Barack Obama has shifted a lot on his views. He is far more center now. I hope what he's saying now is how he will be when he is president, but then again, he's already changed his stance on multiple issues.
One that strikes me is his stance on NAFTA. He wanted to reform NAFTA before, but now it seems that he is supporting it. He's stood up and touted Israel as a prime ally that needs to be protected. He has shifted his stance on troop withdrawal, something that cannot be rushed, to removing battle brigades in the time it takes, instead of his 16 month policy.
Obama is not stupid, he knows where his bread's buttered. He's ticking off some ultra liberals, but they'll vote for him anyway. Who are they going to vote for, Ralph Nader? Obama is a politician, plain and simple, and no matter how much he says he's going to change things, which he may, he is still a politician. He runs for different offices every few years, and is definitely looking to get to the top. I like this Obama more than I liked primary election Obama, because he doesn't seem so radical.
I applaud you, Barack Obama, for doing what needs to be done and shifting your stances to things can actually be done.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Immigration
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/23/report-illegal-immigrants-co...
This is one reply to the above article that I responded to in particular.
Posted by GOD
"... AND THE GAINS...
1) LOWER WAITING TIMES AT HOSPITALS, CLINICS, ETC.
2) LESS FOR CAR INSURANCE FOR INSURED MOTORISTS.
3) LESS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
4) LESS FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
5) LESS MONEY NEEDED FOR WELFARE AND CITY, STATE, AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.
6) MORE JOBS FOR AMERICANS."
I'd like to see some data to back that up. And as far as the under the table pay thing goes: American's don't get paid under the table? When I was first in college, my friend's Dad had a construction company and paid me to help him out on jobs. I got $10/hr UNDER THE TABLE. I paid no taxes on that.
As far as the article goes, they said it helps Nevada, not the country as a whole. Being that we don't pay state income taxes, the only thing that we're missing is Medicare payments, tax-wise. Illegal immigrants won't be getting social security. The Medicare thing is an issue, which is why I'm for a consumption based tax system.
Illegal labor does help NV's economy. I work retail in Reno/Sparks and I get lots of undocumented workers coming to buy computers and TV's and the like. They usually buy stuff here, and send it back to Mexico. The more contractors save on labor, the more they have. They don't have to cover these people for workers comp if something happens. It's more money in contractor's pockets.
The problem lies within our tax system. We could have lots of new revenue if we had the Fair Tax. But either way, Illegal immigrants are good for America as a whole. If you were a businessperson, wouldn't you hire illegal labor? I would. I outsource my website and software creation to India, because financially it makes more sense. So instead of complaining about it, do something other than snipe about how they're taking your jobs.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Bad Gas
Oil prices!
They are through the roof right now. Trading at 126.98 at the close of the day. Everyone has an opinion on it, and it's mostly that pumping gas has become a wallet-raping menace and must be stopped. Everyone's got ideas. Like
The Gas Tax Holiday: This is a horrible idea. It's a good immediate solution, i guess, but over all very bad. The gas tax isn't that high and the government needs that $30/month revenue. It won't help the average person in the United States who has a car at all. Some taxes are necessary, not income. The whole tax system needs to be changed. A consumption based tax would be a great thing, such as the Fair Tax,, but that's another post. This tax elimination is just stupid pandering to demographics.
Windfall Profits tax: This is essentially taxing the prophets over what the oil company made about 4 years ago before the huge oil spikes. Horrible idea. This tax will just get passed down to the consumer. Every time there is a tax on goods that a company sells, they tack it onto the price of gas and force the consumer to take it in the wallet. This would be no difference
The high price of oil is caused by the oil exporting countries that withhold supply to A) get more money and B) Preserve a finite resource. This works as oil prices have shown. As long these countries can get away with it, they will take every advantage they can of oil-gorging nations to get more money because a decent amount of these countries' economies are based largely or only on oil exports.
So how do we get gas prices lower? Remove dependence. If we don't need gas, then we won't have to pay for it. The problem is that too many rich people make too much money off of oil for it ever to be eliminate in America. In the end, it will be up to the consumers. Eventually, gas will be at such high prices that people are going to use alternative forms of energy. More hybrid cars, for example. I've talked to two people at the pump who said they recently bought cars instead of trucks due to high gas prices. More car pooling could be a result. either way, the market as it is, will move us off of dependence on oil.
This will also take us out of our many foreign entanglements. Dictators like Hugo Chavez, the Iran Shiite leadership, Russia, quickly turning that way, and the harsh Saudi government, will have no power over the United States by being able to hold oil over out heads.
