The recent bailout that I talked about in the last blog has done something that many people probably did not expect. I have discussed in my classroom and on this blog the issue with gas prices. There are many reasons that gas prices are so high. One of those reasons is the value of the American Dollar. When the American Dollar is weak, the prices of commodity items rises. When we buy something that is on the world market, the value of our dollar compared to other countries can effect the price to us. Thus commodity prices change. Commodities such as OIL.
The value of the dollar has risen lately and has helped contribute to the lowering of gas prices. Oil has dropped nearly $50 in the last couple months. Then just after this weekend the price jumped some $20 almost. Why? The value of the dollar. Now why did the value of the dollar go down so quickly? Our wonderful governments bailout of our financial markets. Thankyou Washington!! When the government bails a company out, they must get the money from somewhere. It is not in the already large government budget. SO they must either print the money or they must borrow it from other countries. Either way it adds money to our economy that would otherwise not be there. When money is added to the economy, the value of each dollar drops. Thus the price of commodities begin rise. Thankyou, Washington.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bailouts!
There is little that I hate more than a Bailout. I hate it when a referee bails a player out. When Chris Leak throws an interception at the end of the first half of the 2006 gator at vols football game, a referee should not call a roughing the passer call when there is very little contact on the pass. That play was a difference in the game. The same is true when government interferes with the market and bails a company out. Lets discuss the recent financial institution bailouts.
When Fannie Mae was created in 1938 and then Freddie Mac later, the purpose was to ensure that people who wanted loans could more easily get them. Fannie Mae was started during the Great Depression, which was caused by stupid government policy, and Freddie Mac was created because of what Wayne Winegarden calls "Corporate Social Responsibility" being combined with a for-profit business model. Government has a reason to make people happy and thus creates institutions to help them- "Corporate Social Responsibility." But does this in a market that is best ran by using for-profit businesses model that is now being interfered with. This interference in the economy creates unexpected consequences.
These government created and backed companies will buy up mortgages and loans from other institutions taking the risk off of them. This allows for more mortgages at lower interest rates from those intuitions. The issue is in the incentives created by these government institutions. Bad loans are made because the losses are protected by the government, meaning tax payer. When there is little or no risk involved, bad choices are made. This interferes with an otherwise free market. More investments are made into mortgages that should be made other places if it were not for the subsidized mortgage loans that have very low interest rates. This raises the interest rates for loans in other areas that would have more people wanting loans if it were not for the artificially low interest rates in the mortgage market. This thus slows down the economy in other sectors meaning the health of the housing market becomes even more vital to the overall economy. When the housing market then struggles the whole economy is hurt even worse. Thus our present situation.
This is why the housing bubble enlarged so much so quickly. Now that it has burst the government has bailed them out which adds to the easiness of making stupid loans in the future. Thus the economy will rebound in the next few years, more bad loans will be made, and in a decade or so the government will once again bail out these companies when that bubble bursts. I can not complain about the current bailout because without it a crisis would pursue. But we now need to get government out of the whole business of interfering with the free market. People should get loans based on income, credit history, work history, etc, and companies should start reaping the costs of making bad loans as well as the benefits. This means there will be no housing bubble forming, fewer people will buy homes, but we will not have massive downturns either in our markets and economies like we have now.
The only thing worse than a government ran operation is government interfering with otherwise free markets which have even a worse effect on the economy. I hope this is the last bailout I hear of in my lifetime. But I know that it will be one of many to come in our entitlement mentality nature that the government has created.
When Fannie Mae was created in 1938 and then Freddie Mac later, the purpose was to ensure that people who wanted loans could more easily get them. Fannie Mae was started during the Great Depression, which was caused by stupid government policy, and Freddie Mac was created because of what Wayne Winegarden calls "Corporate Social Responsibility" being combined with a for-profit business model. Government has a reason to make people happy and thus creates institutions to help them- "Corporate Social Responsibility." But does this in a market that is best ran by using for-profit businesses model that is now being interfered with. This interference in the economy creates unexpected consequences.
