http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html, [read this
]
Apparently not only the Democratic party is having problems with Sarah Palin; the GOP is as well.
The GOP finally realizes that Palin is in fact a diva and she cares more about her image than the message of the party. The GOP is somewhat to blame, however, since they spent $150,000 in campaign dollars on her wardrobe. In light of this McCain advisors have seen the light and thank god they have. They want to give her less media time so she stops running John McCain into the ground. In one respect I'd rather have her out to ruin an already ruined campaign (in my opinion), yet, when she talks I tend to lose a few iq points and start saying "dog-on-it," "darn-right," "maverick," and "hockey-mom." Oh and lose the ability to form sentences. Either they take her off the air or McCain is going to lose a campaign that's already slipping from him.
This qoute came from a Palin Advisor: "...it's not fair to judge her off one or two sound bites"
All of you should find this qoute appalling, I mean they found it okay to crucify Obama's pastor for speaking out against what he saw as government atrocities. Recently I witnessed the Mccain campaign butcher another Obama speech by only airing a sound bite. It was a McCain campaign commercial that cut a speech by Obama. In this part of the speech Obama was talking about abortion, he stated that if his daughters were to make a mistake he did not want them punished with a baby. A very fair statement, a baby is a punishment when your 16 years old. Your life is over when you conceive at that age. After that protion of Obama's speech was aired on the commercial a mother came on stating that she won't vote for him because apparantly now he is calling her children a punishment. The punishment her kids have is being raised by somone so ignorant that they can't even understand what Obama meant in saying that. My feeling is this if its okay for the the GOP to disregard what Obama is really saying with the use of sound bites then Palin, is certainly game.
The fact of the matter is that she is ruining McCain's campaign. Everyday she spends talking to the public is another day people see how ill-prepared she is to be the vice-president and maybe be even president of this great nation. She goes with her own message and doesn't take advice. I'm statring to think that McCain isn't like George Bush at all, but I definately believe his running-mate is.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Not This Time
Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/campaign.wrap/index.html
McCain begins his speech by addressing the point of being behind in the polls and how Obama is "already measuring the drapes". By issuing his statement of, "I love being the underdog, we got 'em just where we want 'em" makes him come off as hopeful. However, this isn't college football, this is the 2008 Presidential Election, you do not have 4 quarters to swing momentum back in your favor. To me, this seems like an attempt of desperation to the American people. This country has a way of taking that tag of 'underdog' and manipulating it into driving them for greater good. However, McCain's usage of this line in his speech doesn't ring in my ear throughout. McCain continues his speech to the chanting of "USA...USA...USA", and continues to spill out his dreams of what he would do in office, but mostly what he wants the American people to do and what we've done.
Compared to Obama, McCain seems more focused on how to influence the American vote. Obama is more concerned still, with the issues at hand and how he can shape them to positives for the people of this country. Even with the attacks McCain was making during the most recent presidential debate, mainly his ties to Bill Ayers, an alleged terrorist, McCain is still pushing for his last ditch attempts.
Overall, i think this speech weakened McCain's appeal to the undecided population. He has deviated from his policies and concentrated on bashing Obama, trying to relate to the population of America, and just going out of his way to make himself look better, which for the most part has failed at
Video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/19/sot.mccain.ohio.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
Friday, October 17, 2008
Even though our economy is going through an economic crisis that has been referred to as the worst shape our economy has been in since the great depression, by multiple significant political figures (including Obama), our focus is currently trained on a plumber named Joe, who doesn't even have a plumbing license. It is ridiculous that at this point in the presidential campaigns the candidates are focusing so much on one person, it's understandable that people want to see how the candidates policy's will affect real people, but does that mean that they need to bring up "Joe the plumber" 2o times in one debate? Right now people need to hear about more important issues than one plumber who happens to be making $250,00 a year.
But what was even worse than the "Joe the plumber" scenario, was the chain of events following this person. The media found Joe, and they found out more about Joe than either of the candidates had known when they mentioned Joe on national television. First and foremost, Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't have a plumbing license, and even more striking, he already owes taxes to our government (maybe if everybody paid their taxes correctly we wouldn't have some of these problems...)
When these facts were uncovered, John McCain condoned the Obama campaign for putting so much pressure and coverage on Joe the plumber (Wasn't it John McCain that brought Joe into the debate on Wednesday night?) But even after he reprimanded Obama for "continuing to focus on Joe the plumber" McCain has still repetitively brought up Joe at his campaigns. Joe Lieberman even attempted to say Joe the plumber in Spanish, to help appeal to the Cuban-American voters in Florida.
