Recently Sarah Palin has been getting a bad rap from her latest interviews. One was with Katie Couric and the other with Charlie Gibson. Both interviews were not very flattering on Sarah Palin's intellectual image. Speaking bluntly, she came off as an idiot that doesn't know anything. The media has had a field day with her. But is she an idiot? I don't think so.
After thinking for a moment about whether or not it really matters that Governor Palin doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is I decided that I couldn't care less. There are only three characteristics that I'm concerned about when it comes to a potential President/Vice President: honesty, character, and good judgment. This doesn't just go for Palin. I don't want a stupid leader, but I also don't need Einstein-there was only one of him. (Side note, I think she should have just said I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is; rather than try to pretend she knew, which I thought was a hilariously embarrassing attempt that made her look worse.)
I mean honestly; should we have a series of tests that candidates have to pass to make sure they are eligible to lead? The test could include: a geography test, spelling and pronunciation of world leaders names, an explanation of the transformation of glucose in photosynthesis, and a presidential fitness test too. Are people going to die if the President can't spell all the cities in China correctly? Can't someone just tell Palin what the Bush doctrine is, and then have her make an assessment? I'm a little confused here? I wonder if our past Presidents would have been able to pass one of these hypothetical tests. I'm guessing they would have laughed at the idea of needing to know certain information before going into office.
I think the same reasons that conservatives liked Palin in the beginning are still relevant now. She is still the same woman she was before. If you think that she wouldn't have good judgment that is a separate and legitimate discussion. Also, realize that this goes both ways. I don't care if Barrack Obama knows C++ or Java, or McCain can use a computer, or if Joe Biden knows the main principles of Physics.
Round 1 went to Palin-this round was when the media was all over Bristol's pregnancy/and also combined with when the Gov. first was announced as the VP pick. The 2nd round goes to the media-the interviews that Sarah Palin should not have done and the negative media coverage that ensued. The 3rd round will be pretty important in my estimation for the campaign. The third round will be the upcoming VP debate with Senator Joe Biden. I'm not sure Gov. Pales-my nickname for her-will get a 4th.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Financial Armageddon Solved?
Well, let's see if this makes any sense. Fannie and Freddie had to be bailed out by the government, Merrill Lynch had to be bought out to stay afloat, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt with about $613 Billion in liabilities, AIG got a $85 Billion dollar loan from the US Government to stave off more trouble, the US Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that there will be a RTC that will buy up all the troubled mortgages that could total upwards of $1 Trillion, short selling is being regulated/basically stopped (even though shorts help to accurately value the market), and the Dow Jones ended the week just about even.
We're fine then. Close one, but there is nothing to worry about.
Let us use some thought if we could. The government has come in and decided where to put a bottom in the stock market. Good news? A bottom is good news. If the government is doing this, isn't that an obstruction of free market capitalism? A pundit on CNBC said yesterday that "Today is the end of free-market capitalism as we know it." Um? OK. The market is up? The stock market now lacks any reality, legitimacy, and accurate pricing of stock. It's a fantasy land of ludicrous insanity. As much fun as that sounds; this only makes the problem so much worse.
So what happens from here? Well there are two options. One is that the government keeps the bottom in place. This only transfers the burden; it does not get rid of the burden. However, this will mean that the stock market will be OK-ARTIFICIALLY. The transfer of the financial stress then will lay on the head of the government, which is where it is right now. This mutates the problem, and will likely require an external force to fix the problem. The other option is for the government to step aside at some point. What happens then is that the artificiality is removed, and we go back to reality. Is reality a happy place? I ask this because this whole last week of financial Armageddon was reality. Postponing this reality could make it much worse.
Which option will be chosen? I personally prefer never leaving reality; seeing as that is where we are living. Are the American people really in charge of what is going on/goes on? How long has it been since we were?
We're fine then. Close one, but there is nothing to worry about.
Let us use some thought if we could. The government has come in and decided where to put a bottom in the stock market. Good news? A bottom is good news. If the government is doing this, isn't that an obstruction of free market capitalism? A pundit on CNBC said yesterday that "Today is the end of free-market capitalism as we know it." Um? OK. The market is up? The stock market now lacks any reality, legitimacy, and accurate pricing of stock. It's a fantasy land of ludicrous insanity. As much fun as that sounds; this only makes the problem so much worse.
So what happens from here? Well there are two options. One is that the government keeps the bottom in place. This only transfers the burden; it does not get rid of the burden. However, this will mean that the stock market will be OK-ARTIFICIALLY. The transfer of the financial stress then will lay on the head of the government, which is where it is right now. This mutates the problem, and will likely require an external force to fix the problem. The other option is for the government to step aside at some point. What happens then is that the artificiality is removed, and we go back to reality. Is reality a happy place? I ask this because this whole last week of financial Armageddon was reality. Postponing this reality could make it much worse.