These government created and backed companies will buy up mortgages and loans from other institutions taking the risk off of them. This allows for more mortgages at lower interest rates from those intuitions. The issue is in the incentives created by these government institutions. Bad loans are made because the losses are protected by the government, meaning tax payer. When there is little or no risk involved, bad choices are made. This interferes with an otherwise free market. More investments are made into mortgages that should be made other places if it were not for the subsidized mortgage loans that have very low interest rates. This raises the interest rates for loans in other areas that would have more people wanting loans if it were not for the artificially low interest rates in the mortgage market. This thus slows down the economy in other sectors meaning the health of the housing market becomes even more vital to the overall economy. When the housing market then struggles the whole economy is hurt even worse. Thus our present situation.
This is why the housing bubble enlarged so much so quickly. Now that it has burst the government has bailed them out which adds to the easiness of making stupid loans in the future. Thus the economy will rebound in the next few years, more bad loans will be made, and in a decade or so the government will once again bail out these companies when that bubble bursts. I can not complain about the current bailout because without it a crisis would pursue. But we now need to get government out of the whole business of interfering with the free market. People should get loans based on income, credit history, work history, etc, and companies should start reaping the costs of making bad loans as well as the benefits. This means there will be no housing bubble forming, fewer people will buy homes, but we will not have massive downturns either in our markets and economies like we have now.
The only thing worse than a government ran operation is government interfering with otherwise free markets which have even a worse effect on the economy. I hope this is the last bailout I hear of in my lifetime. But I know that it will be one of many to come in our entitlement mentality nature that the government has created.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Fallacy of Government creating jobs
If anyone cares about their country and is old enough to vote, they have surely heard about Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's plan to invest some 150 Billion dollars over 10 years in an effort to create "green" jobs that amount to some 5 million high paying positions. To most people this sounds like a very attractive idea and plan. But most people are ignorant of economic concepts so lets look into the fallacy of government creating new jobs.
The United State Government cannot "create" new jobs as in "create" new wealth like Obama and others try to claim. The fallacy in this argument is that Government does not create anything without destroying another. I have already lost some of you I'm sure so allow me to explain. Government owns no amount of money and thus can create nothing. It can only take what we have in the form of taxes and then do with that money what it wants instead of us doing what we would have wanted if we could have kept the money. This misunderstanding is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy". This analogy is in great timing. If Obama's plan made sense then it would also make sense to say that you are glad that hurricane Ike hit Texas because now there are many jobs that will be created to rebuild the homes and businesses that have been destroyed. The truth is yes jobs are available down there now to do this but those jobs have simply been transferred from one place to another to fix something that has been broken. When someone breaks a window a glass maker is paid to fix it. That is a job "created". But that money could have been spent somewhere else thus a job is also loss. That job might have actually created wealth instead of fixing something that has been broken.
The point is simple. Obama "creating" these 5 million jobs is not him creating wealth or anything that would benefit us. It is him diverting resources that could be spent somewhere else, to do what HE thinks is best. He believes that he and his politician crew and his advisers know what is best. That is why he is running for president. But the truth is that since the free market private sector has not created these green jobs already it means that those jobs must not be very efficient and in fact must be a waste of resources. If it were worth something, someone in the private market would have already been doing this work in order to earn high profits.
When Obama makes his beautiful speech about creating these "green" jobs, what he is really saying is this: "I know what is better to do with your money then you yourself know what to do." Obama wants to raise our taxes to pay for his programs because he believes that HE is smarter with OUR money that WE are. The question is not whether or not Obama is creating new jobs for the economy while also helping the environment. I just answered that. The question you have to ask yourself is "do I think Barack Obama knows what is better to do with MY money than I do?"
The United State Government cannot "create" new jobs as in "create" new wealth like Obama and others try to claim. The fallacy in this argument is that Government does not create anything without destroying another. I have already lost some of you I'm sure so allow me to explain. Government owns no amount of money and thus can create nothing. It can only take what we have in the form of taxes and then do with that money what it wants instead of us doing what we would have wanted if we could have kept the money. This misunderstanding is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy". This analogy is in great timing. If Obama's plan made sense then it would also make sense to say that you are glad that hurricane Ike hit Texas because now there are many jobs that will be created to rebuild the homes and businesses that have been destroyed. The truth is yes jobs are available down there now to do this but those jobs have simply been transferred from one place to another to fix something that has been broken. When someone breaks a window a glass maker is paid to fix it. That is a job "created". But that money could have been spent somewhere else thus a job is also loss. That job might have actually created wealth instead of fixing something that has been broken.
