I will preface this analysis by saying I know little about economics and I know less about this issue. However, seeing as how this does not stop most commentators, I feel the need to commentate.
Here's how I understand the potential bailout - Congress will purchase the stock (i.e. infuse cash) into a number of entities in return (for pennies on the dollar). This amounts to giving these companies money for free. I'm not sure how the US Government will get the money, except that I've heard higher taxes, spending the current budget, and/or taking loans.
My first thought on this is that it's plain socialism (and therefore bad). If you've learned anything from reading my blog, I'm an ardent (and violent!) capitalist and strict constitutional constructionist. Therefore, anything that smacks of socialism is bad in my book. Helping companies stay in business is definitively socialism. It's other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by government mandate (i.e. not capitalism, which is other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by personal choice).
My second thought on this is that there are serious repurcussions if a bunch of these companies fail. In addition to the usual suspects (loss of jobs, loss of homes), there is also the issue of how this will affect other sectors of the economy (such as me). I don't want to lose my job and I would gladly pay tax dollars to ensure I don't lose my job.
After thinking about this and weighing these two thoughts, I've determined that I'm going with my first thought. I don't like this idea. In fact I hate it. I hate it for the following reasons:
(1) Socialism (see above).
(2) Slippery slope. If we get into a cycle of bailing out companies, where will it end? Will it end?
(3) The concept of "bailing out." There are a number of problems with how these businesses have been run that led to the current problems. I don't pretend to know what those problems were, but they involve things like fiscal responsibility and the like. Additionally, there are attendant problems, such as the salaries, bonuses and severance packages of CEOs and the like (i.e. I run the company into the ground, but I still make $35 million a year). If we bail out these companies, they will not learn their lesson. If we don't bail out these companies and they fail, they are much more likely to learn a lesson of some sort. This kind of runs in to #2. If we bail out these companies, they make the same mistakes, we'll have to bail them out again.
(4) It's just not right. I worked at an ice cream shop for most of high school and college. I worked with about 12 other people, 10 of whom were attractive girls. Huzzah! Anyway, I digress... if the ice cream store went out of business, would the town government (or county government) give them cash so that they could stay in business? Never in a million years. Despite the fact that 12-15 people would lose their jobs, it would never happen. Therefore, I don't think it's right to do this on a nationwide level either.
Anyway, I'm against the bailout. I don't know the candidates' views on the subject, so I'm not sure who I would support on this issue. This will probably sway my vote in the upcoming election because I'm now so strongly against it.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Challenge
This challenge I've created is in response to a few things:
(1) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be rascist.
(2) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be stupid.
(3) Obama and his supporters claiming that Bush's policies failed.
(4) Obama and his supporters claiming that McCain's policies are identical to Bush's failed policies.
(5) My contention that this election should be about issues, not personalities.
(6) My contention that some of Obama's supporters are voting on personality, and have no idea what Obama's platform is.
(7) My contention that the vast majority of Obama's supporters hate President Bush, and, by extension, hate McCain.
So, I have a three-part challenge. Unfortunately, I have one reader, so this challenge is kind of moot. However, to my one reader, I advise to post this challenge to his friends.
Challenge, Part A - Name three of President Bush's failed policies. By "President Bush's failed policies" I mean something that the president or his cabinet, advisors, or the executive branch has done that has failed. I was going to say name something that has personally failed you, but I thought that might be too hard.
Challenge, Part B - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and indicate how McCain's policies are identical.
Challenge, Part C - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and explain how Obama's policies would work to solve such problems.
Here's an example, from me:
Part A - Bush delcared war and took over Iraq, resulting in soldiers' deaths and the continued occupation of Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part B - McCain will continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part C - Obama will pull out of Iraq... oh wait, he won't. He will continue to occupy Iraq if he becomes president.
See how easy it is? It's actually incredibly hard. It's hard to find something that Bush has "failed" at that will be changed by Obama and not changed by McCain.
(1) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be rascist.
(2) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be stupid.
(3) Obama and his supporters claiming that Bush's policies failed.
(4) Obama and his supporters claiming that McCain's policies are identical to Bush's failed policies.
(5) My contention that this election should be about issues, not personalities.
(6) My contention that some of Obama's supporters are voting on personality, and have no idea what Obama's platform is.
(7) My contention that the vast majority of Obama's supporters hate President Bush, and, by extension, hate McCain.
So, I have a three-part challenge. Unfortunately, I have one reader, so this challenge is kind of moot. However, to my one reader, I advise to post this challenge to his friends.
