And also why we lost. There's a split between social conservatives and libertarians that's been festering for a while, as you can see in this post on Mike Huckabee's attacks on libertarians.
These two sides will duke it out, and the loser will join the democraps and Ballsack Obama's change we can believe in. :( I hope the "compassionate conservatives" lose. I'm getting older, more libertarian, and more federalist. Let the states decide social issues, peeps.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
alright world, congratulations, great, wonderful, now let's get to work
When Obama did say "we are the United States," it does make me feel good and realize we are by far the best country on the planet, far more superior than everyone else in every category possible, and capable of having a verbally violent campaign leading to peaceful results.
That being said, however, as we look back, the bottom line fact is this. No President in the history of the US has been more disrespected than Bush. Even including Reagan and Nixon and Clinton.
People can learn a lesson or two from Paul Ryan (Wisconsin House Republican). The last 8 years proved one thing. When Bush wanted to reach to the other side of the aisle, the Democrats did not work with him. The last 8 years proved bipartisanship in DC is impossible. The bottom line is Bush proposed bipartisanship and *both* sides abandoned him. Republicans can't stand Bush because he chose Miers, didn't send the right amount of people to Iraq/no exit strategy, allow amnesty, NCLB, tax cuts weren't enough, not privatizing health care, etc. Democrats can't stand Bush because he chose Alito/Roberts, would not withdrawal from Iraq, won't open borders fully/give out driver's license, not enough funding for education, tax cuts too much, not supporting SCHIP, etc. See the point here? Bush is blamed for everything yet the Democratic Congress of the last few years gets a pass. How can Bush pass anything when he has vehement opposition? The last 8 years proved the only way you can win is to run on your views - and *stick* with them. That's the way Obama will be successful - but the key is to see if people are willing to accept his left liberal viewpoints. Time will tell there. But if Obama moves to the center, his Democrats in Congress will be angered and the Republicans will say he's not really conservative anyways. Presidents should stick with their viewpoints, and the members of Congress needs to swallow their pride and work with the President. Obama may get that lucky break considering most members of Congress agrees with him. Bush didn't have that break as he had almost the same members that would disagree with every little thing he said. Time will tell what Bush's legacy will be. It's way too early to analyze.
Now how do Republicans bounce back? Simple. Why do we have to stand on just one sub-issue of conservatism? There are people out there that's all of the above: Social conservative, economic, national security. Choose that one person and get Sarah Palin involved, get Mitt Romney involved, get Tim Pawlenty involved, get Bobby Jindal involved, get Michael Steele involved, get Grover Norquist involved, get Mike Huckabee involved, get Newt Gingrich involved, etc. or maybe one of them is the one. Get the "DC usuals" involved like Putnam, Boehner, Blunt, Pence, etc. Listening to the center has gotten us nothing. Conservatives may split amongst one another on sub-issues, but they will all rally together behind THE conservative. Independents only come on board if we are liberal on several issues. And as described in the previous paragraph, that ends up sinking the Republican party which essentially near-happened yesterday. And also come out positive. No need for depression like most of the Democrats' campaign themes have been. I know there are plenty of Republicans out there that think we should reach out to moderates and independents, and I respect that opinion, but I think we’ve seen that tried over the last 10 years now…and look what happened.
Now, liberals shouldn't be super confident come 2009. The culture war (whether one agrees/disagrees is not the point) still exists and they will not win the "right" by sticking with their original viewpoints. If Obama is asking for prayers from Christians, good Christians will do it, but Obama will need to think long and hard about his views on life and family if he's going to get full support. Democrats were able to get in mainly because of the economy conveniently near-crashing just a month before the election. Democrats capitalized and showed the world that you are all depressed - vote for us and you'll be happy again. McCain simply put ran a bad campaign and I've said that already. McCain himself distanced from Christians, Hispanics, and Suburbia and it was almost over at that point. And the campaign energized finally with Palin coming on board. Of course it helped most of the media were on the side of Obama, but that's beside the point. And after all that, may Republicans learn their lesson over the past couple of years. They came to Washington to "change it" and instead really it changed them and if anything, the party of fiscal responsibility threw it out the window. They didn't lower taxes enough and now we're witnessing outsourcing at record proportions. They, as well as Clinton, forced banks to give loans to pretty much anyone without logical discrimination. But like the economy, parties are cyclic, the Republicans will bounce back again.
And since economy has become the issue, how exactly will Democrats handle this? Well, the fact is most people are very negative about the future of our financial market. What we will see is the Democrats (let's just say that since they're in power now) will continue interfering in everyone's affairs, make government even bigger than it is now and as a result, continue the economic downturn. Congress showed (including Republicans of literally yesterday) they don’t know anything about the economy whatsoever, as well as other citizens in America. Some financial institution or an insurance company is in trouble. So what's the solution? Let government takeover *even more* and make matters worse. Democrats (yes they too) support the billions and billions and maybe trillions now of "relief" (note the quotes) to Wall Street and turn capital cheap. No one (McCain failed here probably because he too supported it) faulted the Congress of the home mortgage crisis that happened (Fannie/Freddie).
In order to restore confidence, they simply need to get out. That is really the only way. Stop taking on the liquidity and credit problems and let markets be truly free. If there is something stimulated, it's only temporary for a very short term. That's not exactly a recovery. Financial institutions are simply giving out in droves. Let them fail. It's really the only way something bounces back. But, they're not the only ones to blame, but also individuals that don’t know their financial boundaries and fall for the predatory schemes. Home values really need to reach a certain level. At those levels, new people who *can* afford will then buy. In the future, construction will start again. And if the economy grows, assets will go up.
Now how to get the economy growing again? Government *could* do something and that's to provide just enough liquidity so the markets continue to function. That can maintain markets. Again: just enough and this isn't a "bailout." And then promote economic growth by doing what Obama will *not* do and that's cut marginal rates on corporate as well as income taxes, and capital gains taxes as well. Investment spending will occur, jobs will be created, wealth will be generated. These are principles that Obama bluntly disagreed with in the entire campaign. Thus this is why I said the economy will continue to languish over the years
Consumers and workers ultimately pay corporate taxes. High corporate taxes does not produce jobs and reduces foreign entities of doing business here. It needs to go down from today's 35% level. As McCain said, it's the 2nd highest in the world - and it is
And here's the ultimate sacrifice: consumers must not be reckless with their finances. *and* Congress must reduce the debt. And this can be helped by economic growth
Congress should stop with all these "stimulus" packages. They're just rebates and they don't help the economy
Congress needs to stop helping people who got into the situation they were in to begin with. That is bluntly wasting money and not helping recovery. Banks should be able to decided whether or not to make deals with people and get the government out and pull away from the stupid law that was made back in the 90s forcing banks to give give give
Congress needs to stop making DoTre give equity to companies or unions because of the debt they caused to begin with
Congress *and* Obama needs to decrease marginal tax rates and allow free trade
Congress needs to stop this constant Union secret balloting legislation
And on top of *all* that, the Democrats will cut the DoD budget by at least 30% (that's said, so realistically it's gonna be more)
Congrats to President Obama: race and age is one thing, but policies is what matters
That being said, however, as we look back, the bottom line fact is this. No President in the history of the US has been more disrespected than Bush. Even including Reagan and Nixon and Clinton.
People can learn a lesson or two from Paul Ryan (Wisconsin House Republican). The last 8 years proved one thing. When Bush wanted to reach to the other side of the aisle, the Democrats did not work with him. The last 8 years proved bipartisanship in DC is impossible. The bottom line is Bush proposed bipartisanship and *both* sides abandoned him. Republicans can't stand Bush because he chose Miers, didn't send the right amount of people to Iraq/no exit strategy, allow amnesty, NCLB, tax cuts weren't enough, not privatizing health care, etc. Democrats can't stand Bush because he chose Alito/Roberts, would not withdrawal from Iraq, won't open borders fully/give out driver's license, not enough funding for education, tax cuts too much, not supporting SCHIP, etc. See the point here? Bush is blamed for everything yet the Democratic Congress of the last few years gets a pass. How can Bush pass anything when he has vehement opposition? The last 8 years proved the only way you can win is to run on your views - and *stick* with them. That's the way Obama will be successful - but the key is to see if people are willing to accept his left liberal viewpoints. Time will tell there. But if Obama moves to the center, his Democrats in Congress will be angered and the Republicans will say he's not really conservative anyways. Presidents should stick with their viewpoints, and the members of Congress needs to swallow their pride and work with the President. Obama may get that lucky break considering most members of Congress agrees with him. Bush didn't have that break as he had almost the same members that would disagree with every little thing he said. Time will tell what Bush's legacy will be. It's way too early to analyze.
Now how do Republicans bounce back? Simple. Why do we have to stand on just one sub-issue of conservatism? There are people out there that's all of the above: Social conservative, economic, national security. Choose that one person and get Sarah Palin involved, get Mitt Romney involved, get Tim Pawlenty involved, get Bobby Jindal involved, get Michael Steele involved, get Grover Norquist involved, get Mike Huckabee involved, get Newt Gingrich involved, etc. or maybe one of them is the one. Get the "DC usuals" involved like Putnam, Boehner, Blunt, Pence, etc. Listening to the center has gotten us nothing. Conservatives may split amongst one another on sub-issues, but they will all rally together behind THE conservative. Independents only come on board if we are liberal on several issues. And as described in the previous paragraph, that ends up sinking the Republican party which essentially near-happened yesterday. And also come out positive. No need for depression like most of the Democrats' campaign themes have been. I know there are plenty of Republicans out there that think we should reach out to moderates and independents, and I respect that opinion, but I think we’ve seen that tried over the last 10 years now…and look what happened.
Now, liberals shouldn't be super confident come 2009. The culture war (whether one agrees/disagrees is not the point) still exists and they will not win the "right" by sticking with their original viewpoints. If Obama is asking for prayers from Christians, good Christians will do it, but Obama will need to think long and hard about his views on life and family if he's going to get full support. Democrats were able to get in mainly because of the economy conveniently near-crashing just a month before the election. Democrats capitalized and showed the world that you are all depressed - vote for us and you'll be happy again. McCain simply put ran a bad campaign and I've said that already. McCain himself distanced from Christians, Hispanics, and Suburbia and it was almost over at that point. And the campaign energized finally with Palin coming on board. Of course it helped most of the media were on the side of Obama, but that's beside the point. And after all that, may Republicans learn their lesson over the past couple of years. They came to Washington to "change it" and instead really it changed them and if anything, the party of fiscal responsibility threw it out the window. They didn't lower taxes enough and now we're witnessing outsourcing at record proportions. They, as well as Clinton, forced banks to give loans to pretty much anyone without logical discrimination. But like the economy, parties are cyclic, the Republicans will bounce back again.
And since economy has become the issue, how exactly will Democrats handle this? Well, the fact is most people are very negative about the future of our financial market. What we will see is the Democrats (let's just say that since they're in power now) will continue interfering in everyone's affairs, make government even bigger than it is now and as a result, continue the economic downturn. Congress showed (including Republicans of literally yesterday) they don’t know anything about the economy whatsoever, as well as other citizens in America. Some financial institution or an insurance company is in trouble. So what's the solution? Let government takeover *even more* and make matters worse. Democrats (yes they too) support the billions and billions and maybe trillions now of "relief" (note the quotes) to Wall Street and turn capital cheap. No one (McCain failed here probably because he too supported it) faulted the Congress of the home mortgage crisis that happened (Fannie/Freddie).
In order to restore confidence, they simply need to get out. That is really the only way. Stop taking on the liquidity and credit problems and let markets be truly free. If there is something stimulated, it's only temporary for a very short term. That's not exactly a recovery. Financial institutions are simply giving out in droves. Let them fail. It's really the only way something bounces back. But, they're not the only ones to blame, but also individuals that don’t know their financial boundaries and fall for the predatory schemes. Home values really need to reach a certain level. At those levels, new people who *can* afford will then buy. In the future, construction will start again. And if the economy grows, assets will go up.
Now how to get the economy growing again? Government *could* do something and that's to provide just enough liquidity so the markets continue to function. That can maintain markets. Again: just enough and this isn't a "bailout." And then promote economic growth by doing what Obama will *not* do and that's cut marginal rates on corporate as well as income taxes, and capital gains taxes as well. Investment spending will occur, jobs will be created, wealth will be generated. These are principles that Obama bluntly disagreed with in the entire campaign. Thus this is why I said the economy will continue to languish over the years
Consumers and workers ultimately pay corporate taxes. High corporate taxes does not produce jobs and reduces foreign entities of doing business here. It needs to go down from today's 35% level. As McCain said, it's the 2nd highest in the world - and it is
And here's the ultimate sacrifice: consumers must not be reckless with their finances. *and* Congress must reduce the debt. And this can be helped by economic growth
Congress should stop with all these "stimulus" packages. They're just rebates and they don't help the economy
Congress needs to stop helping people who got into the situation they were in to begin with. That is bluntly wasting money and not helping recovery. Banks should be able to decided whether or not to make deals with people and get the government out and pull away from the stupid law that was made back in the 90s forcing banks to give give give
Congress needs to stop making DoTre give equity to companies or unions because of the debt they caused to begin with
Congress *and* Obama needs to decrease marginal tax rates and allow free trade
Congress needs to stop this constant Union secret balloting legislation
And on top of *all* that, the Democrats will cut the DoD budget by at least 30% (that's said, so realistically it's gonna be more)
Congrats to President Obama: race and age is one thing, but policies is what matters
So it's done
Hey guys, I made a vow to disappear and divest myself of anything election-wise until today. If I got too invested, it would have been bad for business, plus I'm in the middle of a job hunt and I'd rather focus on that than this election. Now that it's done (the election, that is), I can finally weigh in.
This election, I was surprised to find out that my wife was a lot more gung-ho for McCain than me. I'm actually a registered independent now (long story), which sucks, because now the ACLU sends me crap and calls me. Yesterday, I resisted the temptation to pull the lever for Bob Barr. I usually lecture others about sissy third party antics, so I went and voted McCain.
So, the big question is, now what? I'm honestly proud of my country for this moment, and I think we should all reflect on that. I still think that Obama has this weird cult persona and hasn't done anything that qualifies him for the presidency, but the guy at least ran a flawless campaign and appears to have the temperament for the job. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic for the next couple of years. We're not going to be rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or anything, and I don't like the fearmongering on our side about what an Obama administration will look like. He'll be a left-wing president, but the American people are not stupid. As long as the press does its job (I have faith that they will end the 24/7 blowjob of this guy sometime next year) we'll be fine.
I have 2 great fears for the Obama presidency - 1) he will be assassinated or someone will make an attempt and 2) there will be a major terrorist attack on this country that he will be forced to respond to. The major reason for fearing both is obvious - they are greatly destabilizing. But I get the feeling that this guy is a lot like FDR and could use things to his advantage when it comes to unconstitutionally expanding his power. The first thing we should worry about is the credit crisis and his response - if he responds like FDR did, we'll be set for a long, extended depression with inflation highly likely. Personally, in the middle of my job hunt, I bumped government jobs up the list because those will likely be the most stable.
Anyway, guys, I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be fine. The new reality is that we have a left wing government for at least a couple of years, but at least we're not nearly as bad as the other major powers of the world. Let's set aside party differences and congratulate the new President elect, and bask in this historic moment. I'm personally very proud to be an American right now.
This election, I was surprised to find out that my wife was a lot more gung-ho for McCain than me. I'm actually a registered independent now (long story), which sucks, because now the ACLU sends me crap and calls me. Yesterday, I resisted the temptation to pull the lever for Bob Barr. I usually lecture others about sissy third party antics, so I went and voted McCain.
