A story-
A while ago I went to volunteer in Uganda. While I was there I was working under a man named Mugabi Ronald. He was from sort of wealthy family, he went to a great school and now he runs a charity.
His sister went to a great school also, trained with the FBI in the United States, then went back to Uganda and became Chief of Police.
Ronald has a huge advantage in anything he pursues because of his connections through his family and his charity. Now he is thinking about running for a position in government.
As he discussed with me once this prospect and how he was seriously considering it there became an issue. The people in Uganda would not listen to what he had to say. Most were uneducated and naturally had no idea what was right.
They were gullible to any candidate that promised them unrealistic things. In actuality, most candidates were horribly corrupt and would end up screwing over the people as they had in the past. Supposedly Uganda has a Democracy, but really, it does not. The government is very very corrupt.
People that are wealthy there want to stay wealthy more so than the people who are poor and want to become wealthy. Once you are at the top, the fear of going back down is far more powerful than wanting to be rich.
Anyways, Ronald was telling me of his frustration with people and government. He was frustrated that the government was corrupt. He was also frustrated with the people because if he ran he would not be able to be honest with them.
He realized that people wanted to be fed certain ideas. The corrupt candidates that won always did this. Ronald did not want to lie. He wanted to be sincere but he knew that honesty would not be enough, in fact, it would work against him.
Now I begin to think, what would our candidates say if they could? Should we have a Truth Serum Christmas Debate Special?
Reflection
Throughout this entire class I have been trying to isolate what I find so disturbing about politics and the issue, of how politics is a stage, really isolates it.
Recently I was talking to a friend about some of the candidates. There came a point in our conversation where we both became nauseous from the topic.
So many people mutter to themselves, 'uh, i hate politics'. But what is that feeling?? Where does it come from?? Is it because there are so many sides to consider? Is it because there was a feeling of nothing can be done because everything is so corrupt?
Why do I often grab a news paper and just go straight for the business section and skip the political stuff.
Politics are not straightforward. There are layers upon layers or truths of what things seem to be.
Business is so much easier for me to understand because its all about following the money. Who profits and who looses.
Politics never seem objective. Viewpoints, opinions, theories- formulas and explanations that predict behavior. Watching politics- watching civil affairs, seeing how leaders are going to take care of people or organize their needs, or is it
With business its who wins and who looses, and you always know their incentives. The intentions are clear- to profit, and that is somewhat refreshing to know because it is not masked by some good deed or gesture for good will.
With politicians you never know what their incentives are unless you know who's pulling their string; its a mixture of business incentives and doing good.
Its watching people balance business needs to public duties. We try to all take care of each other as a community and politicians are a part of that but at the same time, each want to benefits and defeat the other.
The country where we're all together but against each other... only here. The idea of a country made up of people with all different origins now seems odd in terms of evolution.
If we all human species competing against one another to produce the best kind of human, then isn't the idea of a country that helps the weak, just the opposite of that? Especially when a country is made up of people that come from all over the place and not just one race? Oh no? I just confused myself about what I think of humanity...
Sunday, December 4, 2011
So long Herman Cain
Herman Cain pulled out of the race. I thought I would be ecstatic but seeing him pull out of the race brought about double sided feelings, ones which I did not anticipate.
"Still Mr. Cain took what may be his last moment in the national spotlight to denounce the political culture in Washington, calling politics a "dirty game.'"
And I agree.
Herman Cain had an interesting run, one that was very interesting to watch.
He was a non-politician that took no part in creating today's financial problems (though he was head of his state's Federal Reserve). He was a businessman with solutions. He worked his way from top to bottom and possessed some endearing human qualities.
"Mr. Cain appealed to voters who sought an anti-establishment candidate."
Just like Obama was not part of the Republican Party which started the war and was involved with Financial Crisis, Herman Cain was appealing because he is so different than who is currently in power.
In times of crisis people will look to any other extreme without thinking about whether it is actually better. Candidates use that to their full advantage.
Despite my disagreement with his policies and views, i can understand his message and appeal. I am happy that he stepped down, but on the other hand he is right, politics is a nasty game, but its not even a game, its like who can play a better actor.
People that are fully qualified might not win an election just because they do not play the game right. Take Kerry and Gore for example.
We discuss in class what we would change about an election process, I would change it from being a stage to being an actual playing field where candidate's experience, abilities, and viewpoint are tested, not their abilities to articulate them.
I want to know who THEY are, not the people financing them. I want to know what THEY believe without all the political gorgon and censorship.
I think the reason why seeing Cain end his candidacy was bitter-sweet, was because on one hand I did not like him as a potential president, but also because I realized he was right about hating the game of politics.
He looses because he is not president, but he wins because he is no longer part of a ridiculous spectacle and by suspending his run he made a powerful point .
Now, I am left with candidates that are not much better than he is...
"Still Mr. Cain took what may be his last moment in the national spotlight to denounce the political culture in Washington, calling politics a "dirty game.'"
And I agree.
Herman Cain had an interesting run, one that was very interesting to watch.
He was a non-politician that took no part in creating today's financial problems (though he was head of his state's Federal Reserve). He was a businessman with solutions. He worked his way from top to bottom and possessed some endearing human qualities.
"Mr. Cain appealed to voters who sought an anti-establishment candidate."
Just like Obama was not part of the Republican Party which started the war and was involved with Financial Crisis, Herman Cain was appealing because he is so different than who is currently in power.
In times of crisis people will look to any other extreme without thinking about whether it is actually better. Candidates use that to their full advantage.
Despite my disagreement with his policies and views, i can understand his message and appeal. I am happy that he stepped down, but on the other hand he is right, politics is a nasty game, but its not even a game, its like who can play a better actor.
People that are fully qualified might not win an election just because they do not play the game right. Take Kerry and Gore for example.
We discuss in class what we would change about an election process, I would change it from being a stage to being an actual playing field where candidate's experience, abilities, and viewpoint are tested, not their abilities to articulate them.
I want to know who THEY are, not the people financing them. I want to know what THEY believe without all the political gorgon and censorship.
I think the reason why seeing Cain end his candidacy was bitter-sweet, was because on one hand I did not like him as a potential president, but also because I realized he was right about hating the game of politics.
He looses because he is not president, but he wins because he is no longer part of a ridiculous spectacle and by suspending his run he made a powerful point .
Now, I am left with candidates that are not much better than he is...
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Advertisment Reaction Videos
Reactions to Herman Cain's Campaign Ad
More reactions to Herman Cain's Ad: "hes a devider, not a uniter", also a cancer survivor calls in and find it despicable.
A set of religious groups ran an anti-gay ad saying that they could be 'cured'. This meeting was held to express outrage over it. Many religious leaders speak including this reverend.
Campaign Advertisement Videos (not embedded just thought I would share)
Nixon Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Nix
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Ads
Ford's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FordCa
Bush's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisemen
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Nix
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Ads
Ford's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FordCa
Bush's Campaign Ad
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisemen
"Charmer in Chief vs Disciplined Professional"
Alright, so earlier today was skimming through the Friday's paper when one article caught my attention. It was about Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama speaking at campaign fundraisers. She was not just speaking though, she was giving people a motivational talk.
Michelle has not spent much time in the media light since Obama's election. She does her own work in different health organizations and I do not really know why, but I like her. She seems modest, smart, and a pleasant person.
Barbara Bush does not really have the same appeal. She sort of stands by him and nods at everything but Michelle Obama actually does a lot without receiving attention for it.
My point is that for some reason, one which I want to get to later, I am drawn to someone for their personality without realizing it.
After realizing this, I began to think about how much a candidates personality play into an election. Are they just selling their views? Or are they selling themselves as a total package? Looks, personality, opinion, should they have it all? Are their views really the most determining factors.
Personalities and the Public
An article I round on this topic reads:
"We’ve evolved into a media-driven era of ever-shrinking attention spans and a relentless need to keep ourselves entertained. We enjoy public spectacles, prefer style over substance, and are regularly being bombarded with dueling ideological viewpoints that are too often misrepresented as fact. It stands to reason that with such cultural change comes an alteration in how we evaluate our presidential candidates."
My generation is superficial. I am, we all are. Yeah, I do not really like McCain partially because I do not want a shriveled up old raisin running the country with his old fashioned policies.
Now, put his opinions in a slightly younger, more energetic body, and I am pretty sure my views would be very different.
The article then goes on to say:
"Stuffy individuals like Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry all exuded competence and carried impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their counterparts. Candidates like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came across as genuine and thoughtful."
Mitt Romney seems a little bit stiff and flip-floppy, carefully choosing his answers, but overall he really does seem like the "Disciplined Professional". That's even how he was when he was running Bain Capital. He was said to be tough, he got his own lunch, and charged other top executives 20$ for being late to meetings.
Perry seems like a nice southern gentleman with religious ethics.
Ginrich is a historian, a scholar. He seems like he knows what he is talking about, can be clever at times, but does not really seems like a nice guy.
Ron Paul looks sick of life. But he is one of those candidates that if you put him in another younger, energetic, more personable persona, he would really shine I think. He seems very experienced but a little bit worn out.
Herman Cain is rebel. He does not do politics, he is not a politician, and he is going against the norm; from his outlook on the economy to the way he talks, he's just like us, but that might be a bad thing considering Obama has really Godly persona.
And I almost forgot about Huntsman and Bachman, which is my point. They just do not stand out.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/just-how-important-is-personality-in-presidential-elections/
Michelle has not spent much time in the media light since Obama's election. She does her own work in different health organizations and I do not really know why, but I like her. She seems modest, smart, and a pleasant person.
Barbara Bush does not really have the same appeal. She sort of stands by him and nods at everything but Michelle Obama actually does a lot without receiving attention for it.
My point is that for some reason, one which I want to get to later, I am drawn to someone for their personality without realizing it.
After realizing this, I began to think about how much a candidates personality play into an election. Are they just selling their views? Or are they selling themselves as a total package? Looks, personality, opinion, should they have it all? Are their views really the most determining factors.
Personalities and the Public
An article I round on this topic reads:
"We’ve evolved into a media-driven era of ever-shrinking attention spans and a relentless need to keep ourselves entertained. We enjoy public spectacles, prefer style over substance, and are regularly being bombarded with dueling ideological viewpoints that are too often misrepresented as fact. It stands to reason that with such cultural change comes an alteration in how we evaluate our presidential candidates."
