Let's see if this works on a regular Blogger layout?
There should be some "Reactions" buttons to push/click right below this post.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Say what?
I started this as a comment, but it got too long. So I decided to make it a post:
Okay. First, take a deep breath.
Next, Socialism is a form of the control of the ownership of the "means of production and distribution of goods". In other words the State (government) owns the business. There is nothing (that I know of) in Barack's plans that qualify as Socialism.
Where are you getting this idea that Obama is going to raise taxes? I believe that his plan is to cut taxes for the middle class--that's you and me.
Hoover did not cause the Great Depression. While the causes of the Depression are argued over, the most common theme that I see is the fact the a majority of the people lost all of their savings and no one had any money to spend, which in turn caused our consumer-driven economy to fail. Taxes were not involved. The scary thing about 1929 and 2009 is the commonality of the credit bubble which collapsed in both periods.
I have always rejected the premise that the President is at fault for, or can fix, the country's economy. At most, the Federal Reserve Board (that would be Ben Bernake) can control, to a certain extent, the flow of money and credit. The mess that we are in right now is a direct result of people believing that they can spend more than they make. The credit bubble has burst and we are headed for a difficult, but necessary, recovery.
I have also been thinking about what you said about Tim proving that anyone can go to college. Well, my kids have been blessed. And Tim worked two and three jobs to pay for school. (In 4 years of school he only asked us to pay his tuition twice). The point is that he was able to find jobs and work his way through school. He's a white boy from a middle class family and he had that opportunity. Do you really think that a black boy, or brown boy, from a poorer family has the same opportunity? I don't. They don't have same job opportunities. They don't have the same educational opportunities. But they should.
Okay. First, take a deep breath.
Next, Socialism is a form of the control of the ownership of the "means of production and distribution of goods". In other words the State (government) owns the business. There is nothing (that I know of) in Barack's plans that qualify as Socialism.
Where are you getting this idea that Obama is going to raise taxes? I believe that his plan is to cut taxes for the middle class--that's you and me.
Hoover did not cause the Great Depression. While the causes of the Depression are argued over, the most common theme that I see is the fact the a majority of the people lost all of their savings and no one had any money to spend, which in turn caused our consumer-driven economy to fail. Taxes were not involved. The scary thing about 1929 and 2009 is the commonality of the credit bubble which collapsed in both periods.
I have always rejected the premise that the President is at fault for, or can fix, the country's economy. At most, the Federal Reserve Board (that would be Ben Bernake) can control, to a certain extent, the flow of money and credit. The mess that we are in right now is a direct result of people believing that they can spend more than they make. The credit bubble has burst and we are headed for a difficult, but necessary, recovery.
I have also been thinking about what you said about Tim proving that anyone can go to college. Well, my kids have been blessed. And Tim worked two and three jobs to pay for school. (In 4 years of school he only asked us to pay his tuition twice). The point is that he was able to find jobs and work his way through school. He's a white boy from a middle class family and he had that opportunity. Do you really think that a black boy, or brown boy, from a poorer family has the same opportunity? I don't. They don't have same job opportunities. They don't have the same educational opportunities. But they should.
Herbert Hoover and Obama?
Ever since I heard Senator McCain mention President Hoover and Senator Obama in the same sentence I was pretty annoyed. At the time I couldn't quite remember the exact policies of Hoover, but I had a feeling that the McCain campaign was banking on that. They figured most Americans wouldn't know whether or not Hoovers policies were anything like Obama's, and most probably wouldn't take the time to look in to it.
It seems like a scare tactic, one to make voters weary of Obama, and I personally cannot stand those kind of politics. Politicians should speak truth. Everyone in this election is just out for their own gain. Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden, their campaign managers, even the interns working for them at the very bottom. They all care about themselves more than the general public. I have a hard time thinking any of them are actually in "public service". It makes me not want to vote for anyone, but that won't change the fact that one of them is going to be in charge of this country. I don't want my president to cheat and lie his way in to office, even if he does only care about his own gain.
