Over the course of the past few days, we, as taxpayers and Americans, have come to find out that a portion of the government bailout money that was given to AIG has been given out to some of their executives, to the tune of $165mm (give or take a few million). 73 of their executives stood to gain a bonus of at least $ 1mm.
Please don't get me wrong - I am not against bonuses. I believe that they should be paid to people when a business is profitable, when people are doing a good job, when it is deserved.
However, I do believer it was unwise for AIG to pay these bonuses to their executives. Was it illegal? No. Were they contractually obligated to pay them? From what I understand, yes they were. Could those executives have chosen to turn down the bonuses? Yes. Many things could have happened better. But, what other companies have also paid this same kind of bonus from the government bailout funds that they received? Apparently, they paid enough to Democrats over the years to keep it quiet. How many of Obama's advisors received bonuses in the past from firms that are now failing? Many of them.
My problem, though, is not necessarily with AIG. My problem is with the government officials that allowed for this to happen in the first place. The bailout, first and foremost, was wrong and should never have happened. It is not the government's role to underwrite industry. By handing out money (that they did not have), they opened themselves up for this kind of mismanagement. And let us not forget, they inserted the clause into the bill that allowed for these bonuses to be paid in the first place. Had Congress been allowed to read the bill, maybe more would have voted against it had they known this clause was inserted.
Consider some of the principle characters in Congress (and Washington) that helped lead the charge on this bailout: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter, and the Obama administration. It is my contention that they had this amendment inserted into the bailout bill in order to create this anger we are seeing right now. They now have the opprotunity to harness the anger of the American people and use it as an excuse to have more government intervention into places where it should not be. The faux outrage shown by Congress (mostly Democrats, with a few Republicans joining in) is nauseating. They knew this was going to happen when they passed the bill. They knew well before the bonuses were paid that these bonuses would become public, yet they allowed it to happen. They wanted a political football to kick around to try and make themselves look good.
My problem is that there are too many people out there who are too dense to see this. They are too lazy to think about it and put the puzzle pieces together. They cannot see it as a government ploy to give the government more power. They see it as being the fault of AIG with no government responsibility whatsoever. People are so reliant on government now that they think government is the cure to everything.
Now, Congress wants to tax the bonuses to the tune of 90%. I am not sure that this is even legal (and Congress knows that), but they are going to try. They want the outrage to be focused on AIG, not on them. After all, government is the one that is causing things to fall apart. They need a scapegoat. Magicians would call it slight-of-hand. In football, it is referred to as a misdirection. In the Democrat Party, it is called blaming someone else.
Barney 'Banking Queen' Frank said in committee the other day that since it is his money, the government's money, the taxpayer's money, that we ought to go in and take it back. He wants the names of those who received bonus money to be released, regardless of the safety of those involved. Many on the loony left are threatening violence against these people. He does not care about safety. He only wants people to think he is being heroic in getting this money back. Many are too caught up in the anger of the moment to realize that this fruitcake helped cause the whole crisis in the first place.
Ultimately, the money was given to AIG (and other companies) to help them continue to do business and remain afloat so as to avoid bankruptcy. However, the government wants to tell them how to run their business (as if the government knew what it was doing). This is the problem you have when you allow government to get involved. They are not content watching from the sidelines. They want to run the show. Since they are handing out the money, they want to tell you how to spend it. This leads to socialism, which is the ultimate goal of these people.
This is the reason some governors do not want to accept stimulus money. It comes with too many strings attached. The governors know that by accepting the money, they will then accept the federal government's power to come in and tell them how to spend it. Who would know better how to spend moeny for the benefit of the state? Would it be the states? Or would it be the federal government? The answer is obvious.
It is time that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, say that enough is enough. Bailouts do not work. While it is not good that companies go bankrupt or go out of business, it has to be allowed to happen. Government intervention will not fix things. The strange thing about a free market is that it has the ability to heal itself. That is what happened in the 80's. That is what happened in the years after 9/11. It can happen again. In an age of instant gratification, we are not willing to be patient and allow for the free market to fix itself. We want it now, and people are unfortunately willing to give the government more power to try to fix things. Once the government has that power, they are not going to give it back. It is up to us to get it back from the government.
