because only the most wanted terrorists were subjected to these techniques anyways. Very clever way of sounding righteous but keeping everything the same.
Now Obama is stuck in the same sitatuation that Bush was in. Where do you send these criminals? Our Allies turned down Obamas request to keep them abroad. The citizens of this country don't want them on our soil. Do you let them go free? The ones that are released will join the battle field against the US once again.
Only time will tell.
4) Abortion
Obama said that he wants to compromise on the issue of abortion. I wasn't sure what that meant. What it means is that people who are against abortion would have to change their beliefs. Otherwise they would be divisive. As soon as he took office he reversed the abortion funding policy even though most people in the country are against abortion.
Anyways, these are just a few things to think about.
1) Creation of generational debt
I believe the biggest mistake of this administration was the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. In order to pay for this, the govt will have to borrow, print and most likely increase taxes. None of which will help us. The president came out and said last week that the stimulus did what it was intended for --to extend unemployment benefits. However, Obama is only treating a symptom and not the problem. Rather than extend unemployment benefits why not get people off of unemployment and into the workforce.
Obama promised that stimulus wouldn't allow the unemployment rate to go above 8 percent but now we are sitting with an unemployment rate close to 10%.
Approximately 10% of the stimulus money has been spent. The defenders of the stimulus say that the reason for this is because government is cumbersome, slow and inefficient and it could take many more months. However, these same people want to give government control to health care, auto and the financial sector.
It is also interesting to note that the groups that benefited the most from the stimulus package were Obama's key supporters such as unions, ACORN and many other organizations. Just last week USA Today uncovered that stimulus money was going to Obama supporters in a very partisan way when the actual numbers are broken down and analyzed.
Now there is talk of a second stimulus package!
2) Iraq and Afghanistan
A good decision that he made was to stay the course in Afghanistan. The problem is that he campaigned as the anti-war president. He said that he would pull out of Iraq as soon as he was elected. None of those promises were kept so I'm sure people on the left may not be too happy with this flip flop.
3) Closing Guantanamo bay
This is where Obama drew the moral line and said no more torture. However, in cases of national security Obama can authorize the use of torture or as it is called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Basically nothing has changed because only the most wanted terrorists were subjected to these techniques anyways. Very clever way of sounding righteous but keeping everything the same.
Now Obama is stuck in the same sitatuation that Bush was in. Where do you send these criminals? Our Allies turned down Obamas request to keep them abroad. The citizens of this country don't want them on our soil. Do you let them go free? The ones that are released will join the battle field against the US once again.
Only time will tell.
4) Abortion
Obama said that he wants to compromise on the issue of abortion. I wasn't sure what that meant. What it means is that people who are against abortion would have to change their beliefs. Otherwise they would be divisive. As soon as he took office he reversed the abortion funding policy even though most people in the country are against abortion.
Anyways, these are just a few things to think about.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Enhanced Interrogation Tecniques (EIT)
There has been much debate about the EIT used after 9/11. I find it interesting that George Bush was blamed after 9/11 for not doing enough to prevent 9/11 with a little info that he had. Now he is being blamed for his interrogation techniques that led to some vital information that saved thousands of lives.
One of the common things the left says is that the EIT will make the terrorists hate us more and be used for a tool for recruitment. I believe this is completely false. There were more terrorist attacks during Clinton's time in office than in the Bush years. More people were killed and/or injured during Clinton's time in office
All of the above attacks happened before the Iraq War and before the EITs. Radical Muslims have hated the US for decades and didn't just suddenly become popular.
Democrats like to support things when they are going smoothly but duck and run when things get shaky. The war in Iraq was supported by both democrats and republicans. The policy for regime change was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 because he deemed Saddam a threat to the US. Check out this great video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8 which shows how the Dems bailed on the issue of Iraq.
The outrage over the EIT is really political payback clothed as morality and righteousness. Why do I say that? Pelosi one of the people leading the attack to prosecute Bush officials has now found herself entangled in this mess. She knew about the EIT in 2002 and had no problem with it then but all of a sudden she is outraged. Obama says that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are immoral and yet what noone speaks of the fact that Obama didn't get rid of it. In fact, he alone can approve the use of these interrogation techniques in matters of high national security. Isn't that what Bush was doing to begin with? If an issue is wrong, it is wrong. If it is right, its right. This proves that this is completely politically motivated in order for Obama to score points with the far left.
People think that CIA officials waterboarded anybody and everybody. Wrong. They only waterboarded 3 people and valuable information was learned from interrogating these terrorists.
