Paul Armentano wrote a great piece over at Alternet.org about the recent transition of power in Washington D.C. and how they have dealt with marijuana law reform. Needless to say, nothing major (or minor, really) has been done in favor of either decriminalization or legalization for either medicinal or recreational use of cannabis.
The general partisan positions concerning marijuana law is: Liberals in favor of decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana, while Conservatives have been against changing the current drug laws and continuing the costly war on drugs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has recently voiced her support of marijuana law reform, but said that there is work that needs to be done outside of Congress before such action can be taken. Other Democrats have also voiced their support of reform.
Here is my solution to give the Republicans some credibility and show they can reach across the aisle: support marijuana law reform. Why? Well, the war on drugs has been an epic failure. It has cost billions of dollars, imprisoned over 20 million (many of whom are harmless), disproportionally targeted minorities, and has caused many unnecessary deaths. If the Democrats are the ones who eventually rise up and are credited with ending this catastrophe, it would be a huge blow to Conservatives.
Republicans should be jumping all over this issue. Arguments for keeping marijuana illegal are weak to say the least, and there is no denying the fact that government would necessarily shrink if marijuana was legalized. Billions of taxpayer dollars would be saved (imagine how much it has cost us to not only fight the drug war, but to incarcerate over 20 million). If Conservatives are for less government intervention and individual responsibility, would it not make sense to be the loudest proponents of marijuana legalization?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
ACORN To Get 'Stimulus' Money?
The stimulus bill that Obama and the Democrats are trying to push through Congress includes lots of spending, which means bigger government and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. When it is all said and done this bill is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars. With that being said, opposition to this bill should be a no-brainer for any fiscal Conservative.
What may be the most insulting part of this bill is that the group ACORN, which is an advocacy group that is under investigation for voter fraud (and who routinely back Democratic Candidates in elections), may be eligible for billions of dollars of the 'stimulus package.'
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said "It's just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill. It's line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill -- not a job creation bill." What is astounding about this is that Obama wants the GOP to 'keep politics to a minimum' when it comes to discussion about the stimulus package. That, combined with the Democrats creating an environment of urgency, puts Conservatives in Congress in a lose-lose situation.
Any Conservative who speaks out against the bill will be seen as someone who does not want to help those who have lost their jobs. They will also be seen as someone who is not willing to work for partisan solutions, and they will be seen as someone who does not care about 'solving' the current economic crisis.
But in reality, we all know that government cannot spend itself out of a recession, or else we would never be in a recession (based on the billions upon billions government spends each year).
What may be the most insulting part of this bill is that the group ACORN, which is an advocacy group that is under investigation for voter fraud (and who routinely back Democratic Candidates in elections), may be eligible for billions of dollars of the 'stimulus package.'
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said "It's just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill. It's line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill -- not a job creation bill." What is astounding about this is that Obama wants the GOP to 'keep politics to a minimum' when it comes to discussion about the stimulus package. That, combined with the Democrats creating an environment of urgency, puts Conservatives in Congress in a lose-lose situation.
Any Conservative who speaks out against the bill will be seen as someone who does not want to help those who have lost their jobs. They will also be seen as someone who is not willing to work for partisan solutions, and they will be seen as someone who does not care about 'solving' the current economic crisis.
But in reality, we all know that government cannot spend itself out of a recession, or else we would never be in a recession (based on the billions upon billions government spends each year).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
David Carlson : UnitedLiberty.org Contributor
Towards the end of last week I received an email from Shana Kluck, assistant editor of United Liberty. She had followed my link from a comment I had left from a post by B.J. Lawson. She checked out some of my posts, and liked what she saw and asked if I would be interested in being a contributor for United Liberty.
My first reaction was shock that I would be given the opportunity to be part of a group blog that included the likes of B.J. Lawson as well as some other well-established individuals in the liberty movement. After getting over that shock, I jumped at the chance. Not only will I be able (i.m.h.o.) contribute some good posts to the site, but I will get some exposure (the site averages 6,200 visitors a month). I also believe that United Liberty can become a much bigger site than it currently is. I have thought for many months that there needs to be a political site similar to the Huffington Post except with a libertarian slant (versus liberal).
Regardless of whether the site will grow by leaps and bounds, I see this site as a huge opportunity for myself as well as for the cause of liberty. One thing to note is that any post I put on United Liberty will also appear on David Carlson Politics. I also will not be submitting every single post to the site, just a few here and there. So if you never visit the site, you will not be missing any of my posts! But if you do find the site insightful, I recommend visiting it every once in a while to see if there is something you find interesting.
My first reaction was shock that I would be given the opportunity to be part of a group blog that included the likes of B.J. Lawson as well as some other well-established individuals in the liberty movement. After getting over that shock, I jumped at the chance. Not only will I be able (i.m.h.o.) contribute some good posts to the site, but I will get some exposure (the site averages 6,200 visitors a month). I also believe that United Liberty can become a much bigger site than it currently is. I have thought for many months that there needs to be a political site similar to the Huffington Post except with a libertarian slant (versus liberal).
Regardless of whether the site will grow by leaps and bounds, I see this site as a huge opportunity for myself as well as for the cause of liberty. One thing to note is that any post I put on United Liberty will also appear on David Carlson Politics. I also will not be submitting every single post to the site, just a few here and there. So if you never visit the site, you will not be missing any of my posts! But if you do find the site insightful, I recommend visiting it every once in a while to see if there is something you find interesting.
UFO at Obama Inauguration
So I was listening to Darkness Radio a couple nights ago (talk show on Sunday nights that reports on weird news) and someone said there was footage of a UFO at the Obama inauguration on CNN. Sure enough, here is the clip from CNN. It should come in somewhere between the 10 and 13 second mark:
To the CNN page with the video.
Pretty weird, don't you think?
To the CNN page with the video.
Pretty weird, don't you think?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Ron Paul - Obama/Bush Same Foreign Policy
I just recently posted about civilian deaths that happened in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Ron Paul talks about these events in this video:
This is exactly what people need to hear. The more civilians we kill the more incentives we create. As Paul said, Obama's foreign policy is the same as the neo-con foreign policy of intervention. Nothing will change, regardless of a neo-con or a liberal in the Presidency (or Congress for that matter).
This is exactly what people need to hear. The more civilians we kill the more incentives we create. As Paul said, Obama's foreign policy is the same as the neo-con foreign policy of intervention. Nothing will change, regardless of a neo-con or a liberal in the Presidency (or Congress for that matter).
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Afghanistan - Irate About Civilian Casualties
Afghanistan is upset at us. Understandable.
A reported 16 civilians were killed in an overnight operation in Afghanistan Saturday night. This caused angry protests and increased tensions between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and the United States.
Fox News says, "Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations 'is strengthening the terrorists.'" If only our own leaders would admit that fact! After experiencing 9/11, we should realize the rage and the motivation that civilian deaths can give to a group of people. As Shane Claiborne points out in Jesus For President
, imagine 100 9/11's, and that is what the Iraqi's have experienced. But after so much emphasis has been put on Iraq, we forget that civilian deaths are experienced in Afghanistan as well, and this will ignite anti-American emotions.
It is no surprise that the past 7+ years since 9/11 we have totally botched our response to that tragic day. We have not found and killed Bin Laden, but instead have taken out two countries and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We have become more involved in the Middle East than ever before, which is a direct reason we were attacked on 9/11.
I have heard from a number of friends who have studied or traveled abroad (as well as from some of the international students I work with) that outside of the United States it has been Democratic and Obama-fever for the past couple years. Is it really a mystery why? He ran as the peace candidate! He said he would pull us out of Iraq, and that is all they wanted to hear. Now, granted he will continue our foreign intervention, the point is that across the world people are sick of the United State's military interventions. We should be as well.
A reported 16 civilians were killed in an overnight operation in Afghanistan Saturday night. This caused angry protests and increased tensions between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and the United States.
