So, my brother has an interesting post on cutting government spending. Its interesting, and here's some of my thoughts on it.
Going off of the Havoc Pennington post, I suppose I'm more in the "cut government by 10-20%." I like the general ideals of libertarianism, but since I view man as naturally flawed, not naturally good (and very distinct from naturally evil) I can never truly support libertarians because I don't trust people enough.
I don't trust the government much either, but they tend to slow things down enough that nothing totally insane happens that often.
It would seem that 21% of the budget going to Defense/War on Terror is high, I personally would much rather see that at 10-15% with no Iraq war, but you can't turn back the clock.
But, as my dad points out, that's only about 1/3 of what is going to programs that only suck more money out of the system. That is the underlying problem of socialist styled programs. France is going broke over its healthcare/welfare/retirement system. Sarkozy has all but said that they can't afford to keep doing things the way they have been.
The problem with entitlement systems or government funded programs is as people live longer and longer, you get more people getting payed out and fewer paying in. It also doesn't help that Congress can't help but raid the "surplus" for things like Social Security as extra spending money. That it hasn't been legislated illegal is only proof of how completely screwed our government is.
Case in point. Listening to NPR the other day it was a story on how the SEC missed the AIG mess. Well, the SEC along with the Commodities watchdog have overlapping duties. But, they don't/didn't communicate well so AIG just played them off against each other. They were interveiwing an excongressman who said he tried to combine them, but the Agriculture committee chairman didn't want to give up the power (and money) from the position.
Why do I share this story? Because the system is broken. Since both parties get elected mainly to stay elected (and attempt to push through what their lobbyists pay them for) real change isn't going to happen.
Our political system, and many of the rulings on "free speech" pertaining to politics almost insures that any plans the government comes up with will eventually end up broken, bloated, and pandering to the rich and or corporately connected.
Don't get me wrong. We spend far too much money in this country as citizens and government. We're going broke. This isn't just our leaders fault.
What IS their fault is they are too interested in getting reelected and/or getting cushy high paying lobbying jobs down the line to do what is right, not what is politically convient or expedient.
The statement both sides want to spend 105% is true. And its going to bankrupt us and slowly push us to 2nd nation status.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Rein in your morons
I like guns. They are fun to shoot. I believe they are something most people should legally be able to have. I think that the laws governing them should be logical (wouldn't that be nice?).
However, if you're pro-gun, maybe in the NRA, or just really like your guns, I have a suggestion. Attempt to rein in the morons on your side. Really. Please?
It might be legal to carry around assault rifles in plain view in Arizona. That doesn't mean it should be done (or legal, but that's a different discussion). If you value the right to bear arms, please, work hard to get idiots like these to STOP BEING MORONS!
The people who did this (and who incidentally were doing it as a radio stunt for what they believe) were merely a distraction. And a bad one at that. Its stupid, even if legal, to carry around heavy weaponry in plain view at a crowded event.
Especially one that will be highly politically charged anyway. Its not exercising your rights. Its a show of force.
Like I said, I like guns. But that doesn't mean I want to see heavy weaponry just carried around by anyone with a permit. Especially at an event where there are lots of people present. At a machine gun shoot, go for it.
So, what I'm saying is this. If the moron fringe (please tell me its a fringe) of the pro-gun movement keep this up, you're going to see the opposite effect happen as moderates like me on gun control get pissed off and start to vote more and more rights away.
Call it exercising your rights, I call it intimidation. And that always backfires. It really does. I would be intimidated by someone walking around at a large public gathering with an AR-15. That sounds like something that happens in Iraq, not the USA.
Can't we love our guns and not be stupid about it?
(Oh, and if you REALLY want to be scared, read the guy's quotes. It'll also point out why I don't care much for Jefferson. Oh, and here is a bit more about Mr. Creepy)
However, if you're pro-gun, maybe in the NRA, or just really like your guns, I have a suggestion. Attempt to rein in the morons on your side. Really. Please?
It might be legal to carry around assault rifles in plain view in Arizona. That doesn't mean it should be done (or legal, but that's a different discussion). If you value the right to bear arms, please, work hard to get idiots like these to STOP BEING MORONS!
The people who did this (and who incidentally were doing it as a radio stunt for what they believe) were merely a distraction. And a bad one at that. Its stupid, even if legal, to carry around heavy weaponry in plain view at a crowded event.
