Herman Cain has gotten a lot of attention for his 9-9-9 tax plan. I've looked into one part of the plan and decided I can't support it. Your responses are appreciated.
The plan is close to the Fair Tax that was discussed a few years ago. I confess, I didn't study the Fair Tax as I felt it had near-zero chance of being passed. I was forced to go look at it some. From what I've read the 9-9-9 plan has not laid out all the details and someone pointed me to the "prebate" part of the Fair Tax for more information.
The problem is that low income people today pay no income tax and will be forced to pay sales tax under 9-9-9. This additional burden on low income people would be offset (under the Fair Tax) by a "prebate", money given to them at the beginning of each month.
However, there is no mention of what happens to the current EITC and it appears to be eliminated. For those unfamiliar, the EITC is a refundable tax credit given to low income workers. The amount of the credit is based on the family size and the amount a person works. As the person's income increases, the EITC increases until it reaches a mid-point. Then it decreases, slower than the increase, until it gets to zero. Think of a standard curve, slightly skewed to the right.
EITC has been touted as "workfare, not welfare" because it encourages people to work. If the person has no earned income, they have no EITC. None other than conservative President Ronald Reagan pushed this program. You may not think the EITC is fair or that some people pay no income tax is not fair, but that's not part of my discussion today. Today, the EITC is the law and it gives low income workers additional cash. Taking that away may be revenue neutral to the government, but not to individuals.
Any tax plan that involves eliminating the EITC should include a plan (tax or otherwise) to address program. If a candidate decides not to replace it, he/she should clearly state that.
Showing posts with label candidate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidate. Show all posts
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election time
Is it just me or has this election gotten nasty? I'm used to all of the nasty commercials and such. I expect that. This is my 8th presidential election (and as many non-presidential elections) and those type attacks come every year.
But what has surprised me are the actors & actresses that have gotten nasty. Oh sure, Tom Cruise and a few others threatened to leave in 2004 if W. was elected (they didn't). But it just seems that more of them have turned out this time.
What makes it worse is that they lose credibility. I love the skits on SNL and (until recently) I liked some of the light night sketches. David Letterman's "Great moments in presidential speeches" took jabs at President Bush's speech patterns. Very humorous. But lately, I've grown to wonder more about how Letterman really feels.
In the past, I've avoided watching light night TV when a political candidate was on. I've made two exceptions: 1) I watched former President Carter on Leno and 2) I watched McCain on Letterman. I was disappointed in both cases.
Two other actors who have lost credibility are Tina Fey and Martin Sheen. I loved Fey's skits on SNL, even the ones poking at Gov. Palin. But after watching her comments on Letterman, I can no longer watch her. She is no longer (probably never was) objective and has no credibility. Same thing with Sheen.
What about you? Have you seen actors and been swayed for/against them because of their credibility? What about businesses?
But what has surprised me are the actors & actresses that have gotten nasty. Oh sure, Tom Cruise and a few others threatened to leave in 2004 if W. was elected (they didn't). But it just seems that more of them have turned out this time.
What makes it worse is that they lose credibility. I love the skits on SNL and (until recently) I liked some of the light night sketches. David Letterman's "Great moments in presidential speeches" took jabs at President Bush's speech patterns. Very humorous. But lately, I've grown to wonder more about how Letterman really feels.
In the past, I've avoided watching light night TV when a political candidate was on. I've made two exceptions: 1) I watched former President Carter on Leno and 2) I watched McCain on Letterman. I was disappointed in both cases.
Two other actors who have lost credibility are Tina Fey and Martin Sheen. I loved Fey's skits on SNL, even the ones poking at Gov. Palin. But after watching her comments on Letterman, I can no longer watch her. She is no longer (probably never was) objective and has no credibility. Same thing with Sheen.
What about you? Have you seen actors and been swayed for/against them because of their credibility? What about businesses?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Christian? - Part 3
In part 1 of this series (seen here) I gave the reason that Obama says he is a Christian. In part 2 (seen here), I took on those who say he's not. In this final part, I want to state my opinion (even though some has already leaked out) and address the question "what difference does it make?" And I'll add in some closing remarks as well.
So, I'll start with the hard part. If you're interested in my opinion, do I think Sen. Obama is a Christian, here's my final answer. I don't know.
I'm not blessed with the ability to tell who is and who isn't truly saved. When I see the Senator's statements about his faith, they seem to line up with what I expect of a new convert. I wish I could see evidence that he had grown from that initial conversion. Instead, I see a man who believes that everyone gets to choose their own path, a man who doesn't hold infant life in high regard, who has said he sees a human fetus as a burden. I see a man who picks and chooses what he uses from the Word of God and who even ridicules those of us who believe. I also see a sinner. Like me. In first Corinthians 6:11, Paul said I was just as bad as the Democratic candidate.