So, the big question is, now what? I'm honestly proud of my country for this moment, and I think we should all reflect on that. I still think that Obama has this weird cult persona and hasn't done anything that qualifies him for the presidency, but the guy at least ran a flawless campaign and appears to have the temperament for the job. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic for the next couple of years. We're not going to be rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or anything, and I don't like the fearmongering on our side about what an Obama administration will look like. He'll be a left-wing president, but the American people are not stupid. As long as the press does its job (I have faith that they will end the 24/7 blowjob of this guy sometime next year) we'll be fine.
I have 2 great fears for the Obama presidency - 1) he will be assassinated or someone will make an attempt and 2) there will be a major terrorist attack on this country that he will be forced to respond to. The major reason for fearing both is obvious - they are greatly destabilizing. But I get the feeling that this guy is a lot like FDR and could use things to his advantage when it comes to unconstitutionally expanding his power. The first thing we should worry about is the credit crisis and his response - if he responds like FDR did, we'll be set for a long, extended depression with inflation highly likely. Personally, in the middle of my job hunt, I bumped government jobs up the list because those will likely be the most stable.
Anyway, guys, I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be fine. The new reality is that we have a left wing government for at least a couple of years, but at least we're not nearly as bad as the other major powers of the world. Let's set aside party differences and congratulate the new President elect, and bask in this historic moment. I'm personally very proud to be an American right now.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
surreal....
viewpoints from tonight:
---Wow, pretty historical...Interestingly and maybe this just happens to me, but when Republicans win, most of us conservatives nod, move on, and get to tasks. When liberals win, we know about it. In other words, liberals act, well, immature. It's like, yes, we know Obama won, now you rub it in? You can't get any of them to debate because they get too emotional. Probably because most of them don't know what Obama is gonna do and uneducated about policies. I took a risk, I've always said it's either Obama wins close or McCain wins close. And I'm wrong. But let's face it. Who's never wrong? No one. Obama won in a landslide due to the EV. Popular vote seems close (there's still time though), but EV-wise, yes Obama will eclipse 300. Let's just wait and see how Obama governs. Let's see if he moves to the center. Let's see how he handles terrorism. Because his past record clearly shows he's to the extreme left. I personally don't care about race. I care about what kind of policies he'll enact. With an extreme left Congress...we'll see. But bottom line, I said and now say congratulations to President Obama. Granted, it's more than likely I'll disagree with most of what he'll do, but we'll see. I just don't want to hear it from liberals - you got your President. Be mature about it. And Republicans? You only have yourself to blame. You had your chance for the last 8 years, well, really 6 years...and you didn't capitalize. May you learn your lesson.
---For me, the minute Obama won Ohio, I felt Obama was gonna win this election. The minute Obama won Virginia, all bets were off
---One thing I never understood is how networks (all of them) pick a candidate with only 1-2% of the precincts reporting and the results are like Obama 5,000 to McCain 4,000. Fox did that to Ohio tonight with 2% of precincts reporting and they went straight to Obama. They called New Mexico 1 minute after they closed. And if I remember, they called Udall and Pearce was ahead? I guess stations took their chance this year. They did this in 2000 and Florida bit them. I seriously think states should wait til they're 95% counted to declare.
---'nother thing I noticed. Democrats (well, at least Murtha and Obama) were coming out early declaring victory. I can't remember the last time candidates coming out early to declare victory already...
---Just realize this state went full Democrat. Gubernatorial, Senate, House, even the southeast NM voted Democrat...
---This election was really more anti-Bush than pro-Obama
---This is the first time the polls actually got something right in 8 years.
---Ahhh, watching all the young people get excited. I'll bet none of them know a single thing about policies
---I wonder what Israel is thinking at this moment...
---Obama: I wasn't the most likely candidate. [BS, the media set you up 2 years ago]
---Again, let's see what happens in 2009 (policies). Let's also see if he really does reach out to the other side. It'll be tough for conservatives because clearly the last 8 years the Democrats did not reach to the other side. Strength of arms is not his choice apparently. This could be another Carter term when it comes to foreign policy
---Wow, pretty historical...Interestingly and maybe this just happens to me, but when Republicans win, most of us conservatives nod, move on, and get to tasks. When liberals win, we know about it. In other words, liberals act, well, immature. It's like, yes, we know Obama won, now you rub it in? You can't get any of them to debate because they get too emotional. Probably because most of them don't know what Obama is gonna do and uneducated about policies. I took a risk, I've always said it's either Obama wins close or McCain wins close. And I'm wrong. But let's face it. Who's never wrong? No one. Obama won in a landslide due to the EV. Popular vote seems close (there's still time though), but EV-wise, yes Obama will eclipse 300. Let's just wait and see how Obama governs. Let's see if he moves to the center. Let's see how he handles terrorism. Because his past record clearly shows he's to the extreme left. I personally don't care about race. I care about what kind of policies he'll enact. With an extreme left Congress...we'll see. But bottom line, I said and now say congratulations to President Obama. Granted, it's more than likely I'll disagree with most of what he'll do, but we'll see. I just don't want to hear it from liberals - you got your President. Be mature about it. And Republicans? You only have yourself to blame. You had your chance for the last 8 years, well, really 6 years...and you didn't capitalize. May you learn your lesson.
---For me, the minute Obama won Ohio, I felt Obama was gonna win this election. The minute Obama won Virginia, all bets were off
---One thing I never understood is how networks (all of them) pick a candidate with only 1-2% of the precincts reporting and the results are like Obama 5,000 to McCain 4,000. Fox did that to Ohio tonight with 2% of precincts reporting and they went straight to Obama. They called New Mexico 1 minute after they closed. And if I remember, they called Udall and Pearce was ahead? I guess stations took their chance this year. They did this in 2000 and Florida bit them. I seriously think states should wait til they're 95% counted to declare.
---'nother thing I noticed. Democrats (well, at least Murtha and Obama) were coming out early declaring victory. I can't remember the last time candidates coming out early to declare victory already...
---Just realize this state went full Democrat. Gubernatorial, Senate, House, even the southeast NM voted Democrat...
---This election was really more anti-Bush than pro-Obama
---This is the first time the polls actually got something right in 8 years.
---Ahhh, watching all the young people get excited. I'll bet none of them know a single thing about policies
---I wonder what Israel is thinking at this moment...
---Obama: I wasn't the most likely candidate. [BS, the media set you up 2 years ago]
---Again, let's see what happens in 2009 (policies). Let's also see if he really does reach out to the other side. It'll be tough for conservatives because clearly the last 8 years the Democrats did not reach to the other side. Strength of arms is not his choice apparently. This could be another Carter term when it comes to foreign policy
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Scare Tactics for a Democrat Win
When I lived in Arizona, I liked to be a good grandson and call my grandmother every few weeks. In these conversations my grandmother would often lament the dangers of the city, often stating a desire to stay home all the time. The source for these fears was the local nightly news and their sensationalized stories that only had the affect of scaring the elderly.
Today in the mail I received a political advertisement from one Victor Raigoza, New Mexico state senate candidate in my district. It was hard to find the sender as it was on the lower right of the addressed side in what appears to be about 8 pt font. The sender was not completely unobvious but it was curious that Victor’s opponent’s name appears eight times on both sides of what is a hit piece. The front page states that “JOHN RYAN is a CRIMINAL and a CRONY…was convicted of a felony, but was pardoned by then-Governor Gary Johnson (a Republican).” Reading the back of the page the reader is also alerted that Ryan works as a lobbyist and that he serves private interests while serving the state.
The tone of the ad was quite distasteful and the front of the ad features a copy of Ryan’s State Senate bio picture with a MS Paint (not quite good enough to be Photoshop or if it was, they paid too much for their capabilities) appended mug shot booking collar. All this made me curious. I moved into this district in March 2007 so I didn’t vote for Ryan nor did I have much an idea of his work in the Senate. A felony criminal record and a lobbyist? It sounded incredible that someone like that were elected and was running for re-election.
So, is John Ryan a criminal? Well that’s a judgment call and has to take into account what happened:
In 1980, when he was in high school, he and others broke into a North Valley home and stole family portraits which were held for ransom. He was indicted for extortion and convicted of felony burglary charges.
What Ryan did in this case was not acceptable behavior however two things struck me in regard to the explanation. First, he was in high school, it seems as though it was a prank, one that went too far as evidenced by the burglary part.1980 was almost thirty years ago, Ryan was sentenced to three years probation so when he was pardoned by Governor Johnson he had already served his sentence. Second he states that family portraits were taken. Victor Raigoza claims that he stole ‘paintings’, to extort someone. Strong language, the grandmothers of the North Valley are shaking.
So, how about the lobbying part? This question does not even pass muster at all simply because there is simply not enough information in the attack ad from Raigoza. It is true that Ryan is a lobbyist, but at the federal level:
Ryan is now a professional lobbyist at the federal level. He got started in that field in 1996 when he was hired by the City of Los Angeles to represent its interests in Washington. His next client was the National Rural Electric Co-op Association. … “I am a registered lobbyist in Washington DC and I pick my clients very wisely,” he explained. Those include The Southwest Power Group, which is trying to establish electrical transmission lines for solar and wind generators delivering power to Arizona and California, and a water pipeline project in the Clovis-Portales area that needs federal approvals.
Interesting, so the company, according to Raigoza, paid Ryan thousands of dollars to sponsor beneficial legislation required federal and not state approvals?
Nothing stated in the ad sent by Victor Raigoza has any reference and the type and words are clearly intended to scare elderly voters just like the nightly local news. Voters that won’t get the truth from someone like Victor Raigoza.
Who is Raigoza anyway? Other than the typical democrat website ‘who’s who’ and AFL-CIO endorsement information there isn’t much out there except vague platitudes alluding to what he supports (economy, education and affordable health care, and of course the Easter Bunny). What is known is that Raigoza is a financial advisor at Edward Jones and is proud of be a” community activist”, stopping the Wal-Mart that would allow me a five minute walk to obtain strawberry whoppers instead of a ten minute drive.
So Victor is a typical democrat, vague, ignorant of the issues, supported by labor unions, spiteful of business and subterranean in his capability to distort truth as scare tactics. And on top of that I bet he’s active in the Vista Del Norte homeowner’s association that’s the bane of my existence.
District 10 deserves better than someone like Victor Raigoza. John Ryan has the experience and is respected by his peers and the community he represents. The Village of Los Ranchos web site states:
The Village of Los Ranchos is fortunate and proud to have John Ryan, NM State Senator as a resident.
Don’t let sleaze peddling power seeking dishonest presumptive politicians like Victor Raigoza win.
Today in the mail I received a political advertisement from one Victor Raigoza, New Mexico state senate candidate in my district. It was hard to find the sender as it was on the lower right of the addressed side in what appears to be about 8 pt font. The sender was not completely unobvious but it was curious that Victor’s opponent’s name appears eight times on both sides of what is a hit piece. The front page states that “JOHN RYAN is a CRIMINAL and a CRONY…was convicted of a felony, but was pardoned by then-Governor Gary Johnson (a Republican).” Reading the back of the page the reader is also alerted that Ryan works as a lobbyist and that he serves private interests while serving the state.
The tone of the ad was quite distasteful and the front of the ad features a copy of Ryan’s State Senate bio picture with a MS Paint (not quite good enough to be Photoshop or if it was, they paid too much for their capabilities) appended mug shot booking collar. All this made me curious. I moved into this district in March 2007 so I didn’t vote for Ryan nor did I have much an idea of his work in the Senate. A felony criminal record and a lobbyist? It sounded incredible that someone like that were elected and was running for re-election.
So, is John Ryan a criminal? Well that’s a judgment call and has to take into account what happened:
In 1980, when he was in high school, he and others broke into a North Valley home and stole family portraits which were held for ransom. He was indicted for extortion and convicted of felony burglary charges.
What Ryan did in this case was not acceptable behavior however two things struck me in regard to the explanation. First, he was in high school, it seems as though it was a prank, one that went too far as evidenced by the burglary part.1980 was almost thirty years ago, Ryan was sentenced to three years probation so when he was pardoned by Governor Johnson he had already served his sentence. Second he states that family portraits were taken. Victor Raigoza claims that he stole ‘paintings’, to extort someone. Strong language, the grandmothers of the North Valley are shaking.
So, how about the lobbying part? This question does not even pass muster at all simply because there is simply not enough information in the attack ad from Raigoza. It is true that Ryan is a lobbyist, but at the federal level:
Ryan is now a professional lobbyist at the federal level. He got started in that field in 1996 when he was hired by the City of Los Angeles to represent its interests in Washington. His next client was the National Rural Electric Co-op Association. … “I am a registered lobbyist in Washington DC and I pick my clients very wisely,” he explained. Those include The Southwest Power Group, which is trying to establish electrical transmission lines for solar and wind generators delivering power to Arizona and California, and a water pipeline project in the Clovis-Portales area that needs federal approvals.
Interesting, so the company, according to Raigoza, paid Ryan thousands of dollars to sponsor beneficial legislation required federal and not state approvals?
Nothing stated in the ad sent by Victor Raigoza has any reference and the type and words are clearly intended to scare elderly voters just like the nightly local news. Voters that won’t get the truth from someone like Victor Raigoza.
Who is Raigoza anyway? Other than the typical democrat website ‘who’s who’ and AFL-CIO endorsement information there isn’t much out there except vague platitudes alluding to what he supports (economy, education and affordable health care, and of course the Easter Bunny). What is known is that Raigoza is a financial advisor at Edward Jones and is proud of be a” community activist”, stopping the Wal-Mart that would allow me a five minute walk to obtain strawberry whoppers instead of a ten minute drive.
So Victor is a typical democrat, vague, ignorant of the issues, supported by labor unions, spiteful of business and subterranean in his capability to distort truth as scare tactics. And on top of that I bet he’s active in the Vista Del Norte homeowner’s association that’s the bane of my existence.
District 10 deserves better than someone like Victor Raigoza. John Ryan has the experience and is respected by his peers and the community he represents. The Village of Los Ranchos web site states:
The Village of Los Ranchos is fortunate and proud to have John Ryan, NM State Senator as a resident.
Don’t let sleaze peddling power seeking dishonest presumptive politicians like Victor Raigoza win.
Economic Questions to Consider
So, President Presumptive Obama, donkey Congessional cush seekers and all the democrat hit group commercials blame the current financial panic on President Bush and extend that blame to anyone who dares seek office as Republican. Before spreading their nonsense in hopes of baiting the possible economic unlearned watching syndicated television, did they consider logical reasons? Of course not. There is no such thing as logic when the most important thing is the accumulation of power. In this case the only item of importance is election and there is no tactic considered out of bounds. The Wall Street Journal's opinion page today asks tough economic questions, based on logic withough demonization, some of the key points:
The market is forward looking. If it is unhappy with a president, it does not wait almost eight years before the numbers reflect it. If it really anticipated good times under Mr. Obama, the market would have gained 40% in anticipation of the transition. By losing that much, it seems to be saying the opposite.
To state the obvious: The valuation of an individual stock reflects the collective expectation of investors about a company's future profits, dividends and appreciation, and the same is true of the market as a whole. These profits, in turn, are greatly influenced by government policy on taxes, spending, subsidies, environmental and other regulations, labor laws, and the corporate legal climate. Investors have heard enough from both candidates in the last month or two to conclude that prospects for a flourishing, competitive, growing and reasonably free economy in a McCain administration are bad, and in an Obama administration far worse. (In fact, the market's bearish behavior over the last couple of months pretty closely tracks Barack Obama's gains.)