Especially one that will be highly politically charged anyway. Its not exercising your rights. Its a show of force.
Like I said, I like guns. But that doesn't mean I want to see heavy weaponry just carried around by anyone with a permit. Especially at an event where there are lots of people present. At a machine gun shoot, go for it.
So, what I'm saying is this. If the moron fringe (please tell me its a fringe) of the pro-gun movement keep this up, you're going to see the opposite effect happen as moderates like me on gun control get pissed off and start to vote more and more rights away.
Call it exercising your rights, I call it intimidation. And that always backfires. It really does. I would be intimidated by someone walking around at a large public gathering with an AR-15. That sounds like something that happens in Iraq, not the USA.
Can't we love our guns and not be stupid about it?
(Oh, and if you REALLY want to be scared, read the guy's quotes. It'll also point out why I don't care much for Jefferson. Oh, and here is a bit more about Mr. Creepy)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Yes, actually, I believe it is.
Sitting here at work, getting a nice little break from the phones for once, I'm watching two nice bigscreen flat panel TVs.
One is showing the Cardinals beating up on the Reds. The other someone has put on Fox"News" and talking heads are talking.
I can't hear what's going on, but Robert Gibbs was talking to the media and the little "info bar" was telling me what he was talking about. The gist was, "Townhalls are not indicative of how people feel."
I'm guessing this is due to the shameful behavoir of many people at townhall meetings who have decided (and have been encouraged by the Republicans) to disrupt them by shouting, yelling, filibustering and not discussing anything.
And sadly, I feel this is completely how much of America is right now.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not harkening back to the halcyon days of yor when bipartisanship meant you might beat your opposition with your cane in a session of Congress. Its not like media feeding into people's fears and predujices is new.
What is new, is how you can totally isolate yourself to people who agree with you. You never have to listen to those who disagree, except on talk shows where they are invariably shouted down. You never have to engage in a discussion about issues, so people only know how to shout about them.
The 2 party system promotes this as the party in power doesn't really want to work with the other party anymore than to get bills passed.
Partisanship is not new. But it is getting uglier. It saddens me that townhall meetings in 2009 are no more civil than many probably were in 1809. This doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sad.
One is showing the Cardinals beating up on the Reds. The other someone has put on Fox"News" and talking heads are talking.
I can't hear what's going on, but Robert Gibbs was talking to the media and the little "info bar" was telling me what he was talking about. The gist was, "Townhalls are not indicative of how people feel."
I'm guessing this is due to the shameful behavoir of many people at townhall meetings who have decided (and have been encouraged by the Republicans) to disrupt them by shouting, yelling, filibustering and not discussing anything.
And sadly, I feel this is completely how much of America is right now.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not harkening back to the halcyon days of yor when bipartisanship meant you might beat your opposition with your cane in a session of Congress. Its not like media feeding into people's fears and predujices is new.
What is new, is how you can totally isolate yourself to people who agree with you. You never have to listen to those who disagree, except on talk shows where they are invariably shouted down. You never have to engage in a discussion about issues, so people only know how to shout about them.
The 2 party system promotes this as the party in power doesn't really want to work with the other party anymore than to get bills passed.
Partisanship is not new. But it is getting uglier. It saddens me that townhall meetings in 2009 are no more civil than many probably were in 1809. This doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sad.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
Alright, I have lots of issues with this program. I'll try and be brief.
This is not a stimulus. It is merely getting people to buy the car NOW they would've bought in a few months or a year. This is not "rejuvenating" the industry, it is spiking sales which will then slump back to "meh."
Jobs aren't really being created by this as car manufacturers are not going to ramp up production to meet demand as they understand demand is spiking, not actually going up.
This is also a tax on the poor. Sure, 4500 for your junker is nice, but if you have no credit or can still only afford a car that costs 6000, how does this help you? Oh, and it'll drive up the price of used cars and quite possibly the prices on keeping old cars running, especially if they blow an engine. So, the poor are not benefiting from this at all.
Also, the environmental impact is negligible at best. Sure, you're taking fuel inefficient cars off the road. And moving them to junk yards. Yes, many parts of them will be recycled, but there will still be rusting blocks of iron. AND, its replacing them on the road with cars that still pollute.