Which option will be chosen? I personally prefer never leaving reality; seeing as that is where we are living. Are the American people really in charge of what is going on/goes on? How long has it been since we were?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ideas for Reform
It has been a while since I last posted. Unfortunately, I had a situation with a bite, an infection, some swelling, some more swelling, and the ER. I'm back now and am ready to talk about some ideas for reform of our government. I would really like to hear input about my ideas and other possible methods of reform that anyone that reads this can think of.
I.) So my first idea is an enormous raise in salary for candidates. Especially, the higher up candidates like Senators. I'm talking about a several thousand percent increase in salary. Instead of a six figure salary, maybe an eight figure salary. Accompanied with this would be a destruction of term limits. There are a few things this will accomplish.
Competition for these important, powerful jobs will explode. The best of the best will be going for these jobs. Corruption will be much harder to survive with a surge in competition. This will really give the voters some power back because winning an election will be a lot more important than losing a fundraising donor. Maybe we could throw bonuses in their for an annual decrease in taxing/spending. At the end of the day this makes lobbyists and special interests not as financially important as the people being represented because candidates can fund their campaigns themselves with their salary. Therefore, less time will be spent on campaigning, and more on doing the best job possible. This also makes candidates really not want to "get fired" (voted out). Sounds good to me. If we want better candidates-employees-let's just pay them more (sounds embarrassingly simple doesn't it?). The way the math currently works out is that a US Senator makes about $170,000 annually. To run a campaign is going to cost-in the past few years-between $2 million and $16 million. Where do you think that money is ultimately coming from? The donors? Where are the lobbyists and special interest groups really getting it from at the end of the day? So why don't we just pay them more to begin with?
II.) My next idea touches on the idea that we get rid of as much government bureaucracy as possible. Many government responsibilities are outsourced to contractors. Private sector contractors are able to do government work more efficiently than the government. So why don't we just eliminate as many government jobs as possible. We can still call them "government jobs," and they can still be classified under government responsibilities.
A lot of government work is currently being outsourced. Domestically we have garbage collection outsourced, and internationally we have Blackwater. If we do this then I think Democrats and Republicans can both win. We can have as much government as possible-Democrats-but it will not be run by the private sector-Republicans. This whole idea is very free market based; so the Libertarians win too.
III.) My last idea for this post is going to revolve around national finances. When we centralize our finances like we have there are advantages and disadvantages. Some benefits include easier manipulation/control and stability of currency. Some disadvantages are being experienced this week in the market. If something goes wrong, the whole ship goes down. Also see any other examples of depression past/present/future-there will be more; they're unavoidable with centralization. It is common sense really. If a bunch of blocks are leaning on one block that is standing up; once the upright block falls, they all fall. Booms and busts of markets-capitalism at its finest. I don't really like the booms and busts because many people lose everything. I'm thinking what if we have more than one financial set of controls-this idea should sound familiar.
Even in America, therefore, there would be more than one market. So there could be a American market depression without having an American depression. This would be a terrific way to hedge against a total depression. Even though the booms won't be as great (more steady), The current fed tries to do this same thing anyway by changing rates, increasing/decreasing money supply. It has been basically just allowing for different types of bubbles that eventually burst--only short-term steadiness. FYI, bubble bursts can be correlated to the creation of a new bubble.
I.) So my first idea is an enormous raise in salary for candidates. Especially, the higher up candidates like Senators. I'm talking about a several thousand percent increase in salary. Instead of a six figure salary, maybe an eight figure salary. Accompanied with this would be a destruction of term limits. There are a few things this will accomplish.
Competition for these important, powerful jobs will explode. The best of the best will be going for these jobs. Corruption will be much harder to survive with a surge in competition. This will really give the voters some power back because winning an election will be a lot more important than losing a fundraising donor. Maybe we could throw bonuses in their for an annual decrease in taxing/spending. At the end of the day this makes lobbyists and special interests not as financially important as the people being represented because candidates can fund their campaigns themselves with their salary. Therefore, less time will be spent on campaigning, and more on doing the best job possible. This also makes candidates really not want to "get fired" (voted out). Sounds good to me. If we want better candidates-employees-let's just pay them more (sounds embarrassingly simple doesn't it?). The way the math currently works out is that a US Senator makes about $170,000 annually. To run a campaign is going to cost-in the past few years-between $2 million and $16 million. Where do you think that money is ultimately coming from? The donors? Where are the lobbyists and special interest groups really getting it from at the end of the day? So why don't we just pay them more to begin with?
II.) My next idea touches on the idea that we get rid of as much government bureaucracy as possible. Many government responsibilities are outsourced to contractors. Private sector contractors are able to do government work more efficiently than the government. So why don't we just eliminate as many government jobs as possible. We can still call them "government jobs," and they can still be classified under government responsibilities.