But at this campaign in Florida, McCain did discuss other issues, like how “Senator Obama says that he wanted to spread your wealth around...Obama claims that he wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.” While Hari Sevugan (an Obama spokesperson) points out that with McCain's health care proposal he will give tax incentives to everybody, not just people that pay their taxes.
At least the candidates spoke about the actual issue without mentioning Joe for a couple of minutes.
Joe the plumber is a really enlightening citizen in many ways, he brings up the concept of how Americans that don't pay their taxes might be affecting our economy. But the truth of the matter is that a topic that significant should've been mentioned before, and even now the candidates can explore that issue more, but Joe the plumber doesn't need to be brought in as the focus of the campaign any more than it has already been.
More of the Same
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/more-of-the-same/Wednesday's debate seemed like John McCain's last chance at pulling ahead in this election. Although this was not the case, despite McCain's efforts, he did not do enough for him to realistically pull ahead with 3 weeks left. McCain was not on a good track to begin with, having lost the first two debates with Barack Obama. John McCain's main problem coming into this debate was he lacked a clear economic message and he also lacked a clear plan on how to deal with health care. Obama went into the debate with an advantage, having spoken about the economy multiple months before this crisis happened. He has been preaching to the middle class about economic issues and concerns long before it became the center of the race. McCain's downfall was due to his focus on things less important than the economic problem (such as questinoning Obama's character and accusing him of "palling around with terrorists"). Despite this, McCain didn't do a terrible job at the debates. His "Joe the Plumber" routine served effective at first, although it became rather played out and Obama defended himself very well. Although when the issue shifted to health care he danced around the question while Obama spoke about his plan very specifically. McCain's remark about how he was unlike President Bush was the highlight of the debate for McCain, however his efforts to distance himself from Bush are arriving a little too late with a little too much to show for it. McCain provided little information to how he will stray from the Bush administration and change things, which was what he needed to get done to stay in the game. John McCain needed to "scare" voters away from an Obama campaign and he failed to do that, he focused on the wrong issues and did not do enough to pull ahead of Obama in the race. With three weeks left, a McCain victory seems almost unrealistic. Upon further inspection of McCain's campaign it is safe to say that he should have fired his campaign manager for "political malpractice." Much of the McCain campaign performing so poorly in this race has been put on the back of Steve Schmidt. Schmidt is to blame for the campaign putting out basically nothing besides negative ads attacking Obama. Despite McCain's decent performance, he was behind coming into this debate, and he is behind coming out of it. With 19 days left until the people vote in their choice for President of the United States, this debate seemed like the final nail in the coffin for Ol' McCain.
-Jimmy Pezzullo
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
From 2 Candidates, 2 Proposals
With the economic crisis becoming a huge issue in the country and the Presidential Election around the corner, citizens are beginning to wonder how the next President will handle the never ending crisis. Both candidates have been mapping out their plans on how to deal with the rising economy, hoping that it will sway voters to vote for them. The better the plan, the more votes received.
Senator John McCain's proposal includes tax cuts on capital gains and on retirement accounts for people 59 and older in order to protect people's savings. He wants bigger write-offs for all of the stock losses recently and a tax waiver for unemployment benefits. His goal is to appeal to individuals and businesses through all of the tax cuts. All of his proposals would last for about 2 years and the reason for gearing towards individuals and businesses is to create more job opportunities with better benefits. McCain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and to balance the budget by 2013. He wants the economy to get a new and fresh start.
Senator Barack Obama has come up with specific proposal ideas as well. Obama wishes to create tax cuts for middle class families, low wage workers and small business owners. He also wants to create more job opportunities by increasing spending in public works, creating renewable energy industries and creating jobs to help reconstruct broken down bridges, roads, and buildings. He promises to reduce deficits and to increase universal health care for the country.
A major question that not enough people are thinking about was stated by economist Robert D. Reischauer. He said that "At some point, we as a nation are going to have to ask, ‘Where are we going to get the money to do all this, and at what price?’ That’s the question no one can answer.” People keep listing all of the things that each candidate plan on doing once elected. They hear plans and proposals that sound like good theories, but in reality no one really understands or knows how the ideas could possibly work. Where will all of this money come from?