Yes, they pollute yes, which is good. But, its not like there will be less cars on the road, because THAT is truly a zero emission car. The one that isn't there.
I guess I'm just frustrated by the waste and the bait and switch that seems to be going on.
This is not a stimulus. It is merely getting people to buy the car NOW they would've bought in a few months or a year. This is not "rejuvenating" the industry, it is spiking sales which will then slump back to "meh."
Jobs aren't really being created by this as car manufacturers are not going to ramp up production to meet demand as they understand demand is spiking, not actually going up.
This is also a tax on the poor. Sure, 4500 for your junker is nice, but if you have no credit or can still only afford a car that costs 6000, how does this help you? Oh, and it'll drive up the price of used cars and quite possibly the prices on keeping old cars running, especially if they blow an engine. So, the poor are not benefiting from this at all.
Also, the environmental impact is negligible at best. Sure, you're taking fuel inefficient cars off the road. And moving them to junk yards. Yes, many parts of them will be recycled, but there will still be rusting blocks of iron. AND, its replacing them on the road with cars that still pollute.
Yes, they pollute yes, which is good. But, its not like there will be less cars on the road, because THAT is truly a zero emission car. The one that isn't there.
I guess I'm just frustrated by the waste and the bait and switch that seems to be going on.
Friday, July 31, 2009
I guess I don't get it.
Been awhile since I took (or had) the time to post here. Anyway...
In this article here, its talking about a bill allowing for shareholders to have more of a say in executive compensation and golden parachutes.
The Democrats are for this, the Republicans against.
The Republicans are saying this is yet another example of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
This quote from the article summed up the Republican response:
"Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the measure as "unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system."
I attempted to read the bill (there is a link in the article) but, from the way my poor brain understands it, it doesn't look like the government is doing any more than giving the shareholders a bit of say in what companies do.
If I own stock in company X. And the CEO is getting paid 1 million, AND another 10 million in options AND has a golden parachute where he gets another 10 million if he's fired, of COURSE I would want a say in that. CEOs have long made sure boards were stocked with friends that vote on insane pay packages.
I don't see how giving the people that technically "own" the company a say in what the CEO and other executives make, is a bad thing. OR is excessive government meddling.
But, that's just me.
EDIT:
After a bit more reading, yes, it looks like regulators can say that "incentive-based pay" is too much or too risky. I SUPPOSE, this could lead the the government stepping in too often. I doubt it though. These incentive based things were a joke because the people got payed no matter what!
"My division helped sink the company, but I still got a 6 figure bonus!" That's not "incentive-based" that's gambling based, only without any of the risk.
You go to Harvard, you get an MBA from their business school. Now, instead of making 200k with 1 million in bonuses, you'll make 200k with 200k in bonuses. The American dream is truly and indeed dead. Unfettered greed has been reigned in. A moment of silence please.
In this article here, its talking about a bill allowing for shareholders to have more of a say in executive compensation and golden parachutes.
The Democrats are for this, the Republicans against.
The Republicans are saying this is yet another example of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
This quote from the article summed up the Republican response:
"Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the measure as "unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system."
I attempted to read the bill (there is a link in the article) but, from the way my poor brain understands it, it doesn't look like the government is doing any more than giving the shareholders a bit of say in what companies do.
If I own stock in company X. And the CEO is getting paid 1 million, AND another 10 million in options AND has a golden parachute where he gets another 10 million if he's fired, of COURSE I would want a say in that. CEOs have long made sure boards were stocked with friends that vote on insane pay packages.
I don't see how giving the people that technically "own" the company a say in what the CEO and other executives make, is a bad thing. OR is excessive government meddling.
But, that's just me.
EDIT:
After a bit more reading, yes, it looks like regulators can say that "incentive-based pay" is too much or too risky. I SUPPOSE, this could lead the the government stepping in too often. I doubt it though. These incentive based things were a joke because the people got payed no matter what!
"My division helped sink the company, but I still got a 6 figure bonus!" That's not "incentive-based" that's gambling based, only without any of the risk.