With that said, here are some things I read about Hoover in a history book. One that had to go through reviews, and approvals, and editing before it was published. In other words it is legitimate. The book is called Uncommon Americans, edited by Timothy Welch.
Hoover chose to rely on volunteerism and on the private sector to be responsible for fixing economic stresses. He felt like it was the responsibility of the new social elite (university educated businessmen, engineers, etc...) to stabilize the economy. In other words, less government. In November 1929 he held a series of conferences in Washington for nearly 400 of the nations leading business execs. The plan was for these leading businesses to create voluntary committees whose goals were made to stabilize employment, and maintain wages across the nation. By 1930 this was central to Hoovers economic plan. However with time these volunteer committees began to fail, and by 1931 the entire idea was a failure. Private business men were looking out for their own good (similar to the way they do now) rather than doing their part in fixing the economy.
That may seem like a tangent, but I feel like it is relevant to the point.
Hoover initially cut taxes in response to the depression.
Prior to his presidency Hoover was known for being an exceptional crisis management politician, notably for his role in feeding post-war hunger stricken Europe. I bring that up only to say that, he cared about the depression, he wanted to fix it, he tried to come up with solutions the same way he had in the past. However, the depression was too big to fix.
I wanted to provide a few more examples, but this is getting too long and I don't want to lose my point.
Obama wants more government, Hoovers solution was less. They don't have the same economic policies whatsoever. I think the McCain campaign insinuating that Obama will have the same effects on the country that Hoover did is unfair.
Julie, I would agree with you that socialism isn't the best economic policy, but I don't think sharing the wealth from the top of a society to help the bottom is a bad thing at all, nor is it socialism.
The bottom line is that we are in a consumer driven economy, if 1-2% of a population control an overwhelming amount of the wealth in a consumer driven economy and the other 98% of people don't have the money to buy anything (cars, homes, etc...) than the consumer economy is in trouble. The economy can't be kept alive by 2% of the population buying stuff. To me it makes sense to take care of the middle and lower classes. If you don't take care of the people who hold the economy up the people at the top will fall just as hard.
I think I'm finished with this post, I've been doing it at work throughout the day when I've had time. I hope that my point is coming across and wasn't lost in the process of writing a blog post over the course of a few hours.
It seems like a scare tactic, one to make voters weary of Obama, and I personally cannot stand those kind of politics. Politicians should speak truth. Everyone in this election is just out for their own gain. Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden, their campaign managers, even the interns working for them at the very bottom. They all care about themselves more than the general public. I have a hard time thinking any of them are actually in "public service". It makes me not want to vote for anyone, but that won't change the fact that one of them is going to be in charge of this country. I don't want my president to cheat and lie his way in to office, even if he does only care about his own gain.
With that said, here are some things I read about Hoover in a history book. One that had to go through reviews, and approvals, and editing before it was published. In other words it is legitimate. The book is called Uncommon Americans, edited by Timothy Welch.
Hoover chose to rely on volunteerism and on the private sector to be responsible for fixing economic stresses. He felt like it was the responsibility of the new social elite (university educated businessmen, engineers, etc...) to stabilize the economy. In other words, less government. In November 1929 he held a series of conferences in Washington for nearly 400 of the nations leading business execs. The plan was for these leading businesses to create voluntary committees whose goals were made to stabilize employment, and maintain wages across the nation. By 1930 this was central to Hoovers economic plan. However with time these volunteer committees began to fail, and by 1931 the entire idea was a failure. Private business men were looking out for their own good (similar to the way they do now) rather than doing their part in fixing the economy.
That may seem like a tangent, but I feel like it is relevant to the point.
Hoover initially cut taxes in response to the depression.
