Buckle your seatbelts, kids. It's going to be a bumpy ride. We've got the complete socialist agenda on the table. But in a couple of ways, I'm ok with it.
For one, we'll see if giving the people what they want will really make them happy. I've heard comments from people on the street in the news like "now my rent and gas will be paid for". Yes! People really believe that they won't have to pay their bills now that Obama is President! Maybe they won't. Maybe we'll have to pay them instead.
The other reason I'm not totally bummed by this outcome is that a McCain win would have been the electoral equivalent to the Wall Street bailout. In other words, it would have just prolonged the agony of the slide toward socialism. And it would have slowed down the pendulum swing to the left. If it is ever going to swing back to a true constitutional republic, it has to complete it's momentum in the current direction.
I can't offer much more than that for solace, but there will be plenty to write about in the next 4 to 8 years. See ya around campus.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Birds of a Feather
McCain and Obama both want to increase the FDIC coverage of bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000. Obama says that this will help shore up the economy. McCain emphasised the desire to change the terminology from "bailout" to "rescue". Can't say that I blame him.
This is all smoke and mirrors, folks. Increasing the FDIC will hurt banks, as well as the people who have money in their federally insured bank accounts.
Why? Because the amount of federally insured money in accounts today is around $4.5 Trillion (that's Trillion, with a capitol T). The amount of money in reserve to cover this amount under the FDIC is about $56 billion (note the small b).
$56 billion to cover $4.5 trillion. That's about 1.25% coverage. Only the first 1.25% of money lost can expect to be recovered in a claim against the FDIC. Subsequent losers will likely be out of luck. If these candidates are successful in getting the current amount of coverage raised, that percentage (1.25%) can only go down. Whatever premiums banks pay to the FDIC will have to increase in order to cover the higher insurance coverage. You can check the numbers on the FDIC's own website here .
These two starry-eyed hopefuls are hell-bent on making a bad thing worse.
This is all smoke and mirrors, folks. Increasing the FDIC will hurt banks, as well as the people who have money in their federally insured bank accounts.
Why? Because the amount of federally insured money in accounts today is around $4.5 Trillion (that's Trillion, with a capitol T). The amount of money in reserve to cover this amount under the FDIC is about $56 billion (note the small b).
$56 billion to cover $4.5 trillion. That's about 1.25% coverage. Only the first 1.25% of money lost can expect to be recovered in a claim against the FDIC. Subsequent losers will likely be out of luck. If these candidates are successful in getting the current amount of coverage raised, that percentage (1.25%) can only go down. Whatever premiums banks pay to the FDIC will have to increase in order to cover the higher insurance coverage. You can check the numbers on the FDIC's own website here .
These two starry-eyed hopefuls are hell-bent on making a bad thing worse.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Watch carefully, his lips are moving
According to a transcript of the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama (hosted by Jim Lehrer), Barack Obama, when referring to issues of the economy and, more specifically, on earmarks said:
But if special interest groups are introducing the earmarks, to whom are they introducing them? To the legislator, right? So, regardless of who actually comes up with the request, the responsibility for adding the earmark to a piece of legislation must fall into the legislator's lap.
Take a look at some of the earmarks that Senator Obama has been involved with. The following list is provided by The Citizen's Against Government Waste:
...the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.The second part of the Senator's statement caught my eye. Is he saying that it wasn't the case that special interests weren't introducing the requests, or that the earmarks he requested weren't for special interests? I don't really think that it matters. The point that I believe he was trying to make is that earmarks for special interests aren't desirable.
And he's also right [referring to an earlier McCain comment] that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But if special interest groups are introducing the earmarks, to whom are they introducing them? To the legislator, right? So, regardless of who actually comes up with the request, the responsibility for adding the earmark to a piece of legislation must fall into the legislator's lap.
Take a look at some of the earmarks that Senator Obama has been involved with. The following list is provided by The Citizen's Against Government Waste:
- $526,900 for the GoGirlGo! Chicago Initiative, Women's Sports Foundation, Chicago
- $401,850 for a juvenile delinquency prevention program, Shedd Aquarium, Chicago
- $344,520 for The Northeastern Illinois Sewer Consortium
- $735,000 for The Lewis University Airport Improvement Program
- Tens of millions for public transportation in the state of Illinois
The list is too long to include here, but you can see it here , by simply searching on the Senator's name. You'll see that the earmarks total almost $90 million for 2008.