A main problem of the candidate's proposals is that they are only short term. These proposals will only benefit certain people for a short period of time. Neither Obama or McCain have come forward with long term solutions to the serious economic problems faced by the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15elected.html?ref=politics
Senator John McCain's proposal includes tax cuts on capital gains and on retirement accounts for people 59 and older in order to protect people's savings. He wants bigger write-offs for all of the stock losses recently and a tax waiver for unemployment benefits. His goal is to appeal to individuals and businesses through all of the tax cuts. All of his proposals would last for about 2 years and the reason for gearing towards individuals and businesses is to create more job opportunities with better benefits. McCain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and to balance the budget by 2013. He wants the economy to get a new and fresh start.
Senator Barack Obama has come up with specific proposal ideas as well. Obama wishes to create tax cuts for middle class families, low wage workers and small business owners. He also wants to create more job opportunities by increasing spending in public works, creating renewable energy industries and creating jobs to help reconstruct broken down bridges, roads, and buildings. He promises to reduce deficits and to increase universal health care for the country.
A major question that not enough people are thinking about was stated by economist Robert D. Reischauer. He said that "At some point, we as a nation are going to have to ask, ‘Where are we going to get the money to do all this, and at what price?’ That’s the question no one can answer.” People keep listing all of the things that each candidate plan on doing once elected. They hear plans and proposals that sound like good theories, but in reality no one really understands or knows how the ideas could possibly work. Where will all of this money come from?
A main problem of the candidate's proposals is that they are only short term. These proposals will only benefit certain people for a short period of time. Neither Obama or McCain have come forward with long term solutions to the serious economic problems faced by the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15elected.html?ref=politics
McCain accuses Obama because of his past record
While outlining his economic plans for the upcoming changes in the economy, Senator McCain made many accusations against Senator Obama. He had said numerous times that Obama has voted to raise taxes ninety four times, however, this is not a proven fact. McCain states that Obama definitely will raise the taxes and he cannot be trusted to improve the economy. With no proof of these accusations, McCain's theories about Obama are invalid.
The tax plan that Obama has created aims to reduce taxes for the average citizens, but raise the taxes on the wealthy taxpayers. "The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners."
McCain tries to appeal to the average citizens by appealing to the senior citizens and average 
people. He wishes to help seniors by "lowering taxes on withdrawals from their retirement accounts and suspending tax rules that force them to sell their stocks during the financial crisis." The campaign also reaches out to homeowners and people who are saving money. This criteria fits most citizens, making this plan appealing to citizens, especially those with little political or economic background knowlegde.
people. He wishes to help seniors by "lowering taxes on withdrawals from their retirement accounts and suspending tax rules that force them to sell their stocks during the financial crisis." The campaign also reaches out to homeowners and people who are saving money. This criteria fits most citizens, making this plan appealing to citizens, especially those with little political or economic background knowlegde. Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama offers new proposals to help economy
This presidential election is unlike any other in so many ways, the failing ecomony adds to the stress Americans will have to face November 4th when deciding who will bring the appropriate change needed. The article on npr focused on Obama and his proposals to aid the ecomony, although John McCain was included, the article did not focus on McCains positive aspects, but instead showed how he would only aid the wealthy, and increase taxes on everyone else. The article was more slanted toward the Democratic party, because Obama has taken action and proposed new plans to help the public while McCain is still sending mixed signals about where he stands on many issues. Obama is willing to make any change necessary to unite the American people and help the economy while McCain does not understand worries many middle-class citizens have. The article made direct refrences to banks and foreclosures. Obama proposed that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures on families that are making good effort to pay their mortgage. McCain on the other hand opposed a temporary foreclosure moratorium, and wants to focus on policies that will keep home owners from ever facing foreclosure. Since this election is going to be so close i think McCain has to start making more proposals that will directly affect the middle-class, in order to get the votes needed. if he does not make decisions on crucial issues he will lose the votes and support of middle class citizens facing foreclosures, unemployment, and high gas prices. The Amercian public needs a president who will take immediate action with the biggest problems facing Americans and will bring them the aid they need to keep their home and job.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93297331
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93297331
McCain Defends Obama After A Week Of Heated Attacks
Sources: Politico.com
Bloomberg.com
In Minnesota on Friday, Senator John McCain finally addressed the often untrue and dangerous remarks about Senator Barack Obama that have become more and more common at his rallies. After a woman claimed that Obama was "an Arab" McCain took the microphone away from her and replied, "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."