Fox News says, "Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations 'is strengthening the terrorists.'" If only our own leaders would admit that fact! After experiencing 9/11, we should realize the rage and the motivation that civilian deaths can give to a group of people. As Shane Claiborne points out in Jesus For President
, imagine 100 9/11's, and that is what the Iraqi's have experienced. But after so much emphasis has been put on Iraq, we forget that civilian deaths are experienced in Afghanistan as well, and this will ignite anti-American emotions.It is no surprise that the past 7+ years since 9/11 we have totally botched our response to that tragic day. We have not found and killed Bin Laden, but instead have taken out two countries and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We have become more involved in the Middle East than ever before, which is a direct reason we were attacked on 9/11.
I have heard from a number of friends who have studied or traveled abroad (as well as from some of the international students I work with) that outside of the United States it has been Democratic and Obama-fever for the past couple years. Is it really a mystery why? He ran as the peace candidate! He said he would pull us out of Iraq, and that is all they wanted to hear. Now, granted he will continue our foreign intervention, the point is that across the world people are sick of the United State's military interventions. We should be as well.
Obama Continues Bush Attacks That Kill Civilians
It has been reported that a U.S. air strike in Pakistan has killed civilians. The attacks killed at least fifteen, including a reported three children.
One of the only positives I could have envisioned in an Obama Presidency is a switch from the awful Bush Administration foreign policy. I did not expect much to change, though, as both parties have continued the military empire that is the United States. Yet again we are going to have another administration that does not stop and ask the vital question that no one seems to ask: Why did we get attacked?
Instead of starting two wars that destroyed (and continues to destroy) two countries as well as unleashing a huge wave of anti-American sentiment, it would have done the neo-cons well to stop and think about why someone would want to drive planes into our buildings and kill our civilians. Of course there is someone in the Republican party who asks and answers this question:
"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
-Ron Paul
So while the neo-cons and liberals keep promoting the foreign policy of intervention, I for one will stand for a foreign policy of freedom
.
One of the only positives I could have envisioned in an Obama Presidency is a switch from the awful Bush Administration foreign policy. I did not expect much to change, though, as both parties have continued the military empire that is the United States. Yet again we are going to have another administration that does not stop and ask the vital question that no one seems to ask: Why did we get attacked?
Instead of starting two wars that destroyed (and continues to destroy) two countries as well as unleashing a huge wave of anti-American sentiment, it would have done the neo-cons well to stop and think about why someone would want to drive planes into our buildings and kill our civilians. Of course there is someone in the Republican party who asks and answers this question:
"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
-Ron Paul
So while the neo-cons and liberals keep promoting the foreign policy of intervention, I for one will stand for a foreign policy of freedom
.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Bailing Out Newspapers Now?
With Obama in office along with Democratic control of both the House and Senate, Jon Kraushar poses an interesting question: Would Obama's Administration even pause when it comes to bailing out the media giant New York Times?
After governmental bailouts of other companies, and the fact that the NYT has a liberal slant and in theory aids the Democrats, would it not make sense for the Democrats to try to keep this liberal machine running? Of course it would!
With that being said, I again have to refer back to the financial institution bailouts. They set a bad precedent of government intervention into the free market. I am still embarassed by the many "Conservatives" who voted for the bailouts. They should have been wise enough to see that this is a slippery slope. Maybe when we start electing true conservatives to Congress we will see a change. Sadly, it could be a while before the public wakes up enough to realize that neo-cons are not conservatives!
After governmental bailouts of other companies, and the fact that the NYT has a liberal slant and in theory aids the Democrats, would it not make sense for the Democrats to try to keep this liberal machine running? Of course it would!
With that being said, I again have to refer back to the financial institution bailouts. They set a bad precedent of government intervention into the free market. I am still embarassed by the many "Conservatives" who voted for the bailouts. They should have been wise enough to see that this is a slippery slope. Maybe when we start electing true conservatives to Congress we will see a change. Sadly, it could be a while before the public wakes up enough to realize that neo-cons are not conservatives!
Obama: Don't Listen to Rush!
Yesterday Obama said to top GOP leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
What is that even supposed to mean? If by get things done, he means grow the size of government by unprecedented amounts, then I don't want Republicans to get things done!
I have only been listening to Rush the past six months or so (and definitely not on a daily basis, just when I am in my car and he is on), but I have the same view as him when it comes to bailouts and the size of the government: no bailouts, small government. I do disagree with his stance on foreign policy, though that is not the point.
As many Conservative talk show personalities (including Rush) as well as their listeners who call in are becoming increasingly disgusted with the never-ending bailouts and now potentially giant stimulus packages, I think it would do good for GOP leaders good to listen to these people.
What is that even supposed to mean? If by get things done, he means grow the size of government by unprecedented amounts, then I don't want Republicans to get things done!
I have only been listening to Rush the past six months or so (and definitely not on a daily basis, just when I am in my car and he is on), but I have the same view as him when it comes to bailouts and the size of the government: no bailouts, small government. I do disagree with his stance on foreign policy, though that is not the point.
As many Conservative talk show personalities (including Rush) as well as their listeners who call in are becoming increasingly disgusted with the never-ending bailouts and now potentially giant stimulus packages, I think it would do good for GOP leaders good to listen to these people.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Kirsten Gillibrand Supports Gun Rights! But....
It has just been announced that Kirsten Gillibrand has been selected to fill New York's recently vacated Senate seat that was previously held by Hillary Clinton. When I skimmed the Wikipedia of Gillibrand, I found something surprising: she supports second amendment rights and believes that all law-abiding citizens should be allowed the freedom to own a gun.
But of course, after taking a quick look at ontheissues.org (Great Site by the way!) sure enough I found a number of things I do not agree with:
- Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25
- Protect American jobs from going overseas.
- Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC
- Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
- Balance fossil fuels and viable renewable energy.
These are just a few things from her voting record that just don't fly with me. But it was nice to see that some Democrats do not like her more conservative positions (such as gun rights):
"But some New York City Democrats are skeptical of Gillibrand, who voted against the financial rescue package last fall. And the National Rifle Association has endorsed Gillibrand -- another cause for concern among some Democrats."
I expect her to vote along party lines, but it will be interesting to see if/when she will go against the Liberal Machine.
Barney Frank - When Politics and Business Mix
I have been critical of the bailouts from the beginning. It was a sad day to see Republican after Republican (or "conservative" after "conservative") say that the bailout was a bad idea but that 'we could not do nothing.' I would say nothing is better than something that will make things worse, but that's just me.
Today the Wall Street Journal has an article about how Barney Frank 'went to bat' for a local Massachusetts bank. As the article explains, Frank has ties to OneUnited Bank. I quote from the article, "Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited Bank, he inserted into the billa provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low-and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
My favorite part is the quote from Frank immediately afterwards:
"I did feel that it was important to farnkly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.
Federal action has caused many negative things, but here is the amazing thing about Mr. Frank's position: He believes that MORE government intervention into the free market is going to fix these problems! Granted, the government is not taking over OneUnited Bank as they did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but sure enough we are intervening more and more into the private market to try to fix intervention in the private market. Huh?
It defies logic, but I have found more and more that actions of government oftentimes defy logic.
Today the Wall Street Journal has an article about how Barney Frank 'went to bat' for a local Massachusetts bank. As the article explains, Frank has ties to OneUnited Bank. I quote from the article, "Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited Bank, he inserted into the billa provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low-and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
My favorite part is the quote from Frank immediately afterwards:
"I did feel that it was important to farnkly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.
Federal action has caused many negative things, but here is the amazing thing about Mr. Frank's position: He believes that MORE government intervention into the free market is going to fix these problems! Granted, the government is not taking over OneUnited Bank as they did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but sure enough we are intervening more and more into the private market to try to fix intervention in the private market. Huh?
It defies logic, but I have found more and more that actions of government oftentimes defy logic.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ron Paul's Reaction to Obama's Speech
I think this is a nice short and sweet clip of Ron Paul's response to Obama's speech. I am considering posting more responses to Obama's inauguration and speech. Hope you enjoy this counter-view to the big government view that is going to be pushed the next two-plus years.
Does Strong Leadership Matter?
There is a long thread on my facebook page concerning how much leadership matters when electing a President. What I believe is that leadership does matter, but what is leadership? In Obama's case, he is obviously a very strong leader. But he is leader of a group of people who are fueled by political views.
