As I was reading the news online this morning, I came across an article about how Congress has included a pay raise for federal judges in their $15 BILLION bailout package for the U.S. Auto Industry.
Article is here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pay-raise-for-judges-tucked-apf-13798044.html
So my question is this: If the United States is in financial dire straits (which it is), and we have such a high unemployment rate (533,000 jobs lost in November this year, and the unemployment rate is at 6.7%), why is the government awarding itself pay raises and bailing out every industry that asks? How can we afford a $5000 pay raise for EACH congressman and a 2.8% raise for every federal judge when we can't keep American employment going? Add this to the fact that the entire bailout system is failing - the companies involved have lied and purposely not revealed the extent of their problems to the U.S. people before (see article here ), and we start to see why the Federal government needs to start REALLY LOOKING at the things they're signing. AIG suddenly "finding" an additional $10 Billion in debt is a pretty grim indicator of how little the government's "oversight" seems to work.
Instead of just hemhorraging money at failing industries, the federal government needs to let the free market work itself out. Rather than trying to keep these companies "alive" for a few more months, we need to let CAPITALISM follow it's course. To demonstrate: if I had an "established" printing company that suddenly started to fail, would the government owe me any money? Or would my printing company fall by the wayside as a casualty of the free market system? Our economic system is based on competition and wise business practices; giving any company a leg-up without VERY good reason (or nationalizing the company - but that's a topic for another post) is foolhardy at best, and can become catastrophic at worst.
Rather than undercut the free market, we need to spend the money to revitalize American industry; build American factories and create American jobs that will put currency back into the economic structure. We don't need to just blindly throw money at our problems; we need to look for economically-viable solutions. Increase import tariffs and start producing what we need here at home - it helped bring us out of the Great Depression, so why wouldn't it work now? Creating domestic jobs and goods, while creating an incentive to "buy American" would certainly help our economy. Are we afraid of a little Nationalism?
I've heard it said that the two "engines" of the world economy are American consuming, and Chinese production. I say we re-build the system: Instead of relying on foreign powers for the bulk of our goods, we should create for ourselves and keep all that money here.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Economic Stimulus Package
As I keep reading in the news that Senate Democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi, whom the article quotes directly) want to put yet another "economic stimulus" package on the table for President Obama to sign on his first day as President. I think it goes without saying that another economic stimulus package is not what this country's leadership needs to be worried about. Giving free money to all Americans who file taxes sounds good, but where is all this money coming from?
Our children will still be paying this "Economic stimulus" crap off in 50 years. For a party that seems so concerned about protecting the environment and ensuring a "decent" standard of living for future generations, going $500 BILLION into debt doesn't seem to add up. Add this to the fact that, despite anything President-elect Obama promised on the campaign trail about lowering taxes in the middle- and lower-class brackets, he can't do it. There's no way - in order to pay for all the governmental "change we believe in", the government is going to have to increase taxes all around - how's THAT for change? If anyone out there can explain to me how Obama can give Americans another economic stimulus package, bail out Corporate America, lower taxes, and increase our standard of living (with any number of ideas that were bandied around during the election cycle: socialized medicine, green power, etc) and still make any sense at all, I'd love to hear it.
Another fun note: Obama has taken a stance on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, in only his second public statement of policy, has committed the United States to being in the "leading role of saving the environment". A quote, from my sources:
Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Scary, no? If you read the article further, it points out the flaws in Obama's ecological views (most of which seem to have come from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth). But, judge for yourselves - read the article and hit me up with your ideas and observations.
Our children will still be paying this "Economic stimulus" crap off in 50 years. For a party that seems so concerned about protecting the environment and ensuring a "decent" standard of living for future generations, going $500 BILLION into debt doesn't seem to add up. Add this to the fact that, despite anything President-elect Obama promised on the campaign trail about lowering taxes in the middle- and lower-class brackets, he can't do it. There's no way - in order to pay for all the governmental "change we believe in", the government is going to have to increase taxes all around - how's THAT for change? If anyone out there can explain to me how Obama can give Americans another economic stimulus package, bail out Corporate America, lower taxes, and increase our standard of living (with any number of ideas that were bandied around during the election cycle: socialized medicine, green power, etc) and still make any sense at all, I'd love to hear it.
