"America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The future of Obama and his potential presidency
My prediction for Barack Obama:
Barack Obama will go down very hard (to the tune of Eliot Spitzer) as a politician. Something from his past, or something he does while in office will come back to bite him. He will most likely leave the political world and history will not remember him well.
My prediction for an Obama presidency (note: I do not believe this race is over):
The highest point of Obama's presidency will be his inauguration speech. It will be hyped beyond belief; however, fewer people will watch it than is expected. Obama will talk about a new era, a new vision, a new purpose, a new age for America. He will speak little of freedom, opportunity, and economic growth.
From there, it will all be downhill. In no particular order, 1) we will begin to see prices creep up on all goods and services, 2) the federal government will appear more often on in our lives, 3) the stock market will, at best, grow incrementally, but probably not clear above 12,000, 4) it will be harder to find a job that suits ones interests and skills, 5) IPOs will be at an all-time low, 6) we will hear of much less entrepreneurship, and 7) we will see individual liberties such as economic freedom and freedom of speech curtailed under such false pretenses as “fairness” and “helping others”.
If Obama sticks to his plans and ideology, and I fully believe he will, I predict we will see all of these things and much more.
Now, do I want these things to happen? No. Will I be cheering when these things occur? No. Do I see some good that could come out of an Obama presidency that results in all this? Yes.
It is quite possible that an Obama presidency could expose the sheer dangers of liberal ideology better than any conservative pundit has done up to this point. He, along with democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, could cause so much destruction that the United States could finally turn the page on big-government, pro-union, anti-liberty, nanny-state, protectionist, redistributive ideology. If the country were to finally realize what kind of governing principles actually create opportunity and growth, and which ones don’t, we would be in a really great place.
This kind of situation would require principled, conservative leaders to step up to the plate. If there were candidates for the White House and Congress with the confidence of Newt Gingrich, the intellectual candor of George Will, and the ability to relate to all Americans (Mike Huckabee does it well), the country could see a giant swing over to libertarian/conservative principles. That would be a good day for America.
Who might those leaders be? Mark Sanford, Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal? No matter who wins the White House, in 2010 and 2012 - we will need them.
Barack Obama will go down very hard (to the tune of Eliot Spitzer) as a politician. Something from his past, or something he does while in office will come back to bite him. He will most likely leave the political world and history will not remember him well.
My prediction for an Obama presidency (note: I do not believe this race is over):
The highest point of Obama's presidency will be his inauguration speech. It will be hyped beyond belief; however, fewer people will watch it than is expected. Obama will talk about a new era, a new vision, a new purpose, a new age for America. He will speak little of freedom, opportunity, and economic growth.
From there, it will all be downhill. In no particular order, 1) we will begin to see prices creep up on all goods and services, 2) the federal government will appear more often on in our lives, 3) the stock market will, at best, grow incrementally, but probably not clear above 12,000, 4) it will be harder to find a job that suits ones interests and skills, 5) IPOs will be at an all-time low, 6) we will hear of much less entrepreneurship, and 7) we will see individual liberties such as economic freedom and freedom of speech curtailed under such false pretenses as “fairness” and “helping others”.
If Obama sticks to his plans and ideology, and I fully believe he will, I predict we will see all of these things and much more.
Now, do I want these things to happen? No. Will I be cheering when these things occur? No. Do I see some good that could come out of an Obama presidency that results in all this? Yes.
It is quite possible that an Obama presidency could expose the sheer dangers of liberal ideology better than any conservative pundit has done up to this point. He, along with democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, could cause so much destruction that the United States could finally turn the page on big-government, pro-union, anti-liberty, nanny-state, protectionist, redistributive ideology. If the country were to finally realize what kind of governing principles actually create opportunity and growth, and which ones don’t, we would be in a really great place.
This kind of situation would require principled, conservative leaders to step up to the plate. If there were candidates for the White House and Congress with the confidence of Newt Gingrich, the intellectual candor of George Will, and the ability to relate to all Americans (Mike Huckabee does it well), the country could see a giant swing over to libertarian/conservative principles. That would be a good day for America.
Who might those leaders be? Mark Sanford, Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal? No matter who wins the White House, in 2010 and 2012 - we will need them.
Friday, October 17, 2008
All must read
If you are voting for Obama, support liberal policies, and are hoping for good things to come from an Obama-Biden-Reid-Pelosi federal government, you must read this article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
Supporting liberal policies without understanding the consequeneces is irresponsible.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
Supporting liberal policies without understanding the consequeneces is irresponsible.