That said, the next question is, "what difference does it make?" We're not electing a minister, we're electing a president. As I mentioned in part 2, our current president has made theological blunders and I expect the next president will too. Just because someone is, or is not, a Christian won't make them a good (or bad) president.
It does however, speak to the character of the man. If a man (or woman) is a Christian, I can partially anticipate some of their future direction. I firmly believe (like a certain VP candidate) that the next president will be tested (although I have different reasons) in ways we can't imagine. Eight years ago, no one expected 9/11 to happen. The next big event may be a foreign attack or it may be the economic condition we're already seeing. I have certain expectations for a Christian. If I knew more Muslims, I might have expectations about them also.
In Senator Obama's case, he has shown that, while he might be a Christian, he doesn't always follow his faith. That gives me insight (good or bad will not be discussed here) on how I think he will handle the unknown.
So the candidate's faith does make a difference to me, but I won't use that as a litmus test. It's too easy to misjudge what I think a person might or might not do.
But as I wrote these three parts, I was struck with a more important question. While none of us may be able to tell for sure if the next President (Obama or McCain) is truly a Christian, we can tell about ourselves. So the most important question is, ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
We are all sinners. I hope that you, like the young man on the south side of Chicago will come to the realization that something is missing. I hope that you will submit yourself to His will, to dedicate yourself to discovering His Truth.
God loves you. Just the way you are. In all your sin. Just as He loved me in my sin. He wants you to turn away from that sin. He wants you to open your heart and to let Jesus take over your life.
Each day I pray that God will continue to open my heart. To continue to expose my sin. To continue to show me His will for my life.
I implore you, just as I implored the candidate Obama, to search the Scriptures to see if what I have said is true. God has already told us everything we need to know, now He wants to show us how He can impact our lives.
I know these three posts were long, I appreciate your reading them. Comments are welcome.
So, I'll start with the hard part. If you're interested in my opinion, do I think Sen. Obama is a Christian, here's my final answer. I don't know.
I'm not blessed with the ability to tell who is and who isn't truly saved. When I see the Senator's statements about his faith, they seem to line up with what I expect of a new convert. I wish I could see evidence that he had grown from that initial conversion. Instead, I see a man who believes that everyone gets to choose their own path, a man who doesn't hold infant life in high regard, who has said he sees a human fetus as a burden. I see a man who picks and chooses what he uses from the Word of God and who even ridicules those of us who believe. I also see a sinner. Like me. In first Corinthians 6:11, Paul said I was just as bad as the Democratic candidate.
That said, the next question is, "what difference does it make?" We're not electing a minister, we're electing a president. As I mentioned in part 2, our current president has made theological blunders and I expect the next president will too. Just because someone is, or is not, a Christian won't make them a good (or bad) president.
It does however, speak to the character of the man. If a man (or woman) is a Christian, I can partially anticipate some of their future direction. I firmly believe (like a certain VP candidate) that the next president will be tested (although I have different reasons) in ways we can't imagine. Eight years ago, no one expected 9/11 to happen. The next big event may be a foreign attack or it may be the economic condition we're already seeing. I have certain expectations for a Christian. If I knew more Muslims, I might have expectations about them also.
In Senator Obama's case, he has shown that, while he might be a Christian, he doesn't always follow his faith. That gives me insight (good or bad will not be discussed here) on how I think he will handle the unknown.
So the candidate's faith does make a difference to me, but I won't use that as a litmus test. It's too easy to misjudge what I think a person might or might not do.
But as I wrote these three parts, I was struck with a more important question. While none of us may be able to tell for sure if the next President (Obama or McCain) is truly a Christian, we can tell about ourselves. So the most important question is, ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
We are all sinners. I hope that you, like the young man on the south side of Chicago will come to the realization that something is missing. I hope that you will submit yourself to His will, to dedicate yourself to discovering His Truth.
God loves you. Just the way you are. In all your sin. Just as He loved me in my sin. He wants you to turn away from that sin. He wants you to open your heart and to let Jesus take over your life.
Each day I pray that God will continue to open my heart. To continue to expose my sin. To continue to show me His will for my life.
I implore you, just as I implored the candidate Obama, to search the Scriptures to see if what I have said is true. God has already told us everything we need to know, now He wants to show us how He can impact our lives.
I know these three posts were long, I appreciate your reading them. Comments are welcome.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Christian?
It has been suggested that I shouldn't blog on this subject. That I was only asking for trouble. And the truth is, I have friends on both sides of the aisle and will likely receive some criticism from them. However, I feel it's an important subject and it's a subject where I have something to say. I typically shy away from religion and politics, but this time I'm going to tackle both at the same time.