Another fun note: Obama has taken a stance on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, in only his second public statement of policy, has committed the United States to being in the "leading role of saving the environment". A quote, from my sources:
Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Scary, no? If you read the article further, it points out the flaws in Obama's ecological views (most of which seem to have come from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth). But, judge for yourselves - read the article and hit me up with your ideas and observations.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Stupid Poliical Drama
I was just checkin up on my "social networking" pages, and I came across a group called something like "Don't Go To Class If John McCain Wins the Election" or some such nonsense. Honestly, people! If you don't want to go to class, then don't go. Ignore the fact that you might actually learn something; cutting classes doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. Regardless of who wins the election, there are better ways of making a political statement. Actually DO something (like attend a rally, or - god forbid - actually get your friends motivated to vote! Do something; just don't do nothing.
So yeah - everyone get out there and help pick the new president!!
So yeah - everyone get out there and help pick the new president!!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Right to Privacy, anyone?
Recently, a member of the 4chan internet forum (an anonymous-posting board that, of late, has been used for internet "terrorism") apparently managed to hack into Sarah Palin's yahoo e-mail account, posting her e-mails and data to the boards.
Story here: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
I've been against these 4chan "scriptkids" for a long time. Their methods are questionable at best, and this board's forced anonymity is enabling criminal activity to be perpetrated in the virtual realm. If a non-anonymous person had hacked this account, there would be severe legal repercussions. But since this board irresponsibly allows such things to happen, and since 4chan does not cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities (as evidenced by their refusal to turn over records of "raids" on the Church of Scientology and on Hal Turner, a talk-show host. These raids were organized on the 4chan and 7chan boards).
I am disgusted by the amazing levels of irresponsibility and jackassery that are allowed to be perpetrated on the internet. That being said, I am not against anonymity on the internet, or against political statements (as long as they are within the confines of the law). Personally, I hope that our authorities can figure out who perpetrated this violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, and then send this anonymous loser to jail, where he belongs. Doubtless, upon being questioned, these "channers" would say that they are only "providing free information". They like to talk about providing information; but they dont' seem to have any qualms about breaking the law to do so. If the situation were reversed (with their "private" e-mail and data being splashed all over the web), no doubt these immature children would start screaming bloody murder about their "rights being violated", and would most likely try to fight back. I'm not advocating the removal of internet privacy, just pointing out the hypocritical policies of these ignorant "channers".
If the chan board admins have any respect at all for the applicable laws (in this country at least, the boards are hosted in another counry), they will turn over information on the anonymous hacker. I don't think they will, though; their track record seems to counter-indicate any shred of being responsible in any way. The website posted images of private e-mails, Sarah Palin's ENTIRE contact list, and personal photos. There are some political e-mails in this account (or were until the account was deleted), which was definitely not a good idea for Gov. Palin. However, if her e-mail account was subject to the same privacy policies as these 4channers' accounts (apparently) are, then the situation would not have happened. Despite being a sitting Governor and a Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is entitled to her privacy just as much as some script-kiddie on a forum board that prides itself on hatred, racism, and immaturity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Feds!
Story here: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
I've been against these 4chan "scriptkids" for a long time. Their methods are questionable at best, and this board's forced anonymity is enabling criminal activity to be perpetrated in the virtual realm. If a non-anonymous person had hacked this account, there would be severe legal repercussions. But since this board irresponsibly allows such things to happen, and since 4chan does not cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities (as evidenced by their refusal to turn over records of "raids" on the Church of Scientology and on Hal Turner, a talk-show host. These raids were organized on the 4chan and 7chan boards).
I am disgusted by the amazing levels of irresponsibility and jackassery that are allowed to be perpetrated on the internet. That being said, I am not against anonymity on the internet, or against political statements (as long as they are within the confines of the law). Personally, I hope that our authorities can figure out who perpetrated this violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, and then send this anonymous loser to jail, where he belongs. Doubtless, upon being questioned, these "channers" would say that they are only "providing free information". They like to talk about providing information; but they dont' seem to have any qualms about breaking the law to do so. If the situation were reversed (with their "private" e-mail and data being splashed all over the web), no doubt these immature children would start screaming bloody murder about their "rights being violated", and would most likely try to fight back. I'm not advocating the removal of internet privacy, just pointing out the hypocritical policies of these ignorant "channers".
If the chan board admins have any respect at all for the applicable laws (in this country at least, the boards are hosted in another counry), they will turn over information on the anonymous hacker. I don't think they will, though; their track record seems to counter-indicate any shred of being responsible in any way. The website posted images of private e-mails, Sarah Palin's ENTIRE contact list, and personal photos. There are some political e-mails in this account (or were until the account was deleted), which was definitely not a good idea for Gov. Palin. However, if her e-mail account was subject to the same privacy policies as these 4channers' accounts (apparently) are, then the situation would not have happened. Despite being a sitting Governor and a Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is entitled to her privacy just as much as some script-kiddie on a forum board that prides itself on hatred, racism, and immaturity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Feds!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac contributions
I recently found an article online detailing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions (representing a spread of almost 20 years). After seeing the list (available here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html ),
I started to look into exactly who these people are. A few (the "Big 3" Democratic Senators at the top: Obama, Clinton, and Kerry) didn't seem to have any relevant connections. The rest of the top 20, however, DID have some interesting connections.
