In this presidential election, there used to be many candidates vying for their respective parties' nomination. Way back when, it was thought that George Allen and Hillary Clinton would easily snatch the support of their parties and everything would be over. Then Allen lost his Senate seat and everything changed: Giuliani and McCain became the front-runner for the Republicans and it was thought that the GOP would face nomination troubles; it didn't know who its nominee would be until the Spring of 2008. Then it was Giuliani (R) and Clinton (D), and then McCain and Clinton, and then Huckabee and Obama, and then finally McCain and Obama.
So here we are today. We have a party uniting, the Republicans, and a party that is fractured but now mending its wounds, the Democrats. We have Johnny Mac and Barry trying to get into that white house that president George W. Bush won twice. So far, it seems as though McCain pulls through better nationally in terms of favorability when compared against Obama. This is very good news for the Republican Party, especially considering the harsh electoral environment for them due to a particularly unpopular president.
But even though these are the results from the somewhat unreliable polls, people seems to give Obama more credit than is due, in my opinion.
While I am very biased against this Barack character, I do try to look at both candidates with an objective mind. For instance, I give Obama a high-five on the rejection of a gas tax holiday and give McCain a major "Boo!" But I don't give Obama any major "ups" when it comes to the rest of his economic "change." He wants for the government to provide insurance (not literally, just figuratively) on people's jobs. Why? What is the federal government's role in securing citizens jobs? He wants to halt foreign trade and increase production in the nation. Why? If companies are moving their jobs overseas and are making products or providing services more efficiently, what room do I have to stop them? If anything, stopping businesses from outsourcing is more damaging than the initial loss of jobs. And anyway, why should the government cripple the commerce of America, the commerce that has brought us to where we are today?
So you see, for Obama, his economics need some work. This politician "from the people" is not what I want to see. I want to see a person who can connect with the population, but who can better know what's best for it. Obama clearly through his economic policies, cannot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ben as usual we share he same views i agree with everything you said buddy. This "Obama" character has not won me over at all yet although I must say even though I would rather see McCain in the white house he hasn't really won me over either. I guess we may be in for another long term, maybe two. I know one thing though, its about to start getting interesting.
Ben, you are a very politically savvy person. Thank you. I think you are one of the few that knows ANY plans by Obama. I'm with you in that he hasn't won me over, but then again neither has McCain. They both have to prove why they should get the presidency this year.
I still think Obama is all talk. His economic plan is naive, but will probably appeal more to the electorate despite it being rather ridiculous. I still see an Obama victory. McCain is having a hard time appealing to his base and independents at the same time.
I would like to see the national polls you are talking about, because I have been reading exactly the opposite.
That's a very laissez faire stance you've taken there Ben. One thing that stood out to me was your stance on outsourcing. As far as I can remember, the job of the American government is to protect the welfare of the people, not the corporations. What that means to me is, if jobs are leaving the country, doing everything the government reasonably can to bring them back. For example: computer programming and IT jobs are leaving the country, which means the job market for people with degrees in engineering and science shrinks. That doesn't exactly help the fact that we are so far behind the modern world in terms of science and engineering education does it? Which means government technology, such as space and defense technology, is going to be more expensive and will take longer to build. So letting jobs leave the country stretches a lot further than just a company's right to their own business plan.
I agree that the government shouldn't directly interfere with our corporations, but anything they can do to create a positive job flow, please do it!
I wonder, how do you feel about the government offering tax breaks for green businesses?
"For example: computer programming and IT jobs are leaving the country, which means the job market for people with degrees in engineering and science shrinks. . . Which means government technology, such as space and defense technology, is going to be more expensive and will take longer to build."
Chris, the miracle of the free market is that this loss is compensated through decreased costs, not increased. Why else would companies move jobs overseas if they were not more affordable to employ people in? Through a decreased cost of labor, companies are able to offer their services at a significantly lower cost. Also, the products would be able to be made more efficiently and quickly due to the excessive amount of science and engineering labor available.
As for our "shrinking" engineering and science fields, if that is the way of the future, the outsourcing of labor, let it be. The free market works well.
Regarding a positive job flow, it is possible for the government to create the environment in which jobs can be created through the expansion and private creation of businesses, not given to people by the federal government. This form of job generation is not sustainable because you have to provide constant upkeep and it does not allow for expansion; it doesn't have the capacity.
For government tax breaks for ecologically-responsible companies, I think that they are great. This goes back to what I said on creating an environment in which businesses can thrive.
But this is just my opinion.
As for the poll, I just made it up; I wanted to see who actually would look it up themselves and not trust some guy typing it in this cyber space. Good job, Chris.
I don't know Ben. I feel like although you most definitly have a point, halting commerce and interfering with economics that drastically is a bad thing, "Barry" as you have so dubbed him, doesn't have the totally wrong idea. As President of the United States, his first interest should be the people of the United States. This feels weird to me taking a more conservative approach against you right now...anyways. Although I do agree some of his economic policies may not be what's best, there will always be debate against whats best and I think Barry is doing a pretty fair job with his heart in the right place.
Post a Comment