As I've done on some past controversial subjects, I'll do this as a multi-part series. First I want to address the issue from a pro-Obama standpoint, to explain why Obama says he is a Christian. Second, I'll address the reasons some people question his faith. And then I'll assert my opinion in the final post. Of course, I won't limit my opinion totally to the last post, I'll interject comments along the way. And I encourage you to interject comments as well.
One difference between this series and previous series is that I intend to write all three parts before I post the first. It's not that your comments won't sway my opinion, it's just that I want to get my thoughts down and make sure they're consistent first. I'll still do some editing on parts 2 & 3 after part 1.
I must start out with some opinion. Basically, it's this - if Obama says something about his beliefs, I HAVE to accept it as truth. Oh, I could think "well, he said this, but he really meant this instead." I can (and will) point to inconsistencies that I find, but if he says he believes the sky is green and the grass is blue, I have to believe that he really believes that. Otherwise, I'd be wasting pixels on the screen and precious bytes of storage.
That said, the key point for determining Sen. Obama's faith issues is his 6/28/06 keynote
address to the "Call to Renewal". (The entire speech can be found here) It's a speech he has referenced several times and his campaign still references. The senator was speaking to a group committed to establishing policies to bridge social and political issues. (see here) The senator offered "some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years."
In his speech, Senator Obama said "Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds ... and they're coming to the realization that something is missing." Those of us who are born-again will quickly point out that what is missing is Jesus Christ. As has been often said, we are all born with a God sized hole in our hearts, that only God can fill. Today, "thousands of Americans" are seeking a way to fill that hole.
Senator Obama came to realize this himself. After his college years, he worked with churches and recognized what was going on there in people's lives. He also realized that he didn't have what they had. He said "in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs ... I would always remain apart, and alone."
One day, at the now famous (or infamous) Trinity United Church of Christ the questions and some of the answers came down on Obama and he realized he had to make a choice. In his own words "kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."
As a Baptist, I would call that a profession of faith. Oh sure, there are other words I would have liked to have seen in there - words like "repent", confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He is the only Way to heaven. But when a young child accepts Christ as his savior, I accept simple words like Obama's, I can't expect more from another convert.
As usual, comments are welcome and expected. I should note that I have taken an unusual step (for me) and contacted a few individuals and asked for their specific comments. I have no idea if or when they will comment, but that doesn't preclude you from commenting now.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Flip-flop
Personally, I can't stand to wear these kind of "shoes". My wife loves them and would wear them all year. Well, maybe not outside in winter, but definitely inside.
In a recent "Family Circus" cartoon, Dolly commented how the toes don't like flip-flops because the big toe was separated from the other toes.
But lately, presidential candidate flip-flops have been in the news lately and it wasn't about their foot attire (although I did see one candidate running in the surf, he might have had flip-flops). Seems the candidates have been accused of flipping or flopping, but neither will admit it.
I have to personally say that I'm not opposed to political flip-flops. Hear me out. There is a time to admit that you've felt a particular way in the past and now you've changed. One of the best examples of this was the late Strom Thurmond.
In his early days, Thurmond was a staunch segregationist, and some might even say racist. He was a WWII veteran, having left a position as judge to volunteer for the 82nd Airborne. When Democrats started supporting civil rights issues, he left the party and started the Dixiecrat party. He even ran for president so that he could influence issues his way. His popularity became so great, he was the only person ever elected to the senate in a write-in vote (see here).
Thurmond is probably best known for holding the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history (24 hours, 18 minutes) attempting to stop the civil rights act of 1957. In 1964, Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican (major flip-flop).
Later in his career, Thurmond supported the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King a holiday. He also enjoyed widespread support from African-American voters in SC. Another flip-flop for a die-hard segregationalist?
I believe that Thurmond changed his mind when he realized he was wrong. Whether it was all politics or it was real, we'll never really know, but he did change his political position. And it was a change for the better.
Flip-flops are not necessarily a bad thing. I know that candidates don't want to admit to flip-flopping, but they should realize that it's not always bad. When they see that a better idea exists, or an exception to a stance needs to be made, they should embrace it, not deny it.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Dan Quayle
In a recent deep-dive 3 part analysis of Obama's speech titled "A More Perfect Union", I rememberd Dan Quayle's 1992 speech on Family Values (dubbed his "Murphy Brown" speech by the press).
Specifically, I remember the need to go back to the source. Whenever you hear a politician on TV or radio or whenever you hear someone else's views on what he/she said, you need to go back to the source to see what they really said. It's not that I mistrust the media. Personally, I think they do their job well most of the time. Their job is to summarize whatever is being said and present it to you. They do a lot of investigation (see the news about Hillary Clinton being under sniper attack) and present the facts.