You go to Harvard, you get an MBA from their business school. Now, instead of making 200k with 1 million in bonuses, you'll make 200k with 200k in bonuses. The American dream is truly and indeed dead. Unfettered greed has been reigned in. A moment of silence please.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Musings on the GOP
Disclosure: I am not overly high on the GOP right now. I'm not on the Democratic party either. But the GOP has been receiving most of my ire lately.
So, in the past week, two prominent members of the GOP have come out admitting to affairs. John Ensign of Nevada and Mark Sanford of S. Carolina have both admitted to being unfaithful.
Why is this a big deal? Well, the issue is that the GOP, and John Ensign for certain, champion "morality." Apparently being "moral" means not being a homosexual. Oh wait, what about Senator Larry Craig? Oh, yes, he isn't homosexual, he merely has a "wide stance."
See, politicians are human. They have failings. But when a party attempts to make one of its platforms as being the party of "conventional morality" this becomes a problem.
Also, in the case of Governor Sanford, he lied to his aids, his security team, and didn't transfer executive control of the state as he headed off to Argentina to break off an affair. He and his wife are apparently pretty much separated and she knew about it.
Still, it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do since his state would've been in chaos if something had happened to him.
Look, I'm not saying people need to be perfect. I'm not saying this is something that is only the problem of the GOP. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton anyone?)
I'm merely saying, if you want to attempt to champion a "moral America" then you'd better live your life that way. I'm not saying perfect. But, its pretty easy NOT to have an affair. Really. It is. Just don't.
So, in the past week, two prominent members of the GOP have come out admitting to affairs. John Ensign of Nevada and Mark Sanford of S. Carolina have both admitted to being unfaithful.
Why is this a big deal? Well, the issue is that the GOP, and John Ensign for certain, champion "morality." Apparently being "moral" means not being a homosexual. Oh wait, what about Senator Larry Craig? Oh, yes, he isn't homosexual, he merely has a "wide stance."
See, politicians are human. They have failings. But when a party attempts to make one of its platforms as being the party of "conventional morality" this becomes a problem.
Also, in the case of Governor Sanford, he lied to his aids, his security team, and didn't transfer executive control of the state as he headed off to Argentina to break off an affair. He and his wife are apparently pretty much separated and she knew about it.
Still, it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do since his state would've been in chaos if something had happened to him.
Look, I'm not saying people need to be perfect. I'm not saying this is something that is only the problem of the GOP. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton anyone?)
I'm merely saying, if you want to attempt to champion a "moral America" then you'd better live your life that way. I'm not saying perfect. But, its pretty easy NOT to have an affair. Really. It is. Just don't.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
So it begins
BRIC is coming! Brazil, Russia, India, and China have formed a bloc to "challenge" the US's superpower status.
No no, they aren't warming up the tanks and arming the missles. This is about economic and diplomatic clout. Lots of it is posturing and bluffing. But, they also have some points.
The US has used up much of its power to tell the world what to do in the last 8 years. Heck, the last 12 as I'm not going to let Clinton off the hook.
Our brilliant plan of spend spend spend spend spend all while borrowing from China (they don't LIKE us people, they like our MONEY!) is going to come back to bite us in the butt.
Americans don't seem to realize the rest of the world blames us for the current economic crisis. Was it all our fault? Oh heck no! European banks were up to their eyeballs in it. But, it did start with our housing bubble and low credit.
Just keep this in mind people: The US has been mortgaging its world power status to buy shiny things. We are a paper tiger, or quickly becoming one. Until we clean up our own house more, well, don't expect to be the biggest kid in the school yard all the time anymore.
No no, they aren't warming up the tanks and arming the missles. This is about economic and diplomatic clout. Lots of it is posturing and bluffing. But, they also have some points.
The US has used up much of its power to tell the world what to do in the last 8 years. Heck, the last 12 as I'm not going to let Clinton off the hook.
Our brilliant plan of spend spend spend spend spend all while borrowing from China (they don't LIKE us people, they like our MONEY!) is going to come back to bite us in the butt.
Americans don't seem to realize the rest of the world blames us for the current economic crisis. Was it all our fault? Oh heck no! European banks were up to their eyeballs in it. But, it did start with our housing bubble and low credit.
Just keep this in mind people: The US has been mortgaging its world power status to buy shiny things. We are a paper tiger, or quickly becoming one. Until we clean up our own house more, well, don't expect to be the biggest kid in the school yard all the time anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)