Not only was the head of the CIA against releasing the techniques that were being used but four of the previous heads of the CIA. Obama's own National Intelligence director even said valuable information was obtain from these techniques that saved thousands of lives.
It is interesting that Obama releases the method of obtaining these confessions such as waterboarding but does not reveal the full content because then people would realize he is merely catering to the far left.
One of the common things the left says is that the EIT will make the terrorists hate us more and be used for a tool for recruitment. I believe this is completely false. There were more terrorist attacks during Clinton's time in office than in the Bush years. More people were killed and/or injured during Clinton's time in office
|
All of the above attacks happened before the Iraq War and before the EITs. Radical Muslims have hated the US for decades and didn't just suddenly become popular.
Democrats like to support things when they are going smoothly but duck and run when things get shaky. The war in Iraq was supported by both democrats and republicans. The policy for regime change was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 because he deemed Saddam a threat to the US. Check out this great video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8 which shows how the Dems bailed on the issue of Iraq.
The outrage over the EIT is really political payback clothed as morality and righteousness. Why do I say that? Pelosi one of the people leading the attack to prosecute Bush officials has now found herself entangled in this mess. She knew about the EIT in 2002 and had no problem with it then but all of a sudden she is outraged. Obama says that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are immoral and yet what noone speaks of the fact that Obama didn't get rid of it. In fact, he alone can approve the use of these interrogation techniques in matters of high national security. Isn't that what Bush was doing to begin with? If an issue is wrong, it is wrong. If it is right, its right. This proves that this is completely politically motivated in order for Obama to score points with the far left.
People think that CIA officials waterboarded anybody and everybody. Wrong. They only waterboarded 3 people and valuable information was learned from interrogating these terrorists.
Not only was the head of the CIA against releasing the techniques that were being used but four of the previous heads of the CIA. Obama's own National Intelligence director even said valuable information was obtain from these techniques that saved thousands of lives.
It is interesting that Obama releases the method of obtaining these confessions such as waterboarding but does not reveal the full content because then people would realize he is merely catering to the far left.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama is running out of people to blame
Great article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html
The next article shows the effect that taxing the rich will have. Taxing the rich hurts everyone because the rich will have to layoff the little people.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6975547&page=1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html
The next article shows the effect that taxing the rich will have. Taxing the rich hurts everyone because the rich will have to layoff the little people.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6975547&page=1
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's take
I recommend you guys watch his whole speech, but here is just an excerpt. I try to ignore his cockiness and listen to the great great information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MyDsRWwQvc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MyDsRWwQvc&feature=related
Bush's legacy
I hope people reading my blog don't think I'm just bashing Obama. I'm taking shots at the message. The messenger just happens to be Obama. Everyone believes that Obama is bringing some new ideas to the table. Truth is for the most part he isn't. It's just the democratic platform thats been there for decades being repackaged. I'll write a blog about that later.
I wrote that Obama has been saying that the people have rendered their judgment and brought him in to change things. Well, Bush also had this type of arrogance when he was relected in 2004. He said that he won alot of capital with his re-election. Political capital to be exact and he intends to spend it. I was asked by a friend on my thoughts on Bush and here it is:
The Good:
1) On the social issues, Bush was a true conservative. The limits he put on abortion and embyronic stem cell research, received much praise from most of the country. He was a true conservative on social issues such as gay marriage. The US is a centrist country that leans right. How else do you explain the most liberal state in the country defining marriage as being between a man and woman...twice.
2) His faith based initiatives were also well received. Giving power to local organizations such as churches to serve the community. He realized that who would know the needs of the people better....some bureaucrat sitting in Washington or the people in the local communities that serve the people everyday. It was such a good plan that Obama plans to continue the funding to the faith based initiative program.
3) His attempt to reform education with the No Child Left Behind act was an attempt at bipartisanship. He even reached out to Ted Kennedy to write the bill. Spending on education rose almost 60% in Bush's first three years, this represents a bigger increase in investing in education than Clinton's 8 years. The goals of the bill were for mandatory testing and accountability. Some critics claimed that teachers were teaching to the test, but propents of the bill said at least they were teaching to something. Scores improved drastically for certain grade levels, however the US still lags other countries.
4) Bush sent billions of dollars to Africa for the AIDS epidemic in this country. He was never given enough credit for the help he gave to millions of people living in Africa. He did more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did.