The point is simple. Obama "creating" these 5 million jobs is not him creating wealth or anything that would benefit us. It is him diverting resources that could be spent somewhere else, to do what HE thinks is best. He believes that he and his politician crew and his advisers know what is best. That is why he is running for president. But the truth is that since the free market private sector has not created these green jobs already it means that those jobs must not be very efficient and in fact must be a waste of resources. If it were worth something, someone in the private market would have already been doing this work in order to earn high profits.
When Obama makes his beautiful speech about creating these "green" jobs, what he is really saying is this: "I know what is better to do with your money then you yourself know what to do." Obama wants to raise our taxes to pay for his programs because he believes that HE is smarter with OUR money that WE are. The question is not whether or not Obama is creating new jobs for the economy while also helping the environment. I just answered that. The question you have to ask yourself is "do I think Barack Obama knows what is better to do with MY money than I do?"
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Why government should not pay to rebuild disaster areas
As we approach the middle of "hurricane season" lets discuss the fallacy of protecting and rebuilding areas that have been hit with terrible disaster. It was only a few years ago that Hurricane Katrina all but destroyed the great city of New Orleans. No doubt the people in New Orleans were hurting and are thankful for the help Uncle Sam has given them. Allow me to discuss to you why the federal government is responsible for many of those deaths in New Orleans. It is not the typical liberal talking point such as: "George Bush does not like Black People." Recently charged felon Kayne West knows about as much about government and George Bush as I do about his rap music! I will address this from an educated point of view not an ideological ignorant point of view.
As good and kind as disaster relief and federal flood insurance sounds, it is once again an example of well intentioned policies with terrible unintended consequences. No doubt these programs help people get their feet back on the ground and their lives running again. I am not blinded to the benefits of these two programs. However, politicians typically only talk about the benefits of their programs while ignoring the costs. The costs are not as obvious and thus voters who are ignorant of economics will vote for the candidate that chooses to help them in the heat of a moment instead of studying the future consequences of those programs. When government guarantees disaster relief for people, residents have no incentive of living in an area that would be efficient (safe) for living. Meaning, when you guarantee someones security, their sense of self-responsibility deteriorates. If government did not guarantee the rebuilding of your home, many people who choose to build and live in areas that are prone to disasters such as floods and hurricanes would choose instead to live elsewhere. When government guarantees their financial security such as rebuilding their home why would they make a wise decision in living in a more safe area? In fact this policy only leads to more and more people moving into these sometimes beautiful but truly dangerous areas. This of course raises the cost of repairing these areas as many more people now live there and own homes that need rebuilding. New Orleans is under sea level but that should not scare anyone away from building there if they know that the tax payer is going to pick up their tab when the disaster comes.
About 30 years the government decided to collect some of that money by offering federal flood insurance. This way the residents pick up part of the costs. Residents are charged a few hundred dollars for their premium to insure their house that is built next to the ocean or next to rivers that flood regularly. In a pure free market these insurance premiums should cost thousands of dollars each month to truly cover the risk involved in building in those areas. That is why government provides it. If a service were efficient the private sector would usually fund it as people can make money providing that service. When government gets involved it is often because they are providing a service that no one needs or desires when charged a proper price. Since government collects trillions of dollars in taxes, it is easy for them to pick up that tab.
The fact is if government did not offer these benefits to such people, those people would not have lived in those areas. True, New Orleans would not be the exciting city that it is today. But other cities in the area would simply be bigger and offer the fun that New Orleans offers. True, many of the people living in beautiful home would not have the same great view they have while living in an elevated home on the beach. But our taxes would be much lower instead of protecting these morons who choose to live there only because they know that when that hurricane comes as it does every 5 years, they will be protected and covered. The fact is, if government did not have such a stupid policy, those poor people who were killed on that terrible day when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, would not have been living there to begin with.
As Hurricane Ike closes in on Texas and other gulf region states, be reminded that although I believe that people need charity when unexpected disasters take place, having government incentivize them to live in dangerous areas by bailing them out when their home is destroyed is not a good policy when adding up the benefits and costs.