He was met with boos from the Republican crowd.
It is unclear whether McCain truly meant what he said about his Democratic rival or if he is simply trying to tone down the angry remarks that could possibly hurt his chances with undecided voters. Whatever the case may be, the McCain campaign is only cleaning up its own mess after a week of playing heavily on the fears of voters by highlighting Senator Obama's relationship to former 1960's radical Bill Ayers and allowing Sarah Palin to claim that Obama "pals around with terrorists." It is no wonder that die-hard McCain supporters would be afraid when his own campaign send out these kinds of messages.
Obama is not entirely free from guilt either. Instead of staying focused on a little something called the global economic crisis last week, the Obama campaign was kind enough to respond to the Bill Ayers discussion with a 13 minute documentary called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis". This of course refers to the Keating Five scandal of the 1980's, of which John McCain was a part of. Although it has some relevance to the economic crisis, it is clearly retaliatory in nature.
With two days before the final debate and only 22 days until Election Day, it's a little bit worrisome when all you see from either campaign are negative ads and heated attacks instead of solutions to serious problems. It appears that John McCain might have made the first step in turning back the sour tone of the Presidential Race on Friday. Let's hope that the campaigns can somehow manage to focus on the issues instead of each other for these last three weeks.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Republican Mob Scence
http://www.slate.com/id/2201951/ (picture link ttp://www.slate.com/id/2202040/ ) The tone of this article strongly leans towards a very conservative veiw. At a Waukesha Wisonsin town meeting one citizen outraged by supporters of the Obama campaign and Obamas views on situations in gerneral that "i'm mad, and im really mad! The man felt that it was not the economy ruining the country but the "Socialist" taking over it. As mcCain responded to him the man quickly snapped back replying "let me finish please", the Wisconsin croud began to rally on as the man stopped to speak. One citizen even asked "why is Obama where he's at?" people including James T. Harris a local African American talk show host encouraged McCain to take swift and harsh action against Obama in the upcomming debate. Ideas and views such as this also played into part for the crouds more than normal enthusiasm. The article actually says at one point that it was tempting to call this meeting's atmosphere "blood thirsty". Not all attending the town meetings were supporters of McCain though. Hecklers were presentbut not a problem for McCain whos overwhelming croud approval would fight back with them with he support of most of the croud. McCain's Waukesha Wisconsin croud truely was creating a mob scene in a way as the article said. These people just felt very strong about the issues at hand and who wouldnt?
Friday, October 10, 2008
For Palin, Some Pork is kosher
Link to Article
Right off the bat you could tell that the political slant of the article was liberal. The fact that the journalist quoted Bob Weinstein, who is "a supporter of Palin’s Democratic rival Barack Obama," and even a Republican supporter of Palin making a negative comment about her.
This article focused on Sara Palin's flip flop attitude when it comes to pork barrel spending. In interviews and speeches she claims to be an "anti-pork barrel crusader," however both supporters and those against her agree that she would accept spending money on something she has some sort of personal connection to, and veto spending for similar things that wouldn't effect her or her supporters as much. An example of this that I found shocking was the fact that she stopped supporting a "bridge to nowhere" that would have connected Ketchikan to its airport, yet continues to support the Knik Arm Crossing bridge, which would shorten the commute time for those in Wasilla and Mat-Su Valley. For those who don't know Palin was the former mayor of Wasilla. Hmm, coincidence? I'm guessing no. This leads me to be suspious of what Palin is going to do for the country, not just Alaska, if the Republican party wins. At the debate she promised to help cut wasteful government spending, but what is her deffinition of wasteful? Anything that doesn't apply to Alaska or some affilation she is connected to? Do Americans really wish to trust someone who would spend "$10,000 to help fund a snowmobile race her husband has won several times," and raise the city's debt $24 million dollars. I know I wouldn't. Overall the article made it clear that maybe Palin isn't the best person to be the right hand man of the President in these desperate economic times. The country needs someone who can effectivly decide what programs are absolutely necessary, and what things can we do without right now. Someone who in her twenty two months of governing has shown no ability to do just that shouldn't be in the position to even have the oppurtuntiy to be VP!
Monday, October 6, 2008
McCain's Desperate Claim: Obama is Dangerous. Vote for Me If You Want to Live!