Prior to his presidency Hoover was known for being an exceptional crisis management politician, notably for his role in feeding post-war hunger stricken Europe. I bring that up only to say that, he cared about the depression, he wanted to fix it, he tried to come up with solutions the same way he had in the past. However, the depression was too big to fix.
I wanted to provide a few more examples, but this is getting too long and I don't want to lose my point.
Obama wants more government, Hoovers solution was less. They don't have the same economic policies whatsoever. I think the McCain campaign insinuating that Obama will have the same effects on the country that Hoover did is unfair.
Julie, I would agree with you that socialism isn't the best economic policy, but I don't think sharing the wealth from the top of a society to help the bottom is a bad thing at all, nor is it socialism.
The bottom line is that we are in a consumer driven economy, if 1-2% of a population control an overwhelming amount of the wealth in a consumer driven economy and the other 98% of people don't have the money to buy anything (cars, homes, etc...) than the consumer economy is in trouble. The economy can't be kept alive by 2% of the population buying stuff. To me it makes sense to take care of the middle and lower classes. If you don't take care of the people who hold the economy up the people at the top will fall just as hard.
I think I'm finished with this post, I've been doing it at work throughout the day when I've had time. I hope that my point is coming across and wasn't lost in the process of writing a blog post over the course of a few hours.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What I Heard On The Radio Today
From Obama's comments about "spreading the wealth around", I heard the commentator on the radio call that Socialism. I am coming out and saying I am just not for that. I don't think that people in government today can be honest enough to do it correctly.
Instead of waiting for Mr. Rich down the street to pay his taxes so I can get benefits, I would rather teach the importance of education, good choices, thinking ahead, what you want to do with your life, achievement! Everyone can go to college - Tim proved that! I don't get Obama when he talks about making college available to all. I thought it already was; maybe not Yale, Harvard, USC, but certainly your community college will do fine.
We have all given money to someone needy on the street before, that was our CHOICE. I would not like to be FORCED to do it. I heard someone say today that "Cuba was a beautiful place, they were all poor together". That doesn't sound like the America I want.
Raising taxes during a time of a soft economy is VERY bad. The last President who did that was Herbert Hoover and that caused the great depression. hmm
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Prop 8
Hey Tatia/Don -
Ask your Sacramento relatives if they are doing anything for Prop 8. It is a huge deal in this area, I am assuming it is the same up there. It is a big deal up at BYU to have your CA people all registered to vote and get an absentee ballot. There have been meetings about this at BYU! I am curious.
Inquire, then comment!
Prop 8: to keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman and it will be an amendment to the Constitution
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
UGH! UGH! UGH!
I forgot the stupid blog goes backward so my FIRST post is way down the list and the last post is the first one you see. UGHUGHUGH... hey - ugh turns into hug!
Economic Turn-around plan
Obama’s plan includes: jumpstarting the economy, provides middle class tax relief, reforms foreign market trade, includes job creation, supports small businesses, increases minimum wage, protects homeownership, cracks down on mortgage fraud, addresses predatory credit card practices, reforms bankruptcy laws and supports a more dynamic work/family balance.
That’s what McCain’s plan includes, too. They just have different ways of going about it.
That’s what McCain’s plan includes, too. They just have different ways of going about it.
Are we having fun yet?
I am having so much fun I am giggling...
A MAVERICK? McCain is on the record as having crossed party lines a number of times in sponsoring legislation (that I disagreed with) and on various voting issues. Obama is on the record as having never crossed party lines at all.
Obama has declared himself to be a “progressive democrat”. Generally speaking, Democrats believe that government should have a greater role in solving life’s problems. Democrats believe that is the right and honorable way to treat people. Of course we need to help people. But, government takes that responsibility away from the individual.
I believe that our very purpose here in life is to take individual responsibility for ourselves and not give it over to another person or group of people. Life is a lot harder that way, but so much better in the end. I believe average, everyday people become both stronger and kinder with adversity.