As good and kind as disaster relief and federal flood insurance sounds, it is once again an example of well intentioned policies with terrible unintended consequences. No doubt these programs help people get their feet back on the ground and their lives running again. I am not blinded to the benefits of these two programs. However, politicians typically only talk about the benefits of their programs while ignoring the costs. The costs are not as obvious and thus voters who are ignorant of economics will vote for the candidate that chooses to help them in the heat of a moment instead of studying the future consequences of those programs. When government guarantees disaster relief for people, residents have no incentive of living in an area that would be efficient (safe) for living. Meaning, when you guarantee someones security, their sense of self-responsibility deteriorates. If government did not guarantee the rebuilding of your home, many people who choose to build and live in areas that are prone to disasters such as floods and hurricanes would choose instead to live elsewhere. When government guarantees their financial security such as rebuilding their home why would they make a wise decision in living in a more safe area? In fact this policy only leads to more and more people moving into these sometimes beautiful but truly dangerous areas. This of course raises the cost of repairing these areas as many more people now live there and own homes that need rebuilding. New Orleans is under sea level but that should not scare anyone away from building there if they know that the tax payer is going to pick up their tab when the disaster comes.
About 30 years the government decided to collect some of that money by offering federal flood insurance. This way the residents pick up part of the costs. Residents are charged a few hundred dollars for their premium to insure their house that is built next to the ocean or next to rivers that flood regularly. In a pure free market these insurance premiums should cost thousands of dollars each month to truly cover the risk involved in building in those areas. That is why government provides it. If a service were efficient the private sector would usually fund it as people can make money providing that service. When government gets involved it is often because they are providing a service that no one needs or desires when charged a proper price. Since government collects trillions of dollars in taxes, it is easy for them to pick up that tab.
The fact is if government did not offer these benefits to such people, those people would not have lived in those areas. True, New Orleans would not be the exciting city that it is today. But other cities in the area would simply be bigger and offer the fun that New Orleans offers. True, many of the people living in beautiful home would not have the same great view they have while living in an elevated home on the beach. But our taxes would be much lower instead of protecting these morons who choose to live there only because they know that when that hurricane comes as it does every 5 years, they will be protected and covered. The fact is, if government did not have such a stupid policy, those poor people who were killed on that terrible day when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, would not have been living there to begin with.
As Hurricane Ike closes in on Texas and other gulf region states, be reminded that although I believe that people need charity when unexpected disasters take place, having government incentivize them to live in dangerous areas by bailing them out when their home is destroyed is not a good policy when adding up the benefits and costs.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Fixing Our Education System - Conclusion
I'm excited about getting comments from time to time on my blog. It is encouraging that more people are now reading it. I will address the most recent comment on my first blog on education and summarize what our education system would look like under this transformation. This will be written as if I were explaining my education reform in a speech as a candidate for president of the United States. Enjoy:
Ladies and Gentlemen I propose to you that we allow all parents who have children attending school the right to choose where they would like to send their child to school. In whatever state you live in, you can now send your child to any school in that state. I propose a voucher system that represents an amount of money that will follow your child where he or she attend. The amount of that voucher will be based upon the average spent last year per child in that county plus the growth of inflation each year. If you want to send your children to a christian school of some sort, so be it. If you would rather send him or her to our now privately ran but publicly funded schools, so be it. Where you want them to go, they go.
The voucher will represent a specific amount of money that the school you choose can exchange for money from the government. The school can choose to charge whatever they feel is needed to properly run their school. If they can impress parents and run it for less than the voucher is worth, they can keep the excess money to make improvements or choose to give it back to YOU, the parent, as an incentive to keep your child there. At any time, if you feel that the school is not living up to its responsibility of educating your child, feel free to move your child to another school of your choosing. This will bring about the same competition to our education system that is already thriving and successful in making our economy the envy of the world- even during downturns like we are currently having. This competition will breed achievement. If your school's owner hires a principal that believes using advanced technology to teach your child to learn then so be it. If the principal prefers a student centered school system that uses group learning and active learning, so be it. If you would rather go to a more traditional teaching school that is mostly teacher-centered with discussion and lecture, so be it. It is your choice. In fact most schools will use different strategies for different subjects depending on what has been found to be the most successful strategy.