With the current economic turmoil the country is facing and the rapid approaching election, McCain will be releasing statements over the next 30 days to do whatever he can to try and win votes. With no solutions in sight other than more tax cuts for the wealthy, the McCain campaign is going to the GOP's key saying "Be very afraid."
The McCain campaign is making ridiculous statements about Barack Obama, calling him dangerous, dishonorable, and too risky for America. McCain is leaving Palin to lead the "fear-mongering parade", and she is making absurd statements saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists", and saying "he doesn't see America like you or I see America".
These kinds of statements are just examples of playing dirty politics, and I don't think it is a fair and legitimate strategy. This is because some people will see these statements and believe them to be true. Its obvious this article is very liberal because it is mocking what the McCain campaign is doing and seems to be supportive of Obama.
Also, the article continues to say that the only way McCain can get votes is by "selling his once-valued dignity and honor". This statement is obviously very harsh, but it conveys a very clear message: McCain's campaign once based on the truth is now a campaign that is doing whatever it can to get votes it needs.
McCain's statements are attempts to deviate from important topics like health care, and an economy on the brink of apocalypse. I agree with this, because it is really just a petty attempt to distract voters who are plagued by ignorance.
McCain and his sorry excuse for a VP nominee are trying to expose the "real" Obama to America, but in the process proved just how corrupt the McCain campaign has become.
"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads, you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."
This quote was said by John McCain in 2000, in response to negative attacks recieved from Bush, Rove, and a few others. It seems just a bit hypocritical. Is McCain saying he doesn't have much of a vision for the future? is he not ready to articulate it?
Obama leading as the candidates head for the final turn
Posted by Nick Devlin
With less than one month to go until election day, Obama has put an even bigger margin between himself and McCain according to the sample polls. Now, I do not know how much I personally trust pre-election polls as they do not 100% represent the nation's attitude towards the candidates. However, these 658 registered voters that were used to derive this data are all that we have when trying to get a sense of what voters feel. The article states that Obama's recent jump in the polls is due to his reactions to the economic crisis, or more so the reactions of McCain to the economic crisis, as McCain's view that the economy is fundamentally strong seems to be losing him support. I mean, when you sit there and say the economy has strong fundamentals while it begins to crash and burn, how can you not expect to lose support? While McCain may have a good point in preaching a free-market economy with little regulation is still the way to go, the majority of people don't seem to be interested in anything that isn't immediate change. And we all know which candidate has been preaching "change" since day one. Another factor in Obama's current leap is the presidential and vice-presidential debates. Despite the back and forth bickering between pundits about who really won the debates, the polls show that the American public feels that Obama-Biden came out on top. Now again, I don't know how much i trust these polls, especially since this article is from msnbc, but I'll go along with it. The polls also show that the people are more confident that Obama will improve the economy, get us out of the mortgage crisis and have better methods to deal with the energy and gas problems. Obama also seems to have been able to sway a lot of Independent voters with his performance in the debate, as he has taken the lead away from McCain according to Independent polls. In my opinion, none of these polls really mean too much. Even though Obama's lead is above the error margin, samples never perfectly reflect the whole population. With two debates left, there are still a lot of voters that can be swayed; especially as the market continues to decline despite the Bail Out. All in all, be prepared for a lot of pandering from both tickets as they attempt to gain votes in battleground states. I mean, Palin has already started with her pleas to Florida.
LINK TO ARTICLE
With less than one month to go until election day, Obama has put an even bigger margin between himself and McCain according to the sample polls. Now, I do not know how much I personally trust pre-election polls as they do not 100% represent the nation's attitude towards the candidates. However, these 658 registered voters that were used to derive this data are all that we have when trying to get a sense of what voters feel. The article states that Obama's recent jump in the polls is due to his reactions to the economic crisis, or more so the reactions of McCain to the economic crisis, as McCain's view that the economy is fundamentally strong seems to be losing him support. I mean, when you sit there and say the economy has strong fundamentals while it begins to crash and burn, how can you not expect to lose support? While McCain may have a good point in preaching a free-market economy with little regulation is still the way to go, the majority of people don't seem to be interested in anything that isn't immediate change. And we all know which candidate has been preaching "change" since day one. Another factor in Obama's current leap is the presidential and vice-presidential debates. Despite the back and forth bickering between pundits about who really won the debates, the polls show that the American public feels that Obama-Biden came out on top. Now again, I don't know how much i trust these polls, especially since this article is from msnbc, but I'll go along with it. The polls also show that the people are more confident that Obama will improve the economy, get us out of the mortgage crisis and have better methods to deal with the energy and gas problems. Obama also seems to have been able to sway a lot of Independent voters with his performance in the debate, as he has taken the lead away from McCain according to Independent polls. In my opinion, none of these polls really mean too much. Even though Obama's lead is above the error margin, samples never perfectly reflect the whole population. With two debates left, there are still a lot of voters that can be swayed; especially as the market continues to decline despite the Bail Out. All in all, be prepared for a lot of pandering from both tickets as they attempt to gain votes in battleground states. I mean, Palin has already started with her pleas to Florida.