Challenge, Part A - Name three of President Bush's failed policies. By "President Bush's failed policies" I mean something that the president or his cabinet, advisors, or the executive branch has done that has failed. I was going to say name something that has personally failed you, but I thought that might be too hard.
Challenge, Part B - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and indicate how McCain's policies are identical.
Challenge, Part C - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and explain how Obama's policies would work to solve such problems.
Here's an example, from me:
Part A - Bush delcared war and took over Iraq, resulting in soldiers' deaths and the continued occupation of Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part B - McCain will continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part C - Obama will pull out of Iraq... oh wait, he won't. He will continue to occupy Iraq if he becomes president.
See how easy it is? It's actually incredibly hard. It's hard to find something that Bush has "failed" at that will be changed by Obama and not changed by McCain.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
(sigh) Here we Go
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/obama-race-a-factor/
To suggest that race may be one of many factors in this election is understandable. To suggest that race is a major factor is probably not true. But, to suggest that persons who vote for John McCain are racist... that's irresponsible journalism and an affront to every person who believes in McCain's policies (or does not believe in Obama's policies). It doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint. If you believe that 99% of rascists in this country are Republican, then those people are not going to vote for a Democrat whether that person is a man, woman, white, black, Asian, whatever. So, logically, it doesn't make sense to say that the election hinges or is even related to, race. Seriously.
I'm in the vast minority of people these days who think that the presidential election is an election about issues, not about personalities. If I was voting purely on the man, I would vote for Obama. He's extremely charismatic, an excellent public speaker (the best in a long time), and intelligent.
Anyway, I'm not happy with this article. I'm even more appalled by the comments. Here are some of the more ridiculous ones:
Jack: It just might. The”white privilege” mindset is deeply imbeded in this country. Which ever way this election goes ,it will speak volumns of who we really are as a country. I think we might not be proud of what we see. - I'm not sure what the white privilege mindset is.
100% If Obama would be white and his name would be John Smith then McCain would have never ever a chance! !Many people will not vote for the issues but against a black president!!
If he gets in the white house theres a high risk of someone trying to kill him.
Race will be the deciding factor.To many banjos in your country.
Of course it could Jack. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference in the two candidates age wise, intelligence wise, morality wise and competency wise.
Then the biggest of them all is policy wise which isn’t even close for the average American it is so far tilted in Obama’s favour.
Obama is so far out in front of McCain on all these fronts no color blind person could ever justify voting for someone that will almost certainly turn out to be worse than what you have had for the past 8 years.
Race has always been a factor in this race. The selection of Gov. Palin allows people to say that is is not. They can feel comfortable not voting for Senator Obama now because they can view themselves as still being progressive with a vote for Gov. Palin because she is a woman. Nothing in their limited worlds has to change because Gov. Palin is only second in command and her presence can be used to calm the natives.
I’m nearly 95% shore that it will!
If a white man was running McCain would only get the votes of the people he lives with.
The Nation has some growing up to do!
Doesn't that make you want to cry? I won't be voting for Obama, so I guess I'm a racsist.
To suggest that race may be one of many factors in this election is understandable. To suggest that race is a major factor is probably not true. But, to suggest that persons who vote for John McCain are racist... that's irresponsible journalism and an affront to every person who believes in McCain's policies (or does not believe in Obama's policies). It doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint. If you believe that 99% of rascists in this country are Republican, then those people are not going to vote for a Democrat whether that person is a man, woman, white, black, Asian, whatever. So, logically, it doesn't make sense to say that the election hinges or is even related to, race. Seriously.
I'm in the vast minority of people these days who think that the presidential election is an election about issues, not about personalities. If I was voting purely on the man, I would vote for Obama. He's extremely charismatic, an excellent public speaker (the best in a long time), and intelligent.
Anyway, I'm not happy with this article. I'm even more appalled by the comments. Here are some of the more ridiculous ones:
Jack: It just might. The”white privilege” mindset is deeply imbeded in this country. Which ever way this election goes ,it will speak volumns of who we really are as a country. I think we might not be proud of what we see. - I'm not sure what the white privilege mindset is.
100% If Obama would be white and his name would be John Smith then McCain would have never ever a chance! !Many people will not vote for the issues but against a black president!!
If he gets in the white house theres a high risk of someone trying to kill him.
Race will be the deciding factor.To many banjos in your country.