Principles matter
I believe the fundamental causes of our country’s challenges and crises stem from the will of leaders to uphold, defend, and stand by this very principle:
(1) The federal government serves to PROTECT the interests of American citizens. More specifically, the federal government exists to PROTECT every citizen’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
When the federal government veers from this principle and tries to provide for us, rather than protect us, more often than not what we see are destructive, unintended consequences and more harm than good. Recent example:
(1) Market bubbles occur. They are part of the system. The market goes up and it goes down, and people who put money in the market know there’s the opportunity to make it big, and to lose it all.
a. The reason that the most recent bubble bursting has caused so much destruction and affected so many people, many of whom had nothing to do with the mess, is because the federal government tried to provide for its citizen’s pursuit of happiness, rather than protect.
i. By coercing lenders into providing loans for people unqualified to receive loans and then buying a huge portion of those mortgages up via government sponsored entities (FanM/FreM), the federal government distorted the marketplace. It radically expanded the market for risky, toxic assets! If a mortgage lender didn’t have a buyer for its sub-prime loans (FanM/FreM), it would have stopped making those loans. This distortion increased and spread the risk created by easy lending (of which the culprits are irresponsible lenders and borrowers) to the entire country. Had the federal government kept its hands out of trying to provide housing, would there have been a housing bubble and burst? Arguably, yes. But would it have been as destructive and so spread throughout the entire country and world? No.
Taxes are necessary. We as citizens pay taxes to our governments in exchange for services. Depending on the municipality, we pay taxes for local police and fire protection, schools, street and community maintenance, etc. Depending on the state, we pay taxes for disaster relief, state police, schools, state parks, etc.
Regarding the federal government, I believe that as citizens we all should pay taxes to provide protection of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That takes the form of a military to defend our borders, a justice department to uphold our laws, a court system for the defense of our liberties, etc.
So if government receives money from its citizens in exchange for protecting our rights, why does it make sense that some citizens should pay more than others? Why does it make sense that 40% of Americans do not pay the federal government, yet still receive the services that the federal government offers? Why does it make sense that 1% of the population foots the bill for 26% of the population? How does that free ride make sense?
I firmly believe that we should not pay money to the federal government for them to just give it to others (earmarks, tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies, etc.). That is incredibly unfair and senseless.
Is it just that I don’t care about anyone but myself? Absolutely not. I DO want to use my money to help others. However, I know I can do it much more effectively by starting a business, donating to a private organization or using it to fund my own volunteer work; rather than giving it to the federal government who when seeking to provide for, causes more harm than good.
Government, and I emphasize the federal government (because at least people can choose which state to live in, like any state but big-government Michigan), should stick to doing what it does best, and that is protecting our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Uphold the laws, defend against foreign/domestic enemies, and get out of the way. The more we rely on, expect, and fund the government to veer from that role, the less freedom and prosperity we’ll see in our time.
(1) The federal government serves to PROTECT the interests of American citizens. More specifically, the federal government exists to PROTECT every citizen’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
When the federal government veers from this principle and tries to provide for us, rather than protect us, more often than not what we see are destructive, unintended consequences and more harm than good. Recent example:
(1) Market bubbles occur. They are part of the system. The market goes up and it goes down, and people who put money in the market know there’s the opportunity to make it big, and to lose it all.
a. The reason that the most recent bubble bursting has caused so much destruction and affected so many people, many of whom had nothing to do with the mess, is because the federal government tried to provide for its citizen’s pursuit of happiness, rather than protect.
i. By coercing lenders into providing loans for people unqualified to receive loans and then buying a huge portion of those mortgages up via government sponsored entities (FanM/FreM), the federal government distorted the marketplace. It radically expanded the market for risky, toxic assets! If a mortgage lender didn’t have a buyer for its sub-prime loans (FanM/FreM), it would have stopped making those loans. This distortion increased and spread the risk created by easy lending (of which the culprits are irresponsible lenders and borrowers) to the entire country. Had the federal government kept its hands out of trying to provide housing, would there have been a housing bubble and burst? Arguably, yes. But would it have been as destructive and so spread throughout the entire country and world? No.
Taxes are necessary. We as citizens pay taxes to our governments in exchange for services. Depending on the municipality, we pay taxes for local police and fire protection, schools, street and community maintenance, etc. Depending on the state, we pay taxes for disaster relief, state police, schools, state parks, etc.
Regarding the federal government, I believe that as citizens we all should pay taxes to provide protection of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That takes the form of a military to defend our borders, a justice department to uphold our laws, a court system for the defense of our liberties, etc.