Have you thought of what a gradual doubling (and indexation) of the minimum wage, sailing through a veto-proof and filibuster-proof Congress, would do to inflation, unemployment and corporate profits? The market now has.
Have you thought of how the nationalization of health insurance, the mandated coverage of ever more -- and more exotic -- risks, the forced reimbursement for excluded events, and the diminished freedom to match premium to risk would affect the insurance industry? The market now has.
Have you thought of Energy Czar Al Gore's five million new green jobs -- high-paying, unionized and subsidized -- to replace, at five times the cost, what we are now producing without those five million workers, and what this will do to our productivity, deficit and competitiveness? The market now has.
If the rise in the price of oil from $70 to $140 was due to "greed" (the all-purpose explanation of the other side for every economic problem), was the fall from $140 to $70 due to a sudden outbreak of altruism?
If a bank is guilty both for rejecting a mortgage ("redlining") and for approving it ("greed" -- see above), how might a bank president keep his business out of trouble with the law?
If the financial turmoil of the last year or so was caused by inadequate regulation, which party has controlled both Houses of Congress and all of its financial committees and subcommittees (where such regulation would originate) in the last two years?
The market is forward looking. If it is unhappy with a president, it does not wait almost eight years before the numbers reflect it. If it really anticipated good times under Mr. Obama, the market would have gained 40% in anticipation of the transition. By losing that much, it seems to be saying the opposite.
To state the obvious: The valuation of an individual stock reflects the collective expectation of investors about a company's future profits, dividends and appreciation, and the same is true of the market as a whole. These profits, in turn, are greatly influenced by government policy on taxes, spending, subsidies, environmental and other regulations, labor laws, and the corporate legal climate. Investors have heard enough from both candidates in the last month or two to conclude that prospects for a flourishing, competitive, growing and reasonably free economy in a McCain administration are bad, and in an Obama administration far worse. (In fact, the market's bearish behavior over the last couple of months pretty closely tracks Barack Obama's gains.)
Have you thought of what a gradual doubling (and indexation) of the minimum wage, sailing through a veto-proof and filibuster-proof Congress, would do to inflation, unemployment and corporate profits? The market now has.
Have you thought of how the nationalization of health insurance, the mandated coverage of ever more -- and more exotic -- risks, the forced reimbursement for excluded events, and the diminished freedom to match premium to risk would affect the insurance industry? The market now has.
Have you thought of Energy Czar Al Gore's five million new green jobs -- high-paying, unionized and subsidized -- to replace, at five times the cost, what we are now producing without those five million workers, and what this will do to our productivity, deficit and competitiveness? The market now has.
If the rise in the price of oil from $70 to $140 was due to "greed" (the all-purpose explanation of the other side for every economic problem), was the fall from $140 to $70 due to a sudden outbreak of altruism?
If a bank is guilty both for rejecting a mortgage ("redlining") and for approving it ("greed" -- see above), how might a bank president keep his business out of trouble with the law?
If the financial turmoil of the last year or so was caused by inadequate regulation, which party has controlled both Houses of Congress and all of its financial committees and subcommittees (where such regulation would originate) in the last two years?
A Pleasure
Considering I'm working some extra hours to make up some time to take a Haloween vacation to New Orleans my civic duty seemed best suited to absentee ballot this election. So, I'm done and soon to be accounted for, of course I did vote against the country clerk whom the thing's addressed to, so you never know. Just kidding, I hope. Anyway it was a pleasure to vote against the "Regional Transit Gross Receipts Tax", AKA the Rail Runner Slush Fund. Of course, it is my tendandcy to vote against anything that is not street light, sidewalk or defense related. But public transportation will always occupy a special place, ok so I pay for it in taxes and then pay for it if I were to use it?
Monday, October 27, 2008
don't count McCain out yet
if anyone turns on the TV, you'd think Obama won already. But it's still possible McCain can win.
the states I think Obama for-sure will win are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawai'i. So far that's 255
for McCain: West Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska - that's 261. Contrary to all the polls, I think McCain will pull off NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, Dakotas, CO, and NV, but I really wouldn't be surprised if Obama takes one of these states away from McCain.
here are the 3 states I didn't write down:
New Hampshire - almost guaranteed for Obama, but very McCain-friendly area
New Mexico - our home state decided the candidate by mere hundreds of votes since 2000. The closest state nationwide in the past presidential elections
Virginia - like New Hampshire, I don't think it should automatically go to Obama quite yet.
Of course if Obama gets all 3, he got it with 277. But all McCain needs is Virginia...ought to be an interesting election night. Either way, I think it's gonna be close and not the landslide many are predicting. And with an Obama victory, the good thing is we can hope for a conservative resurgence in 2010 and 2012. Let's just hope Obama won't be able to choose a SC Justice during his term *gulp*
the states I think Obama for-sure will win are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawai'i. So far that's 255
for McCain: West Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska - that's 261. Contrary to all the polls, I think McCain will pull off NC, FL, OH, IN, MO, Dakotas, CO, and NV, but I really wouldn't be surprised if Obama takes one of these states away from McCain.
here are the 3 states I didn't write down:
New Hampshire - almost guaranteed for Obama, but very McCain-friendly area
New Mexico - our home state decided the candidate by mere hundreds of votes since 2000. The closest state nationwide in the past presidential elections
Virginia - like New Hampshire, I don't think it should automatically go to Obama quite yet.
Of course if Obama gets all 3, he got it with 277. But all McCain needs is Virginia...ought to be an interesting election night. Either way, I think it's gonna be close and not the landslide many are predicting. And with an Obama victory, the good thing is we can hope for a conservative resurgence in 2010 and 2012. Let's just hope Obama won't be able to choose a SC Justice during his term *gulp*
Sunday, October 26, 2008
2012
Let's face it. Even if McCain wins, there'll be a new Republican running in 2012. More than likely Sarah Palin would run vs Hillary Clinton in 2012. But if it's Obama winning next week, it's safe to start thinking 2010 in Congressional takeovers (Obama is gonna have another Carter administration with Israel or Iran attacking each other). 2012 will be another election. Who is that Republican that everyone should get behind and take over again? My choice? It's still early of course but for now, I'm thinking the only conservative soul in Massachusetts: Mitt Romney.
I like Fred Thompson but he'll be pretty old by 2012, Romney is the near-total package. Conservative, image (and not a Democrat this time), eloquent, knows domestic issues (including economy) as well as the foreign affairs (if not more than McCain). He's got the name value as he ran this year, and he still has $ left over.
Anyways, has anyone else noticed Obama up on every poll there is? It's as wide as 15 to as narrow as 1 which proves polling organizations have no credibility whatsoever. That reason makes me want McCain to win even more. That way polling orgs and the media will know what their foot tastes like. But that's wishful thinking. Dan Rather choked in 2000 saying Florida went to Al Gore after counting 6% of the state...and the mainstream still exists.
I like Fred Thompson but he'll be pretty old by 2012, Romney is the near-total package. Conservative, image (and not a Democrat this time), eloquent, knows domestic issues (including economy) as well as the foreign affairs (if not more than McCain). He's got the name value as he ran this year, and he still has $ left over.
Anyways, has anyone else noticed Obama up on every poll there is? It's as wide as 15 to as narrow as 1 which proves polling organizations have no credibility whatsoever. That reason makes me want McCain to win even more. That way polling orgs and the media will know what their foot tastes like. But that's wishful thinking. Dan Rather choked in 2000 saying Florida went to Al Gore after counting 6% of the state...and the mainstream still exists.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Straight Ticket
As has been the case with just about every presidential/congressional election cycle in my 29 year-old memory and not unexpected when there's a candidate raising $600 Million, most non-programmed television lately seems to be some ridiculous political ad. Leaves one thankful for a DVR and waiting for November 5th.
New Mexico, for whatever reason, is once again a "battleground" state and there are some wealthy organizations out there that want everyone to know that candidate republican likes to kick small children, rob gas stations, spit on the elderly and plays solitaire while on the clock. Yes, I'm talkin about the so called "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee", also known as the reason why I yell at the television every ten minutes.
Their stupid, infelicitous and annoying nonstop commercials (scroll down to NM ads, if you haven't seen both, and live in NM, you must be living in the desert without any human contact and aren't reading this anyway) have led me to a place. And that place is Straight Ticket Republican land.
One ad begins "The failed Bush economy, how did it come to this?". How stupid. What failed economy? Yes, there is a financial panic right now. And there was one roughly two decades ago. And another roughly two decades before that. And so on, cyclical is what I think it can be described as. Do these imbeciles even understand what the term "failed" means? If this country's economy "failed" all three hundred million plus of us would have to disband and join other countries. There would be no country. Today I bought a three dollar pretzel and scoffed at a five dollar frozen latte thing. The twenty mall stores I walked past to get the pretzel were all open, employees chatting on cell phones and yes, playing solitaire. Traffic was ghastly and I was cut off by a trucker and rode past a hundred more on my 7 mile commute this morning. That, DCCC, is not a failed economy.
Anyway, why will I go the extreme of voting only Republican? There is no rational reason, just a burning coming from inside, every time I see the DCCC ads, which thanks to some deep pockets is every few minutes, on every channel. Am I being somewhat naive, silly even? Sure, whatever. Are there some deserving local donkey's out there that might share my ideals? Doubtful but possible, I'll never know. And I don't care anymore. I would rather watch a whole season of Grey's Anatomy in a single sitting than watch another DCCC ad.
I was going to vote for Darren White anyway, Martin Heinrich, not a chance, never. But the ads still bother me that much. And the ads against Ed Tinsley, who is outside of my district, those ads are doubly annoying.
New Mexico, for whatever reason, is once again a "battleground" state and there are some wealthy organizations out there that want everyone to know that candidate republican likes to kick small children, rob gas stations, spit on the elderly and plays solitaire while on the clock. Yes, I'm talkin about the so called "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee", also known as the reason why I yell at the television every ten minutes.
Their stupid, infelicitous and annoying nonstop commercials (scroll down to NM ads, if you haven't seen both, and live in NM, you must be living in the desert without any human contact and aren't reading this anyway) have led me to a place. And that place is Straight Ticket Republican land.
One ad begins "The failed Bush economy, how did it come to this?". How stupid. What failed economy? Yes, there is a financial panic right now. And there was one roughly two decades ago. And another roughly two decades before that. And so on, cyclical is what I think it can be described as. Do these imbeciles even understand what the term "failed" means? If this country's economy "failed" all three hundred million plus of us would have to disband and join other countries. There would be no country. Today I bought a three dollar pretzel and scoffed at a five dollar frozen latte thing. The twenty mall stores I walked past to get the pretzel were all open, employees chatting on cell phones and yes, playing solitaire. Traffic was ghastly and I was cut off by a trucker and rode past a hundred more on my 7 mile commute this morning. That, DCCC, is not a failed economy.
Anyway, why will I go the extreme of voting only Republican? There is no rational reason, just a burning coming from inside, every time I see the DCCC ads, which thanks to some deep pockets is every few minutes, on every channel. Am I being somewhat naive, silly even? Sure, whatever. Are there some deserving local donkey's out there that might share my ideals? Doubtful but possible, I'll never know. And I don't care anymore. I would rather watch a whole season of Grey's Anatomy in a single sitting than watch another DCCC ad.
I was going to vote for Darren White anyway, Martin Heinrich, not a chance, never. But the ads still bother me that much. And the ads against Ed Tinsley, who is outside of my district, those ads are doubly annoying.
Something Positive
Of all that has transpired over this election season, the worst to me has been the open season declared on President Bush. Something I wrote about in an earlier post was self disappointment in not campaigning for John McCain. Well, there's mostly lame excuses for that with the least being my tepid, but unwavering, support. Elections are about choices, right? Anyway, in 2004 I was a very active and avid campaigner for our President. He is a person I admire and believe has served our country with honor. Perfect, no. But there is no such person. Of course there are valid criticisms however, in my opinion, he is a very good President. I know that oft referenced poll ratings may put me in the minority, whatever.
The bottom line is that President Bush does not deserve the things that are being said about him. The dishonesty and the bashing of a sitting President for political gain is despicable. This morning though, I read something that started with a look at the current political climate which started with:
President Bush’s dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman’s when he left office
Six decades following his time in office, President Truman is highly regarded with good reason. The odds were against him and he was thought of as unready and inexperienced. His accomplishments stood out in history. I believe the same to be true of President Bush, always thinking that as history reflects on him it will be kind and just.
The bottom line is that President Bush does not deserve the things that are being said about him. The dishonesty and the bashing of a sitting President for political gain is despicable. This morning though, I read something that started with a look at the current political climate which started with:
President Bush’s dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman’s when he left office
Six decades following his time in office, President Truman is highly regarded with good reason. The odds were against him and he was thought of as unready and inexperienced. His accomplishments stood out in history. I believe the same to be true of President Bush, always thinking that as history reflects on him it will be kind and just.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The strangeness of it all
Sunday night I was driving home through the quiet road that runs through Corrales and after the second time seeing this (forgive me but my sensibilities do not allow for embedding the image here), in my opinion the most disturbing political sign ever seen, and I thought about how strange this year's presidential campaign is.
In the beginning, when John McCain gained traction in the primaries, I thought about the fact that I didn't even vote for him for senator, instead voting for John Kyl twice. Of course, it didn't matter then. There was no way that John McCain was going to lose his senate seat in Arizona. Not a chance. I'm not the type of person who wanted to vote against someone so I thought more about the work John McCain has done and even though I don't agree with everything he's done, so what? It's not me voting as a senator or representing anyone. How could I agree with everything? The key thing was that for me, nothing he's done has really been objectionable. Some of the 'across the aisle' things are annoying, especially campaign finance reform. However, in the end he has been a dedicated and honorable public servant.
In this campaign, John McCain and his chosen running mate have been subjected to the worst of smear tactics. Anything that could be used against them has. McCain has been treated as if senility is settling in and so-called feminists have willingly set back the clock on their purported cause to attack Sarah Palin. And all of this at the behest of a politician. That's it, not a savior, not a saint, not someone who's ever really even helped anyone but himself.
That's what got me about the sign. I've read something that described the way that some blindly support this politician. The conclusion warned about the consequences of such blind support for like candidates, running on nothing more than the empty rhetoric of 'change'. Nothing sticks to this candidate. Associations with the most corrupt of society, switches in campaign promises, lack of specifics, irrelevance in stated experience. There's an incredibly long list, a list that should disqualify anyone from the office sought. It just doesn't seem to matter in this case.
Is this the way our country is going? Politics a contest of personality, regardless of judgement? The sense of entitlement that is out there today, just talk to people and it comes out. It's uncomfortable to sit with a group of people who don't believe in personal responsibility disparage those who do. These politicians have done a phenomenal job recently dividing this country. And what will happen? 'Fairness' in taxation is nothing more than a veiled stab at class warfare. In the end everyone will just be more miserable and a strange new society will emerge. How's that for pessimism? A month of nonstop democrat advertising and the apparent coming of legislative and executive government by them does that.
In the beginning, when John McCain gained traction in the primaries, I thought about the fact that I didn't even vote for him for senator, instead voting for John Kyl twice. Of course, it didn't matter then. There was no way that John McCain was going to lose his senate seat in Arizona. Not a chance. I'm not the type of person who wanted to vote against someone so I thought more about the work John McCain has done and even though I don't agree with everything he's done, so what? It's not me voting as a senator or representing anyone. How could I agree with everything? The key thing was that for me, nothing he's done has really been objectionable. Some of the 'across the aisle' things are annoying, especially campaign finance reform. However, in the end he has been a dedicated and honorable public servant.