So I say to you: Get out and nominate conservative candidates that know the power belongs to the Americans, not to the government. Vote those clowns out of office that think government is the answer. Do your part. I will surely do mine, starting with being active in campaigns to unseat my Congressman and my Senator. Remember, the Constitution starts out "We the people...". It does not say "We the government.."
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The effort to re-write recent history
It is my contention that the education system that is in place in today’s public schools no longer teaches people how to think. Rather, they teach people what to think. The schools want to teach their own revised version of history instead of allowing people to find out for themselves the events that actually did happen.
Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.
Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.
Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.
When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.
However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.
All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.
Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.
Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.
This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.
Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.
Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.
Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.
When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.
However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.
All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.
Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.
Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.
This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Defeating Arlen Specter, Part II
Arlen Specter is now on a save-my-face tour, defending his vote for the President's stimulus bill. I am astounded at his patent disregard for the people that voted for him. As conservatives, we knew we could not consistently rely on a good vote from him, but he did come through occasionally.
Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.
On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)
While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.
Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.
If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.
Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.
On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)
While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.
Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.
If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
More thoughts on the so-called economic stimulus package
Well, it looks like a few RINOs have caved in and made a deal with the Democrats in the Senate. They have reduced the $827 billion stimulus plan to $780 billion, a whopping $47 billion decrease for those of you who are not very good at simple subtraction.
This so-called compromise was reached last night. If this is not annoying enough, Senate Majority Leader (and the most partisan, hateful, spiteful, mean, bitter, ornery man in the Senate) Harry Reid wanted to bring it up for a vote last night, before anyone had a chance to look through it and scrutinize the spending. He says it is too important to wait. I am going to paraphrase the quote I heard on the news today, "We can tell who the people are that want to get work done around here."
Excuse me!?!?!? Is it wrong to want to read and review a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers (yes, it will cost us - it is not free) at least $ 780,000,000,000 (it will probably cost much more)? I don't think so. It would be irresponsible not to look at it.
He does not want people to read it for fear that we will find out what spending they want to attach to it. They want to fund all of their pet projects and basically buy votes in order to maintain their power base. This is sad and pathetic. It is immoral. In fact, it is almost criminal.
Many people are starting to see that government spending will not get us out of economic trouble. It will only dig us deeper. The public is generally against more government spending (as can be seen in recent polls), especially in the form of this so-called stimulus. So why are these poll-driven, self-serving, so-called public servants seeking to pass this bill anyway? It is very early in this congressional term, and they hope people forget it before the elections. They want it to be said of them that they did something about it. In their eyes, it is better to do something, even though it will be a colossal failure, than it would be to do nothing at all.
The same people that complained about excessive budget deficits during the Bush years are no where to be found now. Why? Because the deficit never really mattered to them in the first place. They only care about power and maintaining that power.
They do not want more tax cuts because they know tax cuts work. They worked in the 80's under Reagan and they worked in the early parts of this decade under Bush. Tax rates were decreased and revenue to the treasury increased. Tax cuts actually brought more money into the treasury because people had more money to spend, businesses had more money to spend, so more people were employed. People made more money. The government was not standing in the way of prosperity (at least, not as much as they are now).
When you have a chance, read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The Democrats are equivalent to the pigs. They ran the farmers out of town because the farmers were abusing the animals. The pigs took control of the farm and became the leaders. The people who support the Democrats are like the horse. They see the rules changing (there is never a massive change at any one time, only little changes). Over time, these changes became diametrically opposed to the original intent of the rules. However, over time, the pigs became just like the farmers that they ran out of town. It is sad to say that Orwell's thesis is coming true in today's society.
The Democrats do not want the electorate to have more power. Rather, they want us to dependent on government to get us out of this. They want us to be reliant on government in all aspects of our life, as that will keep them in power. This is not what the founding fathers intended. And we should not allow it.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know that you are against. Demand that they vote against this. Let them know we do not want socialism in this country. It has not worked anywhere else, and we want no part of it. Do not accept an answer from them that they are going to vote for this. They work for you.