So if government receives money from its citizens in exchange for protecting our rights, why does it make sense that some citizens should pay more than others? Why does it make sense that 40% of Americans do not pay the federal government, yet still receive the services that the federal government offers? Why does it make sense that 1% of the population foots the bill for 26% of the population? How does that free ride make sense?
I firmly believe that we should not pay money to the federal government for them to just give it to others (earmarks, tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies, etc.). That is incredibly unfair and senseless.
Is it just that I don’t care about anyone but myself? Absolutely not. I DO want to use my money to help others. However, I know I can do it much more effectively by starting a business, donating to a private organization or using it to fund my own volunteer work; rather than giving it to the federal government who when seeking to provide for, causes more harm than good.
Government, and I emphasize the federal government (because at least people can choose which state to live in, like any state but big-government Michigan), should stick to doing what it does best, and that is protecting our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Uphold the laws, defend against foreign/domestic enemies, and get out of the way. The more we rely on, expect, and fund the government to veer from that role, the less freedom and prosperity we’ll see in our time.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama courts change killers
Any trade agreement that lowers barriers to trade is a good agreement, except of course for those special interests that fear competition and change (i.e. organized labor). Obama courts these interests groups and supports policies that benefit them.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY0ZTZmODYyY2IxYjc4YjBiM2E2ZDNmMmMzZGVjZGI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY0ZTZmODYyY2IxYjc4YjBiM2E2ZDNmMmMzZGVjZGI=
Yay Canada
First, it was the Canadian who beat an attacking bear to death with a stick.
Then, it was Canada reelecting a conservative Prime Minister.
"John McCain, take note." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411774995338861.html
Then, it was Canada reelecting a conservative Prime Minister.
"John McCain, take note." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411774995338861.html
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama, the furthest thing from change
We have a presidential race with two imperfect candidates. I have reservations about John McCain, and I’m disappointed that we didn't get someone better apt to articulate and inspire confidence in the kind of policies the U.S. really needs. So do I think McCain has it all right? Absolutely not. However, Obama is the furthest thing from change I can imagine. Electing him would undoubtedly give a mandate to the federal government to adopt policies incongruent with those that are needed to adequately protect freedom and provide opportunity in the 21st century.
The United States should be striving to achieve the best corporations and business environment in the world, the best universities and K-12 institutions, the best health care system, the best protection of private property, and the best defense of our borders (amongst other things). And we need to be bringing in top talent from around the world! We have the luxury of already attracting the world’s most intelligent and high-potential foreign nationals just based off of our country’s ideals and opportunities - yet we throw it away with hardcore visa restrictions. Why are we denying the smartest workers from India, China, the Middle East, the opportunity to come work and start a business in the US? Look at the founders of Google and tell me that we shouldn’t be courting the world’s top talent.
I just briefly laid out the bare bones of where we should get to as a country (plus a small rant on immigration policy). However, the majority of debate and contention is not over the end goals, but around the means. What are the means to the end? What are the policies that will create this kind of USA? What makes sense? I firmly believe that the long term solutions rest on the principles of free markets and trade, individual liberty, and limited government.
For example, tax policies that I think make sense::
(1) Get rid of all federal taxes on businesses.
a. Take away all federal tax barriers to doing business in the US, and we’ll see a lot more entrepreneurs, a lot more small businesses, a lot more successful corporations, and thus more jobs, more wealth, and more opportunity.
(2) Create a flat income tax for individuals, or a national consumption tax.
a. What would you voluntarily pay the federal government to do for you? Think about it.
b. Right now, 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes, and 1% of Americans pay over ¼ of the bill. That’s incredibly unfair.
c. Increasing tax rates on people as their income rises discourages them from doing more work, taking risks, and starting a business. Would you want to work harder, take risks, and improve your opportunities for income generation if you knew the federal government would just take a higher percentage of money from you just because “you can afford it”?
d. A flat income tax for individuals, or no income tax and just a national consumption tax, would get rid of the discouragement caused by federal tax burdens.
Now does John McCain support these policies? No, at least not directly; however, he does support policies that point in this direction. Obama, on the other hand, supports tax policies that would discourage entrepreneurship, discourage investment, discourage corporations staying in the US, and discourage individual risk taking. His party line is that it helps the middle class - but what’s the middle class to do with nobody to offer employment and even heavier barriers to generating wealth than exist now?
So why am I so fervently against an Obama presidency?