Of course it could Jack. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference in the two candidates age wise, intelligence wise, morality wise and competency wise.
Then the biggest of them all is policy wise which isn’t even close for the average American it is so far tilted in Obama’s favour.
Obama is so far out in front of McCain on all these fronts no color blind person could ever justify voting for someone that will almost certainly turn out to be worse than what you have had for the past 8 years.
Race has always been a factor in this race. The selection of Gov. Palin allows people to say that is is not. They can feel comfortable not voting for Senator Obama now because they can view themselves as still being progressive with a vote for Gov. Palin because she is a woman. Nothing in their limited worlds has to change because Gov. Palin is only second in command and her presence can be used to calm the natives.
I’m nearly 95% shore that it will!
If a white man was running McCain would only get the votes of the people he lives with.
The Nation has some growing up to do!
Doesn't that make you want to cry? I won't be voting for Obama, so I guess I'm a racsist.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Hypocrisy
From my Dem friend's blog:
Million dollar crybaby
“Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, criticized the media at a weekend fundraiser, telling supporters that the hosts of The View “picked our bones clean.””
So…people who’s job it is to interview people, aren’t allowed to ask you questions? Which, unless I’m mistaken, is kind of the crux of what an interview is.
Don’t you just love how being asked questions is such an affront to this group?
From my response:
Yes, because only the Republicans complain about being asked questions. The Democrats invite questions and never complain. Exhibit A - Senator Obama's interview with (of all people) Katie Couric. Please, of all people who hate being asked questions, it's the Obama camp. The man believes he is annointed by God to be the president. And heaven forbid anyone question him.
Million dollar crybaby
“Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, criticized the media at a weekend fundraiser, telling supporters that the hosts of The View “picked our bones clean.””
So…people who’s job it is to interview people, aren’t allowed to ask you questions? Which, unless I’m mistaken, is kind of the crux of what an interview is.
Don’t you just love how being asked questions is such an affront to this group?
From my response:
Yes, because only the Republicans complain about being asked questions. The Democrats invite questions and never complain. Exhibit A - Senator Obama's interview with (of all people) Katie Couric. Please, of all people who hate being asked questions, it's the Obama camp. The man believes he is annointed by God to be the president. And heaven forbid anyone question him.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Stone Cold Morons
I don't understand some people.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc25cf0-827f-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Rather, I do understand some people, but I don't accept their points of view because they are stone cold morons.
Here are some good zingers from Obama supporters:
- Robert Spurrier - "I'm very worried because we've seen this movie before. The Republican attack machine shifts the election away from issues and turns it into a battle of personalities."
Wha? Huh? Guh? Buh? The Republicans turn the election away from issues? Please Bob. The biggest single personality in the election up until the Republican convention was Obama... no it's Palin. What? You can't take someone taking attention away from your Obama... your personality? Weak.
- Barack Obama - Mr. Obama warned that the Republicans were distorting his record and creating distractions to obscure their own failures but insisted the negative tactics that helped George W. Bush win the past two elections would fall short this year. "The times are too serious for those strategies to work this time."
Look, Senator. As far as I can tell, you guys started the mudslinging. You pointed out that McCain supported all of Bush's failed policies. That seems a negative tactic to me. So McCain says you don't have any leadership experience. Fairs fair my man.
- Eleanor Shavell - "I just do not trust the American people. I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it's like at school, there's always got to be a bottom 50 per cent."
Yes, Eleanor. You guys are the bottom 50 percent. All obvious logical jokes aside (it's obvious because the race is 50-50 yet Eleanor makes a comment that 50% of the people are morons... clearly she's referring to the Republican 50%, not her 50%, but still... c'mon, I thought it was funny). Anyway, this is all part of the Democrat "woe is me" platform. It's never their own fault they lose elections. It's someone else's fault. Just like, "it's not your fault you lost your job, let the government pay for it" as a brief and crude example. Anyway, the Democrats should be looking at the following events as some indication of why they are where they are today:
(1) They chose an extremely liberal presidential nominee.
(2) The nominee is quite charismatic and popular, therefore potential voters are drawn to him.
(3) The nominee does not detail his plan to combat issues.
(4) The nominee consistently runs on "everything is bad right now, elect me and it will be better," and likens his opponent to the "bad" part.
(5) The opponent picks a charismatic VP.
(6) The nominee complains that they are not running on issues.