A lot of government work is currently being outsourced. Domestically we have garbage collection outsourced, and internationally we have Blackwater. If we do this then I think Democrats and Republicans can both win. We can have as much government as possible-Democrats-but it will not be run by the private sector-Republicans. This whole idea is very free market based; so the Libertarians win too.
III.) My last idea for this post is going to revolve around national finances. When we centralize our finances like we have there are advantages and disadvantages. Some benefits include easier manipulation/control and stability of currency. Some disadvantages are being experienced this week in the market. If something goes wrong, the whole ship goes down. Also see any other examples of depression past/present/future-there will be more; they're unavoidable with centralization. It is common sense really. If a bunch of blocks are leaning on one block that is standing up; once the upright block falls, they all fall. Booms and busts of markets-capitalism at its finest. I don't really like the booms and busts because many people lose everything. I'm thinking what if we have more than one financial set of controls-this idea should sound familiar.
Even in America, therefore, there would be more than one market. So there could be a American market depression without having an American depression. This would be a terrific way to hedge against a total depression. Even though the booms won't be as great (more steady), The current fed tries to do this same thing anyway by changing rates, increasing/decreasing money supply. It has been basically just allowing for different types of bubbles that eventually burst--only short-term steadiness. FYI, bubble bursts can be correlated to the creation of a new bubble.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Reality Check
John McCain and Barrack Obama are politicians. They are running for the same office with the same tools, and with the backing of the same political parties that candidates running for President have used in the past. Yet they are a different breed of politician. There are politicians that are supposedly "crooked" and/or the "entrenched interests" that these two candidates have been attacking have more than likely endorsed and/or donated money to one of these two campaigns-if not both-yet they are different. No matter which of these two candidates win the election; they will be bringing to Washington with them a very large percentage of the Washington insiders that currently exist with them back to Washington. Furthermore, these two gentlemen really have no means of expelling the so called "entrenched interests" like the special interest groups or lobbyists; yet they both assert that they will change our political system. The more I think about this I get confused. The only logical way to change a system that is functioning is probably not by inserting oneself into the equation but perhaps by making at least an alteration to the process. Policy matters, however, are not the process itself but an offshoot of it. So maybe these candidates should be talking about how to change the functioning. There are different ways yo approach this and I'd be curious to see what ideas are out there other than the Dr. Ron Paul theory we all know and love. The more options to choose from the more possibilities.
John McCain may or may not be another term of George W. Bush, but he is definitely fundraising with him. Fundraising and yet not campaigning. Think about that for a minute. He will not be publicly associating himself directly towards the unpopular President, but behind closed doors he will be accepting money-large sums of money-from the President's friends are ardent supporters. These people not only like George W. Bush's policies, but are donating funds probably expecting some similar policies to come into existence-or be enhanced-should McCain win the election.
Barrack Obama realizes as do many perceptive human beings that there are problems in our country. He mentions them in his speeches and he states that he is empathetic, yet not all problems can be fixed with policy. Obama correctly proclaims that he cannot fix our problems without our help. He cannot directly solve the problems for 300,000,000 Americans. So the question might arise do we really need these candidates at all then? Should we be helping ourselves not because it is arguably the right course of action, but because no one can really help us more than we can help ourselves.
Is Barrack Obama really that different from Bill Clinton, or John McCain from George W. Bush. I don't think they are. Personality wise sure, but that doesn't matter in relation to politics. Politically they are similar in my mind because they both have an enormous donkey or elephant on their backs. The political parties in the current American system still have so much influence that irregardless of whether or not we had different candidates running for President than we have now their policies would be practically identical. Political parties are headed and run by politicians and made up of people. So could it be that maybe the problem is with the people?
John McCain may or may not be another term of George W. Bush, but he is definitely fundraising with him. Fundraising and yet not campaigning. Think about that for a minute. He will not be publicly associating himself directly towards the unpopular President, but behind closed doors he will be accepting money-large sums of money-from the President's friends are ardent supporters. These people not only like George W. Bush's policies, but are donating funds probably expecting some similar policies to come into existence-or be enhanced-should McCain win the election.
Barrack Obama realizes as do many perceptive human beings that there are problems in our country. He mentions them in his speeches and he states that he is empathetic, yet not all problems can be fixed with policy. Obama correctly proclaims that he cannot fix our problems without our help. He cannot directly solve the problems for 300,000,000 Americans. So the question might arise do we really need these candidates at all then? Should we be helping ourselves not because it is arguably the right course of action, but because no one can really help us more than we can help ourselves.
Is Barrack Obama really that different from Bill Clinton, or John McCain from George W. Bush. I don't think they are. Personality wise sure, but that doesn't matter in relation to politics. Politically they are similar in my mind because they both have an enormous donkey or elephant on their backs. The political parties in the current American system still have so much influence that irregardless of whether or not we had different candidates running for President than we have now their policies would be practically identical. Political parties are headed and run by politicians and made up of people. So could it be that maybe the problem is with the people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