Because his ideology and policies are the furthest things from change we need. I gave my tax example, but one need look no further than a list of his biggest supporters (worker and teacher unions) – groups consistently opposed to change, even when it’s what’s best for everyone. So how does Obama actually represent change when he courts the biggest change killers in the country? It’s because his change mantra is a humongous joke.
Obama calls McCain “more of the same” – I would suggest he stop saying that, because he has no credibility on that front. Obama is just more of the same leftist ideology – he’s the first term of McGovern, the second term of Carter, the first term of Mondale, and the first term of Dukakis. Scary thing is, Obama’s probably more to the left of all these guys.
There is nothing new about him. There is nothing different about his policies. When it comes to change, there is nothing Obama has to offer this country.
The United States should be striving to achieve the best corporations and business environment in the world, the best universities and K-12 institutions, the best health care system, the best protection of private property, and the best defense of our borders (amongst other things). And we need to be bringing in top talent from around the world! We have the luxury of already attracting the world’s most intelligent and high-potential foreign nationals just based off of our country’s ideals and opportunities - yet we throw it away with hardcore visa restrictions. Why are we denying the smartest workers from India, China, the Middle East, the opportunity to come work and start a business in the US? Look at the founders of Google and tell me that we shouldn’t be courting the world’s top talent.
I just briefly laid out the bare bones of where we should get to as a country (plus a small rant on immigration policy). However, the majority of debate and contention is not over the end goals, but around the means. What are the means to the end? What are the policies that will create this kind of USA? What makes sense? I firmly believe that the long term solutions rest on the principles of free markets and trade, individual liberty, and limited government.
For example, tax policies that I think make sense::
(1) Get rid of all federal taxes on businesses.
a. Take away all federal tax barriers to doing business in the US, and we’ll see a lot more entrepreneurs, a lot more small businesses, a lot more successful corporations, and thus more jobs, more wealth, and more opportunity.
(2) Create a flat income tax for individuals, or a national consumption tax.
a. What would you voluntarily pay the federal government to do for you? Think about it.
b. Right now, 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes, and 1% of Americans pay over ¼ of the bill. That’s incredibly unfair.
c. Increasing tax rates on people as their income rises discourages them from doing more work, taking risks, and starting a business. Would you want to work harder, take risks, and improve your opportunities for income generation if you knew the federal government would just take a higher percentage of money from you just because “you can afford it”?
d. A flat income tax for individuals, or no income tax and just a national consumption tax, would get rid of the discouragement caused by federal tax burdens.
Now does John McCain support these policies? No, at least not directly; however, he does support policies that point in this direction. Obama, on the other hand, supports tax policies that would discourage entrepreneurship, discourage investment, discourage corporations staying in the US, and discourage individual risk taking. His party line is that it helps the middle class - but what’s the middle class to do with nobody to offer employment and even heavier barriers to generating wealth than exist now?
So why am I so fervently against an Obama presidency?
Because his ideology and policies are the furthest things from change we need. I gave my tax example, but one need look no further than a list of his biggest supporters (worker and teacher unions) – groups consistently opposed to change, even when it’s what’s best for everyone. So how does Obama actually represent change when he courts the biggest change killers in the country? It’s because his change mantra is a humongous joke.
Obama calls McCain “more of the same” – I would suggest he stop saying that, because he has no credibility on that front. Obama is just more of the same leftist ideology – he’s the first term of McGovern, the second term of Carter, the first term of Mondale, and the first term of Dukakis. Scary thing is, Obama’s probably more to the left of all these guys.
There is nothing new about him. There is nothing different about his policies. When it comes to change, there is nothing Obama has to offer this country.
Destructive ideology
It is clear that with his "spreading the wealth around" policies, huge support from unions and bureacracies (SEIU, ACORN, teacher unions), and associations with radical individuals bent on "social justice", Barack Obama surrounds himself with a radical, destructive, big-government leftist ideology.
The Audacity of Socialism. http://ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx?src=BOSTHAD
What happens when we elect the most liberal senator to the White House? www.neverfindout.org
The Audacity of Socialism. http://ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx?src=BOSTHAD
What happens when we elect the most liberal senator to the White House? www.neverfindout.org
Monday, October 13, 2008
Welfare, welfare, welfare
Reducing tax rates on 95% of "working American families" when over a third of Americans pay no federal taxes at all? How is that possible? Through "tax credits", aka government handouts. Just another name for welfare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
Even more evidence on leftist ideology (aka Obama's ideology)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
And we're even considering giving this guy the presidency?
And we're even considering giving this guy the presidency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)