OPINION: BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM: I suppose I could have found a nonreligious way of saying that, but those words come naturally…
A MAVERICK? McCain is on the record as having crossed party lines a number of times in sponsoring legislation (that I disagreed with) and on various voting issues. Obama is on the record as having never crossed party lines at all.
Obama has declared himself to be a “progressive democrat”. Generally speaking, Democrats believe that government should have a greater role in solving life’s problems. Democrats believe that is the right and honorable way to treat people. Of course we need to help people. But, government takes that responsibility away from the individual.
I believe that our very purpose here in life is to take individual responsibility for ourselves and not give it over to another person or group of people. Life is a lot harder that way, but so much better in the end. I believe average, everyday people become both stronger and kinder with adversity.
OPINION: BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM: I suppose I could have found a nonreligious way of saying that, but those words come naturally…
TAXES
Regardless of what Obama claims his tax plan will do, (see "facts, figures & misinformation) he has openly acknowledged that he believes in a progressive tax code and that redistributing wealth is the best road for America. I believe in a flat tax (which we don’t have) and I do not believe that the government should decide what to do with my hard-earned money.
America, along with Japan, has the highest corporate tax rates IN THE WORLD. When Don owned his private practice, he would leave the house at 6:30 am and not return until after 6:30 at night. He would have to fight insurance claims to be paid fairly for the work he had done. When the payments came, almost 40% of that money went straight to the government and that didn’t include his overhead. He worked 12 hour days and brought home maybe 30% of what he EARNED. I don’t believe in redistribution. McCain isn’t going to provide a flat tax, but he does believe that Americans should be in charge of most of the money they work for, not the government.
America, along with Japan, has the highest corporate tax rates IN THE WORLD. When Don owned his private practice, he would leave the house at 6:30 am and not return until after 6:30 at night. He would have to fight insurance claims to be paid fairly for the work he had done. When the payments came, almost 40% of that money went straight to the government and that didn’t include his overhead. He worked 12 hour days and brought home maybe 30% of what he EARNED. I don’t believe in redistribution. McCain isn’t going to provide a flat tax, but he does believe that Americans should be in charge of most of the money they work for, not the government.
EXPERIENCE AND GWB...
For a long time I continued to be a GWB supporter. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Truthfully, much of that support came because I hold his father and mother in high regard. (Let’s not get started on that. GB is in the history books). But deep within myself I grew more and more uneasy, not only about specific decisions, but about how those decisions were made. I have tried to make some sense out of it.
GWB had 6 years of experience as governor when he was elected. He was known as a politician who had the proven ability to cross party lines, to create consensus between politicians to do what was right for that state. That was actually the main reason I voted for him. When 9/11 occurred, he had been in office as president for only 9 months. As I look back at that time, I think he was so highly affected that it became the overriding cause for the rest of his presidency. I think he was more affected than the average American because, #1 – he was present at ground zero during the height of the rescue efforts. 5 years later when I visited ground zero, I was highly affected. I cannot imagine what those who were there in 2001 went through. #2 – He was a very real target and it was a very close call.
In the end, I believe it was his lack of experience that led to incautious decisions. Experience is Life’s greatest teacher, and for the greatest position in our government, I believe that experience is of tremendous importance. Generally speaking, the more life experience you have, the better equipped you are to deal with life’s difficulties.
I don’t think John McCain is the greatest candidate, but he does have knowledge that comes with experience.
Obama spent 6 years as a state senator, and for the 3 years he has been in the United States Senate he has spent the majority of that time on the road campaigning to be President of the United States. I can't think of a single Utah state senator that I would throw into the presidency fo the US.
GWB had 6 years of experience as governor when he was elected. He was known as a politician who had the proven ability to cross party lines, to create consensus between politicians to do what was right for that state. That was actually the main reason I voted for him. When 9/11 occurred, he had been in office as president for only 9 months. As I look back at that time, I think he was so highly affected that it became the overriding cause for the rest of his presidency. I think he was more affected than the average American because, #1 – he was present at ground zero during the height of the rescue efforts. 5 years later when I visited ground zero, I was highly affected. I cannot imagine what those who were there in 2001 went through. #2 – He was a very real target and it was a very close call.