In this campaign, John McCain and his chosen running mate have been subjected to the worst of smear tactics. Anything that could be used against them has. McCain has been treated as if senility is settling in and so-called feminists have willingly set back the clock on their purported cause to attack Sarah Palin. And all of this at the behest of a politician. That's it, not a savior, not a saint, not someone who's ever really even helped anyone but himself.
That's what got me about the sign. I've read something that described the way that some blindly support this politician. The conclusion warned about the consequences of such blind support for like candidates, running on nothing more than the empty rhetoric of 'change'. Nothing sticks to this candidate. Associations with the most corrupt of society, switches in campaign promises, lack of specifics, irrelevance in stated experience. There's an incredibly long list, a list that should disqualify anyone from the office sought. It just doesn't seem to matter in this case.
Is this the way our country is going? Politics a contest of personality, regardless of judgement? The sense of entitlement that is out there today, just talk to people and it comes out. It's uncomfortable to sit with a group of people who don't believe in personal responsibility disparage those who do. These politicians have done a phenomenal job recently dividing this country. And what will happen? 'Fairness' in taxation is nothing more than a veiled stab at class warfare. In the end everyone will just be more miserable and a strange new society will emerge. How's that for pessimism? A month of nonstop democrat advertising and the apparent coming of legislative and executive government by them does that.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate Observations
after seeing all 4, it's clear. No matter how great McCain did, Obama did just as great, if not better. His policies are devastating, but he can deliver for the most part. Even if it takes a couple of minutes.
---Obama can never clearly specify what programs he'll cut. It's because he's planning to overspend.
---on multiple occasions Obama eloquently brushes aside McCain's "personal" or hurtful comments (hurtful comments geared towards McCain that is, special needs, segregation claims, etc.). But McCain acknowledges Obama when he's hurt.
---Obama said take a look at the polls, the ones the 3rd moderator conducted. The 3rd moderator works for PBS. How can you expect this to be factual Obama? He'll readily attack Fox News, but the rest are okay.
---Obama said he won't accept public financing, but he is now. He didn't repudiate it. In fact, he rarely repudiates anything
---true, most Americans care whether or not $ is coming into their account, but Obama's associations is just as much as an issue to me.
---Obama repeatedly groups McCain with the Republicans. If anyone, McCain has distanced himself from them on many occasions. McCain should've repeatedly bring up the fact that Obama, as well as his cohorts Dodd, Frank, etc. caused this financial mess. If Obama is gonna connect McCain to Bush, McCain refutes that and should've connected Obama to the liberals in Congress who has even a lower approval rating than Bush.
---CEOs support McCain because Obama will tax them, eliminate jobs in the long-run, redistribute wealth, etc. At this rate, I'm just not gonna work next year because money will just come to me.
---Biden is a fringe liberal who always votes on the wrong side of foreign affairs. That's experience?
---Obama, there ARE ways to help people without getting government involved with everything. Obama proved during the debates he's a full-fledged Socialist
---so Obama is now looking to drill. Why did you vote against it? So now Obama is a pork fighter. Why didn't you before you ran for President?
---way to attack Detroit Obama. If they vote for you, Detroit's dumber than I thought...
---after what Obama said, health care is gonna go through the roof
---anybody coincidentally notice things started downfalling when the Democrats took over Congress 2 years ago?
---McCain, you're not gonna get points for voting for Ginsberg and saying you will not appoint conservative judges, just to show how bipartisan you are. If you're conservative, say it, mean it, you'll win
---Obama's combat to everything is to laugh it off, and make a totally non-related point
---everytime foreign affairs pops up, it goes back to the economy. The moderators want Obama to win. McCain should've mentioned how Obama will raise all taxes, remove FICA cap, capital gains, dividends, Bush expiration, gas, etc.
---McCain sounded more genuine than Obama did. In fact, a lot of what Obama is saying is just regurgitating his talking points
---Obama tried to paint himself as a moderate. Records don't lie. He'll be spending near trillion dollars for his programs
---finally, Obama lied, virtually 95% of the debates
---where it seems like Obama won...I relish the fact that Kerry did better than Bush in a lot of aspects in the 2004 debates, but still lost an election. One can hope. Or maybe Ann Coulter is right? Elect the Democrat and let's have a conservative resurgence in 2010
---Obama can never clearly specify what programs he'll cut. It's because he's planning to overspend.
---on multiple occasions Obama eloquently brushes aside McCain's "personal" or hurtful comments (hurtful comments geared towards McCain that is, special needs, segregation claims, etc.). But McCain acknowledges Obama when he's hurt.
---Obama said take a look at the polls, the ones the 3rd moderator conducted. The 3rd moderator works for PBS. How can you expect this to be factual Obama? He'll readily attack Fox News, but the rest are okay.
---Obama said he won't accept public financing, but he is now. He didn't repudiate it. In fact, he rarely repudiates anything
---true, most Americans care whether or not $ is coming into their account, but Obama's associations is just as much as an issue to me.
---Obama repeatedly groups McCain with the Republicans. If anyone, McCain has distanced himself from them on many occasions. McCain should've repeatedly bring up the fact that Obama, as well as his cohorts Dodd, Frank, etc. caused this financial mess. If Obama is gonna connect McCain to Bush, McCain refutes that and should've connected Obama to the liberals in Congress who has even a lower approval rating than Bush.
---CEOs support McCain because Obama will tax them, eliminate jobs in the long-run, redistribute wealth, etc. At this rate, I'm just not gonna work next year because money will just come to me.
---Biden is a fringe liberal who always votes on the wrong side of foreign affairs. That's experience?
---Obama, there ARE ways to help people without getting government involved with everything. Obama proved during the debates he's a full-fledged Socialist
---so Obama is now looking to drill. Why did you vote against it? So now Obama is a pork fighter. Why didn't you before you ran for President?
---way to attack Detroit Obama. If they vote for you, Detroit's dumber than I thought...
---after what Obama said, health care is gonna go through the roof
---anybody coincidentally notice things started downfalling when the Democrats took over Congress 2 years ago?
---McCain, you're not gonna get points for voting for Ginsberg and saying you will not appoint conservative judges, just to show how bipartisan you are. If you're conservative, say it, mean it, you'll win
---Obama's combat to everything is to laugh it off, and make a totally non-related point
---everytime foreign affairs pops up, it goes back to the economy. The moderators want Obama to win. McCain should've mentioned how Obama will raise all taxes, remove FICA cap, capital gains, dividends, Bush expiration, gas, etc.
---McCain sounded more genuine than Obama did. In fact, a lot of what Obama is saying is just regurgitating his talking points
---Obama tried to paint himself as a moderate. Records don't lie. He'll be spending near trillion dollars for his programs
---finally, Obama lied, virtually 95% of the debates
---where it seems like Obama won...I relish the fact that Kerry did better than Bush in a lot of aspects in the 2004 debates, but still lost an election. One can hope. Or maybe Ann Coulter is right? Elect the Democrat and let's have a conservative resurgence in 2010
President Obama
Unless if we see a miracle (no substitute in words, I say a miracle), it just does not look good at all for McCain. Even FOXNews is singing his demise now. I know McCain probably has the best shot at beating Obama as I said months ago, but he certainly wasn't my choice. The only other candidate in the primaries that would've been a worse choice is Giuliani. But these two really had the name and the best chance of winning.
If we see a President Obama come January, BANK on these things to happen at some point in the next 4 years, I promise you (Pelosi and Reid will still be in power). Maybe this is supposed to happen. Maybe people will snap in 2010 and 2012 and realize what kind of damage liberals can do to this country. I smell a "Carter" term here...history sure does repeat itself. Hell this election even looks like 1976 (Carter comes along as the "outsider" that hasn't been around for a while, Ford is the quiet demeanor, like McCain, etc.):
---He will meet with leaders of all nations without preconditions and will even sign a non-agression pact with Iran
---He will pull out of Iraq eventually and we will see basically a giant Iran (Who's in power in Iran? Shiites. Who's in power in Iraq now? Shiites. Another edict of Bush I disagreed with. I understand spread of democracy, but the Middle East is different. Allowing elections only empowers terrorist organizations and we've seen it legitimatized under Bush)
---He will create the funds as he promised (guess where the funds will come from?) to help people and innocent homeowners refinance their mortgages. Hell at this rate next year I'm just gonna screw up badly, buy a $500K house because Obama will come to my rescue
---All the tax cuts you experienced for the last 8 years will be expired, gone. Something he doesn't say at all for the last several months.
---He will realize raising taxes on all the Donald Trumps of the country is still not enough to fund his social legislation. So he'll trickle down in the brackets on raising people's taxes and cutting defense and intelligence budgets even more (sounds familiar? 1990s?)
---He will implement universal health care, pretty much negating all small businesses everywhere with tax hikes to pay for it. This will be available to all illegals in the nation as well
---Speaking of illegals, he will provide amnesty as well
---He will enact legislation for carbon-friendly cars...the end for the US auto industry
---He will advance the federal hate crimes legislation, affirmative action by reincarnating the "women and minority-owned businesses" money, and make the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a law which means homosexuals will slowly start being official
---He will spend billions and billions of $ in foreign aid to try to eliminate global poverty
If we see a President Obama come January, BANK on these things to happen at some point in the next 4 years, I promise you (Pelosi and Reid will still be in power). Maybe this is supposed to happen. Maybe people will snap in 2010 and 2012 and realize what kind of damage liberals can do to this country. I smell a "Carter" term here...history sure does repeat itself. Hell this election even looks like 1976 (Carter comes along as the "outsider" that hasn't been around for a while, Ford is the quiet demeanor, like McCain, etc.):
---He will meet with leaders of all nations without preconditions and will even sign a non-agression pact with Iran
---He will pull out of Iraq eventually and we will see basically a giant Iran (Who's in power in Iran? Shiites. Who's in power in Iraq now? Shiites. Another edict of Bush I disagreed with. I understand spread of democracy, but the Middle East is different. Allowing elections only empowers terrorist organizations and we've seen it legitimatized under Bush)
---He will create the funds as he promised (guess where the funds will come from?) to help people and innocent homeowners refinance their mortgages. Hell at this rate next year I'm just gonna screw up badly, buy a $500K house because Obama will come to my rescue
---All the tax cuts you experienced for the last 8 years will be expired, gone. Something he doesn't say at all for the last several months.
---He will realize raising taxes on all the Donald Trumps of the country is still not enough to fund his social legislation. So he'll trickle down in the brackets on raising people's taxes and cutting defense and intelligence budgets even more (sounds familiar? 1990s?)
---He will implement universal health care, pretty much negating all small businesses everywhere with tax hikes to pay for it. This will be available to all illegals in the nation as well
---Speaking of illegals, he will provide amnesty as well
---He will enact legislation for carbon-friendly cars...the end for the US auto industry
---He will advance the federal hate crimes legislation, affirmative action by reincarnating the "women and minority-owned businesses" money, and make the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a law which means homosexuals will slowly start being official
---He will spend billions and billions of $ in foreign aid to try to eliminate global poverty
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Observations from the Door
So I have become "that dude." I am the guy who bangs on your door, ask who you're voting for, and hands out propaganda. McCain is not my pick from the Republicans, but he is far better than Obama and his empty promises. The Democrats have run a really dirty campaign and it makes me ill. As they pitch it, they are the "open minded party," which is total crap. Some of the incidents that I have hear of while volunteering were some college Republicans were beat up at UNM, McCain signs being torn down, and Democrats volunteering at Republican headquarters and trying to throw a wrench from the inside.
I understand that what I am "selling" is not very popular (ie religion, politics), but they treat me worse than a serial killer despite being friendly. A few encounters that I have seen that I found interesting were an African American man I ran into and some lady in a Mercedes.
The African American man was basically voting straight ticket Republican with the exception of Obama. I thought this was really odd, because he was conservative until he had the opportunity to vote for another Black man. Another instance of the race card being flipped, was when my co-worker was picking up his wife from CNM the community college, formerly TVI, and some African American guys were campaigning asking who passers by were voting for. My co-worker witnessed a man a few feet away, who said that he was not voting for Obama, was called a racist. We have probably beat this like a dead horse, but it worries me that we, Americans, are willing to vote for a man based upon "packaging" and not who he is, what he stands for, or what he hopes or plans to do. I am confident that Obama will attract more "non traditional" voters than we have ever seen.
I was leaving flyers at some lady's house when she rolled up in her late model Mercedes, the last few years have killed her portfolio. I approach her and politely speak to her about the election. Due to my association with Bush, whom I did not mention at all, party wise, received one of the rudest "get off my property" responses that I have gotten in all of my encounters. Some Obama supporters were polite and told me what they thought, which I can respect, but being associated with Bush is almost equivalent to being Dahmer's assistant. Where I am going with this is that the forces that be, read media, have made Bush into the boogie man. What bothers me the most about this is that they do not consider the alternative: Gore or Stacie (read Kerry). If Gore was president during 9-11 I'm confident that things would have been much different. With Stacie I cannot even begin to start where we would be.
So I am worried about the outcome, but on the bright side, this may lead to a resurgence of the Republican party.
I understand that what I am "selling" is not very popular (ie religion, politics), but they treat me worse than a serial killer despite being friendly. A few encounters that I have seen that I found interesting were an African American man I ran into and some lady in a Mercedes.
The African American man was basically voting straight ticket Republican with the exception of Obama. I thought this was really odd, because he was conservative until he had the opportunity to vote for another Black man. Another instance of the race card being flipped, was when my co-worker was picking up his wife from CNM the community college, formerly TVI, and some African American guys were campaigning asking who passers by were voting for. My co-worker witnessed a man a few feet away, who said that he was not voting for Obama, was called a racist. We have probably beat this like a dead horse, but it worries me that we, Americans, are willing to vote for a man based upon "packaging" and not who he is, what he stands for, or what he hopes or plans to do. I am confident that Obama will attract more "non traditional" voters than we have ever seen.
I was leaving flyers at some lady's house when she rolled up in her late model Mercedes, the last few years have killed her portfolio. I approach her and politely speak to her about the election. Due to my association with Bush, whom I did not mention at all, party wise, received one of the rudest "get off my property" responses that I have gotten in all of my encounters. Some Obama supporters were polite and told me what they thought, which I can respect, but being associated with Bush is almost equivalent to being Dahmer's assistant. Where I am going with this is that the forces that be, read media, have made Bush into the boogie man. What bothers me the most about this is that they do not consider the alternative: Gore or Stacie (read Kerry). If Gore was president during 9-11 I'm confident that things would have been much different. With Stacie I cannot even begin to start where we would be.
So I am worried about the outcome, but on the bright side, this may lead to a resurgence of the Republican party.
A depressing morning
I recently changed jobs and when I used to work for my now previous employer I often rode my bicycle to work. I often was lauded for being 'green' by those who just want to give mother earth a hug, even though the real reason was not to offset carbon output but nacho intake.
Anyway I wrote that to write that I happened to ride through a part of Albuquerque called "Nob Hill". A section of the city whose inhabitants like to consider themselves 'trendy' and 'hip' (I once lived in this neighborhood). I would get depressed riding everyday because in this area the Obama signs out numbered McCain's at about a 30 to 1 ratio.
Anyway, reading through the daily sites today made me more depressed, about the consequences of an Obama victory, and rationalizations that try to step away from inevitability.
Dammit, I just moved into a new tax bracket and wanted to retire eventually, also what would be wrong with helping my parents retire? Ugh. I wonder what the demand for electrical (jack of most trades) engineers in New Zealand is?