LINK TO ARTICLE
Sunday, October 5, 2008
BAIL OUT BUST
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09302008/news/nationalnews/house_says_700_billion_times_no_131375.htm
WHAT WAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THINKING? We should automatically pass the 700 billion dollar bill because each precious minute that passes by the stock market plunges, jobs are lost thus loans and bills aren't paid, foreclosures and seizures of homes cars sky rocket and the cycle repeats itself. Surely if both presidential candidates say this is of the up most importance then this is a matter of grave importance and the bill should pass ,Or should we? Questions have a risen as if we should pass the bill or not. This also brings up several critical points to ponder. Hypothetically speaking if we were to pass the bill the money to fund would it be through a) through tax payers money? b) By printing more money? thus decreasing American dollar more than it already is or c) Both? That's not necessarily a good thing for tax payers but for major corporations it is which I might add most ceo of those companies is in a win- win situation. Their corporation goes down they walk away with a big fat check, or the company is saved they still get their big fat check. Something doesn't quite fit right, I'm not saying all ceo's are corrupt or how payroll distributed in business is wrong BUT I just see it unfair, unfit, unethical and unjust for most ceo 's to walk away with millions while the "little people"' lose everything they had. At first I was outraged as to why they did not pass the bill jumping to accusations and conclusions and not thinking of the facts first (like most Americans do) "it's because they’re not the one's being affected, it’s because whatever happens they still get paid, who put these people in to office?!" etc, but then I thought 700 billion is a large sum of money especially since the government isn't really paying for all of it, it’s the American tax payers. The reason I see the entire an issue a tad bit odd is that why do major corporations can continue to profit from the American society to go bankrupt and rely on the government to bail them out? I hypothesis that the stock market would plummet even more, jobs lost etc. effecting millions possibly world wide. What would happen if we were to pass the bill? Would the cycle continue, or would the government intervene more? And if the government didn't pass the bill is the other half of the story. Would America go through a "depression" or something equivalent? I know their are safety nets to avoid that but with the FDIC running low on money, and jobs losses sky rocketing, business closing, and the stock market plunging every day who doesn't see it as a depression? Either the government helps by bailing the major corporations or let corporations be punished for their wrong doing? Either way the American people are the ones that are truly paying the price. Literally.
WHAT WAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THINKING? We should automatically pass the 700 billion dollar bill because each precious minute that passes by the stock market plunges, jobs are lost thus loans and bills aren't paid, foreclosures and seizures of homes cars sky rocket and the cycle repeats itself. Surely if both presidential candidates say this is of the up most importance then this is a matter of grave importance and the bill should pass ,Or should we? Questions have a risen as if we should pass the bill or not. This also brings up several critical points to ponder. Hypothetically speaking if we were to pass the bill the money to fund would it be through a) through tax payers money? b) By printing more money? thus decreasing American dollar more than it already is or c) Both? That's not necessarily a good thing for tax payers but for major corporations it is which I might add most ceo of those companies is in a win- win situation. Their corporation goes down they walk away with a big fat check, or the company is saved they still get their big fat check. Something doesn't quite fit right, I'm not saying all ceo's are corrupt or how payroll distributed in business is wrong BUT I just see it unfair, unfit, unethical and unjust for most ceo 's to walk away with millions while the "little people"' lose everything they had. At first I was outraged as to why they did not pass the bill jumping to accusations and conclusions and not thinking of the facts first (like most Americans do) "it's because they’re not the one's being affected, it’s because whatever happens they still get paid, who put these people in to office?!" etc, but then I thought 700 billion is a large sum of money especially since the government isn't really paying for all of it, it’s the American tax payers. The reason I see the entire an issue a tad bit odd is that why do major corporations can continue to profit from the American society to go bankrupt and rely on the government to bail them out? I hypothesis that the stock market would plummet even more, jobs lost etc. effecting millions possibly world wide. What would happen if we were to pass the bill? Would the cycle continue, or would the government intervene more? And if the government didn't pass the bill is the other half of the story. Would America go through a "depression" or something equivalent? I know their are safety nets to avoid that but with the FDIC running low on money, and jobs losses sky rocketing, business closing, and the stock market plunging every day who doesn't see it as a depression? Either the government helps by bailing the major corporations or let corporations be punished for their wrong doing? Either way the American people are the ones that are truly paying the price. Literally.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Nuclear Energy: The Middle of Road Energy Policy