For you students that prefer the technical path as opposed to the universal path, I have tremendous news for you. With this added competition, owners of schools will begin to set up schools that specialize in technical studies. No longer will each school have a sub-par technical path with shop classes that get sub-standard supplies to use in the education of your child. Schools will specialize in this area and students from all surrounding areas will attend that school bringing in large amounts of cash flow, supporting many different fields of learning, and the best teachers of all crafts to one spot to maximize the potential of developing those skills needed for the workplace. No longer will college or technical college be required by most businesses looking for these skills as students leaving high school will be schooled beyond their years in those fields as they all have had the best teachers and best resources to learn from. With businesses demanding their services due to seeing the fruits of their work in high school, your child will be able to go straight into a high paying job immediately upon graduation.
Schools will now adapt to the needs of the economy whether that means more subject matter with technological skills that are needed to prepare students for today's economy or some other skill that is in large demand from our society. No longer will teacher unions and government officials in Washington or your state capital make these tough decisions requiring lots of information that no government employee can possibly obtain. Instead the free market will make changes as the principals and owners will have the freedom to do what they believe is best for the student. This of course will be based on what employers are telling them. Principles will now be incentivized to travel to companies and asking what employers are looking for in a child's education. Change and adaptation will be done much quicker now that the market of millions of people's needs will bring about this change instead of a group of government paid employees in some room trying to figure out what changes to make in our education system.
I will close with this. Athletes who would love to play for the best coaches and best schools for their sports. No longer are you forced to attend a school that does not care about a particular sport and keep coaches around that continue to fail their athletes in not helping them reach their full potential. You can choose where to attend school and thus what coach and system to play in. Imagine the resources athletes that will now be available to you who are committed to playing at the best schools. Those schools will invest into the best equitment to get you to come there so they can receive that voucher.
Teachers, I have wonderful news. You will no longer be paid based upon experience and education alone. Your pay will be merit paid. Principals that need to improve the history, English, math, science, or any other department in order to improve the quality of their education to impress parents to bring their students there, will pay you what they need in order to get you to teach for them. If you work hard and are a successful teacher, the better schools with the more students going and thus receiving the most funding, will now pay you what you demand mixed with how much they really want you. Attention math teachers and science teachers, you will be paid more than the physical education and history teachers in that your job qualifications are harder and in lower supply. This way we will never have a shortage of teachers in tough areas of study that few decide to study in college. As these areas will now pay more, more students will receive those degrees. Coaches, you will be paid what the school has to pay you to get you to come there. No longer will a school board be voting what they think you should be paid. Those people who have the most information for what that school needs to impress the parents and students will be making those kinds of decisions. Thus the best hardest working coaches, teachers, and principles will be paid the best.
Ladies and gentlemen, elect me as President, and I will put you and your child first, not the government officials and teacher unions. Thankyou, and God bless you and God bless or students.
JESS
Ladies and Gentlemen I propose to you that we allow all parents who have children attending school the right to choose where they would like to send their child to school. In whatever state you live in, you can now send your child to any school in that state. I propose a voucher system that represents an amount of money that will follow your child where he or she attend. The amount of that voucher will be based upon the average spent last year per child in that county plus the growth of inflation each year. If you want to send your children to a christian school of some sort, so be it. If you would rather send him or her to our now privately ran but publicly funded schools, so be it. Where you want them to go, they go.
The voucher will represent a specific amount of money that the school you choose can exchange for money from the government. The school can choose to charge whatever they feel is needed to properly run their school. If they can impress parents and run it for less than the voucher is worth, they can keep the excess money to make improvements or choose to give it back to YOU, the parent, as an incentive to keep your child there. At any time, if you feel that the school is not living up to its responsibility of educating your child, feel free to move your child to another school of your choosing. This will bring about the same competition to our education system that is already thriving and successful in making our economy the envy of the world- even during downturns like we are currently having. This competition will breed achievement. If your school's owner hires a principal that believes using advanced technology to teach your child to learn then so be it. If the principal prefers a student centered school system that uses group learning and active learning, so be it. If you would rather go to a more traditional teaching school that is mostly teacher-centered with discussion and lecture, so be it. It is your choice. In fact most schools will use different strategies for different subjects depending on what has been found to be the most successful strategy.