People run for political leadership in part because they believe they can make the world a better place. But the important thing to think about is: how do they believe they can make the world a better place? They believe their political views, and resulting legislation will make the world a better place. In Obama's case (or, most Democrats in Congress and leadership) believe that redistribution of wealth, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. will make the world a better place.
Here is the essential problem: it does not matter how 'good' or 'strong' a leader is if they have political views that do not make America a more prosperous (and free) land. For example, wealth redistribution (or socialism) has been proven to not cause economic prosperity, but in fact, the opposite. Higher taxes has proven to not lead toa time of prosperity. Big government, such as the time of FDR's New Deal, has proven not to lead to prosperity. Telling people what light bulbs they can use and punishing companies through the second highest corporate tax in the worlds does not lead to freedom and prosperity. Therefore, forget how great a leader Barack Obama is, he is leading based on political views that are not going to benefit America in the long run.
So, I ask you, do you agree that leadership is rarely the issue when it comes to Presidential races (or political races in general) or is it based on the person's political views and how strong they stand on these views?
People run for political leadership in part because they believe they can make the world a better place. But the important thing to think about is: how do they believe they can make the world a better place? They believe their political views, and resulting legislation will make the world a better place. In Obama's case (or, most Democrats in Congress and leadership) believe that redistribution of wealth, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. will make the world a better place.
Here is the essential problem: it does not matter how 'good' or 'strong' a leader is if they have political views that do not make America a more prosperous (and free) land. For example, wealth redistribution (or socialism) has been proven to not cause economic prosperity, but in fact, the opposite. Higher taxes has proven to not lead toa time of prosperity. Big government, such as the time of FDR's New Deal, has proven not to lead to prosperity. Telling people what light bulbs they can use and punishing companies through the second highest corporate tax in the worlds does not lead to freedom and prosperity. Therefore, forget how great a leader Barack Obama is, he is leading based on political views that are not going to benefit America in the long run.
So, I ask you, do you agree that leadership is rarely the issue when it comes to Presidential races (or political races in general) or is it based on the person's political views and how strong they stand on these views?
One Day of Obama is More Than Enough
Today was surely a historic day for America. We swore in our first African-American into the highest office in our country. While this is truly a historic event, it overshadows and overwhelms the fact that the man being sworn in has extremely liberal, border-line socialist, political positions that he will surely put into place with the Democratically-controlled Congress.
So this is how I feel: One day of Obama as President is much more than enough in my opinion.
Combine the Obama Administration with the Democratically-controlled Congress and we have a recipe for disaster.
One thing is certain: Obama sure can give one heck of a speech. While it can be inspiring to listen to a well-crafted speech of a man who is surely a great leader, it does not change the fact that his policies are going to lead the nation down the wrong path. By wrong I mean policies that are not going to solve the economic depression we are involved in, not going to cause prosperity for future generations (in fact, future generations have a huge debt to pay through government's irresponsible bailouts), and will not promote freedom and liberty.
Pelosi runs a tight shift, as Michelle Bachmann said recently on Glenn Beck. They will push bailouts, environmental policies that place control not freedom on the American public, and higher taxes through Congress. Obama will rubber-stamp these laws, and we surely will not find our way out of this depression that is plaguing the United States. FDR's policies did not work, neither will Obama's.
So this is how I feel: One day of Obama as President is much more than enough in my opinion.
Combine the Obama Administration with the Democratically-controlled Congress and we have a recipe for disaster.
One thing is certain: Obama sure can give one heck of a speech. While it can be inspiring to listen to a well-crafted speech of a man who is surely a great leader, it does not change the fact that his policies are going to lead the nation down the wrong path. By wrong I mean policies that are not going to solve the economic depression we are involved in, not going to cause prosperity for future generations (in fact, future generations have a huge debt to pay through government's irresponsible bailouts), and will not promote freedom and liberty.
Pelosi runs a tight shift, as Michelle Bachmann said recently on Glenn Beck. They will push bailouts, environmental policies that place control not freedom on the American public, and higher taxes through Congress. Obama will rubber-stamp these laws, and we surely will not find our way out of this depression that is plaguing the United States. FDR's policies did not work, neither will Obama's.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama Inauguration: How Should Conservatives Approach His Presidency?
Today on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, a caller came on the air who claimed to be an independent and gave a long history of her Presidential votes the past decades to prove it. She then went on about how she is fiscally Conservative and therefore had a number of problems with Bush, but she does not 'hate' the man. She thinks he is a good man who did what he thought was best when put into the Presidency. But then she went on a rant to Rush and how Obama has not even been sworn in yet, but already he has been criticized intensely by Rush. She says that we should wait and 'give him a chance.' Rush then asked, "Are you saying you want Obama to succeed?" "Absolutely" is the response. Rush then said why that is a problem: Obama is pursuing big government, socialistic policies, and universal health care among other things. Besides that, it is not as though his cabinet picks and the Democratic Party have given Conservatives nothing to be upset about.
So how do Conservatives confront this Obama Administration? In my opinion, as it has in the past, liberal economic, budget, and spending policies have all gone down in flames. Especially when we are in a depression where people are holding on for dear life and trying to ride out the storm, these Keynesian big government policies surely will fail. This is not an estimate or something unproven, and if you want a source take some time out and read The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen
, as they document statistically and historically how policies have affected the prosperity of the United States.
So we know that these policies are going to fail (by fail I mean make things worse and not 'fix' everything as many believe). This has been proven, and it is just a matter of time. I worry that Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians risk coming off too strong as we aggressively attack the Democrats. But how can you not? The only other option is to wait it out and then when things start going bad to go full force in explaining why the Democrat's policies are making things much worse. But I also realize in this day of instant news and commentary, it is inevitable that we must respond with the criticism deserved.
To sum this up, I will try to engage in useful conversations concerning Obama's (and the Democratic Party's) policies. I oftentimes ask people how they feel about this or that or why they believe a certain policy will do what they think, and always give a counter-argument, or an agreement. The problem is not that there are too many Democrats out there, it's the apathy that is prevalent and people not wanting to spend the time shredding apart the issues. Hopefully this blog (among other resources) will motivate people to maybe follow the blog as I commentate on issues and why I think they are wrong/right/etc as well as maybe go read a book they otherwise wouldn't have ever read. For now, I am going to be open to talking about politics with people and try to listen more, and of course continue to educate myself about different viewpoints to create a more mature political understanding.
So how do Conservatives confront this Obama Administration? In my opinion, as it has in the past, liberal economic, budget, and spending policies have all gone down in flames. Especially when we are in a depression where people are holding on for dear life and trying to ride out the storm, these Keynesian big government policies surely will fail. This is not an estimate or something unproven, and if you want a source take some time out and read The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen
, as they document statistically and historically how policies have affected the prosperity of the United States.So we know that these policies are going to fail (by fail I mean make things worse and not 'fix' everything as many believe). This has been proven, and it is just a matter of time. I worry that Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians risk coming off too strong as we aggressively attack the Democrats. But how can you not? The only other option is to wait it out and then when things start going bad to go full force in explaining why the Democrat's policies are making things much worse. But I also realize in this day of instant news and commentary, it is inevitable that we must respond with the criticism deserved.
To sum this up, I will try to engage in useful conversations concerning Obama's (and the Democratic Party's) policies. I oftentimes ask people how they feel about this or that or why they believe a certain policy will do what they think, and always give a counter-argument, or an agreement. The problem is not that there are too many Democrats out there, it's the apathy that is prevalent and people not wanting to spend the time shredding apart the issues. Hopefully this blog (among other resources) will motivate people to maybe follow the blog as I commentate on issues and why I think they are wrong/right/etc as well as maybe go read a book they otherwise wouldn't have ever read. For now, I am going to be open to talking about politics with people and try to listen more, and of course continue to educate myself about different viewpoints to create a more mature political understanding.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Jesus for President?
In Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw's book Jesus For President
, they present a difficult challenge to Christians: address politics as Jesus did. The reason this is so difficult is because it questions the very society that we have taken part in: Do we have allegiance to the flag of the United States (or some other nation) or is our allegiance in Christ? The first 100 pages or so focus on the historical aspects of the bible and politics, leading up to Jesus' time. Claiborne makes a point that many would miss unless they have looked at the Gospels in-depth: Jesus was very political. He was offering a completely different lifestyle and political thought that was in direct opposition to the Roman Empire.Claiborne talks in-depth about Jesus' view of nonviolent resistance, and poses troubling questions such as "How can Christian's be in the military?" and whether or not wars can be just or not. As Americans see the Iraq war as liberation, Claiborne questions how 300,000 estimate civilian deaths, or 100 9/11 attacks, can be seen as liberation? Needless to say, this should make anyone uncomfortable as we rarely are exposed to views besides the mainstream concerning war.
What I found most revealing from this book personally is my less than a year-old view that we should close all our permanent military bases and bring all our troops home across the globe. As I read this book, I could see (as I have before) how redemptive wars will never end until someone in power takes a strong stance against it. For example, look at the past decade. 9/11 was fueled by a terrorist group who wanted redemption against U.S. interventionism and violence in the Middle East. Then of course we unleash a huge front and two wars in the middle east in response. As Ron Paul says, this makes no sense. Even if we were to practice redemptive war, you would target only those who knew about these attacks and brought them about. Instead we now have hundreds of thousands of civilians blood on our hands and many more who are motivated to attack America than ever before. Our military presence across the globe should motivate them even more.
So, in a way this book re-affirmed to myself that the position of wanting to be non-interventionist and pull-back all our troops is the best thing we can do right now. Besides that, I found it interesting how Claiborne believes (as I do) that so many across the nation put their faith in the government instead of God. This is absolutely the wrong position of a Christian. Instead of the government fixing the health insurance problem, how about Christian's rise up and find a solution themselves? (See Christian Healthcare Ministries) Look to the church (the body of believers) to solve problems, not the government. Limited government where those in 'power' have extremely constrained power combined with Christians living out what Jesus taught is the true solution to the never-ending problems of this world.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Republicans and Democrats are Both Wrong
As of 8:30 this morning (central time) there is only seven and a half hours to vote on Change.org for policies that you would like to see put in place. Though I am quite confident that the only policies that will go through are the ones that the Obama Administration already plans on implementing, I think it is great that Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana is holding a whopping 5,000 vote lead with nearly 19,000 votes as I write.
On another note, End the War on Drugs mysteriously disappeared from the site. It was consistently in the top 10 ideas (by votes), but of course the Obama Administration could not adress such a radical idea and therefore removed it, hoping that no one will notice besides "the radicals" who think that our drug policy has been an epic failure.
The best (or worst?) thing about this issue is how it does not matter which party is in power, both are opposed to it, while I will say the Republicans are much more opposed to legalization than the Democrats. Both parties are wrong! This issue is similar to other policies where the majority of both parties have been consistently wrong: monetary policy, foreign policy, and spending (when Republicans had the majority just a few years ago, spending increased Incredibly. Most of it was Pork-Barrel spending, which is probably why it was ironic that McCain was saying he wanted to end that spending, as it was increased drastically while he was a Senator!).
So, where do you turn when both parties are taking the wrong stance on important issues? I aggressively support Republican Candidates who get the issues right, but I will never hesitate to support a third party when the Republican candidate for whatever office it may be has the wrong stance on many issues, and oftentimes will defend these positions.
And people wonder why so many across the country are obsessed with Ron Paul? Or why Michelle Bachmann is likely to continue to receive increased support and exposure nationwide? Or how B.J. Lawson, A Ron-Paul Republican funded his campaign nearly entirely by small donations from voters across the nation? It really is not that complex.
On another note, End the War on Drugs mysteriously disappeared from the site. It was consistently in the top 10 ideas (by votes), but of course the Obama Administration could not adress such a radical idea and therefore removed it, hoping that no one will notice besides "the radicals" who think that our drug policy has been an epic failure.
The best (or worst?) thing about this issue is how it does not matter which party is in power, both are opposed to it, while I will say the Republicans are much more opposed to legalization than the Democrats. Both parties are wrong! This issue is similar to other policies where the majority of both parties have been consistently wrong: monetary policy, foreign policy, and spending (when Republicans had the majority just a few years ago, spending increased Incredibly. Most of it was Pork-Barrel spending, which is probably why it was ironic that McCain was saying he wanted to end that spending, as it was increased drastically while he was a Senator!).
So, where do you turn when both parties are taking the wrong stance on important issues? I aggressively support Republican Candidates who get the issues right, but I will never hesitate to support a third party when the Republican candidate for whatever office it may be has the wrong stance on many issues, and oftentimes will defend these positions.
And people wonder why so many across the country are obsessed with Ron Paul? Or why Michelle Bachmann is likely to continue to receive increased support and exposure nationwide? Or how B.J. Lawson, A Ron-Paul Republican funded his campaign nearly entirely by small donations from voters across the nation? It really is not that complex.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Michelle Bachmann on Glenn Beck!
I was pleasantly surprised on my drive home from North Heights tonight. I was listening to Glenn Beck and he said he had just met a member of Congress who he wanted all his listeners to meet. Sure enough, it was Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann!
I'm not just excited for the national attention she has been receiving recently, but because of what she has done with the opportunities. She did not say one thing I disagree with in the entire 15 minute interview. She talked about fiscal Conservatism, and how she was embarrassed that some Republicans have supported and continue to support the bailouts that are being pushed through Washington. She said the biggest political blunder of 2008 was when the "Conservative" candidate for President supported bailout! Amen.
She also said that she has little faith that the Conservative Democratic members of Congress will stand up to Nancy Pelosi and vote against the second bailout. Pelosi recently threatened those Democrats who may vote against it by saying they will not get their one week recess in February to go to their home district! Beck and Bachmann compared this to how a teacher would treat second-graders. Pathetic.
More and more I see why Ron Paul endorsed Bachmann. Some Paul supporters were upset about this endorsement (due to her stance on foreign policy among other things) but what he stressed was her stance on economic and financial issues. She has not failed those who voted her in (myself as one) based on her stance on these issues and her opposition to the bailout from the very beginning.
I'm not just excited for the national attention she has been receiving recently, but because of what she has done with the opportunities. She did not say one thing I disagree with in the entire 15 minute interview. She talked about fiscal Conservatism, and how she was embarrassed that some Republicans have supported and continue to support the bailouts that are being pushed through Washington. She said the biggest political blunder of 2008 was when the "Conservative" candidate for President supported bailout! Amen.
She also said that she has little faith that the Conservative Democratic members of Congress will stand up to Nancy Pelosi and vote against the second bailout. Pelosi recently threatened those Democrats who may vote against it by saying they will not get their one week recess in February to go to their home district! Beck and Bachmann compared this to how a teacher would treat second-graders. Pathetic.
More and more I see why Ron Paul endorsed Bachmann. Some Paul supporters were upset about this endorsement (due to her stance on foreign policy among other things) but what he stressed was her stance on economic and financial issues. She has not failed those who voted her in (myself as one) based on her stance on these issues and her opposition to the bailout from the very beginning.
Bachmann on New Hannity Show
I wanted to post this yesterday, but the video was not put up until today. It's my Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann on the brand new Sean Hannity show:
I thought she did a good job, considering Sharpton kept cutting in. It's too bad that is what you have to do to get your point across, just keep talking until someone else stops.
I liked her points about the bailouts and school vouchers. The reason I am such a big supporter of Bachmann is because she has been against all the bailouts from the beginning. She never said (like so many other Republicans), "I think these bailouts are horrible, but something has to be done and therefore I support them." Even John McCain, the Conservative Party's Presidential Candidate, or Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman could stand up for fiscal conservatism. Sharpton tries to blame the crisis on the Republicans, even though it was the liberals who pushed for banks to make extremely risky loans and now they are creating incentives to allow even more of this behavior since they are not punished whatsoever! Make a bad loan, get a handout. Sharpton's argument that we need more regulation is just plain foolish.