5) He stood against the alarmists of global warming who said that the world was going to end. He slowed the movement toward a policy disaster allowing facts to catch up with the global warming alarmists. Initially Al Gore claimed that there are no scientists that dispute that global warming is the problem. Now there are over 650 UN scientists that debunk this claim and the numbers are still growing. In fact, scientists now say we are headed towards global cooling.
6) He kept our country safe after 9/11. There were more deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks during Bill Clinton's time in office than George Bush's time in office. A fact many people don't know.
7) He assigned John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
The bad:
The war in Iraq was his ultimate undoing. I won't list many because I think the mainstream media has kept everyone well informed of his missteps.
1) The war in Iraq was badly bungled. He didn't send enough troops to begin with and ignored pleas from generals on the ground. Once he did send the surge, it was a great success.
2) While Bush was fiscally conservative when speaking of tax cuts, he was not a conservative when it came to spending. Government grew way too much under his watch.
3) Conservatives believe in less government. Bush did the opposite.
4) Afghanistan is going back into chaos
5) Many people accused Bush for a lack of transparency.
The ugly:
I also believe that the media made him a target. The mainstream media usually do attack conservative candidates more. It's not just me being paranoid. Study after study shows that there is a clear bias in media coverage. You can view the results of an analysis performed by George Mason University as proof. (Time magazine compares him to Jesus Christ)
1) He was blamed for 9/11. They even scrutinize how he reacted when he was told that there had been an attack. He continued to read calmly to children.
2) He was blamed for Katrina even though a majority of the blame should rest on local government. Can you imagine if we got the federal government involved everytime there was a tornado in Oklahoma? Look at what a difference Bobby Jindal has made. He also experienced hurricanes, but he was prepared. No need for the feds.
3) He was blamed for the current economic crisis even though the policies that were put into place happened in the Clinton administration.
4) He was blamed for the price of gas. The price of gas had to do with supply and demand and there was little he could do about it. Well, the reverse is not true. Prices dropped under his watch and guess what...He wasn't given credit for it.
5) Obama is still blaming Bush and will continue to do so for the next 4 to 8 years. It's a great way to escape any sort of accountability. Reagan inherited a bigger mess than Obama did and pulled the country out of it quickly.
I think the biggest problem with George Bush was his inability to communicate. He couldn't even say the word nuclear. If he would have got out and defended his policies more boldly and put rumors to rest more quickly, he could saved a lot of face.
I wrote that Obama has been saying that the people have rendered their judgment and brought him in to change things. Well, Bush also had this type of arrogance when he was relected in 2004. He said that he won alot of capital with his re-election. Political capital to be exact and he intends to spend it. I was asked by a friend on my thoughts on Bush and here it is:
The Good:
1) On the social issues, Bush was a true conservative. The limits he put on abortion and embyronic stem cell research, received much praise from most of the country. He was a true conservative on social issues such as gay marriage. The US is a centrist country that leans right. How else do you explain the most liberal state in the country defining marriage as being between a man and woman...twice.
2) His faith based initiatives were also well received. Giving power to local organizations such as churches to serve the community. He realized that who would know the needs of the people better....some bureaucrat sitting in Washington or the people in the local communities that serve the people everyday. It was such a good plan that Obama plans to continue the funding to the faith based initiative program.
3) His attempt to reform education with the No Child Left Behind act was an attempt at bipartisanship. He even reached out to Ted Kennedy to write the bill. Spending on education rose almost 60% in Bush's first three years, this represents a bigger increase in investing in education than Clinton's 8 years. The goals of the bill were for mandatory testing and accountability. Some critics claimed that teachers were teaching to the test, but propents of the bill said at least they were teaching to something. Scores improved drastically for certain grade levels, however the US still lags other countries.
4) Bush sent billions of dollars to Africa for the AIDS epidemic in this country. He was never given enough credit for the help he gave to millions of people living in Africa. He did more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did.
5) He stood against the alarmists of global warming who said that the world was going to end. He slowed the movement toward a policy disaster allowing facts to catch up with the global warming alarmists. Initially Al Gore claimed that there are no scientists that dispute that global warming is the problem. Now there are over 650 UN scientists that debunk this claim and the numbers are still growing. In fact, scientists now say we are headed towards global cooling.
6) He kept our country safe after 9/11. There were more deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks during Bill Clinton's time in office than George Bush's time in office. A fact many people don't know.
7) He assigned John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
The bad:
The war in Iraq was his ultimate undoing. I won't list many because I think the mainstream media has kept everyone well informed of his missteps.
1) The war in Iraq was badly bungled. He didn't send enough troops to begin with and ignored pleas from generals on the ground. Once he did send the surge, it was a great success.
