http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31806096/ns/politics-white_house/
Pay attention to what is occurring on Capital Hill in terms of health care. Congress is debating the existence and magnitude of another tax burden and economic drain on our country. Think things are bad now? Imagine if our taxes are raised to pay for the health costs of all the uninsured.
Options on the table for funding the health care plan (of which I am not 100% sure will cover the uninsured, as it is still being debated in Congress) include raising taxes by 3% on those making more than $200,000 or $250,000, raising taxes on the middle tax, or finding some other way to raise additional money, such as a tax on alcohol or soft drinks. All these solutions are the same, and will produce less growth in the economy, make us less competitive internationally, and provide less of an incentive to excel financially in this country.
To be clear, I am all for a government health care program. The more competition the better. However, I think we need one which a) you can choose to be involved in and pay into, and b) no one gets any benefits that do not pay into it. If we want the uninsured to have a good health care plan, lets improve our economy by cutting taxes on businesses. This will increase the amount of jobs available in this country and allow more people to get health care. Don't take away what I have worked for to help someone who doesn't have to work for it.
Just my thoughts. Until we meet again, goodbye!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Republican Tidbits
I just wanted to pass along some interesting items I read in the news today:
1) Colin Powell, after supporting President Obama during election season, is concerned about the increasing size of government and the amount of national debt. "'The right answer is, give me a government that works, keep it as small as possible,' said Powell, who said he stays in touch with Obama and has spoken to him recently." Read the whole article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/04/supporting-obamas-campaign-powell-skeptical-presidents-spending-priorities/.
2) Apparently, over 70% of Republicans would choose Palin as their first pick in 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/05/palin/. Check out Drew and I's fifth podcast for my thoughts on why I think Palin would be bad for the Republican party.
I support Palin's decision to step down as governor of Alaska. Reading this article made me understand the personal toll she is taking from the media and the expense it is causing taxpayers. I am, however, quite certain she would lose if running for President. Maybe Palin should stick to fundraising and advancing key parts of her agenda that she is knowledgeable about, such as energy policy.
That is all I have for now. Until we meet again, goodbye!
1) Colin Powell, after supporting President Obama during election season, is concerned about the increasing size of government and the amount of national debt. "'The right answer is, give me a government that works, keep it as small as possible,' said Powell, who said he stays in touch with Obama and has spoken to him recently." Read the whole article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/04/supporting-obamas-campaign-powell-skeptical-presidents-spending-priorities/.
2) Apparently, over 70% of Republicans would choose Palin as their first pick in 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/05/palin/. Check out Drew and I's fifth podcast for my thoughts on why I think Palin would be bad for the Republican party.
I support Palin's decision to step down as governor of Alaska. Reading this article made me understand the personal toll she is taking from the media and the expense it is causing taxpayers. I am, however, quite certain she would lose if running for President. Maybe Palin should stick to fundraising and advancing key parts of her agenda that she is knowledgeable about, such as energy policy.
That is all I have for now. Until we meet again, goodbye!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Iran's True Desire
I am ecstatic about the last two weeks worth of protests in Iran. Here is why:
1) These protests, in the face of repeated threats and hostile acts by Iran's top leadership, show the Iranian people truly want the ability to choose their own leaders. They are also not happy with the environment the current political system has produced for them.
2) These protests give the Iraq war increased validation. I believe strongly that having a newly democratic neighbor (Iraq) has emboldened the Iranians and made them more willing to challenge their political system. Any idea that the Middle East is a region of the world not ready for an increase in democracy should now be rejected. Iraq is a country marked by a line of increasingly peaceful elections. Those critical of Bush's policies should keep that in mind.
Why should we push for democracy in this region of the world? Simply put, democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#Explanations.
That is not to say we should try to oust every non-democratic regime. But we should definitely be paying attention when a situation like the one we are seeing in Iran arises. The Iranians are signaling they want something different. I think it is important we are as supportive as possible while not infringing on the sovereignty of Iran.
I think Obama has handled the Iranian situation very well up to this point. But if the situation becomes worse, a re-evaluation of our strategy will be necessary. Wide-spread violence caused by the government is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, which in my opinion is a good reason for regime change.
One thing is for sure; if the Iranian people begin asking for our help and support, it is incredibly important we show we are there for them. It does not look like that situation has arisen yet, but only time will tell.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
1) These protests, in the face of repeated threats and hostile acts by Iran's top leadership, show the Iranian people truly want the ability to choose their own leaders. They are also not happy with the environment the current political system has produced for them.