Almost ALL of them are connected to either the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, or to the House Financial Services Committee. Some, like Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) serve other functions; namely, they are high-ranking officials within their respective parties (Blunt serves as Republican Whip in the House, Pelosi is, of course, the Speaker of the House). Still others, such as Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), serve on other committees; Representative Emanuel serves on the House Ways and Means committee (subcommittee on select revenue measures).
What does all this mean? The article points out that most of the congress-men and -women receiving money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are Democratic representatives. While this may be the case, the Republicans are certainly represented on this list as well. It seems that both parties are dirty in this case.
The government has decided to bail out these companies; the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will cost a great deal: one source ( http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=46d1439e-a2c4-418c-9be0-09be0b9ee60d ) reports that:
"Some reports estimate the government's cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion. ".
A bailout by the federal government will suck our tax-dollars into preotecting the interests of these companies. But who votes for such a bailout? Check the committees that these senators and congresspeople serve on; FM seem to have known exactly what they were doing when they contributed to these candidates' campaigns: protecting their own interests.
As a taxpayer who DOESN'T have a mortgage, I'm disgusted that the federal government would use MY money to bail out irresponsible investors and crooked mortgage companies. I'm completely disappointed in these Senators and Congresspeople, and even more so that they would be allowed to get away with this. But, I guess that's how our political system works.
Here's hoping for some less-corrupt leaders in the future.
I started to look into exactly who these people are. A few (the "Big 3" Democratic Senators at the top: Obama, Clinton, and Kerry) didn't seem to have any relevant connections. The rest of the top 20, however, DID have some interesting connections.
Almost ALL of them are connected to either the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, or to the House Financial Services Committee. Some, like Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) serve other functions; namely, they are high-ranking officials within their respective parties (Blunt serves as Republican Whip in the House, Pelosi is, of course, the Speaker of the House). Still others, such as Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), serve on other committees; Representative Emanuel serves on the House Ways and Means committee (subcommittee on select revenue measures).
What does all this mean? The article points out that most of the congress-men and -women receiving money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are Democratic representatives. While this may be the case, the Republicans are certainly represented on this list as well. It seems that both parties are dirty in this case.
The government has decided to bail out these companies; the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout will cost a great deal: one source ( http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=46d1439e-a2c4-418c-9be0-09be0b9ee60d ) reports that:
"Some reports estimate the government's cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion. ".
A bailout by the federal government will suck our tax-dollars into preotecting the interests of these companies. But who votes for such a bailout? Check the committees that these senators and congresspeople serve on; FM seem to have known exactly what they were doing when they contributed to these candidates' campaigns: protecting their own interests.
As a taxpayer who DOESN'T have a mortgage, I'm disgusted that the federal government would use MY money to bail out irresponsible investors and crooked mortgage companies. I'm completely disappointed in these Senators and Congresspeople, and even more so that they would be allowed to get away with this. But, I guess that's how our political system works.
Here's hoping for some less-corrupt leaders in the future.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Political ranting
I am ridiculously sick of the entire election cycle this year: The madness is just too much. With both candidates completely botching their VP picks (Biden was a terrible choice for a liberal ticket, and Palin seems to be too controversial for a conservative ticket) and widespread chaos erupting at BOTH national conventions - this always seems to happen, but in an election year when the hit buzzword is "change", why are we seeing more of the same?
Both parties seem to have presented us with a field of only halfway-decent candidates. In an election year when the Democrats should be able to win the White House with ANY good candidate, why are both parties so close in the polls? It's almost as though neither party "really" wants to win this one - whoever's the last man standing winds up getting stuck with the problems that the Bush administration will leave behind.
McCain was doing so well - polls had him only trailing Obama by a single point, at least as his VP pick was announced; however, popular opinion seems to be turning against Palin (one source I read had the odds of her dropping out of the race as high as 12%; another blogger was running a betting pool on when she would drop out - not much faith in this one).
Obama's VP pick (in my opinion) should have been thoguht about a bit more. Joe Biden? Obama is alienating a lot of his tech-literate supporters (supposedly one of his target audiences) by choosing Biden, whose record in technological areas is less than stellar. As the "ham sandwich" to Obama's "arugula salad" (or some such nonsense; political commentators can be weird with their metaphors), and given Biden's history of supporting McCain publicly, he would seem a better candidate for a republican ticket. Whatever.