For you students that prefer the technical path as opposed to the universal path, I have tremendous news for you. With this added competition, owners of schools will begin to set up schools that specialize in technical studies. No longer will each school have a sub-par technical path with shop classes that get sub-standard supplies to use in the education of your child. Schools will specialize in this area and students from all surrounding areas will attend that school bringing in large amounts of cash flow, supporting many different fields of learning, and the best teachers of all crafts to one spot to maximize the potential of developing those skills needed for the workplace. No longer will college or technical college be required by most businesses looking for these skills as students leaving high school will be schooled beyond their years in those fields as they all have had the best teachers and best resources to learn from. With businesses demanding their services due to seeing the fruits of their work in high school, your child will be able to go straight into a high paying job immediately upon graduation.
Schools will now adapt to the needs of the economy whether that means more subject matter with technological skills that are needed to prepare students for today's economy or some other skill that is in large demand from our society. No longer will teacher unions and government officials in Washington or your state capital make these tough decisions requiring lots of information that no government employee can possibly obtain. Instead the free market will make changes as the principals and owners will have the freedom to do what they believe is best for the student. This of course will be based on what employers are telling them. Principles will now be incentivized to travel to companies and asking what employers are looking for in a child's education. Change and adaptation will be done much quicker now that the market of millions of people's needs will bring about this change instead of a group of government paid employees in some room trying to figure out what changes to make in our education system.
I will close with this. Athletes who would love to play for the best coaches and best schools for their sports. No longer are you forced to attend a school that does not care about a particular sport and keep coaches around that continue to fail their athletes in not helping them reach their full potential. You can choose where to attend school and thus what coach and system to play in. Imagine the resources athletes that will now be available to you who are committed to playing at the best schools. Those schools will invest into the best equitment to get you to come there so they can receive that voucher.
Teachers, I have wonderful news. You will no longer be paid based upon experience and education alone. Your pay will be merit paid. Principals that need to improve the history, English, math, science, or any other department in order to improve the quality of their education to impress parents to bring their students there, will pay you what they need in order to get you to teach for them. If you work hard and are a successful teacher, the better schools with the more students going and thus receiving the most funding, will now pay you what you demand mixed with how much they really want you. Attention math teachers and science teachers, you will be paid more than the physical education and history teachers in that your job qualifications are harder and in lower supply. This way we will never have a shortage of teachers in tough areas of study that few decide to study in college. As these areas will now pay more, more students will receive those degrees. Coaches, you will be paid what the school has to pay you to get you to come there. No longer will a school board be voting what they think you should be paid. Those people who have the most information for what that school needs to impress the parents and students will be making those kinds of decisions. Thus the best hardest working coaches, teachers, and principles will be paid the best.
Ladies and gentlemen, elect me as President, and I will put you and your child first, not the government officials and teacher unions. Thankyou, and God bless you and God bless or students.
JESS
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Barack Obama Convention Speech (refined)
MY FRIENDS PLEASE READ COMPLETELY THROUGH. THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON BARACK OBAMA'S MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH HE WILL EVER GIVE:
Due to living with a man who has no interest in politics whatsoever, I had to record his speech on my DVR and have just now finished watching it. These are my comments on just a few parts of his speech:
I find it interesting that he addresses his "great friend Dick Durbin" in the opening line of his speech. Dick Durbin is only a senator who compared, without apology, our troops to Nazi troops of World War II. Barack Obama then addresses when he got his start in politics. I would have advised him not to do this as it demonstrates to us his lack of experience and how short of a time he has really spent serving our country. He is without a doubt the least experienced candidate our nation has ever had for president.
Obama then mentions that our economy is in turmoil. Last quarter we had a slightly more than 3% growth in GDP despite democrats and pundits, as well as the mainstream media talking heads saying that we were in a recession. Many European countries that those idiot praise so highly wish they could boast of a 3% growth in GDP last quarter. Oh and we are in a slow down. But a 3% growth during a slow down with employment still around 5.5% - 6% and actually looking to not rise too much higher is one heck of an economy during a downturn. We only wish that the downturns of business cycles were this good a decade or two ago. Don't get me wrong. These are tough times for some people. There is no doubt that the economy is not as strong as it has been in other times. But we are in a downturn to correct a business cycle. In just over a year from now things will be racing forward again and jobs will be getting created. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is some gloom and doom time when our bad times are far better than most country's good times.