Anyway I wrote that to write that I happened to ride through a part of Albuquerque called "Nob Hill". A section of the city whose inhabitants like to consider themselves 'trendy' and 'hip' (I once lived in this neighborhood). I would get depressed riding everyday because in this area the Obama signs out numbered McCain's at about a 30 to 1 ratio.
Anyway, reading through the daily sites today made me more depressed, about the consequences of an Obama victory, and rationalizations that try to step away from inevitability.
Dammit, I just moved into a new tax bracket and wanted to retire eventually, also what would be wrong with helping my parents retire? Ugh. I wonder what the demand for electrical (jack of most trades) engineers in New Zealand is?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
simple solution
so now everyone and every media outlet is expecting Obama or McCain to have an economic plan to solve the current situation. Simple:
1) cut taxes
2) cut Congressional spending
3) and that's it.
We live in such a "Great Society" today that everyone is expecting the President to solve the economy. Don't people realize that that is the last thing we need right now is for the government to take over the economy? The market should be free without the excessive regulations we're seeing today. As for this mother of all bailouts, it shouldn't have happened. Would we see a worldwide economic depression? Sure. Why not? May teach people to be more fiscal and responsible with their activities. The market will correct itself. So what we have here is Bush stuck between a rock and a hard place with this government bailout. Because if he did nothing, then I can near-guarantee you Obama would win in November because it'll unfortunately look bad for the Republicans. I smell 1992 deja vu...
But typical McCain. What did he do? He joined the Obama brigade and crucified Wall Street. What McCain should've done is targeted Obama in how he and the Democrats have a lot to do with what's been happening the last few weeks. Go back to the Clinton days.
Comments welcome.
1) cut taxes
2) cut Congressional spending
3) and that's it.
We live in such a "Great Society" today that everyone is expecting the President to solve the economy. Don't people realize that that is the last thing we need right now is for the government to take over the economy? The market should be free without the excessive regulations we're seeing today. As for this mother of all bailouts, it shouldn't have happened. Would we see a worldwide economic depression? Sure. Why not? May teach people to be more fiscal and responsible with their activities. The market will correct itself. So what we have here is Bush stuck between a rock and a hard place with this government bailout. Because if he did nothing, then I can near-guarantee you Obama would win in November because it'll unfortunately look bad for the Republicans. I smell 1992 deja vu...
But typical McCain. What did he do? He joined the Obama brigade and crucified Wall Street. What McCain should've done is targeted Obama in how he and the Democrats have a lot to do with what's been happening the last few weeks. Go back to the Clinton days.
Comments welcome.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Michael Yon
I think it was Muz that turned me onto Michael Yon. This guy has been indispensable in his coverage of the Surge in Iraq, and now he is in Afghanistan. Be sure to read his latest report.
I didn't keep up with the news well enough to know just how bad the situation in Afghanistan had deteriorated until I read about it in one of his reports just a few months ago. We're not out of the woods yet in Afghanistan, but the nice thing about having problems there is we will get less resistance internationally and from the Dems at home when it comes to supporting the force we have there.
I didn't keep up with the news well enough to know just how bad the situation in Afghanistan had deteriorated until I read about it in one of his reports just a few months ago. We're not out of the woods yet in Afghanistan, but the nice thing about having problems there is we will get less resistance internationally and from the Dems at home when it comes to supporting the force we have there.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Cuba
Last night, the U.S. men's national team played its first game in Cuba in over 60 years, beating the Cubans 1-0. While I watched part of this game (holy crap, our national team looks terrible), it got me thinking about our stance towards Cuba.
We've had a trade embargo with Cuba for years, and it made a little sense during the Cold War. But Cuba no longer has its Russian enablers, and yet the embargo still exists. This embargo has been completely ineffective - there have been zero signs of reform in Cuba. Opening trade with a totalitarian country leads to a freer country, as the citizenry can observe what freedom is to the nations they trade with and demand the same things from their government. It's time to lift (or at least ease) the embargo on Cuba.
This is an issue that Republicans are usually wrong on, though, because they are beholden to the mistaken idea from the Cuban-American population in south Florida (that they need to get elected) that this embargo is necessary to be "tough" on the totalitarian regime. In the meantime, their families continue to suffer.
In general, however, the Republicans get it right on free trade. A few weeks ago, I read an article about "reverse illegal immigration" - basically, illegal immigrants in south Texas were going back to Mexico because of more favorable economic conditions down there. This is something that, I believe, NAFTA can take credit for.
Anyway, as an aside, read this story about a Cuban with some honkin' brass cojones.
We've had a trade embargo with Cuba for years, and it made a little sense during the Cold War. But Cuba no longer has its Russian enablers, and yet the embargo still exists. This embargo has been completely ineffective - there have been zero signs of reform in Cuba. Opening trade with a totalitarian country leads to a freer country, as the citizenry can observe what freedom is to the nations they trade with and demand the same things from their government. It's time to lift (or at least ease) the embargo on Cuba.
This is an issue that Republicans are usually wrong on, though, because they are beholden to the mistaken idea from the Cuban-American population in south Florida (that they need to get elected) that this embargo is necessary to be "tough" on the totalitarian regime. In the meantime, their families continue to suffer.
In general, however, the Republicans get it right on free trade. A few weeks ago, I read an article about "reverse illegal immigration" - basically, illegal immigrants in south Texas were going back to Mexico because of more favorable economic conditions down there. This is something that, I believe, NAFTA can take credit for.
Anyway, as an aside, read this story about a Cuban with some honkin' brass cojones.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Western Conservatism
Admittedly, I initially wasn't as excited about the Palin nomination as others, and my gut reaction to it was that it was pandering and tokenism. The buzz about her speech has pretty much passed me by, as I make it a point to not listen to convention or State of the Union speeches, since I think they are full of the typical political boilerplate. However, the more I learn about Palin, the more I like.
This article best sums it up for me:
Anyway, I'm still not excited about the election, but of course I want to see McCain win so I can mock the dour faces around me with loud, cathartic guffaws of joy.
This article best sums it up for me:
Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.If there's a politician that I can identify with in terms of worldview, it's Barry Goldwater. His viewpoints basically mirror mine - a sort of "conservative libertarianism". This sort of "rugged individualist" conservatism seemed on the rise in the Western US, but it is completely foreign to people out here, and it's depressing. To people out here, conservatism isn't something that you can defend intellectually, and it's fruitless to even attempt. I honestly didn't see any hope, as I figured this individualism would slowly be suffocated out by what I see around here (indeed, parts of the west coast are being swallowed by it). But Palin embodies these principles, and is probably the first politician to really do so since Reagan. Bush sure as hell has forsaken them.
Anyway, I'm still not excited about the election, but of course I want to see McCain win so I can mock the dour faces around me with loud, cathartic guffaws of joy.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
ironic, but not surprising
McCain accepts the Republican nomination...but attacks his own party several times tonight. Which isn't really surprising coming from McCain...and some of it rightfully deserved I hate to say. I enjoyed Bush's run, but there were plenty of issues, events, etc. over the past 8 years under Bush and the Republicans that made me vomit. They're not fully at fault (especially after 2006), but they still got Washington-ized.
Will McCain really bring change to Washington? Bush said he would in 2000 but it still remains somewhat the same.
My dream is if Palin, Jindal, Rice, Pawlenty, Pence, Romney, Burr, Cantor, Putnam, Thune, Ryan, McCarthy, Kirk, and more, all these "new wave" conservatives to take over. The media is calling them "partisan." That's exactly what we need. Don't pander to the "Hillary voters." We don't need them. They're the N.O.W. feminazis, not real ladies. Reagan won because he was conservative, contrary to what everyone says "he reached across the aisle." They weren't called Reagan Democrats for nothing because they were a different breed like most liberals today. Although most of them hated Reagan.
Will McCain really bring change to Washington? Bush said he would in 2000 but it still remains somewhat the same.
My dream is if Palin, Jindal, Rice, Pawlenty, Pence, Romney, Burr, Cantor, Putnam, Thune, Ryan, McCarthy, Kirk, and more, all these "new wave" conservatives to take over. The media is calling them "partisan." That's exactly what we need. Don't pander to the "Hillary voters." We don't need them. They're the N.O.W. feminazis, not real ladies. Reagan won because he was conservative, contrary to what everyone says "he reached across the aisle." They weren't called Reagan Democrats for nothing because they were a different breed like most liberals today. Although most of them hated Reagan.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
What happened in Georgia
I think I posted this in my facebook profile a week or so ago, but not here. It's a long read, but a good one, and I wanted to point you guys to it in case you hadn't seen it yet.
Michael Totten meeting with a couple experts on the Caucasus do discuss what happened between Russia and Georgia:
Michael Totten meeting with a couple experts on the Caucasus do discuss what happened between Russia and Georgia:
Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.In other words, there was a KGB style propaganda war to cover up a coordinated effort revealing the true imperial intentions of Putin. Surprise, surprise.Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Climate Change on the Horizon?
I posted before about how a shock to our food supply could have a devastating impact on our standard of living. While it was in the context of the potential of a catastrophic collision with space debris, the impact that the solar cycle has on our climate is not well understood and could potentially be the source of such a shock.
The sun has decreased its activity greatly in the past month, and prior:
sunspot trends, and a longer term history:
The sunspot cycle has been extremely predictable for centuries, as can be seen on the plot above. If we don't see that above plot start eking up, it could be worrisome. The "Maunder Minimum" corresponded to the "Little Ice Age", a time of bitterly cold, long winters and all the consequences that follow for a population dependent on agriculture.
The relationship between the sun's cosmic rays and our climate is not well understood, but the coincidence of sunspot minima and lower overall global temperatures, I think, shouldn't be ignored. Especially when a few harsh winters (with the concomitant bad growing seasons) could make food scarce enough that while the developed world might consider it an inconvenience, the third world could be severely impacted.
The sun has decreased its activity greatly in the past month, and prior:
Here's a plot of recentThe sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.
The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.
sunspot trends, and a longer term history:The sunspot cycle has been extremely predictable for centuries, as can be seen on the plot above. If we don't see that above plot start eking up, it could be worrisome. The "Maunder Minimum" corresponded to the "Little Ice Age", a time of bitterly cold, long winters and all the consequences that follow for a population dependent on agriculture.
The relationship between the sun's cosmic rays and our climate is not well understood, but the coincidence of sunspot minima and lower overall global temperatures, I think, shouldn't be ignored. Especially when a few harsh winters (with the concomitant bad growing seasons) could make food scarce enough that while the developed world might consider it an inconvenience, the third world could be severely impacted.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
what the RNC needs to hammer on
I know most of the country is sick of it, but they need to focus on national security. I know the country is gonna whine "why not domestic issues?" This just proves how the country is too dependent, but the country is fine as it is now from the Census bureau statistics last week. Could be better but any country could always be better. McCain needs to tell the world how Obama will gut the DoD and intelligence. It'll be just like Clinton. Obama cuts DoD, cuts intelligence, and thinks he can walk into Tehran and:
Obama: why are you upset with us brutha? What's up with that?
Ahmadinejad: your policies Mr Messiah
Obama: okay, we'll get out bro. Why are you enriching your nuclear ambitions?
Ahmadinejad: we need electricity
Obama: 'aight, ah hell, rock on, I can handle that, let's shake hands on it. Praise Allah.
It'll be a flashback of Clinton and Arafat. So basically this gives Ahmadinejad the green light to attack Israel, but of course, that's not our problem I guess *shrugs*..........that may be enough to get us involved, but if we don't do anything, which is likely the case under Obama, then they get enough launchers easily in the northern African Muslim nations and the ICBMs will reach the eastern US. Iran is already on a clear path of building medium/long-range missiles by next year or the next to get Israel and potentially the US afterwards. And with Obama gutting missile defense, who knows if Alaska or Hawai'i will still protect us from North Korea
Overall, McCain needs to mention specifics of what he's gonna do and explain how Obama is, quite frankly, a threat to society.
Obama: why are you upset with us brutha? What's up with that?
Ahmadinejad: your policies Mr Messiah
Obama: okay, we'll get out bro. Why are you enriching your nuclear ambitions?
Ahmadinejad: we need electricity
Obama: 'aight, ah hell, rock on, I can handle that, let's shake hands on it. Praise Allah.
It'll be a flashback of Clinton and Arafat. So basically this gives Ahmadinejad the green light to attack Israel, but of course, that's not our problem I guess *shrugs*..........that may be enough to get us involved, but if we don't do anything, which is likely the case under Obama, then they get enough launchers easily in the northern African Muslim nations and the ICBMs will reach the eastern US. Iran is already on a clear path of building medium/long-range missiles by next year or the next to get Israel and potentially the US afterwards. And with Obama gutting missile defense, who knows if Alaska or Hawai'i will still protect us from North Korea
Overall, McCain needs to mention specifics of what he's gonna do and explain how Obama is, quite frankly, a threat to society.
Friday, August 29, 2008
nice...
so McCain chose Palin. And of course right off the bat Obama blasted the McCain campaign. Saying "zero" experience. Good job Obama. In 1.5 years as governor (executive), she was responsible for at least 20 conservative bills passing and you Obama, was just some Senator with the only accomplishment of running for President and you did good enough where a bunch of fools fell for you. How do you preach "change" Obama when you decided to pick some DC crony with an extreme-left background. I just don't know how he's gonna win in November. We've never had a liberal win in the modern age (JFK, Carter, Clinton ran moderate campaigns and LBJ got in because people thought he was gonna follow JFK). Why now? She won in a state defeating Murkowski AND Knowles in one year - these are 2 out of the 3 most popular politicians in Alaska. Obama won in an already-liberal state beating an outsider.
Palin is an awesome choice. She was in my 5 fave: Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice, and KB Hutchison. Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't be too bad, although the only ones that would've really excited me are Palin, Jindal, and Rice (and she ain't running). McCain is thinking long term. If he becomes President, surely Palin will be the 2012 frontrunner and you know who she's going up against in 2012: Hillary. You know Obama/Biden behind closed doors were laughing a storm and everyone is laughing everytime they talk debate of Biden vs Palin. The double image is already showing up all over the MSM. I've studied politics to know Palin is not a rookie and I think Biden is overlooking her. All Biden is good at are one-liners and yelling. How are people so confident he'll "crush her" when he can't even get 1% of the vote during the Primaries? If anything, this should hopefully fire up the conservative and Christian base. After all, they're really the largest voting block. Just have to get them out.
Just gotta love Obama's speech last night. How are you going to "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cuts when he's gonna blast us and small businesses? The country will be in even a bigger deficit next year with his plans. Then he had the gall to blast McCain about Iraq and Afghanistan where McCain had the right strategy from day one (and Obama of course voted against any war resource increase). Sure, Obama keeps saying the rhetoric of cutting taxes for 95% working families (define working Obama), but Clinton said the same thing in 92 and ended up to this day raising taxes to its highest levels in history. Furthermore, Obama decided to use the "$5 million" joke McCain used in a serious fashion. McCain bluntly said tax cuts for everyone. Then Obama lied about McCain's health care plan in that it would raise taxes where in reality it would give tax credits for families. And yes, McCain voted 90 or 95% of the time with Bush, but Obama likewise did so with Democrats, so what the hell is your point? Finally, he said he will bring change to DC. How when you're following the same 60s Socialist policies and you picked Biden as your VP? And zero mention of how he will not confront Iran, how Hamas is almost endorsing him, and how he's pretty much gonna screw every business out there.