It'll get worse before it gets better, but if there's one thing I know: it's that the American people will eventually decide for themselves to eliminate dependency on oil.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Nukes!
U.S.A., China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Great Britain, Germany, North Korea. What do these countries have in common? They all have the ability to begin the end of the world. With Pakistan and India constantly bickering, the Shiite regime in Iran enriching uranium and a war mongering president who can push the lethal red button anytime he feels like it, things don't look too great for the future.
There is a solution however. So far, we haven't had too many real nuclear scares. Of course everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but after this, the threat of nuclear warfare, while looming, seems completely impossible. No nation can be so dumb as to launch nuclear weapons at another nation, especially one that has them and can retaliate. for example, is Russia were to nuke the United States, the United states would answer back with one. Both sides suffer massive losses and neither one really has gained anything.
The same with India and Pakistan. these are the most likely ones to use nuclear weapons first, on each other. If one launches its nukes, the other will launch them, and they both have half of their countries blown up. It's not worth it. The solution, of course, is a centralized world power whom can eliminate the need for nuclear weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is an obvious failure, as it hasn't lowered the threat of nuclear annihilation. That point is arguable, I'm sure, but that's how I feel.
The solution will end up working itself out because no one who's in charge of a country established enough to possess nuclear weapons will launch them. The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation is enough to pacify any nuclear launches. The gaining of nukes by any country is merely a power play. It's like a guy who has a gun because it makes him feel tougher (as opposed to self-defense and sport).
There is a solution however. So far, we haven't had too many real nuclear scares. Of course everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but after this, the threat of nuclear warfare, while looming, seems completely impossible. No nation can be so dumb as to launch nuclear weapons at another nation, especially one that has them and can retaliate. for example, is Russia were to nuke the United States, the United states would answer back with one. Both sides suffer massive losses and neither one really has gained anything.
The same with India and Pakistan. these are the most likely ones to use nuclear weapons first, on each other. If one launches its nukes, the other will launch them, and they both have half of their countries blown up. It's not worth it. The solution, of course, is a centralized world power whom can eliminate the need for nuclear weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is an obvious failure, as it hasn't lowered the threat of nuclear annihilation. That point is arguable, I'm sure, but that's how I feel.
The solution will end up working itself out because no one who's in charge of a country established enough to possess nuclear weapons will launch them. The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation is enough to pacify any nuclear launches. The gaining of nukes by any country is merely a power play. It's like a guy who has a gun because it makes him feel tougher (as opposed to self-defense and sport).
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Inevitability of the Globalism
I've spent a lot of time criticizing globalism and the planned North American Union (the combination of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico similar to the European Union), but I've come to the conclusion that it is inevitable. As long as there's more profit to be made by outsourcing labor, than it will continue to happen. A lot of people, myself included, tend only to look at the cons of globalism: How it will eliminate national sovereignty and take American jobs.
I was listening to NPR, and heard a story that a British company beat out Boeing for a tanker contract with the U.S. government. People were in an uproar because Boeing is an American company and it would take labor from Americans, however, this British company would actually use more American made parts than Boeing, and would create more American jobs than if Boeing received the contract. That's one example of the benefit of globalism. Another example is that Honda and Toyota cars are manufactured in the United States. This creates jobs in the U.S. when American car companies continue to be downsized. BMW recently announced a plan to build cars in the United States as well. People are always going to look at the negative more than the positive, because humans tend to be pessimistic creatures.
As to the loss of national sovereignty, so what? The world changes and we need to change with it. The United States is a great thing, but the borders of the United States were defined when France still had control of Canada and Spain had control of Mexico. As the world gets smaller, so do national divisions. I'm as proud to be an American as the next person, but we can gain a lot from a partnership with Canada and Mexico. For one: Mexico has huge supplies of oil. By integrating Mexico economically with the United States and Canada, we have direct, tariff free access to Mexican oil. I'm not sure how this relationship works as of now but it's an interesting fact. Two: Canada is a very stable country. By being apart of this country, we can potentially be more stable by adopting some of their policies.
Look how the countries in the European Union have benefited from their supranational organization.
Aside from increased security due to having a singular force around the continent, and the economic advantages of creating more markets for goods, there are the risks. The major risk, is of course, too powerful of a government. There would need to be checks and balances, similar to the United State's Madisonian democratic system. There would need to be some sort of legislature, along with an executive and judicial branch. Also, there should be a purely governmental branch, unlike the private federal reserve, that regulates commerce and coinage across the NAU. We definitely need checks on Tyranny.
Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that something like that would occur, the people, it seems, would have more power, because there would be more people to have the power. Should revolution be necessary against the NAU, there would be many more people to execute the revolution.
In time, I will turn this rant into a coherent source-backed, essay to better espouse how a supranational NAU would have to work in order to check tyranny. as of now though, I'm all for an NAU. After all, Jefferson said we needed a revolution every 20 years, meaning that the constitution would be changed as well, but backed with the same natural inalienable rights that we have now.
I was listening to NPR, and heard a story that a British company beat out Boeing for a tanker contract with the U.S. government. People were in an uproar because Boeing is an American company and it would take labor from Americans, however, this British company would actually use more American made parts than Boeing, and would create more American jobs than if Boeing received the contract. That's one example of the benefit of globalism. Another example is that Honda and Toyota cars are manufactured in the United States. This creates jobs in the U.S. when American car companies continue to be downsized. BMW recently announced a plan to build cars in the United States as well. People are always going to look at the negative more than the positive, because humans tend to be pessimistic creatures.
As to the loss of national sovereignty, so what? The world changes and we need to change with it. The United States is a great thing, but the borders of the United States were defined when France still had control of Canada and Spain had control of Mexico. As the world gets smaller, so do national divisions. I'm as proud to be an American as the next person, but we can gain a lot from a partnership with Canada and Mexico. For one: Mexico has huge supplies of oil. By integrating Mexico economically with the United States and Canada, we have direct, tariff free access to Mexican oil. I'm not sure how this relationship works as of now but it's an interesting fact. Two: Canada is a very stable country. By being apart of this country, we can potentially be more stable by adopting some of their policies.
Look how the countries in the European Union have benefited from their supranational organization.
Aside from increased security due to having a singular force around the continent, and the economic advantages of creating more markets for goods, there are the risks. The major risk, is of course, too powerful of a government. There would need to be checks and balances, similar to the United State's Madisonian democratic system. There would need to be some sort of legislature, along with an executive and judicial branch. Also, there should be a purely governmental branch, unlike the private federal reserve, that regulates commerce and coinage across the NAU. We definitely need checks on Tyranny.
Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that something like that would occur, the people, it seems, would have more power, because there would be more people to have the power. Should revolution be necessary against the NAU, there would be many more people to execute the revolution.
In time, I will turn this rant into a coherent source-backed, essay to better espouse how a supranational NAU would have to work in order to check tyranny. as of now though, I'm all for an NAU. After all, Jefferson said we needed a revolution every 20 years, meaning that the constitution would be changed as well, but backed with the same natural inalienable rights that we have now.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Genious Tibetan Strategy
The Tibetans are rebelling against the Chinese occupation and oppression. Since the 1950's, China has ruled the Tibetans with an iron fist and eliminated religious freedom. There have been many protests against China throughout the years, notably in 1989 with the Tiennamen Square massacre.
With China moving into a position of international power, the Olympics being hosted there is suppose to be China's coming out party. The Tibetans have thrown quite a monkey wrench into China's plans for a peaceful and prosperous Olympics. The Tibetans have long been too small to fight back with force against China, and their leader the 14th Dalai Lama, who has spoken out against violence by the Tibetans, has been in exile in India running the Tibetan community.
This is an ingenious strategy on the part of the Tibetans, because if China does what it normally does, violently suppress any opposition to its policies, then the international community will be outraged, and there will be a definite boycott of the Olympic games in China. The Tibetans have chosen the perfect time, because of the pressure on China. Will they gain independence? Probably not, in my opinion, because China has the world, especially the United States, by the ball economically and nations tread very lightly when it comes to criticizing China.
With China moving into a position of international power, the Olympics being hosted there is suppose to be China's coming out party. The Tibetans have thrown quite a monkey wrench into China's plans for a peaceful and prosperous Olympics. The Tibetans have long been too small to fight back with force against China, and their leader the 14th Dalai Lama, who has spoken out against violence by the Tibetans, has been in exile in India running the Tibetan community.
This is an ingenious strategy on the part of the Tibetans, because if China does what it normally does, violently suppress any opposition to its policies, then the international community will be outraged, and there will be a definite boycott of the Olympic games in China. The Tibetans have chosen the perfect time, because of the pressure on China. Will they gain independence? Probably not, in my opinion, because China has the world, especially the United States, by the ball economically and nations tread very lightly when it comes to criticizing China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