People like to think there's an easy answer to our energy problems. The truth is there's not. At the Vice Presidential debate last night, there was talk about how "clean coal" needs support. However according to the article it's unrealistic to capture and filter carbon dioxide. We need to stop looking for the perfect answer and just find the best one, one that is practical and realtivly efficient. Most people don't realize how large scale these energy products need to be to affect any change. We can't pump the carbon back into the ground effectively enough for anything to get better. While Obama believes that we should use clean coal as well as safe nuclear and renewable sources, McCain feels we should drill for oil and explore the options of nuclear and clean coal. From a logical point of view both candidates got it right with the nuclear energy. Nuclear is the most efficient and usable energy source. We should invest in ways to make it safer to store and dipose of waste products because in the long run it will be better for the country. Yes, radiation is a concern futher reseach could find ways to deal with that. Spening the extra money to fund research will be worth it if we can use nuclear power for years to come. Obama suggest soalr and wind energy, which sound like really great plans, use what we'll always have and have less pollutants, sounds perfect. Excpet no plan is perfect. I'm betting the land needed to carry out such huge projects is more than Americans are willing to give. Plus there's a big misconception that the only cost of wind and solar energy is installing the technology, when in fact we'll have to pay the people who's land we're leasing to put windfarms on. In the dark winter when we have no energy, liberals may be wishing they were'nt relying on solar power and when we've pumped the oil wells dry conservatives may be wishing we had a fall back plan. When you consider these somewhat extreme situtations middle of the road nuclear starts to sound pretty good.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/debates-on-clean-coal-and-caps/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/debates-on-clean-coal-and-caps/
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin to Square off against Biden Tonight in The Gateway City
This could get ugly. Sarah Palin, once sought to be the backbone of John McCain and the Republican party has fallen from grace, and at a time none worser than now when she has to face Joe Biden tonight in the first and only Vice Presidential debate in St. Louis at 9 PM ET. The spark plug for her party at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota a month or so ago has seemed to fizzle out and tonight she will take the national stage against Joe Biden who obviously has the upper-hand going in.
Sarah Palin has been under the watchful eye's of the media and the general public has seemed to almost fold under the pressure. In recent polls by the Washington Post-ABC News, six of ten voters feel Palin is incapable and lacks experience to be the President of the United States. In fact, half of those voters do not feel secure knowing John McCain's age of 72 and 85 % of those same voters feel Palin does not have the requisite experience to be President say McCain were to become President and then die during his term.
The Palin camp thinks differently. Sarah Palin plans to not hold back any punches in tonight's debate as she plans to exploit Biden's weaknesses on foreign policy and liberal approach to on taxes. A McCain official said "This is going to finally put her back into a position where we see her like we saw her the first couple weeks. She was herself, She was authentic, and people related to that. ... Tonight, she’ll get into a rhythm. You’re going to see her in a way that you haven’t seen her yet.” Biden, on the other hand, plans to concern more on attacking McCain along with discrediting Palin for her lack of experience.
It should be interesting because both Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are entering tonight with different strategies. Palin is on the defensive and Joe Biden is on the offensive. It will be a interesting to see who prevails in tonight's slug-fest but I think the night, in the end will belong to Biden. I think Palin will focus too much on attacking Biden and not enough time focusing on the issues at hand. I also think Joe Biden will be well prepared and have comebacks for Palin that she won't expect. Tonight will be tense for both parties and I think the outcome of the debate could greatly affect the outcome the Election for President in November.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Count on the times to publish an article so minimally biased, and almost completely fact based. I for one would never have been able to write an article so objective about Sarah Palin, a woman who I consider the to be the greatest threat to the country, if McCain is elected that is. I was surprised by some of her political stances and had my previous ideas confirmed by her other stances.