Although on a comical side, Palin looks like the teacher from Varsity Blues
Palin is an awesome choice. She was in my 5 fave: Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice, and KB Hutchison. Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't be too bad, although the only ones that would've really excited me are Palin, Jindal, and Rice (and she ain't running). McCain is thinking long term. If he becomes President, surely Palin will be the 2012 frontrunner and you know who she's going up against in 2012: Hillary. You know Obama/Biden behind closed doors were laughing a storm and everyone is laughing everytime they talk debate of Biden vs Palin. The double image is already showing up all over the MSM. I've studied politics to know Palin is not a rookie and I think Biden is overlooking her. All Biden is good at are one-liners and yelling. How are people so confident he'll "crush her" when he can't even get 1% of the vote during the Primaries? If anything, this should hopefully fire up the conservative and Christian base. After all, they're really the largest voting block. Just have to get them out.
Just gotta love Obama's speech last night. How are you going to "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cuts when he's gonna blast us and small businesses? The country will be in even a bigger deficit next year with his plans. Then he had the gall to blast McCain about Iraq and Afghanistan where McCain had the right strategy from day one (and Obama of course voted against any war resource increase). Sure, Obama keeps saying the rhetoric of cutting taxes for 95% working families (define working Obama), but Clinton said the same thing in 92 and ended up to this day raising taxes to its highest levels in history. Furthermore, Obama decided to use the "$5 million" joke McCain used in a serious fashion. McCain bluntly said tax cuts for everyone. Then Obama lied about McCain's health care plan in that it would raise taxes where in reality it would give tax credits for families. And yes, McCain voted 90 or 95% of the time with Bush, but Obama likewise did so with Democrats, so what the hell is your point? Finally, he said he will bring change to DC. How when you're following the same 60s Socialist policies and you picked Biden as your VP? And zero mention of how he will not confront Iran, how Hamas is almost endorsing him, and how he's pretty much gonna screw every business out there.
Although on a comical side, Palin looks like the teacher from Varsity Blues
Thursday, August 28, 2008
so how are the socialist programs going to be funded?
so Obama said it:
close corporate loopholes ***cough*** screw small businesses ***cough***
go line-by-line the federal budget and cut unnecessary programs ***cough*** cut the DoD and MDA ***cough***
he forgot to mention raise everyone's taxes
all kiddings aside, I might be looking for a new job come January - LOL!!!
close corporate loopholes ***cough*** screw small businesses ***cough***
go line-by-line the federal budget and cut unnecessary programs ***cough*** cut the DoD and MDA ***cough***
he forgot to mention raise everyone's taxes
all kiddings aside, I might be looking for a new job come January - LOL!!!
DNC
After watching the most glamour-hyped crapfest in the last 4 days, McCain will be on fire next week.
1) How many minutes into Obama's speech was bashing and NONE of his policies were mentioned
2) James Carville even said this had no message. Go figure
3) I don't care about you Obama, I care about policies
4) Whether they want to admit it or not, this party is nothing without the Clintons
5) Chris Matthews and Keith "Dumbass" Olbermann probably jacked off to all this
6) it's painful for the Democrats to say "last EIGHT years." Last EIGHT. That must mean Bush did something right I guess...
7) they keep preaching no or big oil. Okay DNC: How did you get to Denver?
8) Please tell me how the housing trouble is Bush's fault? How Russia invading Georgia was Bush's fault?
9) Hillary basically paved her way at the DNC to run in 2012, no matter who's the President. Probably Warner too. In fact if Obama wins in November, it'll be just like Carter where he had a record number of people challenging him
10) Barack, how are you going to fund all these socialist programs of yours?
11) I'm surprised at Invesco Field, they didn't have a chopper lower Obama down a cross or something. Why didn't Obama come out in a robe? He's Messiah after all
12) Bill's speech is summed up in one way: Barack, follow me and you will be successful
13) It's just so damn funny that Hannity asked over and over and over and over again specific examples of Obama's leadership and no one, including Dukakis and Kucinich and Sharpton, could answer
14) Obama, how come you didn't accept McCain's invitation to debates? You gutless worthless yellow coward
15) Finally, Obama, you can fill seats with worthless lazy asses, but so did McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. and they all lost. Good luck Socialist pig.
1) How many minutes into Obama's speech was bashing and NONE of his policies were mentioned
2) James Carville even said this had no message. Go figure
3) I don't care about you Obama, I care about policies
4) Whether they want to admit it or not, this party is nothing without the Clintons
5) Chris Matthews and Keith "Dumbass" Olbermann probably jacked off to all this
6) it's painful for the Democrats to say "last EIGHT years." Last EIGHT. That must mean Bush did something right I guess...
7) they keep preaching no or big oil. Okay DNC: How did you get to Denver?
8) Please tell me how the housing trouble is Bush's fault? How Russia invading Georgia was Bush's fault?
9) Hillary basically paved her way at the DNC to run in 2012, no matter who's the President. Probably Warner too. In fact if Obama wins in November, it'll be just like Carter where he had a record number of people challenging him
10) Barack, how are you going to fund all these socialist programs of yours?
11) I'm surprised at Invesco Field, they didn't have a chopper lower Obama down a cross or something. Why didn't Obama come out in a robe? He's Messiah after all
12) Bill's speech is summed up in one way: Barack, follow me and you will be successful
13) It's just so damn funny that Hannity asked over and over and over and over again specific examples of Obama's leadership and no one, including Dukakis and Kucinich and Sharpton, could answer
14) Obama, how come you didn't accept McCain's invitation to debates? You gutless worthless yellow coward
15) Finally, Obama, you can fill seats with worthless lazy asses, but so did McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. and they all lost. Good luck Socialist pig.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Bigger Danger Than We Might Think?
During my flight to CA last week, I picked up the latest issue of The Atlantic to read because of this article. Gregg Easterbrook is about the only writer I read on ESPN's Page 2, so I was interested in this.
It seems that our chances of being nailed by a space rock are a lot bigger than we think, and the consequences could be devastating. I recall seeing a special on the Tunguska Event, and Easterbrook argues that if that occurred over a major populated area...well, it'd be pretty bad. I don't think the chances of that are as high, however, as just a big mass slamming into land and kicking up a buttload of dust that would take a few years to settle.
While everyone whines and frets about "global warming", the danger from global cooling is far greater. Right now, just one or two shortened growing seasons would wreak havoc on the world's food supply. Heck, a couple of bad growing seasons and human mismanagement (ethanol subsidies) have led to food shortages in the poorer countries right now! The scary thing is we don't even need a sudden, large scale catastrophic event to do something like this -
a slightly decreased solar output, or even a few volcanic eruptions would suffice in doing some damage to the world's population.
If you ask me, finding some way to make our food supply more robust to this kind of a disruption is probably going to be one of the bigger long term challenges, after issues like dealing with terrorism and finding a renewable energy supply. I just hope we're ready, and it's not something that hits us full in the face or sneaks up on us.
It seems that our chances of being nailed by a space rock are a lot bigger than we think, and the consequences could be devastating. I recall seeing a special on the Tunguska Event, and Easterbrook argues that if that occurred over a major populated area...well, it'd be pretty bad. I don't think the chances of that are as high, however, as just a big mass slamming into land and kicking up a buttload of dust that would take a few years to settle.
While everyone whines and frets about "global warming", the danger from global cooling is far greater. Right now, just one or two shortened growing seasons would wreak havoc on the world's food supply. Heck, a couple of bad growing seasons and human mismanagement (ethanol subsidies) have led to food shortages in the poorer countries right now! The scary thing is we don't even need a sudden, large scale catastrophic event to do something like this -
a slightly decreased solar output, or even a few volcanic eruptions would suffice in doing some damage to the world's population.
If you ask me, finding some way to make our food supply more robust to this kind of a disruption is probably going to be one of the bigger long term challenges, after issues like dealing with terrorism and finding a renewable energy supply. I just hope we're ready, and it's not something that hits us full in the face or sneaks up on us.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Re: Minimum Wage
Relevant article I found via Instapundit detailing how minimum wage laws lead to reduced employment for teens and low-income (minority) workers...the very people they are supposed to help. Shocking, I know.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Obama is a higher being
Sorry guys, but after experiencing SF's weirdness firsthand over the past few days (Wifedido and I were there for vacation), I had to link to this weird column from the SF Chronicle.
They're all having Obamagasms in SF right now. This guy is their Messiah.
They're all having Obamagasms in SF right now. This guy is their Messiah.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Incresed Minimum Wage in Santa Fe
This story did not get as much press as I would have hoped, but this is an example of how increased minimum wage has closed a business, the Cloud Cliff Bakery in Santa Fe. I realize the effects of this minimum wage are more than just a bakery closing, but I won't bore you guys with that stuff. The story also brings up the increased cost of raw materials, but the minimum wage increase has not allowed him to pay rent for more than a year, while the increase in raw materials is a recent development.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/303114nm04-27-08.htm
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/303114nm04-27-08.htm
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Back to the blog
Slammed at work lately, but it looks like stuff kinda died off anyway. Need Cliffs Notes...explosions of text just lead to a battle of attrition.
Anyway, this is one of the most compelling arguments for protectionism that I've come across in a while.
Anyway, this is one of the most compelling arguments for protectionism that I've come across in a while.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Democratic Circus
Is anyone else entertained by what’s going on the Democratic side of things? I’m actually encouraged by the infighting within their party. In recent weeks, Obama has scoffed at the idea of being Clinton’s running mate and Obama’s preacher, Rev. Wright, has opened his awesome mouth.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
So lets say your worst enemy comes up to you and says, "I'll sell you this brand new Corvette for $10000." Do you say, "no, I think you're trying to hurt me by selling me things for less than they're worth?"
>>>unrealistic so I'm not gonna bother responding. A new/good car for 10K is like Obama and Clinton being an effective President. I presented my facts previously. Reading further, nowhere in my comments do I demand all our products be sold at cheaper prices. I'm more focused on jobs. In fact, 90% of my last response was based on that.
If I'm trying to make an argument against totally free trade, I might carry on the analogy. Now your enemy starts selling you everything you want at pennies on the dollar. The strategy is that eventually you will quit your job because you don't need the money because they are selling you everything cheap. Some time after you quit your job, your enemy will stop selling you all your needs and you will be ruined. That's either diabolical or really stupid on the enemy's part.
>>>a lot of items are overpriced so they get the better end of the deal. Hooray for free trade. But I'm evil for wanting to do the same from our side to some extent.
In this analogy, quitting your job would be like the US closing (and demolishing maybe) factories because China will sell us the stuff cheaper than we can make it. As a nation, we are doing this, so the analogy doesn't extend to saying that you just wouldn't quit because you don't trust your enemy (though that would be the protectionist scheme). The analogy continues then, that some day China will stop selling us stuff and we will be ruined. Maybe I'm just to optimistic,
>>>maybe. I'm being realistic
but I don't think we would be ruined. I think things might be shaky for a while, but we would rebuild those factories that we need (possibly using robotics (ala the Japanese) if we no longer have workers willing/wanting to go back to factory work).
>>>i find it funny so many engineers forget the fact that robotics, technology etc....it's all shit without humans. They don't turn on by themselves.
Even just counting the amount of cheap goods we have gotten from China in the last ten years, if they stopped selling us stuff tomorrow, I think that on balance we would be ahead. We've been able to use that money we saved by buying their cheap goods to invest and increase our standard of living.
>>>? We're in a trade deficit. What money? Factually speaking wages in the US hasn't increased or increased very little over the years
Maybe (probably) our standard of living would fall if they suddenly stopped selling us stuff, but I don't see that it would fall farther than where it would have been it we never had the opportunity to take their money in the first place. I say "take their money" because that's what it comes down to for me.
>>>in order to "take their money," we have to give them ours and we're already witnessing what our money is helping them with.
For the sake or argument, lets say that China does think they are being diabolical and their leaders are manipulating their currency so as to devalue it
>>>again, which is what's happening. Let's lay that to rest already
(not that every other country on earth doesn't try and manipulate their currency to their own advantage),
>>>I supposed you free tradists are happy with this
in the end it comes down to them giving us money.
>>>and us giving them ours
What about South Korea, India, etc., are they all going to stop selling us cheap factory goods at the same time? I tend to agree that China wants to become the "big kid on the block." Or the next solitary superpower if you prefer, I'm still willing to take their money.
>>>one more time: And they're taking ours....MUCH more than us taking. But I guess you're optimistic and willing to risk this.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage).
>>>not facetious, it's fact for a tremendous amount of CEOs in this day and age. And this is not my point of view. It's the other side. After all, y'all don't seem to see any problems with this.
I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers.
>>>? Of course this is the answer but it's not happening for a lot of sectors. I'm presenting the grim reality for you thanks to this free haphazard trading
Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would.
>>>people can get to first base but what's the goal? Home plate. And for 80% of the people, it's not happening.
Given that retraining is going to be required anyway,
>>>yeah, and we're seeing why.....
I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
>>>Well, at least no one hasn't denied the fact that "just change skills" is easy. So again, keep supporting free trade and most legitimate hard-working Americans are gonna suffer. anyways, my next response won't come til probably Sunday at the earliest, so I'm not ignoring.
>>>unrealistic so I'm not gonna bother responding. A new/good car for 10K is like Obama and Clinton being an effective President. I presented my facts previously. Reading further, nowhere in my comments do I demand all our products be sold at cheaper prices. I'm more focused on jobs. In fact, 90% of my last response was based on that.
If I'm trying to make an argument against totally free trade, I might carry on the analogy. Now your enemy starts selling you everything you want at pennies on the dollar. The strategy is that eventually you will quit your job because you don't need the money because they are selling you everything cheap. Some time after you quit your job, your enemy will stop selling you all your needs and you will be ruined. That's either diabolical or really stupid on the enemy's part.
>>>a lot of items are overpriced so they get the better end of the deal. Hooray for free trade. But I'm evil for wanting to do the same from our side to some extent.
In this analogy, quitting your job would be like the US closing (and demolishing maybe) factories because China will sell us the stuff cheaper than we can make it. As a nation, we are doing this, so the analogy doesn't extend to saying that you just wouldn't quit because you don't trust your enemy (though that would be the protectionist scheme). The analogy continues then, that some day China will stop selling us stuff and we will be ruined. Maybe I'm just to optimistic,
>>>maybe. I'm being realistic
but I don't think we would be ruined. I think things might be shaky for a while, but we would rebuild those factories that we need (possibly using robotics (ala the Japanese) if we no longer have workers willing/wanting to go back to factory work).
>>>i find it funny so many engineers forget the fact that robotics, technology etc....it's all shit without humans. They don't turn on by themselves.
Even just counting the amount of cheap goods we have gotten from China in the last ten years, if they stopped selling us stuff tomorrow, I think that on balance we would be ahead. We've been able to use that money we saved by buying their cheap goods to invest and increase our standard of living.
>>>? We're in a trade deficit. What money? Factually speaking wages in the US hasn't increased or increased very little over the years
Maybe (probably) our standard of living would fall if they suddenly stopped selling us stuff, but I don't see that it would fall farther than where it would have been it we never had the opportunity to take their money in the first place. I say "take their money" because that's what it comes down to for me.
>>>in order to "take their money," we have to give them ours and we're already witnessing what our money is helping them with.
For the sake or argument, lets say that China does think they are being diabolical and their leaders are manipulating their currency so as to devalue it
>>>again, which is what's happening. Let's lay that to rest already
(not that every other country on earth doesn't try and manipulate their currency to their own advantage),
>>>I supposed you free tradists are happy with this
in the end it comes down to them giving us money.
>>>and us giving them ours
What about South Korea, India, etc., are they all going to stop selling us cheap factory goods at the same time? I tend to agree that China wants to become the "big kid on the block." Or the next solitary superpower if you prefer, I'm still willing to take their money.
>>>one more time: And they're taking ours....MUCH more than us taking. But I guess you're optimistic and willing to risk this.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage).