2) While Bush was fiscally conservative when speaking of tax cuts, he was not a conservative when it came to spending. Government grew way too much under his watch.
3) Conservatives believe in less government. Bush did the opposite.
4) Afghanistan is going back into chaos
5) Many people accused Bush for a lack of transparency.
The ugly:
I also believe that the media made him a target. The mainstream media usually do attack conservative candidates more. It's not just me being paranoid. Study after study shows that there is a clear bias in media coverage. You can view the results of an analysis performed by George Mason University as proof. (Time magazine compares him to Jesus Christ)
1) He was blamed for 9/11. They even scrutinize how he reacted when he was told that there had been an attack. He continued to read calmly to children.
2) He was blamed for Katrina even though a majority of the blame should rest on local government. Can you imagine if we got the federal government involved everytime there was a tornado in Oklahoma? Look at what a difference Bobby Jindal has made. He also experienced hurricanes, but he was prepared. No need for the feds.
3) He was blamed for the current economic crisis even though the policies that were put into place happened in the Clinton administration.
4) He was blamed for the price of gas. The price of gas had to do with supply and demand and there was little he could do about it. Well, the reverse is not true. Prices dropped under his watch and guess what...He wasn't given credit for it.
5) Obama is still blaming Bush and will continue to do so for the next 4 to 8 years. It's a great way to escape any sort of accountability. Reagan inherited a bigger mess than Obama did and pulled the country out of it quickly.
I think the biggest problem with George Bush was his inability to communicate. He couldn't even say the word nuclear. If he would have got out and defended his policies more boldly and put rumors to rest more quickly, he could saved a lot of face.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Words do mean alot
Now I am not trying to bash Obama but he has to understand that the whole world is watching and listening to everything the leader of the free world is saying. Every time Obama opens his mouth wall street takes another plunge.
I think this is a key difference between Obama and Reagan. When Reagan was confronted with a worse crisis, he was optimistic and spoke of hope and the will of the American people. His words and his actions built confidence into the economy.
Obama on the other hand is stoking fear into the global economic system with everything he is saying and doing. Using people fears of the recession to his advantage, so he can pass every tax hike, social program and payout to his supporters down our throats and we're all drinking the kool-aid.
Check out the two links below:
The first article is concerning Obama's economic plan:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104
The next article is bankers who are urging Obama to shut his mouth:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19418.html
I think this is a key difference between Obama and Reagan. When Reagan was confronted with a worse crisis, he was optimistic and spoke of hope and the will of the American people. His words and his actions built confidence into the economy.
Obama on the other hand is stoking fear into the global economic system with everything he is saying and doing. Using people fears of the recession to his advantage, so he can pass every tax hike, social program and payout to his supporters down our throats and we're all drinking the kool-aid.
Check out the two links below:
The first article is concerning Obama's economic plan:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104
The next article is bankers who are urging Obama to shut his mouth:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19418.html
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Government: solution or problem?
I thought I would blog about why I think government should not be the driver but facilitate the recovery.
The US Government can make money in one of three ways.
1) Increase taxes. However, if the government increases taxes on individuals and companies alike there will be less money in the pockets of the people. With less money, people won't buy. When people don't buy, companies layoff, cut salaries and etc. This would prolong a recession.
2) Borrow money. However, borrowing money would only increase our national debt which would increase the crazy amount of interest we are already paying on the trillions of dollars of debt. This would also be a negative impact on the economy.
3) Print more money. However, this would have the negative affect of creating out of control inflation. There would be too many dollars in the system chasing too few goods. This would also have a negative impact on the economy.
The government can only worsen the problem in any scenario. This is why government should facilitate the recovery by allowing the principles of supply side economics to give power back to the American people and not to the government. Money in the hands of small and large business alike will allow companies to reinvest and hire more employees. Reinvestment can create new discoveries in any field such as healthcare and computers which can create an entire new industry which would allow even more people to be employed and create more wealth.
In the short run, government will lose revenue but in the long run revenue will increase because of the scenarios mentioned above. Giving power back to the American people by allowing the innovation and ingenuity of the American mind to take over, will be what takes this country out of the recession and to even greater heights.
It is also worthwhile to mention that anything that the government undertakes incurs great waste and is riddled with inefficiencies. That is why anything that is government owned is slow, inefficient and incurs great losses. The government has no market value on anything they produce because their input is always constant.
The salaries and overhead costs from the government jobs created by the stimulus package will have to be paid for by taxing the very people to whom they are trying to help along with everyone else. Is that productive?