I've got news, kids. These are all special interests. Taking money from Illinois' neighbors for Illinois projects that don't fall under a Constitutional mandate for spending is theft! Don't the taxpayers of Iowa, Indiana, etc. have their own transportation, juvenile delinquency, and local airport repairs to worry about? Let the state of Illinois tax its own citizens for its own projects. For Obama to pretend that his earmarks are legitimate is bull hockey. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Seven Candidates Campaigning
According to the Des Moines Register, there will be seven presidential candidates on the ballot this November in the state of Iowa. How the ballot will differ in other states, I don't know. However, I wanted to begin to examine each candidate's represented party by highlighting their respective platforms.
- John McCain/Sarah Palin for the Republican party
- Barack Obama/Joe Biden for the Democratic party
- Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root for the Libertarian party
- James Harris/Alyson Kennedy for the Socialist Workers party
- Gloria La Riva/Robert Moses for the Socialism and Liberation party
- Cynthia McKinney/Wendy Barth for the Green party
- Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez for the Peace and Freedom party
- Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (not on IA ballot?) for the Constitution party
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Charlie's Red Herring
In his recent notorious interview (interrogation?) of Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, Charlie Gibson asked Governor Palin the following question about her stance on abortion: "John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?"
He immediately followed up her response of "That is my personal opinion" with: "Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?"
What is Gibson's reason for asking this question? Is Charlie Gibson really concerned about abortion cases with respect to rape and incest victims? Does anyone think that, if by some miracle, Palin would have responded by saying that it would be ok to exclude those categories, the case would have been immediately closed? Republicans and Democrats could then come together and agree to ban all other abortions?
Of course not! This is ridiculous. It is a question posed by the left only to divide the right. Divide and conquer. The issue of rape and incest is almost purely an in-house debate among Republicans. Most Democrats would never concede what they construe to be a woman's Constitutional right to kill her unborn child.
At least Palin has the bladder control to sit with someone whom she knows is working the other side of the street, and engage in discussion. I haven't seen too much of that from the other side.
He immediately followed up her response of "That is my personal opinion" with: "Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?"
What is Gibson's reason for asking this question? Is Charlie Gibson really concerned about abortion cases with respect to rape and incest victims? Does anyone think that, if by some miracle, Palin would have responded by saying that it would be ok to exclude those categories, the case would have been immediately closed? Republicans and Democrats could then come together and agree to ban all other abortions?
Of course not! This is ridiculous. It is a question posed by the left only to divide the right. Divide and conquer. The issue of rape and incest is almost purely an in-house debate among Republicans. Most Democrats would never concede what they construe to be a woman's Constitutional right to kill her unborn child.
At least Palin has the bladder control to sit with someone whom she knows is working the other side of the street, and engage in discussion. I haven't seen too much of that from the other side.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Reinstitution of Slavery? Whoopi!
After John McCain said, during a recent appearance on "The View", that he was in favor of appointing justices who interpret The Constitution the way the Founding Fathers intended, Whoopi Goldberg asked him, then, if she should be worried about the reinstitution of slavery. She went on to say that "certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change". I assert that this is a silly question. But what is worse is the fact that John McCain simply acknowledged it as "an excellent point", and didn't defend the Founder's position on the issue of slavery in any way. The fact that he even appeared on the show with these "ladies" boggles my mind. A couple of points. One, slavery was not a product of, nor was it introduced by the Founders at all. It was intoduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders time ("Original Intent", David Barton, pg. 289). Many of the Founders who had owned slaves as British citizens, released them in the following years after separating from Great Britain (ibid, pg. 291). The source I'm quoting is heavily documented with references of its own. I encourage you to read it, and to chase those references for yourself. I also want to note that not all of the slaves in our history have been black. In the early settlements, many colonies even held white slaves ("The Making of America", Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 720). John McCain missed an important opportunity to defend his position on original intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