>>>not facetious, it's fact for a tremendous amount of CEOs in this day and age. And this is not my point of view. It's the other side. After all, y'all don't seem to see any problems with this.
I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers.
>>>? Of course this is the answer but it's not happening for a lot of sectors. I'm presenting the grim reality for you thanks to this free haphazard trading
Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would.
>>>people can get to first base but what's the goal? Home plate. And for 80% of the people, it's not happening.
Given that retraining is going to be required anyway,
>>>yeah, and we're seeing why.....
I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
>>>Well, at least no one hasn't denied the fact that "just change skills" is easy. So again, keep supporting free trade and most legitimate hard-working Americans are gonna suffer. anyways, my next response won't come til probably Sunday at the earliest, so I'm not ignoring.
Trade and stuff
So lets say your worst enemy comes up to you and says, "I'll sell you this brand new Corvette for $10000." Do you say, "no, I think you're trying to hurt me by selling me things for less than they're worth?" If I'm trying to make an argument against totally free trade, I might carry on the analogy. Now your enemy starts selling you everything you want at pennies on the dollar. The strategy is that eventually you will quit your job because you don't need the money because they are selling you everything cheap. Some time after you quit your job, your enemy will stop selling you all your needs and you will be ruined. That's either diabolical or really stupid on the enemy's part. In this analogy, quitting your job would be like the US closing (and demolishing maybe) factories because China will sell us the stuff cheaper than we can make it. As a nation, we are doing this, so the analogy doesn't extend to saying that you just wouldn't quit because you don't trust your enemy (though that would be the protectionist scheme). The analogy continues then, that some day China will stop selling us stuff and we will be ruined. Maybe I'm just to optimistic, but I don't think we would be ruined. I think things might be shaky for a while, but we would rebuild those factories that we need (possibly using robotics (ala the Japanese) if we no longer have workers willing/wanting to go back to factory work). Even just counting the amount of cheap goods we have gotten from China in the last ten years, if they stopped selling us stuff tomorrow, I think that on balance we would be ahead. We've been able to use that money we saved by buying their cheap goods to invest and increase our standard of living. Maybe (probably) our standard of living would fall if they suddenly stopped selling us stuff, but I don't see that it would fall farther than where it would have been it we never had the opportunity to take their money in the first place. I say "take their money" because that's what it comes down to for me. For the sake or argument, lets say that China does think they are being diabolical and their leaders are manipulating their currency so as to devalue it (not that every other country on earth doesn't try and manipulate their currency to their own advantage), in the end it comes down to them giving us money. Just like if your enemy sells you a new Corvette for ten grand, he basically gave you money. The only way we loose in this is if we really are ruined, if our economy collapses because we can't buy cheap stuff from China. Are we really that unstable? What about South Korea, India, etc., are they all going to stop selling us cheap factory goods at the same time? I tend to agree that China wants to become the "big kid on the block." Or the next solitary superpower if you prefer, I'm still willing to take their money.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage). I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers. Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would. The fact that most don't suggests that it hasn't (in the majority) been necessary. The fact is that technology is going to continue to advance. If you don't have to retrain because of cheap labor today you'll probably have to because of technology tomorrow. If it isn't cheap labor today it will be robotic labor tomorrow. Photocopiers replaced typing pools. Should we have continued to artificially employ legions of typists just so they wouldn't have to retrain? I too wish no one had to retrain, I'm sure it sucks. I just think that the reality is that people we need to learn new skills as time goes on. Given that retraining is going to be required anyway, I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage). I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers. Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would. The fact that most don't suggests that it hasn't (in the majority) been necessary. The fact is that technology is going to continue to advance. If you don't have to retrain because of cheap labor today you'll probably have to because of technology tomorrow. If it isn't cheap labor today it will be robotic labor tomorrow. Photocopiers replaced typing pools. Should we have continued to artificially employ legions of typists just so they wouldn't have to retrain? I too wish no one had to retrain, I'm sure it sucks. I just think that the reality is that people we need to learn new skills as time goes on. Given that retraining is going to be required anyway, I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
trade and McCain
John McCain:
about torture, this is the main reason why I don't support Ron Paul. Paul believes as long as we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Study Islamic terrorism. Take years if you have to. It is well factualized they want the end for Christians, Jews, and Americans. Period. For the election, there are no full-fledged conservatives left majority-speaking: Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Paul. I think the biggest conservative in the 2008 election is gonna come from a third party, like Constitution. Reagan did win big in the past. Bush barely won both of his elections. Since I don't think this election is gonna promote a real conservative, I guarantee it's gonna be another close victory for one candidate. But again, I'm gonna end up voting for him for the simple reason that he's the conservative (he still is in many issues, let's not forget this) that has the best chance of winning. I simply do - not - want 4 years of Clinton or Obama. Ugh, this is a nightmare for me. There goes my tax rates.....I understand not voting for McCain. If most people follow this, this would simply mean a victory for Clinton or Obama. Here comes 4 years of extreme socialism. Again, Obama frightens me. He makes Clinton look normal.
Trade:
After reading everything, I guess I need to talk more. Before I do, I'll focus on a few sentences that caught my eye. Y'all's (if that's a word) sentences start with >>>
>>>Let's consider this idea that totally free trade is "crushing" the little guy. If you believe that,
it is, period. and if you keep reading to the end of what I need to say, you'll see why. I understand all the comments brought forth here, but no one has yet to deny what's been happening. But again, "tough shit," I know. No solutions have been presented, rather "little man: go somewhere and find something else." I mentioned several times already what the alternative ways are, actually I've been asking for them. Throughout the trade talk it almost seems like no one believes what's going on with China. Words like "IF China devalues its currency." So how can I debate any of this when some of you automatically do not believe what is going on? That's why it's been tough debating this.
>>>The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
this basically opens up to what I'm mostly gonna talk about here and that is just so easy to switch skills. Tell that to the displaced workers who had no choice but to accept the layoff. This is why if it wasn't for Christians, Bush would've lost Ohio...and the election. I think Americans, in all walks of life, liberal or conservative, are getting a little sick and tired of our country being put in the back burner in all these trade deals. This free trade you support is allowing dangerous equipment and people to freely come here. If you don't believe this is going on, just look south of us. China is just one piece of the pie really (there you go, I'm looking at the whole pie, I guess that doesn't make me a liberal anymore). There are many lazy Americans, granted yes, but there are just as many, if not more really, that are primed for a few areas. Most of us here on this board are brilliant and I respect that, but take yourselves out of engineering and see how you'll do. Think about it. And perhaps maybe you can come up with one skill, think of two more. You can't just say this guy that got displaced is lazy and simply needs to learn a new task...like say the medical field or law perhaps mm? Examples please........ of skills they can go to. Because jobs being outsourced include engineers, scientists, programmers, internet specialists, accountants, analysts, research, designers, etc etc. Sure you can do it here, there's plenty available, but the evidence shows since Clinton/Gingrich, more and more of these jobs are shipped every year. And it keeps going up. I've already said we should not trade countries that pose as a threat to us. This includes China (I said it, again). You really think they're building up their military for peaceful purposes? But your theory is basically if we free trade everyone, there is that somewhat of a possibility they'll be buddy buddy with us.
>>>one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable.
I can simply say the same for the other side.
>>>You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side".
but this is simply what's happening now - particularly us vs China. Okay sure we're receiving products, albeit a lot of them are shit, over-priced, etc....
>>>If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using.
you yourself mentioned the essence is being #1....so that's what I'm looking for on our side. The fact is that no matter how lax and free our policies are vs them, their policies vs us are hurting us.
>>>If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process.
yeah it's hurting me they're building their military machine...we're trading with commies...let's not forget this.
>>>Since you supposedly "asked it twice",
I did, but it was probably a long email no one read, my bad
>>>I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here.
on the contrary, if it's cheaper to make over there which is the case, they can charge more here, which is the case. Did you look at most countries' export laws vs us?
>>>Higher skills mean higher productivity,
true in some cases, but not always the case. This is like saying if someone goes through training, they can do the job.
>>>(for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages)
You mean you and I, engineers, are supposed to work for a shit living then? Damn right I'm looking at wages. You have people overseas that work just as good, better, and worst than Americans willing to receive a dollar a day. I'm actually gonna wait to see if any of us on this board is willing to take a huge pay cut.
>>>For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU.
There's more to an expanding economy than just one principle. This is like Clinton taking credit for the economy on his own. It's like a car. Everything on the car needs to work for it to be efficient. Didn't I tell you what's happening now? The only conservatives really that support all this extreme-free trading are the Bush/McCain/neoconservatives. Even Lou Dobbs and Donald Trump disagree with free trade. Granted, Trump isn't a conservative for the most part, but like your essence of #1, that's exactly what Trump feels too and who in here would really turn down an offer to become Trump for a lifetime.
>>>Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
and I never said anything about raising taxes
Anyways, I'm seeing one side from you guys. Look at the other side. I've already explained it...but I'll talk further. Jobs that are leaving the US, say programming and manufacturing, go to countries like China, India, the Middle East. All a terrorist group needs to do, rather than missile or bomb us, is to disrupt the flow of goods (always happening in Africa, why else is all the equipment used there to terrorize come from us?) and services. They could easily fire missiles from some ships coming to our shores. I know I talk about China a lot and you mentioned to me how about India? Exactly. India and Pakistan aren't exactly the best of friends and Pakistan is just one Musharaff away from firing their nukes (oh yeah, these two countries have nukes, I forgot) to India and destroying the very places that help us and our economy. Then there's Taiwan. Taiwan is one independence billboard away from China destroying them. You do realize we depend on China now financially? Due to Bush's wild spendings, we've been relying on China heavily (how else is Iraq funded?). I guess that's "free trade." But do you really think China is gonna sit quietly with the IOUs?
Frankly, we've been relying on foreign nations for quite some time now and I'm aware of your "look for other skills" ideal. In fact, several here now mention "look for other skills" like that *snaps fingers* The "basic" jobs are quickly becoming a dying breed in the US. Not everyone can become a manager, CEO. I've already gone through contractor teams that are basically all managers and no engineers. It's a disaster. Which means we need more *voila* "workers." And I know what you're thinking: outsource! Where does that exacly leave the middle and lower class then? Mm? It's a pyramid after all where only the few can be at the top. I can't see why the CEO is the devil though. If I was in his position and with our trade laws that y'all freely support, it's mighty tempting to just give up a huge portion of your sector to areas that'll do it for nickles and dimes.
Somehow my view of fair trade is liberal according to y'all, even though it's being accepted by numerous conservatives now...fair trade is basically allowing trade and to promote competition and diversity at the same time not eliminating industries and professions. We've already had an Asian crisis in the late 90s and all the economists say this is about to turn the whole world into a recession. Why did they say that? Because industries rely on them so much. The only reason why there was no depression here was because of the dot-com bubble. Diversity of jobs here is the key. Interdependence increases risks.
My labor point was pseudo-ignored. Simply put, again, most engineers can't compete vs Asians when their living condition is pure shit. Hell, engineers are better off becoming bathroom repair or work at Burger King. And I know, look for another skill. Even the Economist (conservatives by the way) say it's not as easy to simply just "switch skills." The very own Labor Department (numbers don't lie) during the Bush years stated that only about 20% of displaced workers actually ended up in jobs they retrained for. Bush says in his state of the union addresses many times about 6 million, 7 million, 8 million jobs being created. You can't ignore the fact that he lost even more. I honestly hate to say this for Bush, but it's fact that he's about leave his presidency with a net loss of jobs. His tax cuts displayed the same effect. Tax cuts are great, but not if you're spending at the highest rate ever and our gas prices near killing us every other week. And with gas prices high, look at what it'll effect: truckers. And how do things get transported around America? Exactly. Thus resulting in higher prices of groceries for one example.
America historically does not do well creating jobs for displaced workers. I know, it's very simple to "switch." You realize how expensive it is these days to go to school? Almost any school? I guess if you're a farmer, you can just easily switch to mining and manufacturing or perhaps retail services. Nah, these farmers can easily become doctors after 8 years. With the way you talk about switching, we might as well get 4 college degrees while we were in. How about some of us that are a little more intelligent brain-wise? We run the risk of being overqualified if we go down. When I was job searching you realize how many times I was considered overqualified and risk of getting overpaid? Yes, in the past I actually for the hell of it decided to look at "basic" jobs and see what would happen. It's easy for CEOs to say "get more education." Hell even Alan Greenspan suggested this. But when asked specifically, they'll never specify. One thing also ignored is...well, let's just be blunt, most engineers and programmers aren't necessarily the best when it comes to people skills. Where are they gonna learn this? College? Reading a book? I guess we can try to be a manager, but for every manager, you really need at least 5 more workers and most engineers cannot be entrepreneurs. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's not the majority - period. Fact is most new businesses fold within a decade of starting. It's just the way it is. I guess they can try "looking for new skills." And since I'm speaking of education so much, you think our education system is that top notch in this day and age for the most part? What a joke, this is why I advocate privatizing education and allow vouchers. The public system is embarrasing. There are bright spots but it's like 1 in every 1,000 public schools. It's only the select few (I think us for example) that went to crap schools but took the time on our own to better ourselves. Besides that, look at our good ol' *drum roll* NMT for example. Why the hell did we take analog electronics? Analog didn't help me in any other class at tech unless if you're taking advanced analog (and boy does this school know nothing about connecting to industries for our graduates to get jobs but that's besides the point). With how crappy our education system is from the beginning, that's the reason why when you look at the grad school population in America - it's virtually all foreigners. Take a look at NMT's (and elsewhere) commencement for the graduate section and you see a bunch of Waleed Al Hamud's and Yan Li's. The only reason why US grad schools look great is because of the money being poured in. Top research jobs really are not in this country and if they are, foreigners are in it. In fact, really only 10% of tech jobs are the highest of cutting edge. If these foreigners aren't in these positions, there are plenty of them willing to do similar jobs for a few bucks a day back home.
Okay, I went off on education, back to trade. I'm beating on the "new skills" a lot, but I'm proving my point here. I guess all that's left to switch to is physically demanding jobs, like moving stuff, technicians, plumbers, etc. Wow. So from Genesis to Revelations, we went from top engineer to basically packing boxes. Is that your idea of switching skills? That may work for you and Muz and Donald considering how ripped you are but for most engineers....I doubt this'll be good for them. And for you, are you really......are you really willing to do something like this? Mm?
You guys keep mentioning everyone benefits in the end. How again? No specifics mentioned except a bunch of boats rising with tides. Sure we do allow a few guest workers into the country but do you think China and other countries will allow American to just walk in? You realize how it's virtually impossible to start a business in China? My very own co-worker mentioned that this job (this can apply to many areas) is quickly becoming all managers and no engineers. TRUE free trade would allow us all to cross paths anytime we wish, but the world we live in today? It'd be a miracle to get out of a foreign country once you're in it (pray you have a passport).
Finally, it may seem like I don't support capitalism. But we really didn't have the full gamut of free trade before Clinton and do you consider those Americans in the past anti-capitalist? I think not.
about torture, this is the main reason why I don't support Ron Paul. Paul believes as long as we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Study Islamic terrorism. Take years if you have to. It is well factualized they want the end for Christians, Jews, and Americans. Period. For the election, there are no full-fledged conservatives left majority-speaking: Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Paul. I think the biggest conservative in the 2008 election is gonna come from a third party, like Constitution. Reagan did win big in the past. Bush barely won both of his elections. Since I don't think this election is gonna promote a real conservative, I guarantee it's gonna be another close victory for one candidate. But again, I'm gonna end up voting for him for the simple reason that he's the conservative (he still is in many issues, let's not forget this) that has the best chance of winning. I simply do - not - want 4 years of Clinton or Obama. Ugh, this is a nightmare for me. There goes my tax rates.....I understand not voting for McCain. If most people follow this, this would simply mean a victory for Clinton or Obama. Here comes 4 years of extreme socialism. Again, Obama frightens me. He makes Clinton look normal.