This so-called compromise was reached last night. If this is not annoying enough, Senate Majority Leader (and the most partisan, hateful, spiteful, mean, bitter, ornery man in the Senate) Harry Reid wanted to bring it up for a vote last night, before anyone had a chance to look through it and scrutinize the spending. He says it is too important to wait. I am going to paraphrase the quote I heard on the news today, "We can tell who the people are that want to get work done around here."
Excuse me!?!?!? Is it wrong to want to read and review a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers (yes, it will cost us - it is not free) at least $ 780,000,000,000 (it will probably cost much more)? I don't think so. It would be irresponsible not to look at it.
He does not want people to read it for fear that we will find out what spending they want to attach to it. They want to fund all of their pet projects and basically buy votes in order to maintain their power base. This is sad and pathetic. It is immoral. In fact, it is almost criminal.
Many people are starting to see that government spending will not get us out of economic trouble. It will only dig us deeper. The public is generally against more government spending (as can be seen in recent polls), especially in the form of this so-called stimulus. So why are these poll-driven, self-serving, so-called public servants seeking to pass this bill anyway? It is very early in this congressional term, and they hope people forget it before the elections. They want it to be said of them that they did something about it. In their eyes, it is better to do something, even though it will be a colossal failure, than it would be to do nothing at all.
The same people that complained about excessive budget deficits during the Bush years are no where to be found now. Why? Because the deficit never really mattered to them in the first place. They only care about power and maintaining that power.
They do not want more tax cuts because they know tax cuts work. They worked in the 80's under Reagan and they worked in the early parts of this decade under Bush. Tax rates were decreased and revenue to the treasury increased. Tax cuts actually brought more money into the treasury because people had more money to spend, businesses had more money to spend, so more people were employed. People made more money. The government was not standing in the way of prosperity (at least, not as much as they are now).
When you have a chance, read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The Democrats are equivalent to the pigs. They ran the farmers out of town because the farmers were abusing the animals. The pigs took control of the farm and became the leaders. The people who support the Democrats are like the horse. They see the rules changing (there is never a massive change at any one time, only little changes). Over time, these changes became diametrically opposed to the original intent of the rules. However, over time, the pigs became just like the farmers that they ran out of town. It is sad to say that Orwell's thesis is coming true in today's society.
The Democrats do not want the electorate to have more power. Rather, they want us to dependent on government to get us out of this. They want us to be reliant on government in all aspects of our life, as that will keep them in power. This is not what the founding fathers intended. And we should not allow it.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know that you are against. Demand that they vote against this. Let them know we do not want socialism in this country. It has not worked anywhere else, and we want no part of it. Do not accept an answer from them that they are going to vote for this. They work for you.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Economic Ignorance of our President
President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Who is using the politics of fear now?
President Obama has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. He is looking to garner support for his economic stimulus bill. He looks for support by attempting to frighten the reader into supporting his economic plan. He says that every day that we fail to pass a stimulus plan, more people will lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes, etc. (sounds like a country music song).
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
An open letter to President Obama concerning the economy
Mr. President,
I am sure that I am not the only one in this country who disagrees with you on how to get this country through the economic difficulties that we now face. With house prices retreating, house and car sales falling, unemployment increasing, and overall hesitation about the American economy as a whole, the last thing we need in this country is more government spending.
You mentioned this week that this is not the time for companies to be making huge profits. I would vehemently disagree with you. This is exactly what we do need. You see, when companies make profits, it not only benefits the executives (which you think are being paid too much money), it also benefits the employees, as they will not need to lose their jobs, and it may even lead to job creation within that company. It also benefits stockholders in the form of dividends. It is the growth of business that has helped make this country great. It is not this country that has made its corporations great by dictating to them what their financials should be.
