While I didn't attend the Tea Parties, I'm sure Gladys Knight did. Here is the situation as I see it. Since the Great Depression, the Federal Government has grown far too large and powerful. I'm certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the every employee in Federal Government for the first 10 Presidents could have all fit into our current Capitol Building. Now, the Federal Government is probably one of the largest employers in the country. Think about it, how many other companies in the U.S. are spending over 3 trillion dollars this year? I am convinced that almost every framer would be appalled to see how large our government is now. Lets just go back to having a Supreme Court, Legislature, Presidency, and military.
I personally feel that the Supreme Court should strike down every pork barrel project that isn't clearly justified as falling under Federal Jurisdiction. While building something like a library in Chicago is good idea, that has nothing to do with the Federal Government, and they shouldn't be paying the bill with even a penny of my money. Congress does have power over appropriations, but that should be limited to dealing with national issues.
So how do we stop this? If your Representative or Senator has voted yes to a single piece of legislation, they've probably voted for pork projects. If legislation they wrote is passed, then you know for certain they've voted for many of their colleagues projects. I supposed one way to take care of this would be to demand that bills are separated more, but that would require thousands of votes. Maybe they could at least put all the pork into one separate bill, instead of tagging it onto a very popular bill. All I know is the current system is corrupt, and unconstitutional.
Finally, I'll just say that if Texas wants to leave the Union, they have the money, and the authority. It would hurt the nation, but it would at least send the signal that we can't continue down this immoral (yes, it's immoral to steal billions from the masses) road.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Oops
Well, since the election is long gone, I will start campaigning for 2012. I would like start to by saying that Gladys Knight would have saved the economy by now. You might think I'm joking, but here are some serious reasons.
First, Gladys Knight wouldn't try to destroy private industry in a search for equality. Some are currently labeling the country's new legislation as Socialism. Of course, that's just silly, because there have always been aspects of socialism in our free market - socialism continuum. You can look at every aspect of government involvement in our lives and place it anywhere on that continuum. For example, the financing of education has been socialist in the US for years. All of us are asked to sacrifice so that children can go to school for "free". This has been so ingrained in our society that we don't think of education as an industry, but government. However, the latest move to force the CEO of GM out of his office is horrible. It is perfectly legal, but it is horrible. It was one way that the President has always held more power than he should. While he can't tell a company to fire someone, he can say that he will not provide government funds of one kind or another unless that person no longer works there. Just let GM fire him if he's that bad. Also, why him, why did the President single out this man, when the CEOs of other companies who are taking bailout money are just as bad.
Second, Gladys would give hope, not fear. The stock market doesn't represent the value of a company, but the perceived value of a company. If America thinks a company is making poor decisions, they will try to sell the stock and people won't buy it, so they will have to lower the price in order. A company can be making a profit and have the value of their stock fall. So, while it would be wise to tell people to prepare for hard times, calling this a crisis will probably hurt more than help. This is one area that President Bush succeeded at. Everyone laughed that he refused to call this a recession, but it was a display of hope and confidence in our economy.
Finally, Gladys Knight would save this by being Gladys Knight. How could an economy not do better with her behind the wheel?
First, Gladys Knight wouldn't try to destroy private industry in a search for equality. Some are currently labeling the country's new legislation as Socialism. Of course, that's just silly, because there have always been aspects of socialism in our free market - socialism continuum. You can look at every aspect of government involvement in our lives and place it anywhere on that continuum. For example, the financing of education has been socialist in the US for years. All of us are asked to sacrifice so that children can go to school for "free". This has been so ingrained in our society that we don't think of education as an industry, but government. However, the latest move to force the CEO of GM out of his office is horrible. It is perfectly legal, but it is horrible. It was one way that the President has always held more power than he should. While he can't tell a company to fire someone, he can say that he will not provide government funds of one kind or another unless that person no longer works there. Just let GM fire him if he's that bad. Also, why him, why did the President single out this man, when the CEOs of other companies who are taking bailout money are just as bad.