My generation is superficial. I am, we all are. Yeah, I do not really like McCain partially because I do not want a shriveled up old raisin running the country with his old fashioned policies.
Now, put his opinions in a slightly younger, more energetic body, and I am pretty sure my views would be very different.
The article then goes on to say:
"Stuffy individuals like Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry all exuded competence and carried impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their counterparts. Candidates like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all came across as genuine and thoughtful."
Mitt Romney seems a little bit stiff and flip-floppy, carefully choosing his answers, but overall he really does seem like the "Disciplined Professional". That's even how he was when he was running Bain Capital. He was said to be tough, he got his own lunch, and charged other top executives 20$ for being late to meetings.
Perry seems like a nice southern gentleman with religious ethics.
Ginrich is a historian, a scholar. He seems like he knows what he is talking about, can be clever at times, but does not really seems like a nice guy.
Ron Paul looks sick of life. But he is one of those candidates that if you put him in another younger, energetic, more personable persona, he would really shine I think. He seems very experienced but a little bit worn out.
Herman Cain is rebel. He does not do politics, he is not a politician, and he is going against the norm; from his outlook on the economy to the way he talks, he's just like us, but that might be a bad thing considering Obama has really Godly persona.
And I almost forgot about Huntsman and Bachman, which is my point. They just do not stand out.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/just-how-important-is-personality-in-presidential-elections/
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Mitt Romney the business man - profits & lay-offs?
In one of the past debates Mitt Romney explained one of his tax theories: if you give big companies tax breaks, they will have more money, will be able to profit, and will then be able to have more workers.
The money trickles down from top to bottom, also known as Reaganomics or the trickle down theory.
The New York Times this past Sunday published an article on Mitt Romney the bussines man and told us the story of how he ran his company- how he profitted, laid off thousands of workers, then ran his company into bankrupcy.
This series of events is quite opposite to his trickle down theory in terms of what a company does when it profits.
Bain Capital and Dade International
Once upon a time Mitt Romney was executive chief of Bain Company, which he also owned. His company was a private equity firm.
It simple terms, private equity firms manage investments. They go into companies, analyze what they are doing and find ways for the companies to make better profits.
They are sort of like house flippers, (I think I have the right name for that), where they buy something, make it better, and then sell it for more than what they bought it for.
They had also done this sort of thing for other companies such as Staples and the Gartner Group.
In 1994 it led the buy of Dane. Funny enough, it was on the investment adventure with Goldman Sachs, a firm that was involved in the financial crisis.
"Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets."
Dade International doubled in size, and Bain Capital also bought two of its competitors while also receaiving a profit of eight times what it had invested.
Then came another business opportunity. Dade was considering buying DuPont, a medical equipment manufacturing company which could be useful for Dade.
Bain pushed for the buy and it became a success and Dade continued to grow. After this time of growth and profits soaring however, there came many odd consequences. Lay-offs.
Tough love or just mean?
Around 1997 plants began to close and around 1,700 workers were laid off. It was to save the company money and increase revenue.
"There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused." Said one of the former human resources managers.
This was after workers were persuaded to move from Puerto Rico to Miami after their plant shut down there to find that the one in Miami had been shut down also.
Why?
The article states that "cost-cutting became a mantra". Earlier in it however, it stated that Mitt Romney, as an executive, was a tough love kind of guy. He believed that sometimes the medicine was bitter, but at least the patient would be saved.
When comparing some of his business strategy to his political strategy he says that this tough love view also applied. That GM should have gone down, the housing market should have fallen, the government should cut wasteful spending, and that businesses that made bad decisions should have hit bankruptcy and not been bailed out.
This is approach is I think what lead to all the lay-offs. The company was trying to cut costs by all means even while it was profiting greatly.
Bankrupcy, almost
[alright I have to admit this part sort of confuses me but I am going to try my hardest]
After a while, Bain decided it would cut Dade lose meaning, it wanted to sell it. It was offered a good sum by a company but it was not satisfied with the amount the company proposed.
In 1999 they persuaded Dade to borrow money to buy half of Bain's shares. This borrowing is what lead to the company going deep into debt while also giving Bain's executives gracious bonuses, 242 million bonus to be exact.
Many agree that it was this transaction that set the company deep into debt and looking back, they say it was probably not the best move but at least they got some cash out of it.
After this Dade fired a few hundred more people and as it was going into bankruptcy it was bought by another company.
"Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, which he owned and ran as chief executive, is a cornerstone of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — a credential, he argues, that showcases the management skills and business acumen that America needs to revive a stalled economy. Creating jobs, Mr. Romney says, is exactly what he knows how to do."
The end
So... the next time Mitt Romney says "How do you create jobs? You cut corporate taxes and then companies profit. Then what do they do? They can then hire more workers."
WRONG, and he should know better.
The money trickles down from top to bottom, also known as Reaganomics or the trickle down theory.
The New York Times this past Sunday published an article on Mitt Romney the bussines man and told us the story of how he ran his company- how he profitted, laid off thousands of workers, then ran his company into bankrupcy.
This series of events is quite opposite to his trickle down theory in terms of what a company does when it profits.
Bain Capital and Dade International
Once upon a time Mitt Romney was executive chief of Bain Company, which he also owned. His company was a private equity firm.
It simple terms, private equity firms manage investments. They go into companies, analyze what they are doing and find ways for the companies to make better profits.
They are sort of like house flippers, (I think I have the right name for that), where they buy something, make it better, and then sell it for more than what they bought it for.
They had also done this sort of thing for other companies such as Staples and the Gartner Group.
In 1994 it led the buy of Dane. Funny enough, it was on the investment adventure with Goldman Sachs, a firm that was involved in the financial crisis.
"Bain Capital, sent in a team of 10 turnaround experts from Boston to ferret out waste, motivate executives and study untapped markets."
Dade International doubled in size, and Bain Capital also bought two of its competitors while also receaiving a profit of eight times what it had invested.
Then came another business opportunity. Dade was considering buying DuPont, a medical equipment manufacturing company which could be useful for Dade.
Bain pushed for the buy and it became a success and Dade continued to grow. After this time of growth and profits soaring however, there came many odd consequences. Lay-offs.
Tough love or just mean?
Around 1997 plants began to close and around 1,700 workers were laid off. It was to save the company money and increase revenue.
"There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused." Said one of the former human resources managers.
This was after workers were persuaded to move from Puerto Rico to Miami after their plant shut down there to find that the one in Miami had been shut down also.
Why?
The article states that "cost-cutting became a mantra". Earlier in it however, it stated that Mitt Romney, as an executive, was a tough love kind of guy. He believed that sometimes the medicine was bitter, but at least the patient would be saved.
When comparing some of his business strategy to his political strategy he says that this tough love view also applied. That GM should have gone down, the housing market should have fallen, the government should cut wasteful spending, and that businesses that made bad decisions should have hit bankruptcy and not been bailed out.
This is approach is I think what lead to all the lay-offs. The company was trying to cut costs by all means even while it was profiting greatly.
Bankrupcy, almost
[alright I have to admit this part sort of confuses me but I am going to try my hardest]
After a while, Bain decided it would cut Dade lose meaning, it wanted to sell it. It was offered a good sum by a company but it was not satisfied with the amount the company proposed.
In 1999 they persuaded Dade to borrow money to buy half of Bain's shares. This borrowing is what lead to the company going deep into debt while also giving Bain's executives gracious bonuses, 242 million bonus to be exact.
Many agree that it was this transaction that set the company deep into debt and looking back, they say it was probably not the best move but at least they got some cash out of it.
After this Dade fired a few hundred more people and as it was going into bankruptcy it was bought by another company.
"Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, which he owned and ran as chief executive, is a cornerstone of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — a credential, he argues, that showcases the management skills and business acumen that America needs to revive a stalled economy. Creating jobs, Mr. Romney says, is exactly what he knows how to do."
The end
So... the next time Mitt Romney says "How do you create jobs? You cut corporate taxes and then companies profit. Then what do they do? They can then hire more workers."
WRONG, and he should know better.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
So where does money come from?
During the November 9th debate, Ron Paul mentioned the Federal Reserve, it prinitng money, and interest rates going up. He has also mentioned in the past that he has wanted to abolish it.
He questioned what it is. Why should the U.S payback money to the Federal Reserve? What is it anyway? Where does it get money? He asks.
And aggree with him? How does the Federal Rerserve just produce money?
A while back a heard a program on This American Life about where money comes from, what it is, and who owns the Federal Reserve. It brought up the very questions that me and Ron Paul ask.
No one knows from where the Federal Reserve produces money from. The more the FD prints money, the less value existing money has. It then brings interest rates up and by that the government attempts to attract investors.
The program went into an interesting story about how Brazil solved it's financial crisis. Before it had many problems. Inflation rates kept going up and the economy was getting worse and worse. So what did they do? They replaced the currency and gave their currency a fixed value so it could not go up and down.
People bought into it and it solved a big problem. The message of the story to me, at least, is that the value or the worth of money is determined by people's belief in it.
That example proves it along with how the stock go up and down. Three major companies that have recently suffered are Bank of America, Netflix, and Apple.
Bank of America suffered by introducing its five dollar fee which has been taken back, after costumers were outraged and began to leave. Netflix lost worth when it introduced Quickster people were horrified and left Netflix. Apple suffered when people publicly did not believe that the company would be the same without Jobs.
Investors were watching the entire time and I'm sure they felt uneasy which brought down the companies worth.
Another example of how bizarre money's worth is the radio shows section on an indigenous culture that uses stones for currency. The stones don't move, they do no even physically have to be traded but people know who those stones belong to.
If it falls in the water or it cannot be moved, it does not matter. People believe in its worth.
How is having a credit card any different? Or trading money digitally? Or the Federal Reserve just producing money? The only thing it takes for that to work is people believing that it works.
To conclude, I agree with Ron Paul's statement. Why should we pay back the Federal Reserve? In fact the last time this country had no debt was during Andrew Jackson's presidency when there was no Federal Bank.
He questioned what it is. Why should the U.S payback money to the Federal Reserve? What is it anyway? Where does it get money? He asks.
And aggree with him? How does the Federal Rerserve just produce money?
A while back a heard a program on This American Life about where money comes from, what it is, and who owns the Federal Reserve. It brought up the very questions that me and Ron Paul ask.