These reasons should be plenty why I think that Obama's stimulus package is wrong for this country and will in the long run hinder growth.
The US Government can make money in one of three ways.
1) Increase taxes. However, if the government increases taxes on individuals and companies alike there will be less money in the pockets of the people. With less money, people won't buy. When people don't buy, companies layoff, cut salaries and etc. This would prolong a recession.
2) Borrow money. However, borrowing money would only increase our national debt which would increase the crazy amount of interest we are already paying on the trillions of dollars of debt. This would also be a negative impact on the economy.
3) Print more money. However, this would have the negative affect of creating out of control inflation. There would be too many dollars in the system chasing too few goods. This would also have a negative impact on the economy.
The government can only worsen the problem in any scenario. This is why government should facilitate the recovery by allowing the principles of supply side economics to give power back to the American people and not to the government. Money in the hands of small and large business alike will allow companies to reinvest and hire more employees. Reinvestment can create new discoveries in any field such as healthcare and computers which can create an entire new industry which would allow even more people to be employed and create more wealth.
In the short run, government will lose revenue but in the long run revenue will increase because of the scenarios mentioned above. Giving power back to the American people by allowing the innovation and ingenuity of the American mind to take over, will be what takes this country out of the recession and to even greater heights.
It is also worthwhile to mention that anything that the government undertakes incurs great waste and is riddled with inefficiencies. That is why anything that is government owned is slow, inefficient and incurs great losses. The government has no market value on anything they produce because their input is always constant.
The salaries and overhead costs from the government jobs created by the stimulus package will have to be paid for by taxing the very people to whom they are trying to help along with everyone else. Is that productive?
These reasons should be plenty why I think that Obama's stimulus package is wrong for this country and will in the long run hinder growth.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Random thoughts
I have a few thoughts about Obama's speech. While this post will be large, each point will be short and simple.
First off, is concerning Obama's following comments: "And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay"....Followed by the partisan line "With the deficit we inherited...."
A half truth is really no truth at all. Lets take a deeper look.
1) Obama is slamming the idea of deficit spending as one that is not sound but crazy. He is ready to point the finger at the Bush administration, but all the while the Obama administration is continuing on with even more deficit spending. To be correct, this is the largest spending ever which will bury our children and grandchildren in debt. He can point the finger at Bush as he deserves it, but don't turn around and do the same thing. That just makes you a hypocrite.
2 ) Obama must remember that the deficit he inherited was with a Congress controlled by Democrats for the last couple of years. The deficit grew with the approval of the $700 billion TARP. It was supported by the Democratic controlled Congress and by Obama himself so this deficit was not only by Bush's design. TARP would have been approved regardless of who was in the White House.
I am not saying that the last two years caused all of this. I am merely giving the other side or view point. When Obama uses the phrase "the last 8 years", he must remember a Republican Congress was there for 6 of those 8.
3) Obama asserts the federal government should be the driver of pulling the U.S. out of the recession. He asserts that we need to grow the federal government, but guess what....the federal government did grow under Bush. In fact, USA today reported that spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, rose faster under Bush than at any time since the 1960s. Federal spending under Bush's administration doubled the federal spending of the Clinton administration.
If federal government is the answer, then why didn't Bush's spending pull us out of the recession by now? The nearly $1 trillion spending bill was a big payout to Democratic supporters such as big unions, ACORN, Global warming wackos and etc. It had little to do with stimulus.
4) Obama stated that things would have gotten worse if the spending package was not approved. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) contradicts this claim. The CBO actually says that the stimulus package will actually have a negative affect in the long run than if he did nothing at all. The CBO said the stimulus package will help in the short run but in the long run there would be so much government debt that it would crowd out investment in the private sector thereby lowering GDP.
5) The claim during his campaign that 95% of working families will receive a tax cut is slick talk. When more than 40% of Americans that don't pay taxes to begin with receive a tax cut, this is called redistribution of wealth. How can you take out from what you didn't put in to? Is it fair to take from others? There are hard working people who pay taxes but are being robbed of their hard earned money by giving it to others who didn't put in.
Now people may be tired of hearing the word "socialism", but this is not socialism. Socialism is where all people work for the common good. Obama's plan is where some people work for the rest of the population. This is much worse.
6) The claim that tax cuts go to the wealthiest two percent is a half truth as well. What people don't talk about is the fact that approximately 10% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. But those of us who pay more taxes, use the same roads, get the same service from police officers as those that don't put in at all. I would say that those top 2% deserve our admiration rather than our scorn.