Also, I have heard it bandied about that the pay of top executives should be limited. This is also a bad idea. While we may look at these executives and think they make too much money, we are doing so in comparison to our own salary. My problem is that if the government says executives are only allowed to make a certain amount of money, where will it stop? It would open the door for the government to tell more people how much they can and cannot make in the form of salary. It is a slippery slope that we should stay as far away from as possible.
I would also like to say that tax cuts are a good thing. However, to cut something that someone does not pay anyway is really a handout (or welfare, in this case), it is not a tax cut. Welfare only makes people more reliant on the government and takes away their ambition. Tax cuts should be directed at those who actually pay taxes. It should be aimed at small businesses, at corporations. They are the instruments that keep this economy rolling through the hiring of employees, through offering their goods and services on the open market. It is not the time to put more obstacles in front of them. Rather, it is the time to get out of their way and let them do what they do best.
Federal spending will not get us out of the current economic situation. In my view, it will only dig us deeper. Throughout the 8 years of President Bush, many Democrats criticized the President and the Republicans for running up the deficit. (As a sidebar, it is Congress's deficit, not the President's. The Congress spends the money, all the President does is sing the bill). Anyway, the criticism for running up the deficit is justified (except in the case of national defense). Anyway, where are these same deficit hawks from your side of the aisle now? They have conveniently used the deficit as a political ploy, not caring about it at all and using it for their own political advantage. You you are guilty of this same thing during the general election cycle. Yet, no one in Washington is willing to cut spending anywhere in order to balance the budget.
Where is the government going to get more money to spend? If people are losing their jobs, then there is less money finding its way into the federal government's coffers. If there is less money flowing toward Washington, how can they spend more? The answer is that they can print their own. Yet, this floods the market with U.S. Dollars and has the side effect of devaluing the dollar on the open market, thus increasing the cost of goods and causing inflation to occur.
We have examples throughout history where we see where government spending will not help us out of recessionary times. The Great Depression is a prime example. While unemployment did decrease to a certain extent during the New Deal era, it was not until World War II that the U.S. came out of the Depression. The New Deal did not get us there. The Great Society did not do anything to help us out as a country. It only served to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves to go out and earn a living and pay their bills. Ronald Reagan inherited huge tax rates and high unemployment from Jimmy Carter. It was not until he was able to pass tax cuts that America was able to dig out an economic abyss.
We have banks that rewarded people with mortgages for more than they could afford. This was done so that they could continue to receive funds and not be penalized. Basically, the government was sponsoring predatory lending. And leaders of Congress were in on it. At times, some members of Congress (but not nearly enough of them) tried to reform this, but some prominent Democrats stood in the way. This was a unique way for them to buy votes, and nothing was done to stop it.
As I see it, it is your goal to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves. It is government's responsibility to protect us so that we can live freely. It is not government's responsibility to tell us how to live. But that is where you are leading us. What I do not understand is why. We see that this government controlled lifestyle (i.e. Socialism) did not work for the Soviet Union. It is not working in China. Venezuela is trying it, and their economy is tanking as Hugo Chavez works to nationalize everything. Cuba has managed to sustain socialism, but they are so far behind the rest of the world that they really do not matter.
Our founding fathers realized that it would be the people in this country that made the country great. It would not be the country that made our people great. That is why they limited the powers of the federal government and relegated much of the power to the states. However, over time, the federal government has usurped that authority and the states have done nothing to stand in the way. It is only by returning power to the people that this country will rise again to its prominent position as the leading player on the world stage. Why will you no let the happen? Are you afraid of that? Do you really want us to be great again? Or would you rather us cede power over to the U.N. and become just another country? I would rather us be a leader and not a follower.
Why do you seek to silence your critics? You say that you want bipartisanship in Washington. I do not understand where this came from, as you were nowhere close to wanting this while President Bush was in office. And bipartisanship means meeting in the middle, not getting everyone to be on your side. There is both give and take in the process, not just take. And your smokescreen of reaching out to conservatives is not working. If you were really interested in reaching out, you would have reached out to true conservatives, not Washington elite media members. While the people who voted for you might be too stupid to see through this, the rest of us do.