Trade:
After reading everything, I guess I need to talk more. Before I do, I'll focus on a few sentences that caught my eye. Y'all's (if that's a word) sentences start with >>>
>>>Let's consider this idea that totally free trade is "crushing" the little guy. If you believe that,
it is, period. and if you keep reading to the end of what I need to say, you'll see why. I understand all the comments brought forth here, but no one has yet to deny what's been happening. But again, "tough shit," I know. No solutions have been presented, rather "little man: go somewhere and find something else." I mentioned several times already what the alternative ways are, actually I've been asking for them. Throughout the trade talk it almost seems like no one believes what's going on with China. Words like "IF China devalues its currency." So how can I debate any of this when some of you automatically do not believe what is going on? That's why it's been tough debating this.
>>>The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
this basically opens up to what I'm mostly gonna talk about here and that is just so easy to switch skills. Tell that to the displaced workers who had no choice but to accept the layoff. This is why if it wasn't for Christians, Bush would've lost Ohio...and the election. I think Americans, in all walks of life, liberal or conservative, are getting a little sick and tired of our country being put in the back burner in all these trade deals. This free trade you support is allowing dangerous equipment and people to freely come here. If you don't believe this is going on, just look south of us. China is just one piece of the pie really (there you go, I'm looking at the whole pie, I guess that doesn't make me a liberal anymore). There are many lazy Americans, granted yes, but there are just as many, if not more really, that are primed for a few areas. Most of us here on this board are brilliant and I respect that, but take yourselves out of engineering and see how you'll do. Think about it. And perhaps maybe you can come up with one skill, think of two more. You can't just say this guy that got displaced is lazy and simply needs to learn a new task...like say the medical field or law perhaps mm? Examples please........ of skills they can go to. Because jobs being outsourced include engineers, scientists, programmers, internet specialists, accountants, analysts, research, designers, etc etc. Sure you can do it here, there's plenty available, but the evidence shows since Clinton/Gingrich, more and more of these jobs are shipped every year. And it keeps going up. I've already said we should not trade countries that pose as a threat to us. This includes China (I said it, again). You really think they're building up their military for peaceful purposes? But your theory is basically if we free trade everyone, there is that somewhat of a possibility they'll be buddy buddy with us.
>>>one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable.
I can simply say the same for the other side.
>>>You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side".
but this is simply what's happening now - particularly us vs China. Okay sure we're receiving products, albeit a lot of them are shit, over-priced, etc....
>>>If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using.
you yourself mentioned the essence is being #1....so that's what I'm looking for on our side. The fact is that no matter how lax and free our policies are vs them, their policies vs us are hurting us.
>>>If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process.
yeah it's hurting me they're building their military machine...we're trading with commies...let's not forget this.
>>>Since you supposedly "asked it twice",
I did, but it was probably a long email no one read, my bad
>>>I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here.
on the contrary, if it's cheaper to make over there which is the case, they can charge more here, which is the case. Did you look at most countries' export laws vs us?
>>>Higher skills mean higher productivity,
true in some cases, but not always the case. This is like saying if someone goes through training, they can do the job.
>>>(for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages)
You mean you and I, engineers, are supposed to work for a shit living then? Damn right I'm looking at wages. You have people overseas that work just as good, better, and worst than Americans willing to receive a dollar a day. I'm actually gonna wait to see if any of us on this board is willing to take a huge pay cut.
>>>For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU.
There's more to an expanding economy than just one principle. This is like Clinton taking credit for the economy on his own. It's like a car. Everything on the car needs to work for it to be efficient. Didn't I tell you what's happening now? The only conservatives really that support all this extreme-free trading are the Bush/McCain/neoconservatives. Even Lou Dobbs and Donald Trump disagree with free trade. Granted, Trump isn't a conservative for the most part, but like your essence of #1, that's exactly what Trump feels too and who in here would really turn down an offer to become Trump for a lifetime.
>>>Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
and I never said anything about raising taxes
Anyways, I'm seeing one side from you guys. Look at the other side. I've already explained it...but I'll talk further. Jobs that are leaving the US, say programming and manufacturing, go to countries like China, India, the Middle East. All a terrorist group needs to do, rather than missile or bomb us, is to disrupt the flow of goods (always happening in Africa, why else is all the equipment used there to terrorize come from us?) and services. They could easily fire missiles from some ships coming to our shores. I know I talk about China a lot and you mentioned to me how about India? Exactly. India and Pakistan aren't exactly the best of friends and Pakistan is just one Musharaff away from firing their nukes (oh yeah, these two countries have nukes, I forgot) to India and destroying the very places that help us and our economy. Then there's Taiwan. Taiwan is one independence billboard away from China destroying them. You do realize we depend on China now financially? Due to Bush's wild spendings, we've been relying on China heavily (how else is Iraq funded?). I guess that's "free trade." But do you really think China is gonna sit quietly with the IOUs?
Frankly, we've been relying on foreign nations for quite some time now and I'm aware of your "look for other skills" ideal. In fact, several here now mention "look for other skills" like that *snaps fingers* The "basic" jobs are quickly becoming a dying breed in the US. Not everyone can become a manager, CEO. I've already gone through contractor teams that are basically all managers and no engineers. It's a disaster. Which means we need more *voila* "workers." And I know what you're thinking: outsource! Where does that exacly leave the middle and lower class then? Mm? It's a pyramid after all where only the few can be at the top. I can't see why the CEO is the devil though. If I was in his position and with our trade laws that y'all freely support, it's mighty tempting to just give up a huge portion of your sector to areas that'll do it for nickles and dimes.
Somehow my view of fair trade is liberal according to y'all, even though it's being accepted by numerous conservatives now...fair trade is basically allowing trade and to promote competition and diversity at the same time not eliminating industries and professions. We've already had an Asian crisis in the late 90s and all the economists say this is about to turn the whole world into a recession. Why did they say that? Because industries rely on them so much. The only reason why there was no depression here was because of the dot-com bubble. Diversity of jobs here is the key. Interdependence increases risks.
My labor point was pseudo-ignored. Simply put, again, most engineers can't compete vs Asians when their living condition is pure shit. Hell, engineers are better off becoming bathroom repair or work at Burger King. And I know, look for another skill. Even the Economist (conservatives by the way) say it's not as easy to simply just "switch skills." The very own Labor Department (numbers don't lie) during the Bush years stated that only about 20% of displaced workers actually ended up in jobs they retrained for. Bush says in his state of the union addresses many times about 6 million, 7 million, 8 million jobs being created. You can't ignore the fact that he lost even more. I honestly hate to say this for Bush, but it's fact that he's about leave his presidency with a net loss of jobs. His tax cuts displayed the same effect. Tax cuts are great, but not if you're spending at the highest rate ever and our gas prices near killing us every other week. And with gas prices high, look at what it'll effect: truckers. And how do things get transported around America? Exactly. Thus resulting in higher prices of groceries for one example.
America historically does not do well creating jobs for displaced workers. I know, it's very simple to "switch." You realize how expensive it is these days to go to school? Almost any school? I guess if you're a farmer, you can just easily switch to mining and manufacturing or perhaps retail services. Nah, these farmers can easily become doctors after 8 years. With the way you talk about switching, we might as well get 4 college degrees while we were in. How about some of us that are a little more intelligent brain-wise? We run the risk of being overqualified if we go down. When I was job searching you realize how many times I was considered overqualified and risk of getting overpaid? Yes, in the past I actually for the hell of it decided to look at "basic" jobs and see what would happen. It's easy for CEOs to say "get more education." Hell even Alan Greenspan suggested this. But when asked specifically, they'll never specify. One thing also ignored is...well, let's just be blunt, most engineers and programmers aren't necessarily the best when it comes to people skills. Where are they gonna learn this? College? Reading a book? I guess we can try to be a manager, but for every manager, you really need at least 5 more workers and most engineers cannot be entrepreneurs. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's not the majority - period. Fact is most new businesses fold within a decade of starting. It's just the way it is. I guess they can try "looking for new skills." And since I'm speaking of education so much, you think our education system is that top notch in this day and age for the most part? What a joke, this is why I advocate privatizing education and allow vouchers. The public system is embarrasing. There are bright spots but it's like 1 in every 1,000 public schools. It's only the select few (I think us for example) that went to crap schools but took the time on our own to better ourselves. Besides that, look at our good ol' *drum roll* NMT for example. Why the hell did we take analog electronics? Analog didn't help me in any other class at tech unless if you're taking advanced analog (and boy does this school know nothing about connecting to industries for our graduates to get jobs but that's besides the point). With how crappy our education system is from the beginning, that's the reason why when you look at the grad school population in America - it's virtually all foreigners. Take a look at NMT's (and elsewhere) commencement for the graduate section and you see a bunch of Waleed Al Hamud's and Yan Li's. The only reason why US grad schools look great is because of the money being poured in. Top research jobs really are not in this country and if they are, foreigners are in it. In fact, really only 10% of tech jobs are the highest of cutting edge. If these foreigners aren't in these positions, there are plenty of them willing to do similar jobs for a few bucks a day back home.
Okay, I went off on education, back to trade. I'm beating on the "new skills" a lot, but I'm proving my point here. I guess all that's left to switch to is physically demanding jobs, like moving stuff, technicians, plumbers, etc. Wow. So from Genesis to Revelations, we went from top engineer to basically packing boxes. Is that your idea of switching skills? That may work for you and Muz and Donald considering how ripped you are but for most engineers....I doubt this'll be good for them. And for you, are you really......are you really willing to do something like this? Mm?
You guys keep mentioning everyone benefits in the end. How again? No specifics mentioned except a bunch of boats rising with tides. Sure we do allow a few guest workers into the country but do you think China and other countries will allow American to just walk in? You realize how it's virtually impossible to start a business in China? My very own co-worker mentioned that this job (this can apply to many areas) is quickly becoming all managers and no engineers. TRUE free trade would allow us all to cross paths anytime we wish, but the world we live in today? It'd be a miracle to get out of a foreign country once you're in it (pray you have a passport).
Finally, it may seem like I don't support capitalism. But we really didn't have the full gamut of free trade before Clinton and do you consider those Americans in the past anti-capitalist? I think not.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
McCain
Here's Tigerhawk's take on the election, and why we need to support McCain:
He says earlier that all the vigorous and innovative ideas are on the left, but I don't agree with that. The presentation just happens to be better. Obama, in particular, is very good at clearly voicing what he believes in. The problem is, his ideas aren't new, they're rehashes of failed ideas from the '60s.
Conservatives need to man up, support McCain like they mean it, and get
back to building the intellectual case for the conservative point of view.
Otherwise, it will be 1960 all over again.
He says earlier that all the vigorous and innovative ideas are on the left, but I don't agree with that. The presentation just happens to be better. Obama, in particular, is very good at clearly voicing what he believes in. The problem is, his ideas aren't new, they're rehashes of failed ideas from the '60s.
Engicon
Thanks, now I don't have to write too much.
By the way, if you are ever in the NE, Jay Peak in Vermont is about as close to Wolf Creek that you can get in terms of snow. We had fresh snow all day Friday from continuous snowfall. The tree runs (for some reason, in the east they are called glades) were as good as Wolf Creek. If you don't mind being around a bunch of Quebecois then it really is the best place to snowboard in the east (esp. if you are a freerider).
I do have a problem with you saying "it's not tough noogies". It really is. The world advances, and it's up to you to keep up. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, he put thousands of people out of work. The advent of the personal computer also put a ton of people out of work. If those people didn't figure out how to get a new job in an advancing economy, then they starved. But if their jobs were "protected" by quashing these new innovations, then overall the economy (including the holders of the "protected" jobs) suffered.
Anyway, LtCarp, one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable. You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side". So, for some reason, you believe that international economies are a zero-sum game. I do not, and Engicon's example is similar to my examples in illustrating that point. What I find mind-boggling is that as a conservative, I expect you harbor sentiments completely opposite those when it comes to the domestic economy. I just find that inconsistent. If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using. If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process. In fact, it might be enriching other potential competitors, like Japan and the EU.
All this gnashing of teeth and moaning about jobs being shipped overseas really doesn't hold much water when you look at some of the major employers here in the US - Siemens, Toyota, Philips, BP - they are foreign owned. Heck, doesn't one of our buds, E, work for Lafarge? A FRENCH-owned company?
Since you supposedly "asked it twice", I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here. That wasn't too bad, now, was it? So, you may harrumph, "but our workers are out of work and they suffer!" No, they don't. There is a readjustment, but in the long run, they are more highly skilled workers than the ones in China. Higher skills mean higher productivity, and higher productivity (for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages) means a better, more productive job and higher living standard in the long run - not just for themselves, but for everyone else. You want a concrete example, here it is. A steelworker loses his job because the Japanese or German steel industry puts his plant out of business. He can handle machinery, some of it even high tech - so he gets a job at the new Toyota plant they are building in the state next door. It's cheaper for the Japanese to make steel, and for Toyota, it's best to take advantage of a pool of highly skilled labor, especially in a country like America, where you can rely on the rule of law.
For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU. Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
Well, I guess I wrote a little more than expected...oh well.
By the way, if you are ever in the NE, Jay Peak in Vermont is about as close to Wolf Creek that you can get in terms of snow. We had fresh snow all day Friday from continuous snowfall. The tree runs (for some reason, in the east they are called glades) were as good as Wolf Creek. If you don't mind being around a bunch of Quebecois then it really is the best place to snowboard in the east (esp. if you are a freerider).
I do have a problem with you saying "it's not tough noogies". It really is. The world advances, and it's up to you to keep up. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, he put thousands of people out of work. The advent of the personal computer also put a ton of people out of work. If those people didn't figure out how to get a new job in an advancing economy, then they starved. But if their jobs were "protected" by quashing these new innovations, then overall the economy (including the holders of the "protected" jobs) suffered.
Anyway, LtCarp, one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable. You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side". So, for some reason, you believe that international economies are a zero-sum game. I do not, and Engicon's example is similar to my examples in illustrating that point. What I find mind-boggling is that as a conservative, I expect you harbor sentiments completely opposite those when it comes to the domestic economy. I just find that inconsistent. If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using. If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process. In fact, it might be enriching other potential competitors, like Japan and the EU.
All this gnashing of teeth and moaning about jobs being shipped overseas really doesn't hold much water when you look at some of the major employers here in the US - Siemens, Toyota, Philips, BP - they are foreign owned. Heck, doesn't one of our buds, E, work for Lafarge? A FRENCH-owned company?
Since you supposedly "asked it twice", I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here. That wasn't too bad, now, was it? So, you may harrumph, "but our workers are out of work and they suffer!" No, they don't. There is a readjustment, but in the long run, they are more highly skilled workers than the ones in China. Higher skills mean higher productivity, and higher productivity (for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages) means a better, more productive job and higher living standard in the long run - not just for themselves, but for everyone else. You want a concrete example, here it is. A steelworker loses his job because the Japanese or German steel industry puts his plant out of business. He can handle machinery, some of it even high tech - so he gets a job at the new Toyota plant they are building in the state next door. It's cheaper for the Japanese to make steel, and for Toyota, it's best to take advantage of a pool of highly skilled labor, especially in a country like America, where you can rely on the rule of law.
For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU. Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
Well, I guess I wrote a little more than expected...oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)