In the end, I believe it was his lack of experience that led to incautious decisions. Experience is Life’s greatest teacher, and for the greatest position in our government, I believe that experience is of tremendous importance. Generally speaking, the more life experience you have, the better equipped you are to deal with life’s difficulties.
I don’t think John McCain is the greatest candidate, but he does have knowledge that comes with experience.
Obama spent 6 years as a state senator, and for the 3 years he has been in the United States Senate he has spent the majority of that time on the road campaigning to be President of the United States. I can't think of a single Utah state senator that I would throw into the presidency fo the US.
Primary sources
PRIMARY SOURCES: That includes all claims of “he voted for/against such and such legislation” since the legislation process is just not that simple. Attach any kind of pork to any bill and that could be good reason to vote “no.” Until the candidates themselves justify their reasons for a particular vote, I have to be a neutral judge. Furthermore, I know from experience that the internet is CHOCK FULL of blatant lies about many subjects. This goes to the issue of “how on earth do I know who is telling the truth and who is not?” Again, experience says that with so much power at stake, both candidates will engage in half-truths. I will make my judgments based upon what the candidates themselves actually say. Only I can decide if I agree or disagree with the principle behind the statements.
RE: Decision ‘08
I was so impressed by Beth’s post. She has so much intelligence and she is able to verbalize her opinions in a very confident manner. In this characteristic she is very much her mother’s daughter! I was so impressed that I printed it out and used it as my study guide to research my own opinions. Here are the results…
I TOTALLY get why some of the “younger” set are not terribly involved. After all, it is all so confusing, all the information is contradictory, how do I know who is actually telling the truth, it really has nothing to do with my day-to-day living, and really, nobody is going to miss my one little vote. I have these thoughts with EVERY election. It takes effort to vote responsibly, let alone to vote at all.
Facts, Figures, and Misinformation (I tried to find a third word beginning with “F” but I gave up) ALL facts, figures, and numbers can be and ARE slanted to show one candidate in a positive light and the other candidate in a negative light. Not only are they slanted, but I believe these huge numbers in the billions and trillions of dollars do nothing but confuse and distract most of the people. I simply cannot comprehend and therefore cannot attach any significant meaning to such numbers. I know that there are mathematicians and economists and geniuses for whom these numbers are important. I am not one of them, therefore, my decision will not be based on “he said/she said”.
I TOTALLY get why some of the “younger” set are not terribly involved. After all, it is all so confusing, all the information is contradictory, how do I know who is actually telling the truth, it really has nothing to do with my day-to-day living, and really, nobody is going to miss my one little vote. I have these thoughts with EVERY election. It takes effort to vote responsibly, let alone to vote at all.
Facts, Figures, and Misinformation (I tried to find a third word beginning with “F” but I gave up) ALL facts, figures, and numbers can be and ARE slanted to show one candidate in a positive light and the other candidate in a negative light. Not only are they slanted, but I believe these huge numbers in the billions and trillions of dollars do nothing but confuse and distract most of the people. I simply cannot comprehend and therefore cannot attach any significant meaning to such numbers. I know that there are mathematicians and economists and geniuses for whom these numbers are important. I am not one of them, therefore, my decision will not be based on “he said/she said”.
Short & Sweet?
I have decided to break my opinions into smaller segments. Opinions are easier to digest if taken in small quantities...like medicine!
MY FIRST REAL CONVERSATION WITH A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT…
A couple of years ago (4 to be exact) a patient of Don’s, Donna, invited him and me to her cottage on Martha’s Vineyard. Beth was a darling and agreed to stay with the 5 little dumplings for a week. So off we went. One night we went to dinner with Donna’s daughter - a STAUNCH republican - and her boyfriend, a liberal democrat and PROUD of it.