One more thing: You need to stop allowing your media arm to twist the words of political commentators and start reporting the news correctly. MSNBC is constantly attacking Fox News. Perhaps, they could learn from Fox News in order to get people to watch them. They could occasionally have a conservative on their shows to counter the ultra liberal arguments put forth by their hosts and guests. They could report news, not give their political twist on it. They could fire Keith Olbermann, the moveon.org talking head.
Also, do not go after Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he does have a loyal following, and we are by no means some kind of political robots. We are able to think things out logically and see the harm that you are doing. We are passionate about our beliefs and the greatness of this country. Perhaps it would do some good for you to listen, instead of taking his words out of context and twisting them to try and gain an advantage with an under informed public. You know he said that if you were able to implement your liberal policies that he wanted to see you fail in that respect. It was directed at your policies, and not directed to you as a person (after all, it was your party that started the 'We support the troops but not thier cause' argument). You know what he said and meant and your people know this, too. Stop lying to the general public about it. Rush has close to 20,000,000 listeners, of which probably 98.3% agree with him. That is a large chunk of the population that you choose to marginalize.
I realize you will most likely not read this letter, but it comes from the heart. America is great because it is a country built on sweat, blood, and the hard work of its people. It is not great because of clever laws that the government has chosen to make over time. We need to continue to be a leader in this world. If other countries do not like us in this leadership, that is their problem. We should not be loosening our standards in order to come down to their level. We need to do what we can to bring them up to our level.
Thank You.
Adam Matesevac
Concerned Citizen
I am sure that I am not the only one in this country who disagrees with you on how to get this country through the economic difficulties that we now face. With house prices retreating, house and car sales falling, unemployment increasing, and overall hesitation about the American economy as a whole, the last thing we need in this country is more government spending.
You mentioned this week that this is not the time for companies to be making huge profits. I would vehemently disagree with you. This is exactly what we do need. You see, when companies make profits, it not only benefits the executives (which you think are being paid too much money), it also benefits the employees, as they will not need to lose their jobs, and it may even lead to job creation within that company. It also benefits stockholders in the form of dividends. It is the growth of business that has helped make this country great. It is not this country that has made its corporations great by dictating to them what their financials should be.
Also, I have heard it bandied about that the pay of top executives should be limited. This is also a bad idea. While we may look at these executives and think they make too much money, we are doing so in comparison to our own salary. My problem is that if the government says executives are only allowed to make a certain amount of money, where will it stop? It would open the door for the government to tell more people how much they can and cannot make in the form of salary. It is a slippery slope that we should stay as far away from as possible.
I would also like to say that tax cuts are a good thing. However, to cut something that someone does not pay anyway is really a handout (or welfare, in this case), it is not a tax cut. Welfare only makes people more reliant on the government and takes away their ambition. Tax cuts should be directed at those who actually pay taxes. It should be aimed at small businesses, at corporations. They are the instruments that keep this economy rolling through the hiring of employees, through offering their goods and services on the open market. It is not the time to put more obstacles in front of them. Rather, it is the time to get out of their way and let them do what they do best.
Federal spending will not get us out of the current economic situation. In my view, it will only dig us deeper. Throughout the 8 years of President Bush, many Democrats criticized the President and the Republicans for running up the deficit. (As a sidebar, it is Congress's deficit, not the President's. The Congress spends the money, all the President does is sing the bill). Anyway, the criticism for running up the deficit is justified (except in the case of national defense). Anyway, where are these same deficit hawks from your side of the aisle now? They have conveniently used the deficit as a political ploy, not caring about it at all and using it for their own political advantage. You you are guilty of this same thing during the general election cycle. Yet, no one in Washington is willing to cut spending anywhere in order to balance the budget.
Where is the government going to get more money to spend? If people are losing their jobs, then there is less money finding its way into the federal government's coffers. If there is less money flowing toward Washington, how can they spend more? The answer is that they can print their own. Yet, this floods the market with U.S. Dollars and has the side effect of devaluing the dollar on the open market, thus increasing the cost of goods and causing inflation to occur.