She was right on about school vouchers. It's ironic that the liberals are against school vouchers since people who otherwise would not have choices, would then have a choice of an array of different schools. Giving people a $6,000 school voucher per child would open them up to many different private schools that some otherwise could not afford or could not justify with their budget. I like how she used Minneapolis as an example. They spend quite a bit per child, yet the public schools are under-performing. She says that even if we spent TWICE as much, it is unlikely that we would see much difference.
I thought she did a good job, considering Sharpton kept cutting in. It's too bad that is what you have to do to get your point across, just keep talking until someone else stops.
I liked her points about the bailouts and school vouchers. The reason I am such a big supporter of Bachmann is because she has been against all the bailouts from the beginning. She never said (like so many other Republicans), "I think these bailouts are horrible, but something has to be done and therefore I support them." Even John McCain, the Conservative Party's Presidential Candidate, or Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman could stand up for fiscal conservatism. Sharpton tries to blame the crisis on the Republicans, even though it was the liberals who pushed for banks to make extremely risky loans and now they are creating incentives to allow even more of this behavior since they are not punished whatsoever! Make a bad loan, get a handout. Sharpton's argument that we need more regulation is just plain foolish.
She was right on about school vouchers. It's ironic that the liberals are against school vouchers since people who otherwise would not have choices, would then have a choice of an array of different schools. Giving people a $6,000 school voucher per child would open them up to many different private schools that some otherwise could not afford or could not justify with their budget. I like how she used Minneapolis as an example. They spend quite a bit per child, yet the public schools are under-performing. She says that even if we spent TWICE as much, it is unlikely that we would see much difference.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Obama Supporters Will Not Defend Views
As we are exactly one week away from Obama being sworn in as President, I have something I need to say: Obama supporters simply will not defend or explain their views.
Throughout the election season, I would challenge anyone willing to listen (and some who were not) to take a long hard look at what they believe politically. Some people are simply apathetic, but that was not the problem this election cycle. The problem was a huge number of individuals who simply latched on to Obama without making that decision critically.
I'm going to generalize (a lot) here, but this is what I have found:
When I question people who support Obama, the conversation goes one of two ways:
1) Immediately attack of Bush and Republicans. Once I told them that I was not voting Republican, nor did I agree with a number of things the majority of Republicans did when they had power, they went quiet. "Really? Who are you voting for then?" Which, as you can expect, diverted the attention from why they are supporting Obama to why Ron Paul's the man.
2) An attack on me! Apparently for questioning their political views. I don't care if someone says they don't have the answers or they are not informed enough, but when someone supports something, surely there is a rational thought process that was involved? And if not, you should not be embarrased to admit it. But it was pretty amazing when I start going on about why I believe Obama's policies are 'bad' and immediately I get the "I don't have to defend my views to you" and "It's none of your business" and whatnot. What?
My friend Matt Chesla sent me a clip from the Howard Stern show a few months ago where they went out and asked Obama supporters what it was that they liked about Obama's policy. They would say stuff such as "do you like Obama's policy of finishing the war in Iraq or his pro-life stance?" To which the responder would choose one. Each time neither of the views would be those that Obama has, yet sure enough the responder has no idea.
I have waited a while to write this post because I would rather defend the views I have than attack others. But actually what I am trying to say is that I rarely find an Obama supporter who will defend their views and explain why that view is better than a Conservative or libertarian view, or why it would work better. Of course each time they simply attack policies of the past eight years.
Now, I'm sure there are many Obama supporters out there who do not fit my generalization - I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I find too much enjoyment in debating an issue that I think is right, but it would be great to talk to Obama supporters who will defend his views (and not just attack, attack, attack).
Throughout the election season, I would challenge anyone willing to listen (and some who were not) to take a long hard look at what they believe politically. Some people are simply apathetic, but that was not the problem this election cycle. The problem was a huge number of individuals who simply latched on to Obama without making that decision critically.
I'm going to generalize (a lot) here, but this is what I have found:
When I question people who support Obama, the conversation goes one of two ways:
1) Immediately attack of Bush and Republicans. Once I told them that I was not voting Republican, nor did I agree with a number of things the majority of Republicans did when they had power, they went quiet. "Really? Who are you voting for then?" Which, as you can expect, diverted the attention from why they are supporting Obama to why Ron Paul's the man.
2) An attack on me! Apparently for questioning their political views. I don't care if someone says they don't have the answers or they are not informed enough, but when someone supports something, surely there is a rational thought process that was involved? And if not, you should not be embarrased to admit it. But it was pretty amazing when I start going on about why I believe Obama's policies are 'bad' and immediately I get the "I don't have to defend my views to you" and "It's none of your business" and whatnot. What?
My friend Matt Chesla sent me a clip from the Howard Stern show a few months ago where they went out and asked Obama supporters what it was that they liked about Obama's policy. They would say stuff such as "do you like Obama's policy of finishing the war in Iraq or his pro-life stance?" To which the responder would choose one. Each time neither of the views would be those that Obama has, yet sure enough the responder has no idea.
I have waited a while to write this post because I would rather defend the views I have than attack others. But actually what I am trying to say is that I rarely find an Obama supporter who will defend their views and explain why that view is better than a Conservative or libertarian view, or why it would work better. Of course each time they simply attack policies of the past eight years.
Now, I'm sure there are many Obama supporters out there who do not fit my generalization - I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I find too much enjoyment in debating an issue that I think is right, but it would be great to talk to Obama supporters who will defend his views (and not just attack, attack, attack).
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama/Democrats Plan to Keep the "Death Tax"
Sure enough, one day after finishing the book The End of Prosperity, I see that the Obama Administration (as well as the Democratic Party as a whole) will seek to keep the estate ("death" is more accurate) tax in 2010 and indefinitely after that. This is precisely one of the policies that was addressed in The End of Prosperity, and sure enough government does the reverse of what the authors would have done (which is eliminate the tax entirely).
Basically this tax is burdensome on small business owners and investors, as a number of small businesses have had to actually be sold since the original owner died and his descendants can't afford to foot the bill (since some of his estate is wrapped up in equity in the business). Besides this, there is a clear example of why this is a horrible tax: it gives the incentive to live large and spend one's estate into the ground instead of save, invest, and pass on wealth to one's family.
Someone who dies with a net worth of zero is taxed: zero. Someone who has saved and saved is taxed at whatever the death tax may be at the time (probably around 50%). Now, if one has to give half of what they have earned (well, what they have earned after already being taxed on those earnings when they DID earn them) what is the incentive to save, invest, and participate in activities that will help the economy?
Sure enough, as other countries across the globe do away with this "death tax" and other high tax rates, we will continually lose our competitive edge with our high income, corporate, and even "death" tax.
This was article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, but you can read it online as well.
Basically this tax is burdensome on small business owners and investors, as a number of small businesses have had to actually be sold since the original owner died and his descendants can't afford to foot the bill (since some of his estate is wrapped up in equity in the business). Besides this, there is a clear example of why this is a horrible tax: it gives the incentive to live large and spend one's estate into the ground instead of save, invest, and pass on wealth to one's family.
Someone who dies with a net worth of zero is taxed: zero. Someone who has saved and saved is taxed at whatever the death tax may be at the time (probably around 50%). Now, if one has to give half of what they have earned (well, what they have earned after already being taxed on those earnings when they DID earn them) what is the incentive to save, invest, and participate in activities that will help the economy?
Sure enough, as other countries across the globe do away with this "death tax" and other high tax rates, we will continually lose our competitive edge with our high income, corporate, and even "death" tax.
This was article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, but you can read it online as well.
The End of Prosperity
The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen
is easily the most enlightening book I have read concerning tax policy. Written by Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter Tanous, this book not only gives the supply-side argument for not only lowered taxes but a flat tax rate, but backs up every claim with statistical data and sources. The explanation of how lower taxes across the board (including those on high-income individuals) benefit not only the rich but every class across the board gives ammunition to the argument that lower taxes helps EVERYONE.This book does not simply bash the liberals, but is very non-partisan. They cover the history of tax policy (as well as delve into free trade) over the past century and the effects that different policies have had. This quick history lesson will be valuable to any American, and is greatly non-partisan as they evaluate the strength of different President's economic policies regardless of which party they were a part of. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush's tax cuts effects are shown graphically. In fact, as I said earlier, all their claims are backed up by statistics, data, and sources.