No one knows from where the Federal Reserve produces money from. The more the FD prints money, the less value existing money has. It then brings interest rates up and by that the government attempts to attract investors.
The program went into an interesting story about how Brazil solved it's financial crisis. Before it had many problems. Inflation rates kept going up and the economy was getting worse and worse. So what did they do? They replaced the currency and gave their currency a fixed value so it could not go up and down.
People bought into it and it solved a big problem. The message of the story to me, at least, is that the value or the worth of money is determined by people's belief in it.
That example proves it along with how the stock go up and down. Three major companies that have recently suffered are Bank of America, Netflix, and Apple.
Bank of America suffered by introducing its five dollar fee which has been taken back, after costumers were outraged and began to leave. Netflix lost worth when it introduced Quickster people were horrified and left Netflix. Apple suffered when people publicly did not believe that the company would be the same without Jobs.
Investors were watching the entire time and I'm sure they felt uneasy which brought down the companies worth.
Another example of how bizarre money's worth is the radio shows section on an indigenous culture that uses stones for currency. The stones don't move, they do no even physically have to be traded but people know who those stones belong to.
If it falls in the water or it cannot be moved, it does not matter. People believe in its worth.
How is having a credit card any different? Or trading money digitally? Or the Federal Reserve just producing money? The only thing it takes for that to work is people believing that it works.
To conclude, I agree with Ron Paul's statement. Why should we pay back the Federal Reserve? In fact the last time this country had no debt was during Andrew Jackson's presidency when there was no Federal Bank.
My mental dilemma with the private sector
Alright, I'm going to make this a bit like a diary entry, just to mental sort, so not all might make sense.
So last week's discussions got me thinking about what necessities should be private sector versus government controlled.
Republican's say it is socialist, or its not providing people with enough options, to have medicaid/medicare or Obama care. Medical insurance should not be a government run program. People should not be required to pay for that kind of stuff with their taxes.
Then I think about how a class mate of mine pointed out that we already do that with police or transportation. Imagine privatizing MTA and letting people choose what kind of transportation or privatizing police enforcement. That last one sounds scary does it not?
On the other hand, there is a video i posted about what Newt Gingrich said about great innovations beings produced in the private sector. So... I admit, there needs to be a private sector. Great things come from companies or people being able to choose what they do.
However, people are greedy.
Another thing I noticed that there are so many private companies that do not produce anything. The people who actually make innovations are not the one's profiting. Companies used to be owned by the people making products.
The small pizza place across the street from me for example. A family owns it and the people who make the money are the ones working in the kitchen. It's not the same way with Round Table. Its not the same with huge companies that make things to profit rather than making it to please people.
Companies are started to give people what they want and what they need, that is their essence or it used to be. The idea about a strong private sector is great it just does not work because people become greedy.
Isin't one of the first rules about running a successful business 'its not about the company, its about the customer'? I do not believe people working behind medical insurance feel that way.
And this leads me to my point. Ideas of private sectors providing good quality and competition is unrealistic. In the end they are just going to want to profit.
The idea of a state run agency that provides medical insurance is also scary because people are going to want to profit.
I find it very funny that Republicans fear big government and corruption because they seem the ones most corrupted by power. I always feel like people are paranoid about things when they are already guilty themselves.
Anyways to conclude. Medical attention is a need, just like the other things we pay for in our taxes like police, street lights, infrastructure, transportation, food stamps for some, etc. It would be far to dangerous to privatize some of those things and like those things, medical care is too important to put into companies' hands.
Should their be private research facilities that make great discoveries and cures? Sure, that's awesome. But not immediate necessary services.
So last week's discussions got me thinking about what necessities should be private sector versus government controlled.
Republican's say it is socialist, or its not providing people with enough options, to have medicaid/medicare or Obama care. Medical insurance should not be a government run program. People should not be required to pay for that kind of stuff with their taxes.
Then I think about how a class mate of mine pointed out that we already do that with police or transportation. Imagine privatizing MTA and letting people choose what kind of transportation or privatizing police enforcement. That last one sounds scary does it not?
On the other hand, there is a video i posted about what Newt Gingrich said about great innovations beings produced in the private sector. So... I admit, there needs to be a private sector. Great things come from companies or people being able to choose what they do.
However, people are greedy.
Another thing I noticed that there are so many private companies that do not produce anything. The people who actually make innovations are not the one's profiting. Companies used to be owned by the people making products.
The small pizza place across the street from me for example. A family owns it and the people who make the money are the ones working in the kitchen. It's not the same way with Round Table. Its not the same with huge companies that make things to profit rather than making it to please people.
Companies are started to give people what they want and what they need, that is their essence or it used to be. The idea about a strong private sector is great it just does not work because people become greedy.
Isin't one of the first rules about running a successful business 'its not about the company, its about the customer'? I do not believe people working behind medical insurance feel that way.
And this leads me to my point. Ideas of private sectors providing good quality and competition is unrealistic. In the end they are just going to want to profit.
The idea of a state run agency that provides medical insurance is also scary because people are going to want to profit.
I find it very funny that Republicans fear big government and corruption because they seem the ones most corrupted by power. I always feel like people are paranoid about things when they are already guilty themselves.
Anyways to conclude. Medical attention is a need, just like the other things we pay for in our taxes like police, street lights, infrastructure, transportation, food stamps for some, etc. It would be far to dangerous to privatize some of those things and like those things, medical care is too important to put into companies' hands.
Should their be private research facilities that make great discoveries and cures? Sure, that's awesome. But not immediate necessary services.
Videos for Presidential Debates
Commentary on political strategy and how Cain is being snipped away one bit at a time. This is also commentary on what this next debate may mean for Cain.
Newt and Herman giving CEO and private sector advice. Cain advising that CEOs need to be more involved and Gingrich is giving his outsider perspective. He says the private sector creates brilliant innovations that the government should use and support the growth of.
Obama vs. Mccain on how they would solve the financial crisis.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Saturday Night Live GOP Debate
this summarizes things nicely, and its so much less confusing than the news
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Associations and non-journalistic media
A while ago I wrote about Romney's campaign strategy. He does not wear a tie, he comes off as cool and calm, and his central message is that he can help solve our economic crisis because he's a businessman.
That's his thing.
Cain is known for being a non-politician, meaning he was not part of creating the problem, and that he is a business man.
Perry is known for his job creation and how he's the best at it.
Ron Paul is the anti-big government crab and he's the most different out of the G.O.P candidates.
I'm being really vague for a reason, my point is that after seeing the candidates a million times, my mind can hardly really hold on to accurate details. The lasting impressions are what everything amounts to, and what candidates have repeated over and over again.
At the end of the day, I will not remember specifics, but a general gist. The candidates that are most successful are the ones that are able to portray a single strong message and have appealing "essence" or lasting impression that is created with repetition and singularity.
I think Obama is the best at this. In his last campaign he was the new, young, 'yes we can' man. He wanted to help people and really connected with them. He was a pleasant person, and he seemed completely disassociated with the administration that got us into a financial crisis worse than the Great Depression.
People watch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, and the Daily Show. The public trusts these people more because they're more like normal people and not politicians. Also they are skeptical and funny. Negativity or scrutiny sometimes feels more accurate.
Anyways people listen to them despite their journalistic accuracy.
Saturday night live often has clips where it imitates candidates. It criticizes and mocks them and people love it. In order to recreate the characters they have to take what is best known about them (so people will understand its them) and make it funny. The point is not to be accurate, but to generalize the candidates behavior and give them a funnier version of it.
In the last presidential election. Barack Obama's speech making abilities were highlighted, the way he talks, but he was certainly not made fun of as much as Sarah Palin. Tina Fey killed Palin's chances all because she did such a great job mocking her.
I remember how much attention SNL got for those clips and it really worked against the G.O.P.
This election I cannot help but this that public comedy shows will work against the G.O.P. The general essence of the candidates will be made to seem repulsive in comparison to Obama's.
The impact the media's like SNL is so powerful because they offer a non-political standpoint and say things the real media can't say.
That's his thing.
Cain is known for being a non-politician, meaning he was not part of creating the problem, and that he is a business man.
Perry is known for his job creation and how he's the best at it.
Ron Paul is the anti-big government crab and he's the most different out of the G.O.P candidates.
I'm being really vague for a reason, my point is that after seeing the candidates a million times, my mind can hardly really hold on to accurate details. The lasting impressions are what everything amounts to, and what candidates have repeated over and over again.
At the end of the day, I will not remember specifics, but a general gist. The candidates that are most successful are the ones that are able to portray a single strong message and have appealing "essence" or lasting impression that is created with repetition and singularity.
I think Obama is the best at this. In his last campaign he was the new, young, 'yes we can' man. He wanted to help people and really connected with them. He was a pleasant person, and he seemed completely disassociated with the administration that got us into a financial crisis worse than the Great Depression.
People watch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, and the Daily Show. The public trusts these people more because they're more like normal people and not politicians. Also they are skeptical and funny. Negativity or scrutiny sometimes feels more accurate.
Anyways people listen to them despite their journalistic accuracy.
Saturday night live often has clips where it imitates candidates. It criticizes and mocks them and people love it. In order to recreate the characters they have to take what is best known about them (so people will understand its them) and make it funny. The point is not to be accurate, but to generalize the candidates behavior and give them a funnier version of it.
In the last presidential election. Barack Obama's speech making abilities were highlighted, the way he talks, but he was certainly not made fun of as much as Sarah Palin. Tina Fey killed Palin's chances all because she did such a great job mocking her.
I remember how much attention SNL got for those clips and it really worked against the G.O.P.
This election I cannot help but this that public comedy shows will work against the G.O.P. The general essence of the candidates will be made to seem repulsive in comparison to Obama's.
The impact the media's like SNL is so powerful because they offer a non-political standpoint and say things the real media can't say.
Media's role in politics - Watergate and Operation SWIFT
Watergate Scandal and Operation Swift
Here are two scandals in which the media was involved and played a key role. The first scandal was when the media revealed that Nixon had been stealing money for his campaign, which lead to him being impeached.
The second incident, Operation Swift was when the media published an article that government begged it not to. It informed the american public that the government had gained access to database of the public's financial records to catch terrorist activity.
In the first case, i think most would agree that the media played the protagonist in which it informed people of things they needed to know. In the second, it is not so clear and not everyone will agree that the media was right for publishing that story. This is what I want to discuss.