We have examples throughout history where we see where government spending will not help us out of recessionary times. The Great Depression is a prime example. While unemployment did decrease to a certain extent during the New Deal era, it was not until World War II that the U.S. came out of the Depression. The New Deal did not get us there. The Great Society did not do anything to help us out as a country. It only served to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves to go out and earn a living and pay their bills. Ronald Reagan inherited huge tax rates and high unemployment from Jimmy Carter. It was not until he was able to pass tax cuts that America was able to dig out an economic abyss.
We have banks that rewarded people with mortgages for more than they could afford. This was done so that they could continue to receive funds and not be penalized. Basically, the government was sponsoring predatory lending. And leaders of Congress were in on it. At times, some members of Congress (but not nearly enough of them) tried to reform this, but some prominent Democrats stood in the way. This was a unique way for them to buy votes, and nothing was done to stop it.
As I see it, it is your goal to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves. It is government's responsibility to protect us so that we can live freely. It is not government's responsibility to tell us how to live. But that is where you are leading us. What I do not understand is why. We see that this government controlled lifestyle (i.e. Socialism) did not work for the Soviet Union. It is not working in China. Venezuela is trying it, and their economy is tanking as Hugo Chavez works to nationalize everything. Cuba has managed to sustain socialism, but they are so far behind the rest of the world that they really do not matter.
Our founding fathers realized that it would be the people in this country that made the country great. It would not be the country that made our people great. That is why they limited the powers of the federal government and relegated much of the power to the states. However, over time, the federal government has usurped that authority and the states have done nothing to stand in the way. It is only by returning power to the people that this country will rise again to its prominent position as the leading player on the world stage. Why will you no let the happen? Are you afraid of that? Do you really want us to be great again? Or would you rather us cede power over to the U.N. and become just another country? I would rather us be a leader and not a follower.
Why do you seek to silence your critics? You say that you want bipartisanship in Washington. I do not understand where this came from, as you were nowhere close to wanting this while President Bush was in office. And bipartisanship means meeting in the middle, not getting everyone to be on your side. There is both give and take in the process, not just take. And your smokescreen of reaching out to conservatives is not working. If you were really interested in reaching out, you would have reached out to true conservatives, not Washington elite media members. While the people who voted for you might be too stupid to see through this, the rest of us do.
One more thing: You need to stop allowing your media arm to twist the words of political commentators and start reporting the news correctly. MSNBC is constantly attacking Fox News. Perhaps, they could learn from Fox News in order to get people to watch them. They could occasionally have a conservative on their shows to counter the ultra liberal arguments put forth by their hosts and guests. They could report news, not give their political twist on it. They could fire Keith Olbermann, the moveon.org talking head.
Also, do not go after Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he does have a loyal following, and we are by no means some kind of political robots. We are able to think things out logically and see the harm that you are doing. We are passionate about our beliefs and the greatness of this country. Perhaps it would do some good for you to listen, instead of taking his words out of context and twisting them to try and gain an advantage with an under informed public. You know he said that if you were able to implement your liberal policies that he wanted to see you fail in that respect. It was directed at your policies, and not directed to you as a person (after all, it was your party that started the 'We support the troops but not thier cause' argument). You know what he said and meant and your people know this, too. Stop lying to the general public about it. Rush has close to 20,000,000 listeners, of which probably 98.3% agree with him. That is a large chunk of the population that you choose to marginalize.
I realize you will most likely not read this letter, but it comes from the heart. America is great because it is a country built on sweat, blood, and the hard work of its people. It is not great because of clever laws that the government has chosen to make over time. We need to continue to be a leader in this world. If other countries do not like us in this leadership, that is their problem. We should not be loosening our standards in order to come down to their level. We need to do what we can to bring them up to our level.
Thank You.
Adam Matesevac
Concerned Citizen
Monday, January 5, 2009
A tax cut for the middle class
It has come out in the press that President-elect Obama would like to offer a substantial tax cut to the middle class. While I am for cutting taxes, I am trying to figure out how you can cut someone's taxes who does not pay taxes. Would this not end up as nothing more than a handout?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)