Second, Gladys would give hope, not fear. The stock market doesn't represent the value of a company, but the perceived value of a company. If America thinks a company is making poor decisions, they will try to sell the stock and people won't buy it, so they will have to lower the price in order. A company can be making a profit and have the value of their stock fall. So, while it would be wise to tell people to prepare for hard times, calling this a crisis will probably hurt more than help. This is one area that President Bush succeeded at. Everyone laughed that he refused to call this a recession, but it was a display of hope and confidence in our economy.
Finally, Gladys Knight would save this by being Gladys Knight. How could an economy not do better with her behind the wheel?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Huckabee
So, a group that Mike Huckabee is a part of has strongly urged John McCain to not select Mitt Romney as his VP. Once again, Huckabee is demonstrating his raging bigotry against the LDS Church and its members. He can't honestly view himself as a more conservative running mate, considering his past accomplishments. Mitt Romney has a record of flip-flopping on abortion issues, but Huckabee pardoned or recommended the parole of far too many people. So if it isn't about the issues, there must be something personal, and Huckabee has done a pretty poor job of hiding his anti-Mormon feelings before. As a few polls have found and as I've said, there is a good chance that Utah will vote blue if Mike Huckabee is chosen as McCain's VP, primarily because of Huckabee's obvious prejudice.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Romney's Endorsement
So, here Romney made the obvious move. Once the numbers showed that there was virtually no chance that the primary wouldn't go to convention, he threw in his chips with the winner. Seriously, McCain doesn't get anything out of this, it simply took his chances of winning from 95% to 99%. No one benefits from this except Romney. Of course, there is no way that Romney would be made McCain's VP. Like I've said before, there are far too many more people who have been more consistently conservative, and who can appeal more to the South. I'm not saying Huckabee will get the position, Romney is even more likely than him. If he's lucky, Romney will get a position in the Cabinet. If not, he'll simply do his best to make a difference in the party, further solidify himself as a conservative, and try again in 2012.
Of course, there is no use in him trying to win favor with anybody in order to position himself for 2012, because Gladys will easily complete two terms.
Of course, there is no use in him trying to win favor with anybody in order to position himself for 2012, because Gladys will easily complete two terms.
Hillary Clinton
Truth be told, I disagree with a fair amount of Hillary's platforms, but my biggest problem with the Clinton's deals more with character. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, and beyond that, he lied to the American people. Honestly, did he think that Monica was going to come forward with that accusation without any additional evidence?
Also, Bill Clinton destroyed the strength of the US military by drastically reducing its size. If you remember earlier in the Iraq war, many people were concerned that North Korea would try to attack some of their enemies, because a large amount of our troops were tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq and they knew we wouldn't have the additional soldiers to handle any other problems. This would have never been an issue if the military had been left alone. As it was, Bill Clinton decided to demilitarize the country while Al Quaeda had openly declared war on the United States, facilities that held weapons of mass destruction were bombed in Iraq, and we weren't very good friends with Cuba or North Korea.
Then, there is her involvement in the campaign finance scandal. How can we even think of electing someone who was involved in that kind of scandal?
The former Clinton administration was a joke and the next one will be too if she gets elected. All she does is rant about President Bush, never offers solutions to the war, and she has never apologized for voting to send our troops out to war. Sure she has said that we would never be in this war if she had been President at the time, but I have never heard a forthright apology.
How on earth could she possibly lead the country when she simply changes her actions based on the latest polls? Of course, I wholeheartedly believe that she would never even think of pulling the troops out of Iraq if she was directly responsible for the results. As a Senator, she always had either a Republican majority that she could always vote against and know it wouldn't make a difference, or she at least had a group of Democrats to disappear amongst. She never held an executive office where responsibility fell directly on her. So now the question is, will she actually make decisions based on her principles now, or will she continue to be driven by the polls?