I have much much more to write, but this blog would go on forever. I hope that people find this information as power to see through half truths and lies.
First off, is concerning Obama's following comments: "And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay"....Followed by the partisan line "With the deficit we inherited...."
A half truth is really no truth at all. Lets take a deeper look.
1) Obama is slamming the idea of deficit spending as one that is not sound but crazy. He is ready to point the finger at the Bush administration, but all the while the Obama administration is continuing on with even more deficit spending. To be correct, this is the largest spending ever which will bury our children and grandchildren in debt. He can point the finger at Bush as he deserves it, but don't turn around and do the same thing. That just makes you a hypocrite.
2 ) Obama must remember that the deficit he inherited was with a Congress controlled by Democrats for the last couple of years. The deficit grew with the approval of the $700 billion TARP. It was supported by the Democratic controlled Congress and by Obama himself so this deficit was not only by Bush's design. TARP would have been approved regardless of who was in the White House.
I am not saying that the last two years caused all of this. I am merely giving the other side or view point. When Obama uses the phrase "the last 8 years", he must remember a Republican Congress was there for 6 of those 8.
3) Obama asserts the federal government should be the driver of pulling the U.S. out of the recession. He asserts that we need to grow the federal government, but guess what....the federal government did grow under Bush. In fact, USA today reported that spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, rose faster under Bush than at any time since the 1960s. Federal spending under Bush's administration doubled the federal spending of the Clinton administration.
If federal government is the answer, then why didn't Bush's spending pull us out of the recession by now? The nearly $1 trillion spending bill was a big payout to Democratic supporters such as big unions, ACORN, Global warming wackos and etc. It had little to do with stimulus.
4) Obama stated that things would have gotten worse if the spending package was not approved. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) contradicts this claim. The CBO actually says that the stimulus package will actually have a negative affect in the long run than if he did nothing at all. The CBO said the stimulus package will help in the short run but in the long run there would be so much government debt that it would crowd out investment in the private sector thereby lowering GDP.
5) The claim during his campaign that 95% of working families will receive a tax cut is slick talk. When more than 40% of Americans that don't pay taxes to begin with receive a tax cut, this is called redistribution of wealth. How can you take out from what you didn't put in to? Is it fair to take from others? There are hard working people who pay taxes but are being robbed of their hard earned money by giving it to others who didn't put in.
Now people may be tired of hearing the word "socialism", but this is not socialism. Socialism is where all people work for the common good. Obama's plan is where some people work for the rest of the population. This is much worse.
6) The claim that tax cuts go to the wealthiest two percent is a half truth as well. What people don't talk about is the fact that approximately 10% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. But those of us who pay more taxes, use the same roads, get the same service from police officers as those that don't put in at all. I would say that those top 2% deserve our admiration rather than our scorn.
I have much much more to write, but this blog would go on forever. I hope that people find this information as power to see through half truths and lies.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Who is to blame?
It is well known that the sub-prime mortgage crisis is the cause of the current economic crisis. The question to ask is who is to blame? Are we to blame it 100% on George Bush solely based on the fact that it happened under his watch? Some people blame the greed of Wall Street. Where should the blame go? Here are a few things to think about.
Real estate used to be a sure and safe way for banks and people to make money for decades. Then in 1977, Jimmy Carter and the Democratic congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act which basically sought to address discrimination in loans made to different areas or neighborhoods. If data showed that a neighborhood with minorities were discriminated against, then those banks would find lawsuits and federal regulators at their doorstep. This however had nothing to do with discrimination but whether the applicants were loan worthy.
This was based on the premise that lawmakers sitting in Washington knew better how and who should be approved by loans rather than the banks. When these laws were more strictly enforced in the 90's institutions were compelled to provide loans to applicants that otherwise wouldn't receive the loan in the first place. Would any of you loan $100,000 to someone who has a bad credit history? The answer is no, but banks were forced to do the opposite of normal rational thinking.
Those who have a myopic view of the economy will definitely blame the recession and housing crisis on Bush, but risky loans were being made before Bush took office. Things got all screwed up once the government tried to get involved with the free market.
While Bush should share in some of the blame(as well as Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, greedy bankers, consumers who took on more debt that they could handle) , it is important to remember that during George Bush's tenure that the nation experienced great prosperity and wealth. There was a period of approximately 6 years of uninterrupted growth. Ronald Reagan was right who recognized government as the problem.