I recommend this book to anyone, regardless of your interest level in politics. The fact of the matter is tax policy affects every American. Anyone who makes an income is affected by tax policy. Both Keynesian and Supply-side economics have been implemented in the past, with Keynesian economic policy being implemented today (and a promise of even more Keynesian policies in the next 2-4 years). The problem is, these policies have had ill-effects. Supply-side economics (which include a low taxes or preferably a flat tax rate as well as free trade) have been proven to work time and time again (both in the United States and abroad). Read this book and allow these great economists to make their case for sound fiscal policies.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The New Media
David Carlson Politics is now listed as an official endorser of Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana on the Change.org website. This policy is still holding strong at number one, but there is still eight more days of voting left.
While many know that the Ron Paul Revolution (now in the form of the Campaign for Liberty) was largely fueled by a passionate group that used the new media (the internet) to get the word out about Ron Paul. What I have realized now is that fringe movements, such as the small number of people who have educated themselves about the War on Drugs and strongly believe the policy should be changed, are empowered now more than ever. One hundred years ago the pure expenses of organization (political and nonpolitical alike) were extensive. Now there are sites and networks for people to plug into and truly get organized when they run counter to the popular media and those who have similar views may be spread out across a vast land.
Power truly comes through information. The internet has been and continues to break down information barriers. Simply logging onto the internet, you now have a wealth of information people could only dream of having access to a hundred, fifty, even twenty years ago. It is harder for the mainstream media and government interests to fight against information exchanging that makes an argument for alternate policy and viewpoints. This is one of the main reasons why I believe something like legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use can succeed. There are many websites that lay out arguments and give factual information as to why the war on drugs has failed and especially why the case for legalizing marijuana is extremely strong.
It is undeniable that the internet was the backbone (and continues to be) of Ron Paul's rise. But one must also look at how Obama used the internet. They used it to influence and connect with young voters. The internet is essential to any future political campaigns (be it for one policy or for an election). Creating a top-notch site is becoming less expensive as there are more and more who are becoming knowledgeable about web design, and this will significantly level the playing field. Instead of spending millions on billboards and other expensive advertising, one just needs to drive voters to their site and make it easy for them to find out what the candidate is all about and why they are the better choice. The internet is going to change how political campaigns (and our lives) will be conducted in the next 10, 20, 50 years.
Therefore, the internet is one reason I hold out hope for ideas that are not covered by mainstream media (or conversation in daily life). When one can easily access ideas that make sense, support will grow. Education is key, and the time and energy needed to find the information that will allow this (political) education will be, and has been, greatly reduced.
While many know that the Ron Paul Revolution (now in the form of the Campaign for Liberty) was largely fueled by a passionate group that used the new media (the internet) to get the word out about Ron Paul. What I have realized now is that fringe movements, such as the small number of people who have educated themselves about the War on Drugs and strongly believe the policy should be changed, are empowered now more than ever. One hundred years ago the pure expenses of organization (political and nonpolitical alike) were extensive. Now there are sites and networks for people to plug into and truly get organized when they run counter to the popular media and those who have similar views may be spread out across a vast land.
Power truly comes through information. The internet has been and continues to break down information barriers. Simply logging onto the internet, you now have a wealth of information people could only dream of having access to a hundred, fifty, even twenty years ago. It is harder for the mainstream media and government interests to fight against information exchanging that makes an argument for alternate policy and viewpoints. This is one of the main reasons why I believe something like legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use can succeed. There are many websites that lay out arguments and give factual information as to why the war on drugs has failed and especially why the case for legalizing marijuana is extremely strong.
It is undeniable that the internet was the backbone (and continues to be) of Ron Paul's rise. But one must also look at how Obama used the internet. They used it to influence and connect with young voters. The internet is essential to any future political campaigns (be it for one policy or for an election). Creating a top-notch site is becoming less expensive as there are more and more who are becoming knowledgeable about web design, and this will significantly level the playing field. Instead of spending millions on billboards and other expensive advertising, one just needs to drive voters to their site and make it easy for them to find out what the candidate is all about and why they are the better choice. The internet is going to change how political campaigns (and our lives) will be conducted in the next 10, 20, 50 years.
Therefore, the internet is one reason I hold out hope for ideas that are not covered by mainstream media (or conversation in daily life). When one can easily access ideas that make sense, support will grow. Education is key, and the time and energy needed to find the information that will allow this (political) education will be, and has been, greatly reduced.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Universal Healthcare now third highest vote-getter
I have been tracking different causes on Change.org and I am happy to see Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana holding strong as the top vote getter while End The War on Drugs coming in at a close second. Thanks to anyone out there who voted for either, and a special shout out to Dan Nimlos who told me last night he gave it a vote! Regardless if the Obama Administration is going to actually listen to the people and add this to their policy, it is important to force government to address this issue and not shrug it off as unimportant.
For the Record, this is what they say Ideas for Change in America is:
Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy
They use clever wording, as they say, "form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign" and therefore will have an excuse to not turn it into actual policy. Of course the liberal ideas, such as the third highest vote getter, will surely be turned into actual policy:
Free Single Payer Health Care
"Health Care is a fundamental human right. No one should have sell their house to pay for their mother's cancer. No one should have to choose between food and medicine.
Free basic health care for all!
Why?
1) Its the most efficient approach
2) It works. Why do places such as Cuba and Costa Rica have such good healthcare systems when they spend so little on healthcare?
3) It will solve insurance problems and peopl'e being left without insurance (obama's approach won't get everyone covered).
4) For our childrenHR 676 Bill is one way of achieving this but not the only way.
(NOTE: Free obviously means paid for through some kind of tax, preferribly on the wealthy)"
Now, I will never pretend to have ALL the solutions for our country. I do not, nor have I read and educated myself enough to have solutions to every problem. Health Care is one of those things that has become so 'messed up' that I really do not know where to start. B.J. Lawson believes that the problem has to do with linking health insurance to employment, while Ron Paul has many viewpoints on this issue that are well documented here.
Just a couple that I found most profound:
"The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts."
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 89 Apr 1, 2008
"You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices."
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007
What I find most amazing/unbelievable about this cause is that they define free as paid through some kind of tax, preferably the wealthy. Amazing! Government was not meant to rob one individual of his wealth and transfer it to another. In my opinion, if there was a (low) flat tax rate, we would see people donating more money to worthy causes such as healthcare for those who cannot afford it. In fact, lower taxes would contribute to helping this problem in a number of ways: there would be more jobs, income will grow (on all levels, just as it did as a result of Reagan's tax cuts), and prosperity will abound.
The more the government gets involved in something, the worse situations become. I won't be so naive to say that there will one day be a system where everyone can afford all their own healthcare. I think there will always be impoverished individuals who do not have health insurance, who will then need some major surgical operation. By all means, we should treat these people. But for us to afford to do that, there needs to be major cuts across the board in government. We simply cannot be injecting trillions into the economy on top of a $2.5 plus trillion budget and expect to add universal healthcare on top of that. Taxing the rich will just slow the economy and lower the gross tax revenue brought in, which actually goes against what the liberals want.
Even if we did move in the correct direction of getting the government out of healthcare, it would be a long and painful process before we get to affordable healthcare with government aid to the most needy. But sadly, we are most likely moving in the opposite direction which is going to make the situation worse and the process towards a 'better' (i.e. affordable, workable) system prolonged.
For the Record, this is what they say Ideas for Change in America is:
Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy
They use clever wording, as they say, "form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign" and therefore will have an excuse to not turn it into actual policy. Of course the liberal ideas, such as the third highest vote getter, will surely be turned into actual policy:
Free Single Payer Health Care
"Health Care is a fundamental human right. No one should have sell their house to pay for their mother's cancer. No one should have to choose between food and medicine.
Free basic health care for all!
Why?