To sum it up, if you want to see a woman in office, but not that one, vote for Gladys.
Also, Bill Clinton destroyed the strength of the US military by drastically reducing its size. If you remember earlier in the Iraq war, many people were concerned that North Korea would try to attack some of their enemies, because a large amount of our troops were tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq and they knew we wouldn't have the additional soldiers to handle any other problems. This would have never been an issue if the military had been left alone. As it was, Bill Clinton decided to demilitarize the country while Al Quaeda had openly declared war on the United States, facilities that held weapons of mass destruction were bombed in Iraq, and we weren't very good friends with Cuba or North Korea.
Then, there is her involvement in the campaign finance scandal. How can we even think of electing someone who was involved in that kind of scandal?
The former Clinton administration was a joke and the next one will be too if she gets elected. All she does is rant about President Bush, never offers solutions to the war, and she has never apologized for voting to send our troops out to war. Sure she has said that we would never be in this war if she had been President at the time, but I have never heard a forthright apology.
How on earth could she possibly lead the country when she simply changes her actions based on the latest polls? Of course, I wholeheartedly believe that she would never even think of pulling the troops out of Iraq if she was directly responsible for the results. As a Senator, she always had either a Republican majority that she could always vote against and know it wouldn't make a difference, or she at least had a group of Democrats to disappear amongst. She never held an executive office where responsibility fell directly on her. So now the question is, will she actually make decisions based on her principles now, or will she continue to be driven by the polls?
To sum it up, if you want to see a woman in office, but not that one, vote for Gladys.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Barack Obama
Barack Obama may seem like a good candidate to some, but I see some fairly serious problems with his announcement today of a $200 billion job-creating bill. First, he said that the money would come from ending the Iraq war, but didn't really give a timetable that I'm aware of. In other words, when he gets into office and realizes what everyone else in government knows - that immediate withdrawal from Iraq could easily end up killing thousands of Iraqis who had help the US - he won't withdraw for a long time, possibly not until the end of his Presidency. I wholeheartedly believe that even the Congressmen who are most hotly opposed to the war in Iraq wouldn't withdraw troops if the sole responsibility for the consequences rested upon them. If we withdrew and Iraqis died as a result and Al Qaeda sets up a new home there, it will be the end of the political career of the responsible parties. In other words, there is no and will not be any freed-up $200 billion with which to do do this.
Second, I doubt anyone feels that Washington isn't spending enough money. Even if the war ended, it would be best if the money could be taken from another source. Think about it, where did Bush get the money for the war. It either came from deficit spending or balancing the budget. I would assume that it was a combination of the two. While a war always causes a boost in deficit spending, which seems to always stimulate an economy, I'd bet that most economists feel that it would be unwise to continue that kind of spending indefinitely. So, instead of moving money from the war over to this project, find somewhere else to get it.
Finally, at least part of this idea, maybe all of it, was meant to make jobs that research and manufacture "green" products. Personally, I'm all for saving the environment, but when it becomes cheaper to use solar power and the technology is reliable enough that it doesn't take hours of time or hundreds of dollars to maintain, everyone will jump on that wagon anyways. In a way, the intense rise of gas prices over the past few years has done more to further research into energy efficiency than any other single event. Why? Because suddenly alternate fuels and more efficient usage became profitable. I bet that hundreds of hybrids have been sold because of the price at the pump, not because "I'm saving the world." Why not let the current trends continue? There is progress being made now.
To end this entry, this idea isn't my only problem with Barack Obama and there are a few things I love about him. He does seem a little naive when it comes to foreign policy, but I feel that could be easily managed with a good Cabinet and advisers. I don't think his level of experience should be an issue, because he has a vision for the country, and I feel that is what counts. Also, his views on public education are spectacular. In one of his ads, he said that we need to realize that the home shares the blame with public schools for the poor education in the US. Working with school-age children, I wholeheartedly agree. In short, if Gladys and McCain aren't on the final ballot, or if Mike Huckabee is McCain's VP, I'll vote for Barack. Vote for Gladys.