On the ill-addressed issue of health care, she has pushed to have more competition among hospitals by removing some of Alaska's regulations that deny the openings of more hospitals. This is the first sensible political policy that I've known her to have. Increased competition would lower prices without employing socialized health care, too which I am vehemently opposed.
However, I was not impressed by her foriegn policy experience in trade. Under her administration Alaska has taken a step back in its role in the Northern Forum, a move that has cost her valuable foriegn policy experience. If only she had stepped up into that role maybe she wouldn't have been as ridiculed by me, SNL and the media.
Her veiws on the enviroment sicken me. Drilling off-shore, drilling in ANWR, and the construction of a natural gas pipeline solely for job creation baffels me. Not to mention that the state of Alaska doesn't need the revenue it will gain from ravaging America's last true wilderness, they already have a surplus. On top of that, she is hard pressed to believe that human activity is the root cause of climate change.
I was happy to learn that as governor she is yet to impose her out dated social beliefs on Alaska.
"rescue the Rescue"
"Rescue the Rescue"
Thomas Friedman
New York Times op-ed
October 1st 2008
Thomas Friedman
New York Times op-ed
October 1st 2008
Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01friedman.html?ref=opinion
The much debated bailout has been criticized by republicans who favor small government and a free market economy. Yet, as the market falls there is more and more pressure to do something. Thomas Friedman's opinion is that a bailout makes sense and will give companies the confidence to lend. Having left for the holiday, congress will re-convene tonight, to make a judgment on the revised plan.
"I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots." This witty and worrisome analysis caught my attention, reminding me of our class discussion of the founding fathers. The "practical idealism" that they had caused them to strive for democracy while addressing the obvious pitfalls of human power. Three branches, checks and balances, and opposing factions were all set up with the intention of keeping order, however, Thomas Friedman claims that our leaders have failed us.
The problem seems to be that the economy is such a complex issue and we have too few people that understand it well enough to make a productive decision. In this article Friedman cites citizens' lobbying as part of the problem since the general public tends to know even less about the issue. Here we see the democratic ideal of everyone having a say working against the best interests of the country. Quick decisions made by people listening to sound bites can only lead the economy to further disaster.
"We’re all connected. As others have pointed out, you can’t save Main Street and punish Wall Street...you have to focus on saving the system, even if it means bailing out people who don’t deserve it." As he sees it, punishing Wall Street seems to be on the minds of many of the uninformed Americans frantically calling their congressmen, unaware that by lifting companies up we lift ourselves up.
That being said, it seems obvious to me that this bill must include major oversight. Executive salaries should be cut and the incredible sum of money that we will be dishing out should be carefully monitored. Keeping all of this in mind congress must move swiftly, if there's anything that Americans hate more than doing the wrong thing it's doing nothing.
The much debated bailout has been criticized by republicans who favor small government and a free market economy. Yet, as the market falls there is more and more pressure to do something. Thomas Friedman's opinion is that a bailout makes sense and will give companies the confidence to lend. Having left for the holiday, congress will re-convene tonight, to make a judgment on the revised plan.
"I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots." This witty and worrisome analysis caught my attention, reminding me of our class discussion of the founding fathers. The "practical idealism" that they had caused them to strive for democracy while addressing the obvious pitfalls of human power. Three branches, checks and balances, and opposing factions were all set up with the intention of keeping order, however, Thomas Friedman claims that our leaders have failed us.
The problem seems to be that the economy is such a complex issue and we have too few people that understand it well enough to make a productive decision. In this article Friedman cites citizens' lobbying as part of the problem since the general public tends to know even less about the issue. Here we see the democratic ideal of everyone having a say working against the best interests of the country. Quick decisions made by people listening to sound bites can only lead the economy to further disaster.
"We’re all connected. As others have pointed out, you can’t save Main Street and punish Wall Street...you have to focus on saving the system, even if it means bailing out people who don’t deserve it." As he sees it, punishing Wall Street seems to be on the minds of many of the uninformed Americans frantically calling their congressmen, unaware that by lifting companies up we lift ourselves up.
That being said, it seems obvious to me that this bill must include major oversight. Executive salaries should be cut and the incredible sum of money that we will be dishing out should be carefully monitored. Keeping all of this in mind congress must move swiftly, if there's anything that Americans hate more than doing the wrong thing it's doing nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)