1) Its the most efficient approach
2) It works. Why do places such as Cuba and Costa Rica have such good healthcare systems when they spend so little on healthcare?
3) It will solve insurance problems and peopl'e being left without insurance (obama's approach won't get everyone covered).
4) For our childrenHR 676 Bill is one way of achieving this but not the only way.
(NOTE: Free obviously means paid for through some kind of tax, preferribly on the wealthy)"
Now, I will never pretend to have ALL the solutions for our country. I do not, nor have I read and educated myself enough to have solutions to every problem. Health Care is one of those things that has become so 'messed up' that I really do not know where to start. B.J. Lawson believes that the problem has to do with linking health insurance to employment, while Ron Paul has many viewpoints on this issue that are well documented here.
Just a couple that I found most profound:
"The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts."
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 89 Apr 1, 2008
"You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices."
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007
What I find most amazing/unbelievable about this cause is that they define free as paid through some kind of tax, preferably the wealthy. Amazing! Government was not meant to rob one individual of his wealth and transfer it to another. In my opinion, if there was a (low) flat tax rate, we would see people donating more money to worthy causes such as healthcare for those who cannot afford it. In fact, lower taxes would contribute to helping this problem in a number of ways: there would be more jobs, income will grow (on all levels, just as it did as a result of Reagan's tax cuts), and prosperity will abound.
The more the government gets involved in something, the worse situations become. I won't be so naive to say that there will one day be a system where everyone can afford all their own healthcare. I think there will always be impoverished individuals who do not have health insurance, who will then need some major surgical operation. By all means, we should treat these people. But for us to afford to do that, there needs to be major cuts across the board in government. We simply cannot be injecting trillions into the economy on top of a $2.5 plus trillion budget and expect to add universal healthcare on top of that. Taxing the rich will just slow the economy and lower the gross tax revenue brought in, which actually goes against what the liberals want.
Even if we did move in the correct direction of getting the government out of healthcare, it would be a long and painful process before we get to affordable healthcare with government aid to the most needy. But sadly, we are most likely moving in the opposite direction which is going to make the situation worse and the process towards a 'better' (i.e. affordable, workable) system prolonged.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
An Idea for Real (and Positive) Change
I have officially endorsed the cause Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana in Ideas for Change in America on Obama's Change.gov site. Ideas for Change in America is described as:
"Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy."
Currently, the policy Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana is in first place and hopefully will retain that spot and force Obama's Administration to address it once again. Previously Change.gov had a similar sort of 'contest' on their website where over 7,000 policy questions were submitted for people to vote on. The top vote-getter:
Q: Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.
And the unfortunate response:
A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”
I have also voted for two other policy suggestions, one being ending the war on drugs and the other repealing the Patriot Act. I have been a vocal supporter of legalizing marijuana (and ending the war on drugs as a whole) for some time now. My reasons were laid out in my very first post on this blog quite some time ago. I continue to stand firm on this position, and as I become even more informed about this issue I only become more confident that ending the war on drugs will solve many problems our nation faces today.
The biggest enemy in opposing the war on drugs are three things : lack of education about the issue, maintaining the status quo, and propaganda. You may be surprised that I did not mention special interests, but that can be tied into propaganda. I also do not think special interests are that powerful when put up against an informed population. For example, some believe that drugs are to blame for all the crime, poverty, and social ills that are related to drug-dealing and the like. But anyone who looks at it from an economic perspective will realize that the price of drugs are inflated astronomically because they are illegal. This makes it very profitable to pursue dealing. If it was legalized, the price of marijuana would drop and dealers of marijuana would be no different than people who sell watches, comic books, or anything else on the streets.
It is amazing how we do not learn from history. History tells us this: when alcohol was made illegal, crime increased and demand did not die off as the government had hoped. Thankfully they reversed this ill-conceived policy and alcohol is now legal. Now when you look at marijuana, what have been the effects of making it illegal? The same thing! Crime, a huge black market, and demand not siphoning off. But sure enough, the status quo must be maintained. If only people realized that we are making the same mistake once again.
I recently was talking with a friend about how I did not vote for John McCain and some of the reasons why. We started to talk about drug policy and they made some comment about how it's just a bunch of potheads who want it legalized. But in reality, this is simply not true. I have never, and do not have an intention to, ever smoke marijuana. I believe it is harmful (but not nearly as harmful as the drugs alcohol and tobacco) but that is no reason to make it illegal. In fact, when you put the overwhelming evidence that making marijuana illegal has caused severe problems and social ills in America up against any sort of argument that marijuana should be illegal, it isn't even close. Legalizing marijuana would be "moving in the right direction," not continuing (and repeating) failed policies of prohibition.
You want to do something that would bring about real (and positive) change Mr. Obama? Repeal Prohibition of Marijuana.
"Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy."
Currently, the policy Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana is in first place and hopefully will retain that spot and force Obama's Administration to address it once again. Previously Change.gov had a similar sort of 'contest' on their website where over 7,000 policy questions were submitted for people to vote on. The top vote-getter:
Q: Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.
And the unfortunate response:
A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”
I have also voted for two other policy suggestions, one being ending the war on drugs and the other repealing the Patriot Act. I have been a vocal supporter of legalizing marijuana (and ending the war on drugs as a whole) for some time now. My reasons were laid out in my very first post on this blog quite some time ago. I continue to stand firm on this position, and as I become even more informed about this issue I only become more confident that ending the war on drugs will solve many problems our nation faces today.
The biggest enemy in opposing the war on drugs are three things : lack of education about the issue, maintaining the status quo, and propaganda. You may be surprised that I did not mention special interests, but that can be tied into propaganda. I also do not think special interests are that powerful when put up against an informed population. For example, some believe that drugs are to blame for all the crime, poverty, and social ills that are related to drug-dealing and the like. But anyone who looks at it from an economic perspective will realize that the price of drugs are inflated astronomically because they are illegal. This makes it very profitable to pursue dealing. If it was legalized, the price of marijuana would drop and dealers of marijuana would be no different than people who sell watches, comic books, or anything else on the streets.
It is amazing how we do not learn from history. History tells us this: when alcohol was made illegal, crime increased and demand did not die off as the government had hoped. Thankfully they reversed this ill-conceived policy and alcohol is now legal. Now when you look at marijuana, what have been the effects of making it illegal? The same thing! Crime, a huge black market, and demand not siphoning off. But sure enough, the status quo must be maintained. If only people realized that we are making the same mistake once again.
I recently was talking with a friend about how I did not vote for John McCain and some of the reasons why. We started to talk about drug policy and they made some comment about how it's just a bunch of potheads who want it legalized. But in reality, this is simply not true. I have never, and do not have an intention to, ever smoke marijuana. I believe it is harmful (but not nearly as harmful as the drugs alcohol and tobacco) but that is no reason to make it illegal. In fact, when you put the overwhelming evidence that making marijuana illegal has caused severe problems and social ills in America up against any sort of argument that marijuana should be illegal, it isn't even close. Legalizing marijuana would be "moving in the right direction," not continuing (and repeating) failed policies of prohibition.
You want to do something that would bring about real (and positive) change Mr. Obama? Repeal Prohibition of Marijuana.
Monday, January 5, 2009
What Doomed Coleman?
Well, here we are two months after the November fourth election and we may finally be able to proclaim a Senator to represent Minnesota with some sense of certainty. Barring a "miracle" (i.m.o.) Al Franken will represent Minnesota in the United State's Senate for the next six years. Though this is not official yet, the legal challenges left by the Coleman campaign do not seem very promising. There are 150 votes that may have been double-counted (it has to do with absentee ballots), but Franken would still have the lead without those "extra" votes.
So, now we will have two very liberal Senators for the next four years, if not longer, representing Minnesota. They both support raising taxes on the rich (which actually lowers revenue and production by the wealthy), growing the size of government, 'bailing out' companies, cracking down on gun rights and limiting second amendment rights, and will surely push the green agenda. Regulation, taxes, and control are what can be expected from these two Senators.