Second, I doubt anyone feels that Washington isn't spending enough money. Even if the war ended, it would be best if the money could be taken from another source. Think about it, where did Bush get the money for the war. It either came from deficit spending or balancing the budget. I would assume that it was a combination of the two. While a war always causes a boost in deficit spending, which seems to always stimulate an economy, I'd bet that most economists feel that it would be unwise to continue that kind of spending indefinitely. So, instead of moving money from the war over to this project, find somewhere else to get it.
Finally, at least part of this idea, maybe all of it, was meant to make jobs that research and manufacture "green" products. Personally, I'm all for saving the environment, but when it becomes cheaper to use solar power and the technology is reliable enough that it doesn't take hours of time or hundreds of dollars to maintain, everyone will jump on that wagon anyways. In a way, the intense rise of gas prices over the past few years has done more to further research into energy efficiency than any other single event. Why? Because suddenly alternate fuels and more efficient usage became profitable. I bet that hundreds of hybrids have been sold because of the price at the pump, not because "I'm saving the world." Why not let the current trends continue? There is progress being made now.
To end this entry, this idea isn't my only problem with Barack Obama and there are a few things I love about him. He does seem a little naive when it comes to foreign policy, but I feel that could be easily managed with a good Cabinet and advisers. I don't think his level of experience should be an issue, because he has a vision for the country, and I feel that is what counts. Also, his views on public education are spectacular. In one of his ads, he said that we need to realize that the home shares the blame with public schools for the poor education in the US. Working with school-age children, I wholeheartedly agree. In short, if Gladys and McCain aren't on the final ballot, or if Mike Huckabee is McCain's VP, I'll vote for Barack. Vote for Gladys.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Romney dropping out
First off, now that he's out, Gladys is the only LDS member left to vote for.
Second, I think his decision was pretty smart and here are a few reasons:
a) It puts Mike Huckabee in a very awkward position. Before Mitt dropped out, there Mike Huckabee could only help McCain by staying in the race. Now, Huckabee could be a decent contender and he is going to have to stick it through until the end. This could create much more tension between he and McCain, and possibly help to rule out any possibility of him being chose as VP.
b) It makes Mike Huckabee look like an idiot. Here was Romney, who had probably 1/50 chance of winning and he graciously drops out, saying that it will be better for the war effort. So Huckabee is left looking like he doesn't care about the war, and looking like he's either mentally handicapped or a fanatic if he think he has a chance of winning.
c) It was simply a bold and unexpected move and makes Romney look like a real leader. This will give him added credibility as he continues to work with the conservative base of the Republican Party. He could end up in some party leadership role, or at least spend time campaigning in other races this November. This puts him in a great position to run in 2012.
To sum it all up, vote for Gladys.
Second, I think his decision was pretty smart and here are a few reasons:
a) It puts Mike Huckabee in a very awkward position. Before Mitt dropped out, there Mike Huckabee could only help McCain by staying in the race. Now, Huckabee could be a decent contender and he is going to have to stick it through until the end. This could create much more tension between he and McCain, and possibly help to rule out any possibility of him being chose as VP.
b) It makes Mike Huckabee look like an idiot. Here was Romney, who had probably 1/50 chance of winning and he graciously drops out, saying that it will be better for the war effort. So Huckabee is left looking like he doesn't care about the war, and looking like he's either mentally handicapped or a fanatic if he think he has a chance of winning.
c) It was simply a bold and unexpected move and makes Romney look like a real leader. This will give him added credibility as he continues to work with the conservative base of the Republican Party. He could end up in some party leadership role, or at least spend time campaigning in other races this November. This puts him in a great position to run in 2012.
To sum it all up, vote for Gladys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)