The Watergate scandal reveals the need for intense Journalism. During this scandal Nixon was being investigated for stealing money to fund his election. Link were made between a robbery into the white house and a slush fund.
Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists working writing about this case made links and even accusations. The public's opinion of the media declined after they heard about these accusations which basically called Nixon a thief that was covering up crime.
Afterwards when it turned out to be true, Woodward and Bernstein were hailed as great reporters and it reminded the role of the media in elections: to inform the public of things they need to know and assume everyone is horrible and tell people about it.
[side question - they became obsessed with this story, could they have published it out of ego?]
Like I said before to me, its obvious that they still did a really good job.
Operation swift however, I feel different about.
After 9/11 the government gained access to a database of financial records called SWIFT. In this database they could everyone's records. They were using it to look at international money transfers between people in the United States and terrorist organization overseas.
It worked, they made many arrests but there was still one problem: did they have a right to access the public's financial records, and did they abuse it? Technically they have a right to it, but only of records that have to do with terrorist activity, but that power can be abused.
The media got a hold of this information and published a story about it. The government begged it not to because the efficacy of the operation depended on it being a secret. If it were not a secret, terrorists with find other means of doing what they need to do and the guilty persons would not get caught.
This is where I begin to question the role of media in politics. It framed the government with imposing on my privacy. See, some people would say they they doing exactly what they should be doing. But me, if a government needs that access and needs to be private about it, to protect me and do it's job- then I don't care.
It is not the media's role to reveal information about security and jeopardize government operations.
FOLLOW UP TO SIDE NOTE: did they publish this story to be the first or show off to the public they were on their side? Or did they genuinely feel that this needed to be published?
Do I want to know that Herman Cain is harassing women? YEAH! Good job media!
Here are two scandals in which the media was involved and played a key role. The first scandal was when the media revealed that Nixon had been stealing money for his campaign, which lead to him being impeached.
The second incident, Operation Swift was when the media published an article that government begged it not to. It informed the american public that the government had gained access to database of the public's financial records to catch terrorist activity.
In the first case, i think most would agree that the media played the protagonist in which it informed people of things they needed to know. In the second, it is not so clear and not everyone will agree that the media was right for publishing that story. This is what I want to discuss.
The Watergate scandal reveals the need for intense Journalism. During this scandal Nixon was being investigated for stealing money to fund his election. Link were made between a robbery into the white house and a slush fund.
Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists working writing about this case made links and even accusations. The public's opinion of the media declined after they heard about these accusations which basically called Nixon a thief that was covering up crime.
Afterwards when it turned out to be true, Woodward and Bernstein were hailed as great reporters and it reminded the role of the media in elections: to inform the public of things they need to know and assume everyone is horrible and tell people about it.
[side question - they became obsessed with this story, could they have published it out of ego?]
Like I said before to me, its obvious that they still did a really good job.
Operation swift however, I feel different about.
After 9/11 the government gained access to a database of financial records called SWIFT. In this database they could everyone's records. They were using it to look at international money transfers between people in the United States and terrorist organization overseas.
It worked, they made many arrests but there was still one problem: did they have a right to access the public's financial records, and did they abuse it? Technically they have a right to it, but only of records that have to do with terrorist activity, but that power can be abused.
The media got a hold of this information and published a story about it. The government begged it not to because the efficacy of the operation depended on it being a secret. If it were not a secret, terrorists with find other means of doing what they need to do and the guilty persons would not get caught.
This is where I begin to question the role of media in politics. It framed the government with imposing on my privacy. See, some people would say they they doing exactly what they should be doing. But me, if a government needs that access and needs to be private about it, to protect me and do it's job- then I don't care.
It is not the media's role to reveal information about security and jeopardize government operations.
FOLLOW UP TO SIDE NOTE: did they publish this story to be the first or show off to the public they were on their side? Or did they genuinely feel that this needed to be published?
Do I want to know that Herman Cain is harassing women? YEAH! Good job media!
Videos of Social Media Impact on Elections
Ok, not to brag but this one is a gem. This is Herman Cain commenting on the media's inaccuracy and irresponsibility. He says that the media is the toughest part about this election so far. Afterwards a commentator makes a point to say that if Herman Cain does not like the scrutiny of the media, then maybe he chose the wrong profession. Lastly they air a video an anti-left campaign video saying that media's revealing of the sexual harassment charges was a tactic.
This is the head of a news organization doing investigative journalism and talks about the content and what sort of media there is and how it is used.
THIS VIDEO WAS NOT EMBEDDIBLE but i really wanted to throw it in.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Obamafor/start/870/stop/1000
But I had to put it in. During this Youth Summit, it looked like a meeting with youth leaders, of sorts, to discuss re-electing Obama. They were all volunteers who were set on re-electing him and discussed the campaign. What stood out to me about this entire meeting, not just this clip, was how it was held. It was streamed online, people could participate without being there, students could tweet questions, facebook groups were mentioned, and the first way mentioned to get in and help was register online to do so. It just involved so many social media aspects which the youth today are so attached to. Barack Obama I feel like, has made the best connection to the youth out of all the candidates, because he uses social media.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Videos on Media and Politics
This is about how the media is covering Wall St. It makes me think- every generation thinks that that their time will bring the end of the world. The people of the 50s saw elvis and thought OH NO, and Adbusters (the magazine that organized Occupy Wall st) prints articles that also have that "oh my god what is the world coming to" tone. It seems like things are getting bad, more bad then usual now though, right? Or is it because we have more media outlets and people vocalizing their worry, that makes it seem worse than usual?
This is a video about the Arab Spring and United States supporting the countries that were going through change. The Arab Spring, it my mind atleast, was so incredible because of the intense use of media for revolution.
A question is asked about people in Iran having access to internet, and supposedly the U.S. is trying to help using programs for people, "to help escape oppression".
Corruption in the GOP (and everywhere)
So this is a mix of two thoughts...
The New York Times Blog section reads:
"Bill Clinton, in his budget for fiscal year 1997, which was released in early 1996, projected a federal budget surplus by 2001. It turned out that the tax increases initiated by George H.W. Bush in 1990 and by Mr. Clinton in 1993, which were strenuously opposed by virtually all Republicans, did exactly what they were supposed to do and sharply reduced federal budget deficits."
Jobs creation and tax cuts have been central issues concerning G.O.P candidates this election.
On Tuesday the New York Times released an article on an interview with Rick Perry titled "Perry Plan Would Grant Big Tax Break to Wealthiest".
During last week's debate Herman Cain was accused of the very same thing with his 999 deal. He defended it over and over again but somehow people did not seem to really buy it.
Republicans accuse Democrats for wanting tax increases so that they may spend more money instead of cutting it but the fact is, tax increases aren't harmful and are used to increase revenue.
So if tax cuts just don't work then why is the idea still around? I feel like I rant about this GOP tax issue all the time because it does not make sense and I really think that this issue really shows the sort of people they are protecting.
There is always talk about politicians being puppets for one group or another. I quietly agree with it but this idea has the same sort of vulgar stench as a conspiracy movie and I do not like hearing accusations without proof.
One topic that makes me believe it with full heart however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does GOP ideology have to do with supporting Israel? Are they all Jewish? To support tax-cuts to 'businesses can have a safe environment to grow' makes sense, but their stand on conflict in the region just does not make sense.
During the debate Ron Paul said he would stop funding because Israel was becoming too dependent and that they needed to start financing their own military. All the other candidates said the opposite.
One said that Israel was the only ally they had in that region, the others said they were in support of Israel and the 3 billion dollar U.S. funding of it (and they want cut out from programs like medicare?!?!).
Gingrich said he was also in opposition of Palestine becoming an observable state because the process by which it was becoming one was incorrect and that it should be just between Israel and Palestine.
Look Newt, the two live side by side in war so obviously the two cannot be trusted to solve this issue. If it was as simple as the two negotiating, this problem would have been solved 60 years ago.
Secondly, what incentive do they all have to stand by Israel? None. The only reason I can see is that they probably have many lobbyists or people with pro-Israel agenda backing up their campaign.
I sound like it is a horrible thing to be in support of Israel, I am not saying there are no reasons, there are plenty. The GOP candidates do not seem genuinely in line with them. They say cut spending over and over again but somehow they send billions of dollars over there.
The New York Times Blog section reads:
"Bill Clinton, in his budget for fiscal year 1997, which was released in early 1996, projected a federal budget surplus by 2001. It turned out that the tax increases initiated by George H.W. Bush in 1990 and by Mr. Clinton in 1993, which were strenuously opposed by virtually all Republicans, did exactly what they were supposed to do and sharply reduced federal budget deficits."
Jobs creation and tax cuts have been central issues concerning G.O.P candidates this election.
On Tuesday the New York Times released an article on an interview with Rick Perry titled "Perry Plan Would Grant Big Tax Break to Wealthiest".
During last week's debate Herman Cain was accused of the very same thing with his 999 deal. He defended it over and over again but somehow people did not seem to really buy it.
Republicans accuse Democrats for wanting tax increases so that they may spend more money instead of cutting it but the fact is, tax increases aren't harmful and are used to increase revenue.
So if tax cuts just don't work then why is the idea still around? I feel like I rant about this GOP tax issue all the time because it does not make sense and I really think that this issue really shows the sort of people they are protecting.
There is always talk about politicians being puppets for one group or another. I quietly agree with it but this idea has the same sort of vulgar stench as a conspiracy movie and I do not like hearing accusations without proof.
One topic that makes me believe it with full heart however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does GOP ideology have to do with supporting Israel? Are they all Jewish? To support tax-cuts to 'businesses can have a safe environment to grow' makes sense, but their stand on conflict in the region just does not make sense.
During the debate Ron Paul said he would stop funding because Israel was becoming too dependent and that they needed to start financing their own military. All the other candidates said the opposite.
One said that Israel was the only ally they had in that region, the others said they were in support of Israel and the 3 billion dollar U.S. funding of it (and they want cut out from programs like medicare?!?!).
Gingrich said he was also in opposition of Palestine becoming an observable state because the process by which it was becoming one was incorrect and that it should be just between Israel and Palestine.
Look Newt, the two live side by side in war so obviously the two cannot be trusted to solve this issue. If it was as simple as the two negotiating, this problem would have been solved 60 years ago.