2) These protests give the Iraq war increased validation. I believe strongly that having a newly democratic neighbor (Iraq) has emboldened the Iranians and made them more willing to challenge their political system. Any idea that the Middle East is a region of the world not ready for an increase in democracy should now be rejected. Iraq is a country marked by a line of increasingly peaceful elections. Those critical of Bush's policies should keep that in mind.
Why should we push for democracy in this region of the world? Simply put, democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#Explanations.
That is not to say we should try to oust every non-democratic regime. But we should definitely be paying attention when a situation like the one we are seeing in Iran arises. The Iranians are signaling they want something different. I think it is important we are as supportive as possible while not infringing on the sovereignty of Iran.
I think Obama has handled the Iranian situation very well up to this point. But if the situation becomes worse, a re-evaluation of our strategy will be necessary. Wide-spread violence caused by the government is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, which in my opinion is a good reason for regime change.
One thing is for sure; if the Iranian people begin asking for our help and support, it is incredibly important we show we are there for them. It does not look like that situation has arisen yet, but only time will tell.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
The Free Market Economy Strikes Again!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31522318/ns/business-us_business/
In response to restrictions placed on employee compensation for companies accepting federal bailout money, Citigroup will pay employees normally compensated with bonuses a higher base salary.
Way to go Congress! As I predicted, the free market economy has discovered a way around your regulations. But should conservatives, or anyone for that matter, be happy about this?
I support the payment of retention bonuses to those on Wall Street. Retention bonuses are just as they sound; they are not paid in lieu of exceptional performance. Instead, they are granted to employees who do not leave their posts to see if the grass is greener on the other side. Financial companies want their employees to stay put in order to keep valuable information and intellectual property away from their competitors. These bonuses are effectively part of their employee's salary; they just do not collect the money until they serve their time.
Congress began regulating bonuses because the very nature of a bonus to employees at a failing organization outrages the majority of hard working, middle class Americans (let alone organizations receiving tax payer money to stay afloat). However, I think the average American's disgust at these bonuses is unfounded. These employees, for the most part, are not really getting bonuses. They are actually getting delayed salary payments. Americans need to understand these people were smart enough to go into a high paying industry, and skilled enough to land a high paying job in that industry. High payments, either in salary or bonus form, come with the territory.
Retention bonuses are fine in my book, even to companies receiving bailout money. Performance bonuses to companies accepting government bailout money, however, clearly can not be tolerated. There is a big difference between the two.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
In response to restrictions placed on employee compensation for companies accepting federal bailout money, Citigroup will pay employees normally compensated with bonuses a higher base salary.
Way to go Congress! As I predicted, the free market economy has discovered a way around your regulations. But should conservatives, or anyone for that matter, be happy about this?
I support the payment of retention bonuses to those on Wall Street. Retention bonuses are just as they sound; they are not paid in lieu of exceptional performance. Instead, they are granted to employees who do not leave their posts to see if the grass is greener on the other side. Financial companies want their employees to stay put in order to keep valuable information and intellectual property away from their competitors. These bonuses are effectively part of their employee's salary; they just do not collect the money until they serve their time.
Congress began regulating bonuses because the very nature of a bonus to employees at a failing organization outrages the majority of hard working, middle class Americans (let alone organizations receiving tax payer money to stay afloat). However, I think the average American's disgust at these bonuses is unfounded. These employees, for the most part, are not really getting bonuses. They are actually getting delayed salary payments. Americans need to understand these people were smart enough to go into a high paying industry, and skilled enough to land a high paying job in that industry. High payments, either in salary or bonus form, come with the territory.
Retention bonuses are fine in my book, even to companies receiving bailout money. Performance bonuses to companies accepting government bailout money, however, clearly can not be tolerated. There is a big difference between the two.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Latest Installment
The advertising war between Microsoft and Apple continues!!! This time Microsoft is bringing attention to their second greatest asset (the first being their status as industry leader and worldwide popularity) - price.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU
In case anyone missed previous blogs, I am a big fan of the "I'm a PC" campaign. Check out one of these commercials here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiSIzXKMXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj5UyZKo2iE&feature=related
OK, back to the US Open - Until we meet again, goodbye!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU
In case anyone missed previous blogs, I am a big fan of the "I'm a PC" campaign. Check out one of these commercials here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiSIzXKMXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj5UyZKo2iE&feature=related
OK, back to the US Open - Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)