But why was Franken able to unseat Coleman? I believe that Obama-mania, a tough year for the GOP, as well as Coleman's ineffectiveness in the Senate hurt his chances of being voted back in. I personally had a number of issues with his view: support of the massive government bailout, support of the Iraq war, and support of the war on drugs. What I look for in a candidate is one that believes in smaller government, a foreign policy of freedom, opposition to the war on drugs, a belief in supply-side economics, and support of gun rights. Coleman was not the conservative candidate I was looking for, and his support of the bailout made it impossible for me to support him.
I really do hope that the GOP can learn from this elecction cycle. Instead of moving further to the left, they need to move further to the right. They cannot be succesful pursuing a moderate policy. Lower taxes, individual rights and liberty, and a constitutional approach to small and limited government is the correct policy to pursue. Sadly, the Republican party had a chance in the past decade to pursue conservative policy, but (most) of the Republicans during that time were not entirely committed to Conservative Principals.
In summary: While I am not excited about Al Franken winning the Senate Race, I think (and hope) that this will allow the Republican Party to re-evaluate their platform and put up a strong fight in the Senate elections in four and six years.
So, now we will have two very liberal Senators for the next four years, if not longer, representing Minnesota. They both support raising taxes on the rich (which actually lowers revenue and production by the wealthy), growing the size of government, 'bailing out' companies, cracking down on gun rights and limiting second amendment rights, and will surely push the green agenda. Regulation, taxes, and control are what can be expected from these two Senators.
But why was Franken able to unseat Coleman? I believe that Obama-mania, a tough year for the GOP, as well as Coleman's ineffectiveness in the Senate hurt his chances of being voted back in. I personally had a number of issues with his view: support of the massive government bailout, support of the Iraq war, and support of the war on drugs. What I look for in a candidate is one that believes in smaller government, a foreign policy of freedom, opposition to the war on drugs, a belief in supply-side economics, and support of gun rights. Coleman was not the conservative candidate I was looking for, and his support of the bailout made it impossible for me to support him.
I really do hope that the GOP can learn from this elecction cycle. Instead of moving further to the left, they need to move further to the right. They cannot be succesful pursuing a moderate policy. Lower taxes, individual rights and liberty, and a constitutional approach to small and limited government is the correct policy to pursue. Sadly, the Republican party had a chance in the past decade to pursue conservative policy, but (most) of the Republicans during that time were not entirely committed to Conservative Principals.
In summary: While I am not excited about Al Franken winning the Senate Race, I think (and hope) that this will allow the Republican Party to re-evaluate their platform and put up a strong fight in the Senate elections in four and six years.
Friday, January 2, 2009
A Foreign Policy of Freedom
A Book Review I recently wrote on Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship:
I first became interested in Ron Paul a little over a year ago. At first I wrote him off because his views were too 'out there.' But of course, I did not really KNOW his views. Before writing him off or saying something to the extent of "some of his policies are good, but as soon as he starts talking about foreign policy he sounds crazy" (as one of my friends said) one should actually take the time to recognize what his policies are - and why he has those views.
This book goes through over two decades of speeches made by Ron Paul. It is a lengthy book, but filled with wisdom concerning foreign policy. You are not going to find these 'common sense' views in the mainstream. At the very least Ron Paul supports a policy of peace and discipline.
Before I read this book, I could not explain why a foreign policy of non-intervention would make America more safe than the current policy. After reading it, his policy makes perfect sense to me. If you are interested in learning about an alternate viewpoint when it comes to foreign policy that bucks the trend of constant war and foreign entanglements that we have been pursuing the past century, put this at the top of your list of books to read. It will be worth your time.
:I first became interested in Ron Paul a little over a year ago. At first I wrote him off because his views were too 'out there.' But of course, I did not really KNOW his views. Before writing him off or saying something to the extent of "some of his policies are good, but as soon as he starts talking about foreign policy he sounds crazy" (as one of my friends said) one should actually take the time to recognize what his policies are - and why he has those views.
This book goes through over two decades of speeches made by Ron Paul. It is a lengthy book, but filled with wisdom concerning foreign policy. You are not going to find these 'common sense' views in the mainstream. At the very least Ron Paul supports a policy of peace and discipline.
Before I read this book, I could not explain why a foreign policy of non-intervention would make America more safe than the current policy. After reading it, his policy makes perfect sense to me. If you are interested in learning about an alternate viewpoint when it comes to foreign policy that bucks the trend of constant war and foreign entanglements that we have been pursuing the past century, put this at the top of your list of books to read. It will be worth your time.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
New Year's Resolution
One of my new years resolutions is to read 50-60 books in 2009. That would mean I would have to read about a book a week. I was talking to a friend and he said that the more you get into politics and economics, the more books there are that you want to read. This is very, very true.
The problem is, life is busy. Now that people spend more and more time online, at work, watching television, going to classes, commuting, etc. it can really leave you with little time to sit down and read a book. That is why this goal is going to be difficult, but if I can do it I think I would greatly benefit from it.
Here are the first ten books I plan on reading in 2009. A quick warning: they cover a lot of different topics.
The last thing I would like to do is ask you if there are any recommendations you have. I'm pretty open to different subjects and authors (Not only will I read books by liberals, but I actually think it is important to at least see where the other side is coming from. If your views truly are the 'correct' views it can't hurt, right?). So let me know if there is a book you read or are planning to read or heard was good, and I will add it to my list for 2009.
Happy New Year! Here is to a prosperous and wonderful 2009.
The problem is, life is busy. Now that people spend more and more time online, at work, watching television, going to classes, commuting, etc. it can really leave you with little time to sit down and read a book. That is why this goal is going to be difficult, but if I can do it I think I would greatly benefit from it.
Here are the first ten books I plan on reading in 2009. A quick warning: they cover a lot of different topics.
- The End of Prosperity
-Arthur Laffer
I have already started to read this book (about 40,50 pages in) and so far it has been absolutely amazing. It is written by three economists, and it talks about how different tax policies (based on different economic schools of thought such as Keynesian vs. supply-side) have affected prosperity in America. I literally stumbled upon this book, and I'm glad I did. - Vault Guide to Finance Interviews, 7th Edition
Read the first few pages. I'm sure there will be plenty of good advice. I'm a finance major, so it only makes sense I know how to interview for it! - Find It Fix It Flip It
-Michael Corbett
I always found flipping houses interesting, and this book is kind of an 'intro' on how to do it. No I'm not going to drop out of college to flip a house, but maybe one day I will buy a fixer upper. If it's likely to be profitable, why not? - Ready Set Sold
-Michael Corbett
Another real estate book that looked interesting. - Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrant
-Robert Kiyosaki
I loved Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki so I wanted to read a few more books by him. He's very wise financially, and I can only hope to make it to that level some day. - Rich Dad's Increase Your Financial IQ: Getting Richer By Getting Smarter.
-Robert Kiyosaki
Another book by Kiyosaki. I got both of these books for Christmas from my aunt and uncle, and like I said I can't wait to read more from Kiyosaki. - The Sociopath Next Door
-Martha Stout
Not the typical book I would read, but I saw it and it looked pretty interesting so I figured, why not? - Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon
-Joseph Tobin
I used to love Pokemon when I was little! What happened to them? Haha but from what I know of this book it should be really interesting. A little business, a little psycology/sociology and I'm hoping a great story. - Atlas Shrugged
-Ayn Rand
There has to be some political book on this list, right? Well, I have heard of Ayn Rand and I know that many libertarians quote her/respect her/etc. and my friend has started to read this book and I think it would be a good idea for me to read it as well. It's a long book (over 1,000 pages) but it will be well worth it! - The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging
-The editors of the Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington
My sister got me this book for Christmas. The Huffington Post is very liberal, but this book is not about liberals, it's about blogging. And last time I checked they were the most successful political blog. Ever. I'm sure I can learn a few things from them.
The last thing I would like to do is ask you if there are any recommendations you have. I'm pretty open to different subjects and authors (Not only will I read books by liberals, but I actually think it is important to at least see where the other side is coming from. If your views truly are the 'correct' views it can't hurt, right?). So let me know if there is a book you read or are planning to read or heard was good, and I will add it to my list for 2009.
Happy New Year! Here is to a prosperous and wonderful 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