It just sickens me. The reason Obama won't run on the issues is because the issues are bad news for him. His policies, from what I can find on the intra-web thingy, are extremely liberal. I mean, McCain is more liberal than what I would like, but Obama is just ridiculous. He's socialist... really. Anyway, Obama ignores the issues and focuses on the popularity, rides that wave, until it crashes and now it's all about the issues with him. So annoying. Even more annoying is the stone cold morons that believe what Obama preaches. Please, you can support Obama, but at least speak for yourself.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc25cf0-827f-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Rather, I do understand some people, but I don't accept their points of view because they are stone cold morons.
Here are some good zingers from Obama supporters:
- Robert Spurrier - "I'm very worried because we've seen this movie before. The Republican attack machine shifts the election away from issues and turns it into a battle of personalities."
Wha? Huh? Guh? Buh? The Republicans turn the election away from issues? Please Bob. The biggest single personality in the election up until the Republican convention was Obama... no it's Palin. What? You can't take someone taking attention away from your Obama... your personality? Weak.
- Barack Obama - Mr. Obama warned that the Republicans were distorting his record and creating distractions to obscure their own failures but insisted the negative tactics that helped George W. Bush win the past two elections would fall short this year. "The times are too serious for those strategies to work this time."
Look, Senator. As far as I can tell, you guys started the mudslinging. You pointed out that McCain supported all of Bush's failed policies. That seems a negative tactic to me. So McCain says you don't have any leadership experience. Fairs fair my man.
- Eleanor Shavell - "I just do not trust the American people. I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it's like at school, there's always got to be a bottom 50 per cent."
Yes, Eleanor. You guys are the bottom 50 percent. All obvious logical jokes aside (it's obvious because the race is 50-50 yet Eleanor makes a comment that 50% of the people are morons... clearly she's referring to the Republican 50%, not her 50%, but still... c'mon, I thought it was funny). Anyway, this is all part of the Democrat "woe is me" platform. It's never their own fault they lose elections. It's someone else's fault. Just like, "it's not your fault you lost your job, let the government pay for it" as a brief and crude example. Anyway, the Democrats should be looking at the following events as some indication of why they are where they are today:
(1) They chose an extremely liberal presidential nominee.
(2) The nominee is quite charismatic and popular, therefore potential voters are drawn to him.
(3) The nominee does not detail his plan to combat issues.
(4) The nominee consistently runs on "everything is bad right now, elect me and it will be better," and likens his opponent to the "bad" part.
(5) The opponent picks a charismatic VP.
(6) The nominee complains that they are not running on issues.
It just sickens me. The reason Obama won't run on the issues is because the issues are bad news for him. His policies, from what I can find on the intra-web thingy, are extremely liberal. I mean, McCain is more liberal than what I would like, but Obama is just ridiculous. He's socialist... really. Anyway, Obama ignores the issues and focuses on the popularity, rides that wave, until it crashes and now it's all about the issues with him. So annoying. Even more annoying is the stone cold morons that believe what Obama preaches. Please, you can support Obama, but at least speak for yourself.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Example and Retort
From a friend's blog (in Democrat blue) and my response (in Republican red):
Sep 5, 2008 11:03am
People will swallow anything because people are DUMB. Um, am I the only one thinking about Obama after this header? (To explain, people are swallowing Obama hook, line, and sinker because they don't know what he's actually going to do to them if he wins the presidency.)
“A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (about 3-4 years ago, no one had ever heard of Senator Obama until one really fantastic speech) Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
… Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden. “
GGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. My brain hurts. It hurts.
Here’s the worst part of this…the Right assumes the Left is attacking Palin for having a family or her daughter getting knocked up or killing a moose with her bare hands. That is incorrect. The media is digging and digging deep on her; the media does not equal the Democrats. (sure it does!... sorry, couldn't help myself) If there are any attacks coming from the Dems, it is soley on the point that she is inexperienced & unqualified to be PUSA when McCain catches a grabber. (unlike, say, a certain Democract presidential candidate... who is, of course, qualified (sarcasm), comparatively, considering he's held no executive office... ever... unlike Palin, who was actually a governor).
To my friend I say thusly:
(1) It's not like Palin is running for president. She's running for vice-president. The potential consequences of her inexperience ain't nuthin' compared to the potential consequences of Obama's inexperience... he's running for president. Additionally, Palin has had experience running something (Alaska), while Obama has not. I think Palin's comment on how being a governor is like being a community leader... except with actual responsibility... was good.