Secondly, what incentive do they all have to stand by Israel? None. The only reason I can see is that they probably have many lobbyists or people with pro-Israel agenda backing up their campaign.
I sound like it is a horrible thing to be in support of Israel, I am not saying there are no reasons, there are plenty. The GOP candidates do not seem genuinely in line with them. They say cut spending over and over again but somehow they send billions of dollars over there.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
A Brief History of Democrats and Republicans
Alright so I keep complaining about not knowing the differences between the parties. But not the differences themselves, but how they emerged.
Tackling this topic is tricky because it requires me to look all the way back in history. So, that is what I want to do right now is work backwards.
So from what I can see, what we know as Democrat actually used to be called republican. And what is republican used to called democrat.
As I read the time line there are three eras that stand out to me. The first is the very beginning, because the beginning is always important. In the beginning the Democrats, back then known as the Republican party, believed in limited central government. The face of this party at that point was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
The party that is now known as the republicans was known as the Federalist Party. They believed in strong central government. Washington and Hamilton were the representatives of this party.
Ok, the next era that caught by attention was during the 1860s when Abraham Lincoln was abolishing slavery. The Democrats wanted to keep slavery, and the republicans wanted to get rid of it. You would think it was the other way around, but not so!
The third era that really sets the foundation for our modern Democrat and Republican begins in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt was elected. Around this time, or just before that was the Populist movement and following it the Progressives emerged.
"Populists rallied against large-scale commercial agriculture that would put them out of work, and they supported federally regulated communication, transportation, and banking systems." That sounds more the style of what we know as a Democrat, right?
Then Theodore Roosevelt started the progressive party which stood for women's rights, 8 hour work days, minimum wage, registered lobbyists, "direct democracy", essentially things that really worked to protect the working class people.
The next Democratic President was Franklin Roosevelt who in 1932 implemented the New Deal which saved the country from the Great Depression by putting workers to work. You could easily compare this to Obama's Job Act.
From the timeline that I looked at (http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties/) these are the eras that really stood out to me when mapping the history of parties.
It is so strange that the last time Americans were united completely was during the revolution, and they weren't completely then. Some people still wanted to stay loyal to England.
It surprises me that we have made it this far with our differences. The differences it seems lies in geography, our incentives, class, religion, etc.
From where we left during the progressive era is when it becomes clear to me the distinction between the two parties based on economic standing or position.
From then on Republican candidates stood to be pro-business.
Despite knowing a little more about these parties now, it seems even stranger to me. No matter what there is always a split, from slavery to policy, to how to run the market and neither party ever really seemed to maintain a common theme and often switched places.
The only theme I see, and one that I see only because I am a bias Democrat, is the theme of Democrats being behind workers, minorities, and women since the early 1900s. Republicans seem to believe that the less government the better, but how do you explain then things like telephone tapping and operation swift, war, and them trying to tell me what to do with my reproductive system? They say 'no no big government' when it comes to government run programs that help people and don't hesitate to step in when it comes to my body and who I marry?
I just don't understand.
Tackling this topic is tricky because it requires me to look all the way back in history. So, that is what I want to do right now is work backwards.
So from what I can see, what we know as Democrat actually used to be called republican. And what is republican used to called democrat.
As I read the time line there are three eras that stand out to me. The first is the very beginning, because the beginning is always important. In the beginning the Democrats, back then known as the Republican party, believed in limited central government. The face of this party at that point was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
The party that is now known as the republicans was known as the Federalist Party. They believed in strong central government. Washington and Hamilton were the representatives of this party.
Ok, the next era that caught by attention was during the 1860s when Abraham Lincoln was abolishing slavery. The Democrats wanted to keep slavery, and the republicans wanted to get rid of it. You would think it was the other way around, but not so!
The third era that really sets the foundation for our modern Democrat and Republican begins in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt was elected. Around this time, or just before that was the Populist movement and following it the Progressives emerged.
"Populists rallied against large-scale commercial agriculture that would put them out of work, and they supported federally regulated communication, transportation, and banking systems." That sounds more the style of what we know as a Democrat, right?
Then Theodore Roosevelt started the progressive party which stood for women's rights, 8 hour work days, minimum wage, registered lobbyists, "direct democracy", essentially things that really worked to protect the working class people.
The next Democratic President was Franklin Roosevelt who in 1932 implemented the New Deal which saved the country from the Great Depression by putting workers to work. You could easily compare this to Obama's Job Act.
From the timeline that I looked at (http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties/) these are the eras that really stood out to me when mapping the history of parties.
It is so strange that the last time Americans were united completely was during the revolution, and they weren't completely then. Some people still wanted to stay loyal to England.
It surprises me that we have made it this far with our differences. The differences it seems lies in geography, our incentives, class, religion, etc.
From where we left during the progressive era is when it becomes clear to me the distinction between the two parties based on economic standing or position.
From then on Republican candidates stood to be pro-business.
Despite knowing a little more about these parties now, it seems even stranger to me. No matter what there is always a split, from slavery to policy, to how to run the market and neither party ever really seemed to maintain a common theme and often switched places.
The only theme I see, and one that I see only because I am a bias Democrat, is the theme of Democrats being behind workers, minorities, and women since the early 1900s. Republicans seem to believe that the less government the better, but how do you explain then things like telephone tapping and operation swift, war, and them trying to tell me what to do with my reproductive system? They say 'no no big government' when it comes to government run programs that help people and don't hesitate to step in when it comes to my body and who I marry?
I just don't understand.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Videos for political party platforms
Herman Cain's campaigning and plan for the economy
Senator Glassley on deficit reduction. Here he explains what the committee is looking for when it looks at where it can reduce spending. They follow a specific theme. They want to increase faith in the market and create business friendly environments.
This is McCain discussing Obama's bill. He explains the Democratic viewpoint versus the G.O.P viewpoint. He compares approaches which i think better outlines the "platforms" that each stand on when it comes to jobs and the economy.
Obama, and why people are Democrats
Throughout watching this campaign, i began to worry that Obama is really in trouble. He is, he really is. His Jobs plans isn't passing and his lack of progress is even beginning to scare the people behind him (me).
I do worry about him. But i don't doubt his abilities, its really other things holding him back. He only has so much power. It seems like he has tried to put forth so many different things but they just can't make it passed the Republicans. People forget that a president is not King and there criticize him for not doing enough like the G.O.P is doing.
During the last election, it seemed really obvious that Obama was going to win. The old Mcain did not stand a chance the young strong looking Obama.
Also for once, it didn't seem like choosing Obama was choosing the lest worst out of the caidates. People actually liked him.
When i think about the kind of chance he stands this election, i get scared but at the same time, Obama has a loyalty like no other behind him.
I was thinking about the people that are Republican and the people the are Democrat. I might be completely wrong about this but, i feel like each are what they are for different reasons.
Republicans seem more often to be republican because of tradition, morality, religion, lifestyle, and geography, all rather uncontrollable things because it's based on where you are born. They sort of follow in the parents footsteps or keep to what everyone around them believes.
I feel like if someone is really Democrat it is because of them actively choosing so. Also more of the educated population i would assume is democratic, for example, i have never met a Republican professor, ever. I don't credit what i am saying to be completely true, it is just something i was thinking about.
And also, out of all of the wealthiest americans, what percetage of those of G.O.P?
After looking up educated americans vs educated democrats, no real statistics come up however, on those public ASK blog cites, the general concesuses is that 'education breeds liberalism'.
Here are the numbers it provides
VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904062612AA0zz95
But then again, it may just be that our schools are getting more liberal. Another thing to point out though is when you look at a map of where the red and blue voters are, Democratic voters are usually in urban areas. New York and San Francisco for example.
In cities people are more exposed to ideas. They are centers of exchange and exposure. People come to cities and are immediately exposed to a more politically aware atmosphere. Or is it the opposite?
I know when i first moved to New York, the first 6 months i never watched the news just because the world of New York sucked me right in.
I do worry about him. But i don't doubt his abilities, its really other things holding him back. He only has so much power. It seems like he has tried to put forth so many different things but they just can't make it passed the Republicans. People forget that a president is not King and there criticize him for not doing enough like the G.O.P is doing.
During the last election, it seemed really obvious that Obama was going to win. The old Mcain did not stand a chance the young strong looking Obama.
Also for once, it didn't seem like choosing Obama was choosing the lest worst out of the caidates. People actually liked him.
When i think about the kind of chance he stands this election, i get scared but at the same time, Obama has a loyalty like no other behind him.
I was thinking about the people that are Republican and the people the are Democrat. I might be completely wrong about this but, i feel like each are what they are for different reasons.
Republicans seem more often to be republican because of tradition, morality, religion, lifestyle, and geography, all rather uncontrollable things because it's based on where you are born. They sort of follow in the parents footsteps or keep to what everyone around them believes.
I feel like if someone is really Democrat it is because of them actively choosing so. Also more of the educated population i would assume is democratic, for example, i have never met a Republican professor, ever. I don't credit what i am saying to be completely true, it is just something i was thinking about.
And also, out of all of the wealthiest americans, what percetage of those of G.O.P?
After looking up educated americans vs educated democrats, no real statistics come up however, on those public ASK blog cites, the general concesuses is that 'education breeds liberalism'.
Here are the numbers it provides
VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904062612AA0zz95
But then again, it may just be that our schools are getting more liberal. Another thing to point out though is when you look at a map of where the red and blue voters are, Democratic voters are usually in urban areas. New York and San Francisco for example.
In cities people are more exposed to ideas. They are centers of exchange and exposure. People come to cities and are immediately exposed to a more politically aware atmosphere. Or is it the opposite?
I know when i first moved to New York, the first 6 months i never watched the news just because the world of New York sucked me right in.
The Pizza Man
Based on recent polls, Herman Cain is next to Romney in the race. This blows my mind, he's a pizza man! I am not trying to mean about this but he has absolutely no executive experience.
Also, his 9-9-9 or technically, 9.1-9.1-9.1 plan sounds more the a large pizza and free drink special then it does an economic plan.
The reason why Cain, I believe came up with this plan is not because it truly believes it works but to give his campaign focus, to prove he has a solid strategy. It does sound catchy and it makes him a brand. I admit this is good campaigning.
The 9-9-9 plans stands for the percentage of 3 kinds of taxes. A 9% individual income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax.
His intention was to completely toss out our current tax codes that is disabling businesses from growing and holding back out economy.