Occasionally, they invent facts (exploding cars at NBC) or create facts (getting into the story), but most often they report. The problem is that they cater to the majority of Americans who want pre-digested news. Out of necessity, they leave out a lot of details. And there is lots of room for opinion to drift into their articles or newscasts.
Only if we go to the source can we be certain to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If we want to read/listen/view summaries, that's fine, but get the whole truth.
When Dan Quayle gave his speech in 1992, newspapers took about two weeks to publish the entire speech. During the first part of those two weeks, politicians made all kinds of negative comments about Quayle's speech. However, as they got more details, they changed their tune. By the time the full speech was published, most politicians FROM BOTH PARTIES agreed with the Vice President. What a change!
Today, most speeches are posted on the internet. We have the ability to read everything a candidate says and not settle for sound bites. In 1992, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper asking them to print full articles. Newspapers did this during the American revolution and we have many of those early speeches. Same goes for formation of the constitution (read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers sometime).
I encourage you to find the source of the speeches politicians make. When you read a bloggist's views on a speech, make sure they have read the entire speech and have them cite the reference (keep me honest too). In the near future, I plan a deep-dive on John McCain's foreign policy speech. Hopefully, you can make it through.
Specifically, I remember the need to go back to the source. Whenever you hear a politician on TV or radio or whenever you hear someone else's views on what he/she said, you need to go back to the source to see what they really said. It's not that I mistrust the media. Personally, I think they do their job well most of the time. Their job is to summarize whatever is being said and present it to you. They do a lot of investigation (see the news about Hillary Clinton being under sniper attack) and present the facts.
Occasionally, they invent facts (exploding cars at NBC) or create facts (getting into the story), but most often they report. The problem is that they cater to the majority of Americans who want pre-digested news. Out of necessity, they leave out a lot of details. And there is lots of room for opinion to drift into their articles or newscasts.
Only if we go to the source can we be certain to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If we want to read/listen/view summaries, that's fine, but get the whole truth.
When Dan Quayle gave his speech in 1992, newspapers took about two weeks to publish the entire speech. During the first part of those two weeks, politicians made all kinds of negative comments about Quayle's speech. However, as they got more details, they changed their tune. By the time the full speech was published, most politicians FROM BOTH PARTIES agreed with the Vice President. What a change!
Today, most speeches are posted on the internet. We have the ability to read everything a candidate says and not settle for sound bites. In 1992, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper asking them to print full articles. Newspapers did this during the American revolution and we have many of those early speeches. Same goes for formation of the constitution (read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers sometime).
I encourage you to find the source of the speeches politicians make. When you read a bloggist's views on a speech, make sure they have read the entire speech and have them cite the reference (keep me honest too). In the near future, I plan a deep-dive on John McCain's foreign policy speech. Hopefully, you can make it through.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama's speech on racism
Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I approved this message - Part 5 (Final?)
I'm almost finished explaining the platform I would follow if elected president. This is the last planned message and is intended to address healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits. Previous mssages addressed 1) National Defense, 2) Foreign affairs, 2b)
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Friday, February 08, 2008
It's the economy stupid (Platform building #4)
I couldn't resist that headline. For those with a weak memory, that was the mantra of those who swept Clinton-1 into office after Bush-1 led the nation in Iraq-1. When the troops all returned, the economy stumbled. Bush-1 seemed to ignore the issue and lo, the mantra.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Approval rating climbs
Yes, my approval rating is at 100%. Or rather, my disapproval rating is 0% - no one has complained about any of my ideas on national defense. If you haven't read it, I wrote a long discourse (evidently too long for others to read) on what I think presidential candidates should do regarding national defense.
I received an email this morning that said that, not only had my approval rating increased, I am now on the first page of google. When you google my name, my blog is the fourth hit. This is a TREMENDOUS improvement!! And I owe it all to my constituents (both of you).
I promise to get back onto this presidential platform soon. My job is such that in January or February I spend a week or two closing out the last year and then starting up the new year. This year, the process hit earlier and it's been the past week and coming week. Hopefully, work can die back down next week.
Thanks again. Remember, I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
P.S. Not sure why this person "googled" me this morning. Maybe she's checking up on me.... Does that mean I should check up on her??
I received an email this morning that said that, not only had my approval rating increased, I am now on the first page of google. When you google my name, my blog is the fourth hit. This is a TREMENDOUS improvement!! And I owe it all to my constituents (both of you).
I promise to get back onto this presidential platform soon. My job is such that in January or February I spend a week or two closing out the last year and then starting up the new year. This year, the process hit earlier and it's been the past week and coming week. Hopefully, work can die back down next week.
Thanks again. Remember, I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
P.S. Not sure why this person "googled" me this morning. Maybe she's checking up on me.... Does that mean I should check up on her??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)