Real estate used to be a sure and safe way for banks and people to make money for decades. Then in 1977, Jimmy Carter and the Democratic congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act which basically sought to address discrimination in loans made to different areas or neighborhoods. If data showed that a neighborhood with minorities were discriminated against, then those banks would find lawsuits and federal regulators at their doorstep. This however had nothing to do with discrimination but whether the applicants were loan worthy.
This was based on the premise that lawmakers sitting in Washington knew better how and who should be approved by loans rather than the banks. When these laws were more strictly enforced in the 90's institutions were compelled to provide loans to applicants that otherwise wouldn't receive the loan in the first place. Would any of you loan $100,000 to someone who has a bad credit history? The answer is no, but banks were forced to do the opposite of normal rational thinking.
Those who have a myopic view of the economy will definitely blame the recession and housing crisis on Bush, but risky loans were being made before Bush took office. Things got all screwed up once the government tried to get involved with the free market.
While Bush should share in some of the blame(as well as Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, greedy bankers, consumers who took on more debt that they could handle) , it is important to remember that during George Bush's tenure that the nation experienced great prosperity and wealth. There was a period of approximately 6 years of uninterrupted growth. Ronald Reagan was right who recognized government as the problem.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Looking past the rhetoric
The definition of insane is as follows:
Doing the same thing again but expecting a different result.
Under George Bush's watch the national debt grew according to some to more than $10 trillion and a federal deficit estimated this year at $438 billion. George Bush claimed to be a conservative like Ronald Reagan but was not in any way shape or form fiscally conservative. We are PARTLY in this mess because of spending.
And Barack Obama's solution to getting us out of this out of control spending is to....well...increase spending. Therefore, by definition this idea is insane. Obama said the following last week in a press conference that "The American people have rendered their judgment, and now is the time to move forward, not back"
So why is Obama moving back and not forward?
My last thought is about Obama's claim that the spending package will save or create 4 million jobs. Think about this logically. How can you verify that a job was saved? If you go to work tomorrow, can you say that your job was saved? Jobs created and jobs lost are figures which can be verified. It's pretty much a slick politician who in four years will be able to say that his stimulus plan worked. If only 1 million jobs are created, he'll then claim then that an additional 3 million jobs were saved. Who can refute something that can't be verified?
There is hope however. The new stimulus package will create government jobs such as road and bridge construction projects. To all the computer programmers, engineers, lawyers or nurses who may lose their job, there is good news. You can always get a job building a bridge or constructing a new highway. I'm being facetious of course.
What the American people need are real jobs not temporary construction projects. More attention needs to be given to small businesses and have the economic stimulus start from them. I'd rather work for the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs on an innovative new product (i.e. iphone) rather than from a government work project. It is in the private sector where real wealth will come and this is where the recovery needs to start.
Doing the same thing again but expecting a different result.
Under George Bush's watch the national debt grew according to some to more than $10 trillion and a federal deficit estimated this year at $438 billion. George Bush claimed to be a conservative like Ronald Reagan but was not in any way shape or form fiscally conservative. We are PARTLY in this mess because of spending.
And Barack Obama's solution to getting us out of this out of control spending is to....well...increase spending. Therefore, by definition this idea is insane. Obama said the following last week in a press conference that "The American people have rendered their judgment, and now is the time to move forward, not back"
So why is Obama moving back and not forward?
My last thought is about Obama's claim that the spending package will save or create 4 million jobs. Think about this logically. How can you verify that a job was saved? If you go to work tomorrow, can you say that your job was saved? Jobs created and jobs lost are figures which can be verified. It's pretty much a slick politician who in four years will be able to say that his stimulus plan worked. If only 1 million jobs are created, he'll then claim then that an additional 3 million jobs were saved. Who can refute something that can't be verified?
There is hope however. The new stimulus package will create government jobs such as road and bridge construction projects. To all the computer programmers, engineers, lawyers or nurses who may lose their job, there is good news. You can always get a job building a bridge or constructing a new highway. I'm being facetious of course.
What the American people need are real jobs not temporary construction projects. More attention needs to be given to small businesses and have the economic stimulus start from them. I'd rather work for the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs on an innovative new product (i.e. iphone) rather than from a government work project. It is in the private sector where real wealth will come and this is where the recovery needs to start.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
From Mr. Hope to Dr. Doom
I thought it was a brilliant campaign that Obama ran. He ran on the premise of hope. People were tired of the past 8 years and wanted change. However, recently Obama's been using words like 'catastrophe' and 'Depression'. Obama has stated that this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but is this statement really true?