(2) People are stupid if they are voting for McCain because they like Palin because she made an excellent speech. Erego, people are stupid if they are voting for Obama simply because he is an excellent public speaker. I agree with both of those points.
(3) Long story short, I am on Obama's email list... so I get his staff's emails. The emails after Palin's speech were not good. They talked about how Palin attacked... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... "Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago." and "They lied aobut Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign." Seriously. That's all they could come up with. Not good people, not good.
Sep 5, 2008 11:03am
People will swallow anything because people are DUMB. Um, am I the only one thinking about Obama after this header? (To explain, people are swallowing Obama hook, line, and sinker because they don't know what he's actually going to do to them if he wins the presidency.)
“A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (about 3-4 years ago, no one had ever heard of Senator Obama until one really fantastic speech) Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
… Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden. “
GGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. My brain hurts. It hurts.
Here’s the worst part of this…the Right assumes the Left is attacking Palin for having a family or her daughter getting knocked up or killing a moose with her bare hands. That is incorrect. The media is digging and digging deep on her; the media does not equal the Democrats. (sure it does!... sorry, couldn't help myself) If there are any attacks coming from the Dems, it is soley on the point that she is inexperienced & unqualified to be PUSA when McCain catches a grabber. (unlike, say, a certain Democract presidential candidate... who is, of course, qualified (sarcasm), comparatively, considering he's held no executive office... ever... unlike Palin, who was actually a governor).
To my friend I say thusly:
(1) It's not like Palin is running for president. She's running for vice-president. The potential consequences of her inexperience ain't nuthin' compared to the potential consequences of Obama's inexperience... he's running for president. Additionally, Palin has had experience running something (Alaska), while Obama has not. I think Palin's comment on how being a governor is like being a community leader... except with actual responsibility... was good.
(2) People are stupid if they are voting for McCain because they like Palin because she made an excellent speech. Erego, people are stupid if they are voting for Obama simply because he is an excellent public speaker. I agree with both of those points.
(3) Long story short, I am on Obama's email list... so I get his staff's emails. The emails after Palin's speech were not good. They talked about how Palin attacked... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... "Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago." and "They lied aobut Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign." Seriously. That's all they could come up with. Not good people, not good.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
She was Great
Gotta say it, Governor Palin did a fantastic job last night.
My favorite quotes (not exactly quotes because I have a poor memory):
"Some candidates use change to promote their careers. And there are some candidates who use their careers to promote change."
"Being a mayor is like being a community leader, except with actual responsibility."
"Our opponent has authored two memoirs, but he has authored no major legislation."
My favorite quotes (not exactly quotes because I have a poor memory):
"Some candidates use change to promote their careers. And there are some candidates who use their careers to promote change."
"Being a mayor is like being a community leader, except with actual responsibility."
"Our opponent has authored two memoirs, but he has authored no major legislation."
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Dems Showing True Colors?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-slams-faux-media-scandal/
All the articles I've seen about Governor Palin have been in regards to her not being able to do the job because (a) she is a woman, (b) she has a baby, and (c) her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. What do those things have to do with being a vice-president? Not really sure. And, here's my liberal media bias note of the week:
If Governor Palin was Senator Obama's VP nominee would (a) those three issues be issues and (b) would Obama call any criticism of her sexist and demeaning towards women? The answers are "no" and "yes." Here's what Senator Obama would say "The Republican Party's blatant attacks on Governor Palin are alarming. Republicans should be ashamed by the way they are treating a successful working mother. They are putting the womens movement back 50 years."
HAHAHAHAHAHA... eat that Democrats, you hypocritical jerks! Here's another question, why aren't people like Hillary Clinton and/or Nancy Pelosi saying anything?
All the articles I've seen about Governor Palin have been in regards to her not being able to do the job because (a) she is a woman, (b) she has a baby, and (c) her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. What do those things have to do with being a vice-president? Not really sure. And, here's my liberal media bias note of the week:
If Governor Palin was Senator Obama's VP nominee would (a) those three issues be issues and (b) would Obama call any criticism of her sexist and demeaning towards women? The answers are "no" and "yes." Here's what Senator Obama would say "The Republican Party's blatant attacks on Governor Palin are alarming. Republicans should be ashamed by the way they are treating a successful working mother. They are putting the womens movement back 50 years."
HAHAHAHAHAHA... eat that Democrats, you hypocritical jerks! Here's another question, why aren't people like Hillary Clinton and/or Nancy Pelosi saying anything?
WSJ's Opinion on Obama
Here's a good article I agree with:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)