To release the plan right before the debate was a very bad idea. Everyone during the October 18th debate was targeting the 9-9-9 plan.
Surprisingly enough, people are behind him. I think what may be appealing about him is also his problem. He is not a politician. On one hand that is bad because it shows he is not experienced. I am not sure if he even has a clue as to how to run things.
On the other hand, politicians are constantly scrutinized for being how they are, sneaky, and unable to get things done because they are caught up in politics. Maybe the reason why Cain is so popular is because he seems to be an outsider to that whole cat fight.
I remember in a debate weeks ago, there was a question he was answering about his qualifications, and he said something like "I'll tell you how government works, it doesn't work". He said it in context of how he was never a part of it, as in he was never part of a dysfunctional system.
Every candidate if they are running a good campaign get through by having a really strong central message and defines their image. During Obama's campaign it was about change. He was completely different from all the other candidates and the current president which made him stand out.
He was not part of the posse that got us into our economic troubles. He was a newcomer with a fresh perspective, and one that was not clouded by dirt and corruption that politics brings with it often times.
This is what made him so appealing and somehow it seems Herman Cain is using the same strategy but in a different way. He wants to seems different in the he is not in politics, but in problem solving, business problem solving and growth.
Mitt Romney also has a similar central message except, he is a political figure. Romney central messages is that he is a business man and using that viewpoint, he has the best approach at solving our economic problems.
I hope Herman Cain get nominated though, not because he is good, but because he would stand no chance again Obama.
Also, his 9-9-9 or technically, 9.1-9.1-9.1 plan sounds more the a large pizza and free drink special then it does an economic plan.
The reason why Cain, I believe came up with this plan is not because it truly believes it works but to give his campaign focus, to prove he has a solid strategy. It does sound catchy and it makes him a brand. I admit this is good campaigning.
The 9-9-9 plans stands for the percentage of 3 kinds of taxes. A 9% individual income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax.
His intention was to completely toss out our current tax codes that is disabling businesses from growing and holding back out economy.
To release the plan right before the debate was a very bad idea. Everyone during the October 18th debate was targeting the 9-9-9 plan.
Surprisingly enough, people are behind him. I think what may be appealing about him is also his problem. He is not a politician. On one hand that is bad because it shows he is not experienced. I am not sure if he even has a clue as to how to run things.
On the other hand, politicians are constantly scrutinized for being how they are, sneaky, and unable to get things done because they are caught up in politics. Maybe the reason why Cain is so popular is because he seems to be an outsider to that whole cat fight.
I remember in a debate weeks ago, there was a question he was answering about his qualifications, and he said something like "I'll tell you how government works, it doesn't work". He said it in context of how he was never a part of it, as in he was never part of a dysfunctional system.
Every candidate if they are running a good campaign get through by having a really strong central message and defines their image. During Obama's campaign it was about change. He was completely different from all the other candidates and the current president which made him stand out.
He was not part of the posse that got us into our economic troubles. He was a newcomer with a fresh perspective, and one that was not clouded by dirt and corruption that politics brings with it often times.
This is what made him so appealing and somehow it seems Herman Cain is using the same strategy but in a different way. He wants to seems different in the he is not in politics, but in problem solving, business problem solving and growth.
Mitt Romney also has a similar central message except, he is a political figure. Romney central messages is that he is a business man and using that viewpoint, he has the best approach at solving our economic problems.
I hope Herman Cain get nominated though, not because he is good, but because he would stand no chance again Obama.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Videos related to Conventions
This is talking about the Republican convention that will be held in Florida. It is like the Olympics, a political Superbowl. The best line in this is when he says that Republicans will work out disputes about the convention and he says about republicans: "We're all a family". I just thought it was funny.
This is the House Minority Leader John Boehner talking about swing voters- the middle class women and why Palin is appealing to them.
This one is incredible. It is about Feminists and why some women should or should not go for Sarah Palin. Some women support her just because she is a woman, others do not.
Candidates and the Economy
So every time I listen to a debate all i hear are those charming southern patriotic phrases about americanism and criticism that just bashes without providing any alternatives. All they say is that they want to cut spending and lower taxes, how will it help? I WANT SPECIFICS and finally I am getting some but a clear cut plan does not necessarily mean it will work.
I will credit Romney Paul and Cain for providing the most specific concrete plans
Right now i want to summarize what each proposes about the economy. All of them tie together in that they was to reduce spending and not raise taxes.
They do not want to raise taxes on corporations because they want to create a business friendly environment and if companies are not spending more money on taxes, they will hire workers. This is called Reaganomics, or the trickle down theory.
By this view, all believe that the government is not responsible for literally creating jobs, rather, they want to create an environment that will create jobs. This is the complete opposite of Obama's jobs bill that actually puts worker to work under federal funded projects.
The following information I received from the G.O.P. candidates website.
Bachman- She proposes... well what I said before is all she really specified... lowering taxes and cutting spending and a lot of go America jargon.
Herman Cain (and i want to write about this later so I won't be too specific) proposes a 9-9-9 plan.
Gingrich proposes an economic policy based on Reaganomics. He wants get rid of the National Relations Board, regulations, and financial institutions. He wants to also call for a tax 'moratorium' meaning he wants to suspend taxes for one year.
Lastly, he wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 12.5% and cap unemployment benefits to only be received for four weeks. Doesn't that last part just sound mean? It reminds me of a article i read a few days ago about how some states are beginning to require a urine sample if a person is wants to collect food stamps.
Huntsman's plan involves a 3 level tax system- 8, 12, 25 similar to that of Cain's except with different numbers.
“That means economically inefficient tax carve outs for mortgage interest, municipal bonds, child credits and green energy subsidies would at last be closed… The double tax on capital gains and dividends would be expunged as would the Alternative Minimum Tax. The corporate tax rate falls to 25 percent from 35 percent, and American businesses would be taxed on a territorial system to encourage firms to return capital parked in overseas operations… Mr. Huntsman says he’d also bring to heel the hyper-regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the National Labor Relations Board, all of which are suppressing job-creation…"
Ron Paul's views are similar to the other candidates but the one thing that stands out to me is his view on the federal reserve, or the elimination of it. The government does this thing called 'quantitative easing' where the united states borrows money from the federal reserve and prints more money which brings the inflation rate up because more money in circulation brings the worth of the dollar down.. which is bad.
Now, the United States owes money to the Federal reserve. Ron Paul points out that the Federal Reserve produces money out of thing air so why should the United States pay it back? But i figured that if it does not pay it back, then people will think we just produced money and our currency's worth will suffer.
But he brings up a really really really interesting question. Where does the money from the Federal Reserve come from? Where is it? and if we pay it back, who does it go to? because i am pretty sure the money would go to people that didn't have any money in the first place.
Perry is being credited from his performance in Texas in job creation. However, it must be noted that taxes has the 4th highest deficit in the country. Also it has an incredibly high rate in people making minimum wage. Also since his tax cuts, Texas's annual revenue has taken an extreme decline.
Again, he believes in creating a job friendly environment my cutting corporate taxes.
And lastly to be discussed in Mitt Romney 59 point plan. He outlines it pretty clearly. I don't really understand why he names it the 59 point plan though, the plan involves 5 executive orders, and 5 bills that he would put into work the first day he would be in office- bringing corporate taxes down, free trade with other countries, energy reviews, spending cuts in non security sections, cutting regulations and limitations Obama passed, and many other things.
All of the candidates are criticized for coming up with plans that harm the lower and middle classes. And i end with that comment.
I will credit Romney Paul and Cain for providing the most specific concrete plans
Right now i want to summarize what each proposes about the economy. All of them tie together in that they was to reduce spending and not raise taxes.
They do not want to raise taxes on corporations because they want to create a business friendly environment and if companies are not spending more money on taxes, they will hire workers. This is called Reaganomics, or the trickle down theory.
By this view, all believe that the government is not responsible for literally creating jobs, rather, they want to create an environment that will create jobs. This is the complete opposite of Obama's jobs bill that actually puts worker to work under federal funded projects.
The following information I received from the G.O.P. candidates website.
Bachman- She proposes... well what I said before is all she really specified... lowering taxes and cutting spending and a lot of go America jargon.
Herman Cain (and i want to write about this later so I won't be too specific) proposes a 9-9-9 plan.
Gingrich proposes an economic policy based on Reaganomics. He wants get rid of the National Relations Board, regulations, and financial institutions. He wants to also call for a tax 'moratorium' meaning he wants to suspend taxes for one year.
Lastly, he wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 12.5% and cap unemployment benefits to only be received for four weeks. Doesn't that last part just sound mean? It reminds me of a article i read a few days ago about how some states are beginning to require a urine sample if a person is wants to collect food stamps.
Huntsman's plan involves a 3 level tax system- 8, 12, 25 similar to that of Cain's except with different numbers.
“That means economically inefficient tax carve outs for mortgage interest, municipal bonds, child credits and green energy subsidies would at last be closed… The double tax on capital gains and dividends would be expunged as would the Alternative Minimum Tax. The corporate tax rate falls to 25 percent from 35 percent, and American businesses would be taxed on a territorial system to encourage firms to return capital parked in overseas operations… Mr. Huntsman says he’d also bring to heel the hyper-regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the National Labor Relations Board, all of which are suppressing job-creation…"
Ron Paul's views are similar to the other candidates but the one thing that stands out to me is his view on the federal reserve, or the elimination of it. The government does this thing called 'quantitative easing' where the united states borrows money from the federal reserve and prints more money which brings the inflation rate up because more money in circulation brings the worth of the dollar down.. which is bad.
Now, the United States owes money to the Federal reserve. Ron Paul points out that the Federal Reserve produces money out of thing air so why should the United States pay it back? But i figured that if it does not pay it back, then people will think we just produced money and our currency's worth will suffer.
But he brings up a really really really interesting question. Where does the money from the Federal Reserve come from? Where is it? and if we pay it back, who does it go to? because i am pretty sure the money would go to people that didn't have any money in the first place.
Perry is being credited from his performance in Texas in job creation. However, it must be noted that taxes has the 4th highest deficit in the country. Also it has an incredibly high rate in people making minimum wage. Also since his tax cuts, Texas's annual revenue has taken an extreme decline.
Again, he believes in creating a job friendly environment my cutting corporate taxes.