He then wants to blame President Bush for the "housing crisis" mess. That is rediculous. There are economic reasons for this so called crisis. People bought too much! Interest rates were kept too low by the Federal reserve and people got loans that they thought would be cheap forever. But when interest rates go back up, these people find out that their prices just went up. People should not have stretched their budget so far. If there are any politicians to blame it is liberal like Obama that pass laws that pressure banks to give loans to people they would not truly want to give loans to. This will also turn around. The value of our homes are going down. This is true. But the value of our homes were too high not long ago. This is a correction. There are many hurt by this including people in my family. But there are many people who are helped. And those who did not strecth themselves too much and keep their houses which values have dropped, well they will see those value come back up shortly. Don't blame Bush that is ignorant.
He then rediculed free trade! Really? Free trade has made us so much richer. Look at what you buy that does not come from America. If it was made here it would cost a lot more. Now ask yourself how much less of that stuff you would have if it cost more. Free trade sends some jobs overseas. But it creates more jobs for the future and it gives more people things at cheaper prices. I do not want to protect the few jobs and hurt all people who have to buy those products.
Obama then criticizes our government for sitting on their hands while a city drowned? He actually got this one right. Democratic governments in New Orleans led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana were in control of those operations. Blanco did not allow the federal government come in until it was too late. I'm assuming you are talking about the local DEMOCRATIC governments right? Of course he was referring to the Federal response but anyone who understands our government system of Federalism knows that it is primarily the local governments responsiblilty for disasters such as that.
He then talks about how McCain does not understand everyday American people. I believe it is McCain that does townhall meetings where questions are asked and he answers them to and from local citizens. You Mr. Obama, give speeches in front of thousands without taking questions using a teleprompter. That is unless it is a taped interview with the always grilling Katie Couric, Brian Williams or maybe Bob Gibson.
He then fusses that McCain supported tax cuts for big corporations but not 100,000,000 Americans. Really? He supported the Bush tax cuts which gave a tax cut to almost everyone but those who do not pay taxes. The top 50 percent in this nation pay over 95% of the taxes. So it would be hard to give someone a tax cut who does not pay taxes. It is those rich corporations and rich people that hire workers. That is why it is good to give them tax breaks. Some of those jobs that go overseas that you were whining about earlier could have stayed here if they could pay less in taxes! Oh and this trickle down effect was successful under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Two of those were fellow Democrats Mr. Obama.
Now he starts explaining what he is going to do:
He says he wants a tax code to help businesses and workers. But yet you want to raise taxes on most of them? He says he will not give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs oversees like McCain does. What? We should be wanting to give them tax cuts so they will stay here you idiot! He has a goal of energy idependence within 10 years. How are you going to do that when you are against all kinds of energy that actually work? Against Oil, clean coal, nuclear power!! Those are the best sources of energy and you are against all them.
Finally now he starts to talk about a little personal responsibility at the end of his speech! Now I'm liking this. Too bad it is such a small part of his speech. If McCain wants to have a debate about temperate and judgement then I am ready to have it? Really? You originally agreed to meet with him doing townhall meetings and then changed your mind and chose not to debate him and travel with him. Well it stays with your campaign slogan: CHANGE you can believe in.
He then does a quick run down on those things that he is on the wrong side of and knows he can't spend much time on: Abortion, Gun Control, Teen-age pregnacy, Same-Sex marriage, and immigration. He knows those are losing battles for him so he talked about those issues for a combined 45 seconds.
Ladies and Gentlemen I just touched the surface of this speech. Everyone of our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave as this man who wants to be president of this great nation now promises to continue ruining everything that those men just a little over 200 years ago promised us. Please I beg you, do not allow him and the democratic party the opportunity to do this.
Thankyou,
JESS
Due to living with a man who has no interest in politics whatsoever, I had to record his speech on my DVR and have just now finished watching it. These are my comments on just a few parts of his speech:
I find it interesting that he addresses his "great friend Dick Durbin" in the opening line of his speech. Dick Durbin is only a senator who compared, without apology, our troops to Nazi troops of World War II. Barack Obama then addresses when he got his start in politics. I would have advised him not to do this as it demonstrates to us his lack of experience and how short of a time he has really spent serving our country. He is without a doubt the least experienced candidate our nation has ever had for president.