Seeing monday night's coverage of the RNC in Minnesota was depressing; the room was almost empty (at least when I was watching; it was before the speakers began). It seems that the Republican party is losing a lot of ground in this election, but it's only minutely visible in the polls - Obama leads by 6 points among registered voters, but with 5% undecided and with the RNC still ongoing, we will have to wait to see the impact of the Republican speakers on these numbers.
With the threat of the Cold War returning to haunt us (and with Putin's aggressive stances towards Georgia as the jumping-off point, why shouldn't we suspect such a thing is starting?), I just hope that whoever wins this ugly election is prepared to deal with the ongoing problems in the Middle East, as well as the re-emerging Soviet Union.
Good luck to all candidates!
Both parties seem to have presented us with a field of only halfway-decent candidates. In an election year when the Democrats should be able to win the White House with ANY good candidate, why are both parties so close in the polls? It's almost as though neither party "really" wants to win this one - whoever's the last man standing winds up getting stuck with the problems that the Bush administration will leave behind.
McCain was doing so well - polls had him only trailing Obama by a single point, at least as his VP pick was announced; however, popular opinion seems to be turning against Palin (one source I read had the odds of her dropping out of the race as high as 12%; another blogger was running a betting pool on when she would drop out - not much faith in this one).
Obama's VP pick (in my opinion) should have been thoguht about a bit more. Joe Biden? Obama is alienating a lot of his tech-literate supporters (supposedly one of his target audiences) by choosing Biden, whose record in technological areas is less than stellar. As the "ham sandwich" to Obama's "arugula salad" (or some such nonsense; political commentators can be weird with their metaphors), and given Biden's history of supporting McCain publicly, he would seem a better candidate for a republican ticket. Whatever.
Seeing monday night's coverage of the RNC in Minnesota was depressing; the room was almost empty (at least when I was watching; it was before the speakers began). It seems that the Republican party is losing a lot of ground in this election, but it's only minutely visible in the polls - Obama leads by 6 points among registered voters, but with 5% undecided and with the RNC still ongoing, we will have to wait to see the impact of the Republican speakers on these numbers.
With the threat of the Cold War returning to haunt us (and with Putin's aggressive stances towards Georgia as the jumping-off point, why shouldn't we suspect such a thing is starting?), I just hope that whoever wins this ugly election is prepared to deal with the ongoing problems in the Middle East, as well as the re-emerging Soviet Union.
Good luck to all candidates!
Monday, June 9, 2008
New Blog
I am officially starting a new weblog - this one for a class. I haven't had much success with these things in the past, so perhaps I'll update this one a bit more often.
At any rate, The question of the day is: What happened to Tomohiro Kato that made him attempt to kill 18 people in broad daylight? The attack occured yesterday, and began with Kato running over three people, then leaving the truck and "screaming and stabbing passersby" with a survival knife - at least 18 people were attacked, with seven dying of knife wounds. Apparently, the suspect was "tired of the world" and police believe that his being laid off from work earlier this month may have had something to do with the attack. The attacks occurred in the Akibahara district: a shopping area, selling electronics, comics, and video games; I can't help but wonder why Kato would choose to "go postal" in such a commercial/retail area. Was this an attempt to target Japanese youths, or merely random chance that he picked the Akibahara district? What sort of insane world do we live in where going berserk in public and killing 7 people is even a viable option for anyone? Unfortunately, with the world economy in a downward spiral, and more jobs being cut every day, I fear we may see more of this sort of violence before it's all over.
At any rate, The question of the day is: What happened to Tomohiro Kato that made him attempt to kill 18 people in broad daylight? The attack occured yesterday, and began with Kato running over three people, then leaving the truck and "screaming and stabbing passersby" with a survival knife - at least 18 people were attacked, with seven dying of knife wounds. Apparently, the suspect was "tired of the world" and police believe that his being laid off from work earlier this month may have had something to do with the attack. The attacks occurred in the Akibahara district: a shopping area, selling electronics, comics, and video games; I can't help but wonder why Kato would choose to "go postal" in such a commercial/retail area. Was this an attempt to target Japanese youths, or merely random chance that he picked the Akibahara district? What sort of insane world do we live in where going berserk in public and killing 7 people is even a viable option for anyone? Unfortunately, with the world economy in a downward spiral, and more jobs being cut every day, I fear we may see more of this sort of violence before it's all over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