And lastly to be discussed in Mitt Romney 59 point plan. He outlines it pretty clearly. I don't really understand why he names it the 59 point plan though, the plan involves 5 executive orders, and 5 bills that he would put into work the first day he would be in office- bringing corporate taxes down, free trade with other countries, energy reviews, spending cuts in non security sections, cutting regulations and limitations Obama passed, and many other things.
All of the candidates are criticized for coming up with plans that harm the lower and middle classes. And i end with that comment.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Democrats Try Wary Embrace of Protests
For the past weeks I have been following the Occupy Wall Street Protest. I am surprised it has not come sooner.
Many issues take of my interest not because they are necessarily important, but because of what they reveal about government processes. Lately my fascination has been with the links between media and government, how they operate together to provide the public with information and how people edit what is going on in order to get the proper response.
As I read about Democrat's support, and the Republican's criticism of the protest I was reminded of the Kennedy/Romney speeches: how both tried to respond in the least offensive way possible.
I was actually surprised by Democrat's support of the protest because i thought the party would be too scared to support an extreme, one that has been compared the the Tea Party in that it sways moderates away from the origin party because of it's extremity.
And just to be clear, i don't think the main purpose of the protest is 'extreme', its just that the drumming, nudity, and other crazy protesting stories have lead to people having that impression.
The Occupy Wall Street Protest is about nothing extreme. It is about citizen's frustration with how the financial crisis and institutions are handled by the government; they aren't handled and the protests want them to be.
The financial crisis happened due to the abuse of securitization. American's had to pay for the bail out with their tax money.
Securitization is the turning of a debt into a bond and selling it to an investor. Wall Street sold low quality CDOs (collateral debt obligations, mortgage backed securities, mortgage debts belonging to people who could not repay them because banks began to get greedy and approving everyone) which it then paid rating agencies such as AIG to rate and higher than they actually were. They then bet against the very transactions that were made. This is called 'shorting' or derivatives.
The whole alchemy conundrum went bust and the guilty firms were bailed out. The last time this happened in the 1980s, hundreds went to jail. What they did was not illegal which is the problem. There were no regulations prohibiting these loopholes because so many laws had been passed in administration that allowed for this sort of business to take place. This is what the protest is about.
Obama stands in support of the protesters. The Democratic Congressional Committee is circulating a petition that seeks 100,000 signatures supporting the protesters.
The Center for American progress "credits the protest with tapping into pent up anger over a political system that it says reward the rich over the working class - a populist theme now being emphasized by the white house and the party."
Some people in the party however, find it uneasy that it is getting support. They find that showing support for such an 'eclectic mix of protesters' is pushing the image of the Democratic Party further to the left.
Democrat Matt Bennett, president of Third Way, said the the protest should be more centered so that moderates will not be turned off it leaning to the left's agenda
Others say that is drawing more clear differences between the two parties, differences that are crucial in this upcoming election. Also to make note - Much of the Democratic Campaign financing comes from Wall Street, that is again why i was surprised to hear their support.
Lastly, Herman Cain criticized the Occupy Wall Street protesters for being jealous of successful capitalists.
I don't know if the protesters are jealous, or just not predatorial enough to screw weak people out of their money.
And lastly, with the financial crisis thing, I thought of a metaphor that kind of makes sense of what happened during it.
People used to kill by hand, and with guns and bombs we make it not only easier, but more impersonal, we don't ever have to look our enemy in the eye. Can the evolution of how we do business be compared to that? We used to look at the person, and sell them our best product, everything was done in person. Now it is digitized and our only interest is to see the numbers go up and we can't care if we screw people over because we don't even see them.
Just fruit for thought...
Many issues take of my interest not because they are necessarily important, but because of what they reveal about government processes. Lately my fascination has been with the links between media and government, how they operate together to provide the public with information and how people edit what is going on in order to get the proper response.
As I read about Democrat's support, and the Republican's criticism of the protest I was reminded of the Kennedy/Romney speeches: how both tried to respond in the least offensive way possible.
I was actually surprised by Democrat's support of the protest because i thought the party would be too scared to support an extreme, one that has been compared the the Tea Party in that it sways moderates away from the origin party because of it's extremity.
And just to be clear, i don't think the main purpose of the protest is 'extreme', its just that the drumming, nudity, and other crazy protesting stories have lead to people having that impression.
The Occupy Wall Street Protest is about nothing extreme. It is about citizen's frustration with how the financial crisis and institutions are handled by the government; they aren't handled and the protests want them to be.
The financial crisis happened due to the abuse of securitization. American's had to pay for the bail out with their tax money.
Securitization is the turning of a debt into a bond and selling it to an investor. Wall Street sold low quality CDOs (collateral debt obligations, mortgage backed securities, mortgage debts belonging to people who could not repay them because banks began to get greedy and approving everyone) which it then paid rating agencies such as AIG to rate and higher than they actually were. They then bet against the very transactions that were made. This is called 'shorting' or derivatives.
The whole alchemy conundrum went bust and the guilty firms were bailed out. The last time this happened in the 1980s, hundreds went to jail. What they did was not illegal which is the problem. There were no regulations prohibiting these loopholes because so many laws had been passed in administration that allowed for this sort of business to take place. This is what the protest is about.
Obama stands in support of the protesters. The Democratic Congressional Committee is circulating a petition that seeks 100,000 signatures supporting the protesters.
The Center for American progress "credits the protest with tapping into pent up anger over a political system that it says reward the rich over the working class - a populist theme now being emphasized by the white house and the party."
Some people in the party however, find it uneasy that it is getting support. They find that showing support for such an 'eclectic mix of protesters' is pushing the image of the Democratic Party further to the left.
Democrat Matt Bennett, president of Third Way, said the the protest should be more centered so that moderates will not be turned off it leaning to the left's agenda
Others say that is drawing more clear differences between the two parties, differences that are crucial in this upcoming election. Also to make note - Much of the Democratic Campaign financing comes from Wall Street, that is again why i was surprised to hear their support.
Lastly, Herman Cain criticized the Occupy Wall Street protesters for being jealous of successful capitalists.
I don't know if the protesters are jealous, or just not predatorial enough to screw weak people out of their money.
And lastly, with the financial crisis thing, I thought of a metaphor that kind of makes sense of what happened during it.
People used to kill by hand, and with guns and bombs we make it not only easier, but more impersonal, we don't ever have to look our enemy in the eye. Can the evolution of how we do business be compared to that? We used to look at the person, and sell them our best product, everything was done in person. Now it is digitized and our only interest is to see the numbers go up and we can't care if we screw people over because we don't even see them.
Just fruit for thought...
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Reaction to a movie and an article
So after watching about the Clinton campaign and reading about Romney's current campaign strategist, I am ever more skeptical of politicians and the election process.
It seems to me that sculpting strategy is not about perfecting the plan of what a president is going to do, rather the job is to sculpt the argument. I hate that.
The Article i read was called "An Unconventional Strategist Reshaping Romney". It talked about Stuart Stevens, his lead consultant.
It begins by describing Romney's new image, "this time around Mr. Romney is crisper more relaxed and almost always without a tie."
Stevens, its says, is trying to focus on the big picture and establishing a strong central message. This message is that Romney's work in the public sector gives him the knowledge and experience to solve the economic crisis and lack of jobs.
A central message is the opposite of what Romney had last time around where he was seen as a candidate that was flopping between ideas and 'unable to connect with voters'.
It then goes on to describe Stevens as competitive and unconcerned with others' opinions of him. It says he loves the competitive aspect of the campaigning. The article ends with his quote saying that his life as a political consultant "served as an outlet for my violent tendencies".
Ok, there are many aspects of this that i want to discuss.
First of all, the whole laid back candidate with the no tie thing is smart and fresh. I think it works. I feel like part of the Obama campaign was something similar to this with the 'change' thing and just the fact that he connected with audiences so well.
He also feels like the people's president when he gives live talks and works to include people. It sort of how Princess Diana was the people princess in that she appeared to be away from all royal old farts who just so happened to get there.
Obama even now seems like one of us, and that his appeal and Romney no tie strategy reminds me of that.
Secondly, and this has to do with the movie also, is how weird it is to devise argument and create word play. It just seems no immature and not the point of the election.
The point of the election is to figure out who is the best candidate, not who is the best at arguing.
It seems to me that sculpting strategy is not about perfecting the plan of what a president is going to do, rather the job is to sculpt the argument. I hate that.
The Article i read was called "An Unconventional Strategist Reshaping Romney". It talked about Stuart Stevens, his lead consultant.
It begins by describing Romney's new image, "this time around Mr. Romney is crisper more relaxed and almost always without a tie."
Stevens, its says, is trying to focus on the big picture and establishing a strong central message. This message is that Romney's work in the public sector gives him the knowledge and experience to solve the economic crisis and lack of jobs.
A central message is the opposite of what Romney had last time around where he was seen as a candidate that was flopping between ideas and 'unable to connect with voters'.
It then goes on to describe Stevens as competitive and unconcerned with others' opinions of him. It says he loves the competitive aspect of the campaigning. The article ends with his quote saying that his life as a political consultant "served as an outlet for my violent tendencies".
Ok, there are many aspects of this that i want to discuss.
First of all, the whole laid back candidate with the no tie thing is smart and fresh. I think it works. I feel like part of the Obama campaign was something similar to this with the 'change' thing and just the fact that he connected with audiences so well.
He also feels like the people's president when he gives live talks and works to include people. It sort of how Princess Diana was the people princess in that she appeared to be away from all royal old farts who just so happened to get there.
Obama even now seems like one of us, and that his appeal and Romney no tie strategy reminds me of that.
Secondly, and this has to do with the movie also, is how weird it is to devise argument and create word play. It just seems no immature and not the point of the election.
The point of the election is to figure out who is the best candidate, not who is the best at arguing.
Videos for Voter Turnouts
During a the governor's race republican/democrat, independents, and non voters are welcomed to call in and say what they think about the turn-out and election. A woman who is 46 calls in and explains why she does not vote. She agrees with the two voters before her in that she is skeptical that any change can be made.
Analysis of African American turn-out. More African-Americans tend to vote for Democratic Party.
This is talking about the total number of people that are eligible to vote and out of all those people, which percentage end up voting. Supposedly, we're at the higher end at 60%, which is where we were in the beggining of the century and the 50s. during the 70s 80s till 1996 we were lower. the lowest was in 1996 at 55%. Its strange though. You'd think with explosion of media it would soar meaning it would go up after the 50s with television advertising and would go up even further with the past decade. It has but not by much.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Obamadrama
Obama hit his all time low is approval ratings this week as he unfolded the Jobs Act and the economy continued to worsen.