George W. Bush and John Kerry were the candidates at the time. At the time, I knew that all liberal democrats were evil people who were conspiring to take over our nation for their own selfish interests and plunge us into darkness. It was obvious (to me, at least) that there was only one “good” way to think, and that was my way.
Anyway, that evening, as we participated in a rousing, but respectful discussion of the political differences between GWB and JK, the boyfriend honestly admitted that John Kerry as a candidate was a loser, but he truly believed that a conservative government was not in the best interests of the country. It was obvious he loved his country and he believed that a liberal government was the best way for America to move forward. I was flabbergasted and I humbly realized that liberal democrats are not necessarily evil and dishonest, but that it is possible for two people to desire the same end goal (America’s greatness) but believe in two entirely different means to get there.
In the end, I learned that most of my reactions to politics were based on emotions. They were knee-jerk reflexes without any respect for the opposing opinion. I still believe that liberal democrats have the wrong blueprint on most basic issues, but I do find that listening to their reasoning can be “liberating” from my previous narrow-mindedness. Now, I try to take my emotions out of my political decisions. I try to think about them logically and ask myself whether my response would be the same if “MY” guy had said that.
No smart (or stupid) comments on the brevity (non) of this post!
MY FIRST REAL CONVERSATION WITH A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT…
A couple of years ago (4 to be exact) a patient of Don’s, Donna, invited him and me to her cottage on Martha’s Vineyard. Beth was a darling and agreed to stay with the 5 little dumplings for a week. So off we went. One night we went to dinner with Donna’s daughter - a STAUNCH republican - and her boyfriend, a liberal democrat and PROUD of it.
George W. Bush and John Kerry were the candidates at the time. At the time, I knew that all liberal democrats were evil people who were conspiring to take over our nation for their own selfish interests and plunge us into darkness. It was obvious (to me, at least) that there was only one “good” way to think, and that was my way.
Anyway, that evening, as we participated in a rousing, but respectful discussion of the political differences between GWB and JK, the boyfriend honestly admitted that John Kerry as a candidate was a loser, but he truly believed that a conservative government was not in the best interests of the country. It was obvious he loved his country and he believed that a liberal government was the best way for America to move forward. I was flabbergasted and I humbly realized that liberal democrats are not necessarily evil and dishonest, but that it is possible for two people to desire the same end goal (America’s greatness) but believe in two entirely different means to get there.
In the end, I learned that most of my reactions to politics were based on emotions. They were knee-jerk reflexes without any respect for the opposing opinion. I still believe that liberal democrats have the wrong blueprint on most basic issues, but I do find that listening to their reasoning can be “liberating” from my previous narrow-mindedness. Now, I try to take my emotions out of my political decisions. I try to think about them logically and ask myself whether my response would be the same if “MY” guy had said that.
No smart (or stupid) comments on the brevity (non) of this post!
"Primary" elections? HA!
I do not like the “primary” elections. My choices were realistically made for me by a few “important” states. I am not pleased with either choice. Both final candidates have huge drawbacks, in my opinion.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Question About McCain - Please Explain
Bethany, in one of your comments you said,
"clearly [McCain] failed the U.S.A. and our citizens".
This was in reference to McCain voting the Bush way 80% (really, I can't remember the %).
How did McCain fail the USA? McCain is NOT Bush.
"clearly [McCain] failed the U.S.A. and our citizens".
This was in reference to McCain voting the Bush way 80% (really, I can't remember the %).
How did McCain fail the USA? McCain is NOT Bush.
Short Sentence Question
In One Short Sentence, who are you for and why?
I'll start off in the comments.
You CAN click "anonymous" on the comments if that's the way you want to go. I have no problem with that.
I'll start off in the comments.
You CAN click "anonymous" on the comments if that's the way you want to go. I have no problem with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