Obama then mentions that our economy is in turmoil. Last quarter we had a slightly more than 3% growth in GDP despite democrats and pundits, as well as the mainstream media talking heads saying that we were in a recession. Many European countries that those idiot praise so highly wish they could boast of a 3% growth in GDP last quarter. Oh and we are in a slow down. But a 3% growth during a slow down with employment still around 5.5% - 6% and actually looking to not rise too much higher is one heck of an economy during a downturn. We only wish that the downturns of business cycles were this good a decade or two ago. Don't get me wrong. These are tough times for some people. There is no doubt that the economy is not as strong as it has been in other times. But we are in a downturn to correct a business cycle. In just over a year from now things will be racing forward again and jobs will be getting created. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is some gloom and doom time when our bad times are far better than most country's good times.
He then wants to blame President Bush for the "housing crisis" mess. That is rediculous. There are economic reasons for this so called crisis. People bought too much! Interest rates were kept too low by the Federal reserve and people got loans that they thought would be cheap forever. But when interest rates go back up, these people find out that their prices just went up. People should not have stretched their budget so far. If there are any politicians to blame it is liberal like Obama that pass laws that pressure banks to give loans to people they would not truly want to give loans to. This will also turn around. The value of our homes are going down. This is true. But the value of our homes were too high not long ago. This is a correction. There are many hurt by this including people in my family. But there are many people who are helped. And those who did not strecth themselves too much and keep their houses which values have dropped, well they will see those value come back up shortly. Don't blame Bush that is ignorant.
He then rediculed free trade! Really? Free trade has made us so much richer. Look at what you buy that does not come from America. If it was made here it would cost a lot more. Now ask yourself how much less of that stuff you would have if it cost more. Free trade sends some jobs overseas. But it creates more jobs for the future and it gives more people things at cheaper prices. I do not want to protect the few jobs and hurt all people who have to buy those products.
Obama then criticizes our government for sitting on their hands while a city drowned? He actually got this one right. Democratic governments in New Orleans led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana were in control of those operations. Blanco did not allow the federal government come in until it was too late. I'm assuming you are talking about the local DEMOCRATIC governments right? Of course he was referring to the Federal response but anyone who understands our government system of Federalism knows that it is primarily the local governments responsiblilty for disasters such as that.
He then talks about how McCain does not understand everyday American people. I believe it is McCain that does townhall meetings where questions are asked and he answers them to and from local citizens. You Mr. Obama, give speeches in front of thousands without taking questions using a teleprompter. That is unless it is a taped interview with the always grilling Katie Couric, Brian Williams or maybe Bob Gibson.
He then fusses that McCain supported tax cuts for big corporations but not 100,000,000 Americans. Really? He supported the Bush tax cuts which gave a tax cut to almost everyone but those who do not pay taxes. The top 50 percent in this nation pay over 95% of the taxes. So it would be hard to give someone a tax cut who does not pay taxes. It is those rich corporations and rich people that hire workers. That is why it is good to give them tax breaks. Some of those jobs that go overseas that you were whining about earlier could have stayed here if they could pay less in taxes! Oh and this trickle down effect was successful under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Two of those were fellow Democrats Mr. Obama.
Now he starts explaining what he is going to do:
He says he wants a tax code to help businesses and workers. But yet you want to raise taxes on most of them? He says he will not give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs oversees like McCain does. What? We should be wanting to give them tax cuts so they will stay here you idiot! He has a goal of energy idependence within 10 years. How are you going to do that when you are against all kinds of energy that actually work? Against Oil, clean coal, nuclear power!! Those are the best sources of energy and you are against all them.
Finally now he starts to talk about a little personal responsibility at the end of his speech! Now I'm liking this. Too bad it is such a small part of his speech. If McCain wants to have a debate about temperate and judgement then I am ready to have it? Really? You originally agreed to meet with him doing townhall meetings and then changed your mind and chose not to debate him and travel with him. Well it stays with your campaign slogan: CHANGE you can believe in.
He then does a quick run down on those things that he is on the wrong side of and knows he can't spend much time on: Abortion, Gun Control, Teen-age pregnacy, Same-Sex marriage, and immigration. He knows those are losing battles for him so he talked about those issues for a combined 45 seconds.
Ladies and Gentlemen I just touched the surface of this speech. Everyone of our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave as this man who wants to be president of this great nation now promises to continue ruining everything that those men just a little over 200 years ago promised us. Please I beg you, do not allow him and the democratic party the opportunity to do this.
Thankyou,
JESS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