His Job act included a plan to create a business friendly environment that wold give tax breaks to hiring companies, employ construction workers by federal funded infrastructural improvements, and lowering taxes on middle class families.
This meant that the government would once again be spending money and losing it which of coarse, the G.O.P hated.
Every time Obama wants to pass something, the GOP accuses Obama of spending too much money and not cutting down enough. It points a mean finger at Obama saying "look, look, he's using up too tax payer's dollars, raising taxes, and increasing our deficit," and people buy into it.
Meanwhile it is strange to me that the GOP is willing to spend billions on war. But that's just me.
Americans don't want to hear about tax increases. They don't, and the sound of it will make them cover their ears, sing la la la, and open them again the second anyone comes around to offer tax cuts.
Tax cuts or tax increases is not the issue here.
The government is in deficit and debt. An annual imbalance of money made versus money spent and, an increasing amount that we have to pay back to countries like China. We spend more than we make and continue to have a low savings rate which means we don't save enough!
In order to solve this America needs to make more than we spend. Meaning- borrow less, tax more (often problematic), and produce more, and be less reliant on the people we borrow from (dont tell anyone but China won't like that).
Now, the fuss around taxes.
I used to think we should tax more corporations and decrease taxes on the lower class. I'm wrong. If you tax corporations, they'll fire people. A boss even told me so.
If you decrease taxes, we will not be able to afford the things we need running like schools.
I think Obama's plan for employing American's is a great idea. They need to make money. If our workers are making money then that means America is making money.
It requires government spending but its better than just putting government to a halt on spending, and then what? Shut down our school because we don't have funding?
We need taxes, corporations just don't want to pay them. That does not mean we do not need them.
We need to put America back to work. It worked in one great depression and then laissez faire politicians abolished the idea of government running business because the government shouldn't be big and employ people and federal programs that are only there to help people are socialist and evil.
I'm sorry, i know my sarcasm is snarky and obnoxious but i can't stand greediness. When the government is accused of being too big and too invasive, whenever that happens, i usually think its because whoever is accusing, is doing something they should not be doing.
His Job act included a plan to create a business friendly environment that wold give tax breaks to hiring companies, employ construction workers by federal funded infrastructural improvements, and lowering taxes on middle class families.
This meant that the government would once again be spending money and losing it which of coarse, the G.O.P hated.
Every time Obama wants to pass something, the GOP accuses Obama of spending too much money and not cutting down enough. It points a mean finger at Obama saying "look, look, he's using up too tax payer's dollars, raising taxes, and increasing our deficit," and people buy into it.
Meanwhile it is strange to me that the GOP is willing to spend billions on war. But that's just me.
Americans don't want to hear about tax increases. They don't, and the sound of it will make them cover their ears, sing la la la, and open them again the second anyone comes around to offer tax cuts.
Tax cuts or tax increases is not the issue here.
The government is in deficit and debt. An annual imbalance of money made versus money spent and, an increasing amount that we have to pay back to countries like China. We spend more than we make and continue to have a low savings rate which means we don't save enough!
In order to solve this America needs to make more than we spend. Meaning- borrow less, tax more (often problematic), and produce more, and be less reliant on the people we borrow from (dont tell anyone but China won't like that).
Now, the fuss around taxes.
I used to think we should tax more corporations and decrease taxes on the lower class. I'm wrong. If you tax corporations, they'll fire people. A boss even told me so.
If you decrease taxes, we will not be able to afford the things we need running like schools.
I think Obama's plan for employing American's is a great idea. They need to make money. If our workers are making money then that means America is making money.
It requires government spending but its better than just putting government to a halt on spending, and then what? Shut down our school because we don't have funding?
We need taxes, corporations just don't want to pay them. That does not mean we do not need them.
We need to put America back to work. It worked in one great depression and then laissez faire politicians abolished the idea of government running business because the government shouldn't be big and employ people and federal programs that are only there to help people are socialist and evil.
I'm sorry, i know my sarcasm is snarky and obnoxious but i can't stand greediness. When the government is accused of being too big and too invasive, whenever that happens, i usually think its because whoever is accusing, is doing something they should not be doing.
videos 1
The federal reserve released information and called it "the dump". This was when the federal reserve was being reviewed and had to gather information. So, they did and called it 'the dump'. There is a concern about releasing too much information from fear of what might happen to stocks and the market since it so heavily relies on consumer/investor faith.
When certain people decided we should not vote based on popular vote, they assumed most people were to dumb to understand what is going on. I don't believe people are dumb at all. However, i do think they are often mislead and this reminds me of it.
Part of Romney's speech. He says "the citizen should be the sovereign and the state should be the servant". He says this is how this country was founded but that idea gets a bit fuzzy based on how we elect presidents. He also gets points for motivation and summarizing what is america.
"taxation is a symptom of what the people's appetite is for government". This is a video of Ron Paul talking about people changing what they should want from their government. What they should not want is a big government. But is is strange to think that people want big government and made a point to make it that way... did they? I am following the theme of how president's get elected by voter's choice (or lack of it?).
First impressions
I remember being home that spring friday when the government announced it would not shut-down.
Politicians were locked in a room and made to draft a bill preventing the furlough of workers and haulting of federal programs as we reached the dept cap thus exhausting the governments power to spend money.
News stations were broadcasting their arguements, "are you really going to shut-down the government over planned perenthood?!" one woman yelled in irritiation.
And I aggreed with her. I too thought the arguements were bogus, ridiculous, like a cat fight, unresolved, and just stupid. Niether side would ever understand one another.
The two differed in ideology, religion, and understanding of economics. How would a couple day session ever resolve surfance issues rooted in such deep matters? It wouldn't.
This is how I feel when I listen to debates. I see a clash, arrows going towards the other and missing because the two aren't fighting on the same grounds of reality.
Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Hunstman, and Bachman seem to be the biggest competitors in the G.O.P Primaries.
Since they are in the same parties, they are closer in views but yet again, as I was watching the debate I was wondering whether they all had the same facts
Perry, Romney, and Hunstman all claimed they were the best at job creation and that their states had the most job creation during their time in power.
What sources are they using?! I even heard something different. NPR claims that Oaklahoma had the fastest growing economy and offered the safest bussiness environment.
Sometimes I wonder whether more information, or our access to it is good. With so much media, there is this illusion of transperency when really so little of it is objective. Do all of us even learn the same things in school about how govnments, politics, and economies work?
Secondly, I am on the B.S/Jargon watch. The government thus far does very little to 'create' jobs. What they do is create bussiness incentives for companies to hire workers.
They give tax breaks, for example, to bussinesses if they hire a certain amout of workers. Then they count all of these jobs and call it job 'creation'
This is not job 'creation'. What Obama Spoke about in his Jobs Act speech is similar to this. However, he actually included job creation in which the government employs construction workers to enhance infastructure.
This is job creation.
This is what the G.O.P candidates are opposed to. What they want to do is give more tax breaks to coporations hoping that they will then hire workers so they can then call it job creation.
Reagan's Trickle down theory? I don't know if it works.
Obama's Job Creation Act is similar to that of Theodore Roosevelt's New Deal to get the country out of recession. He created programs like AAA that were meant to "Recover, Reform, and Releif".
Despite all the candidates saying how they had a plan and how they were the ones who were going to do it the best, I never really did get a clear understanding of what each candidate wanted to do.
My hope is that i can more clearly understand the differences between the parties and their so called solutions.
I want to understand on what basis they argue. What point of views they have that make each differ in the sort of solutions. This country is not united and its not just surface issues. It is so deeply rooted in our views of the world. I just don't know what they are and how every view came to be so different
Politicians were locked in a room and made to draft a bill preventing the furlough of workers and haulting of federal programs as we reached the dept cap thus exhausting the governments power to spend money.
News stations were broadcasting their arguements, "are you really going to shut-down the government over planned perenthood?!" one woman yelled in irritiation.
And I aggreed with her. I too thought the arguements were bogus, ridiculous, like a cat fight, unresolved, and just stupid. Niether side would ever understand one another.
The two differed in ideology, religion, and understanding of economics. How would a couple day session ever resolve surfance issues rooted in such deep matters? It wouldn't.
This is how I feel when I listen to debates. I see a clash, arrows going towards the other and missing because the two aren't fighting on the same grounds of reality.
Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Hunstman, and Bachman seem to be the biggest competitors in the G.O.P Primaries.
Since they are in the same parties, they are closer in views but yet again, as I was watching the debate I was wondering whether they all had the same facts
Perry, Romney, and Hunstman all claimed they were the best at job creation and that their states had the most job creation during their time in power.
What sources are they using?! I even heard something different. NPR claims that Oaklahoma had the fastest growing economy and offered the safest bussiness environment.
Sometimes I wonder whether more information, or our access to it is good. With so much media, there is this illusion of transperency when really so little of it is objective. Do all of us even learn the same things in school about how govnments, politics, and economies work?
Secondly, I am on the B.S/Jargon watch. The government thus far does very little to 'create' jobs. What they do is create bussiness incentives for companies to hire workers.
They give tax breaks, for example, to bussinesses if they hire a certain amout of workers. Then they count all of these jobs and call it job 'creation'
This is not job 'creation'. What Obama Spoke about in his Jobs Act speech is similar to this. However, he actually included job creation in which the government employs construction workers to enhance infastructure.
This is job creation.
This is what the G.O.P candidates are opposed to. What they want to do is give more tax breaks to coporations hoping that they will then hire workers so they can then call it job creation.
Reagan's Trickle down theory? I don't know if it works.
Obama's Job Creation Act is similar to that of Theodore Roosevelt's New Deal to get the country out of recession. He created programs like AAA that were meant to "Recover, Reform, and Releif".
Despite all the candidates saying how they had a plan and how they were the ones who were going to do it the best, I never really did get a clear understanding of what each candidate wanted to do.
My hope is that i can more clearly understand the differences between the parties and their so called solutions.
I want to understand on what basis they argue. What point of views they have that make each differ in the sort of solutions. This country is not united and its not just surface issues. It is so deeply rooted in our views of the world. I just don't know what they are and how every view came to be so different
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)