Not really. A great speaker once said "America is at its best when it's not fearful. I mean, if you think about our history, our most shameful times have been when we were afraid." This statement was made by Obama. He compares the current recession to the Great Depression but only to scare people into supporting his spending package.
In fact, the 1982 recession was worse. Unemployment was much higher, the economy was shrinking at a faster rate, house sales took a bigger plunge and interest rates were higher. Let me throw a couple of facts out there.
Unemployment is currently at 7.6%. In 1982, unemployment was at 10.8%. In 1932, unemployment was at 25.2%. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that GDP will shrink by 2% in 2009. In 1982, GDP contracted by 1.9%. However, in 1931 GDP contracted by 9%.
The facts prove that 1982 was worse and we are nowhere near the crisis of the Great Depression. Obama needs to be honest with the American people and change his rhetoric back to that of hope and change. People can lie. Fortunately, facts and history don't lie.
Not really. A great speaker once said "America is at its best when it's not fearful. I mean, if you think about our history, our most shameful times have been when we were afraid." This statement was made by Obama. He compares the current recession to the Great Depression but only to scare people into supporting his spending package.
In fact, the 1982 recession was worse. Unemployment was much higher, the economy was shrinking at a faster rate, house sales took a bigger plunge and interest rates were higher. Let me throw a couple of facts out there.
Unemployment is currently at 7.6%. In 1982, unemployment was at 10.8%. In 1932, unemployment was at 25.2%. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that GDP will shrink by 2% in 2009. In 1982, GDP contracted by 1.9%. However, in 1931 GDP contracted by 9%.
The facts prove that 1982 was worse and we are nowhere near the crisis of the Great Depression. Obama needs to be honest with the American people and change his rhetoric back to that of hope and change. People can lie. Fortunately, facts and history don't lie.
The Cold Hard Facts
I thought I would write a few thoughts about the new stimulus package as well as some comments made by Obama. I will try to make each point short and simple.
1) Smoke and mirrors:
Obama has recently called tax cuts the "failed theories of the past 8 years" yet he has yet to give an example of a time in history when a government spending spree has taken us out of a recession. The truth is the tax cuts were not responsible for the financial crisis. It was the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In fact, every time in US history when tax cuts were enacted it has been shown that it pulled the U.S. out of the recession.
2) Government spending:
Every time government has tried to spur the economic recovery by increasing spending, it only worsened the problem. Japan tried this in the 90's but per capita income fell and during the 1930's while the increased government spending did help a little, it ultimately hindered growth.
Why on earth would people want government in charge of everything like the banks and healthcare? I have no idea. Have you every went to the Social Security office or any other government agency? Imagine that kind of service at your doctor's office.
3) Recessions and Tax Cuts:
* In 1963, JFK cut taxes. He cut the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%.
* In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and also cut the corporate income tax rate.
* In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15% and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%.
Every recession mentioned above was met with tax cuts and every single time the tax cuts were implemented, we were pulled out of the recession and GDP grew.
In this particular case, Obama is trying to confuse people who don't really follow history and the economy. A major part of Obama's campaign was that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut. If it is a failed theory, why make it a central point of your campaign. He's trying to have it both ways. It's smoke and mirrors. He is trying to blame the tax cuts on the recession but history will prove him wrong.
1) Smoke and mirrors:
Obama has recently called tax cuts the "failed theories of the past 8 years" yet he has yet to give an example of a time in history when a government spending spree has taken us out of a recession. The truth is the tax cuts were not responsible for the financial crisis. It was the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In fact, every time in US history when tax cuts were enacted it has been shown that it pulled the U.S. out of the recession.
2) Government spending:
Every time government has tried to spur the economic recovery by increasing spending, it only worsened the problem. Japan tried this in the 90's but per capita income fell and during the 1930's while the increased government spending did help a little, it ultimately hindered growth.
Why on earth would people want government in charge of everything like the banks and healthcare? I have no idea. Have you every went to the Social Security office or any other government agency? Imagine that kind of service at your doctor's office.
3) Recessions and Tax Cuts:
* In 1963, JFK cut taxes. He cut the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%.
* In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and also cut the corporate income tax rate.
* In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15% and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%.
Every recession mentioned above was met with tax cuts and every single time the tax cuts were implemented, we were pulled out of the recession and GDP grew.
In this particular case, Obama is trying to confuse people who don't really follow history and the economy. A major part of Obama's campaign was that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut. If it is a failed theory, why make it a central point of your campaign. He's trying to have it both ways. It's smoke and mirrors. He is trying to blame the tax cuts on the recession but history will prove him wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)